Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-12-2017 Council Packet
EXPANDED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, June 12, 2017 *********** 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty City Administrator: Jeff Karlson CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M. Roll Call - Council Members Rafferty, Manthey, Maher, and Mayor Reinert were present; Council Member Kusterman absent Pledge of Allegiance Open Mike / Public Comment – none Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items The agenda was approved as presented 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) June 12, 2017 (Check No. 105958 through 106045 in the amount of $292,403.35 amended to remove CNH payment of $764.30 B) Consider approval of May 22, 2017 Work Session Minutes C) Consider approval of May 22, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes D) Consider Resolution No. 17-55, Approving the Renewal of Liquor, Wine and Beer licenses for the 2017/2018 licensing period E) Consider approval of Resolution 17-56, 2017/2018 Tobacco License Renewals F) Consider Resolution No. 17-51, Approving a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, a Cabaret License, an Exemption for Gambling Permit and Parade Run permit for the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church August Festival Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty seconded by Manthey, to approve Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1F as amended, was adopted 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider Accepting 2016 Audit Report, Redpath & Company, Ltd., Sarah Cotton Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty seconded by Manthey, to accept the 2016 Audit Report as presented, was adopted 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 03-17, Relating to Liquor and Beer Sales on Sunday, Julie Bartell Action Taken: Motion by Maher seconded by Rafferty, to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 03-17 as presented, was adopted Council Agenda -2- June 12, 2017 EXPANDED AGENDA 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider Resolution No. 17-52, Reaffirming Lino Lakes Participation in Anoka County All Hazard Mitigation Plan, John Swenson Action Taken: Motion by Manthey seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 17-52 as presented, was adopted B) Consider Donation of Seized Property to Bikes for Kids, John Swenson Action Taken: Motion by Manthey seconded by Maher, to approve the donation of bikes as recommended, was adopted 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT No report 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT A) Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 17-54, Adopting a Street Reconstruction Plan and Authorizing Issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds, Michael Grochala Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 17-55 as presented, was adopted B) Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 16-151 Approving Site Improvement Performance Agreement Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 16-151 as presented, was adopted ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-53 Approving Maintenance Agreement Stormwater Management Facilities Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 17-53 as presented, was adopted 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Community Calendar – A Look Ahead June 12, 2017 through June 26, 2017 Monday, June 26 6:30 pm, Community Room Council Work Room Monday, June 26 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting Monday, June 26 following reg council meeting Spec. Wk. Session Updated 6/9/2017 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, June 12, 2017 *********** 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty City Administrator: Jeff Karlson CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M. Call to Order and Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Open Mike / Public Comment Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) June 12, 2017 (Check No. 105958 through 106045 in the amount of $292,403.35 B) Consider approval of May 22, 2017 Work Session Minutes C) Consider approval of May 22, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes D) Consider Resolution No. 17-55, Approving the Renewal of Liquor, Wine and Beer licenses for the 2017/2018 licensing period E) Consider approval of Resolution 17-56, 2017/2018 Tobacco License Renewals F) Consider Resolution No. 17-51, Approving a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, a Cabaret License, an Exemption for Gambling Permit and Parade Run permit for the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church August Festival 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider Accepting 2016 Audit Report, Redpath and Company, Ltd., Sarah Cotton 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 03-17, Relating to Liquor and Beer Sales on Sunday, Julie Bartell 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider Resolution No. 17-52, Reaffirming Lino Lakes Participation in Anoka County All Hazard Mitigation Plan, John Swenson B) Consider Donation of Seized Property to Bikes for Kids, John Swenson 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT No report Council Agenda -2- June 12, 2017 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT A) Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 17-54, Adopting a Street Reconstruction Plan and Authorizing Issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds, Michael Grochala B) Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 16-151 Approving Site Improvement Performance Agreement ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-53 Approving Maintenance Agreement Stormwater Management Facilities 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Community Calendar – A Look Ahead June 12, 2017 through June 26, 2017 Monday, June 26 6:30 pm, Community Room Council Work Room Monday, June 26 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting Monday, June 26 following reg council meeting Spec. Wk. Session CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 22, 2017 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 3 DATE : May 22, 2017 4 TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5 TIME ENDED : 6:28 p.m. 6 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 7 Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9 10 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director John 11 Swenson;; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; City Engineer Diane Hankee; Human 12 Resources Manager Karissa Henning 13 14 1. Review Regular Council Agenda of May 22, 2017 - 15 16 Consent Agenda – Council Member Rafferty followed up on his previous question about 17 the lift station and his request to receive additional information on cost, life span, etc. 18 Administrator Karlson said he would follow up. 19 20 3A) Consider Resolution No. 17-44, Approving Joint Powers Agreement between 21 the City of Lino Lakes and County of Anoka for Assessment of Property – 22 Administrator Karlson reported that this agreement was last updated in 2012 for five 23 years. At that time the council asked staff to look at other options (including private). 24 He has investigated other possibilities. He can report that Anoka County has done a 25 good job of keeping costs down (no rate increase this year). Even during the past four 26 years, rates have increased minimally. Staff recommends approving this five year 27 contract with Anoka County to continue their services. 28 29 The council discussed the benefit of continuing with the county. They have been good to 30 work with, they are involved in the property taxation just as the city is, and they are 31 commonly used by most cities. 32 33 3B) Consider Appointment of Joseph Widing to Community Development Intern 34 Position – Human Resources Manager Henning reviewed the recommendation to appoint 35 Mr. Widing. The council discussed the opportunities provided for the city and for the 36 individual hired through an internship. 37 38 3C) Consider Appointment of Benefits Broker – Human Resources Manager 39 Henning reviewed a request to appoint a new benefits broker, based on the results of a 40 request for proposal. She explained the savings to the city as well as the wellness 41 services that would be provided at no cost. 42 43 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 22, 2017 DRAFT 2 The council discussed the importance of reviewing the services and they are happy to get 44 a better price. The council will be discussing the review of other contracts at the next 45 work session. 46 47 3D) Consider Resolution No. 17-48, To Censure Councilmember – Mayor Reinert 48 remarked that he believes all council members understand the instance that brings 49 forward this resolution. He has been struggling with how to respond to the issue and the 50 people who have contacted him. He doesn’t feel comfortable doing nothing. He has 51 spoken with Council Member Maher about this resolution coming forward and they have 52 discussed the meaning of a censure and the reason that he recommends that it be the 53 council’s response. This will allow the council and its individual members to go on 54 record. 55 56 Council Member Manthey noted that the resolution includes language that relates to the 57 City Council’s Code of Conduct and he wonders if that reference would indicate other 58 action down the road. He recommends that the resolution be amended to remove 59 reference to that code. Council Member Rafferty concurred with that recommendation. 60 61 Administrator Karlson said he could remove certain references to the Code of Conduct 62 and the council concurred. 63 64 Council Member Maher said she is in support of an action from the council and wants her 65 colleagues to have the opportunity to act. 66 67 The meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. 68 69 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 70 June 12, 2017. 71 72 73 74 75 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 76 77 COUNCIL MINUTES May 22, 2017 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 3 4 DATE : May 22, 2017 5 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 7:50p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, Maher, 8 Manthey, and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : 10 11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; City Engineer Diane Hankee; Director of 12 Public Safety John Swenson; Director of Public Services Rick DeGardner; Human Resources 13 Manager Karissa Henning 14 15 PUBLIC COMMENT 16 17 John DeHaven, 1612 Birch Street. Mr. DeHaven stated his concern about a member of the council 18 posting a threat on Facebook and the embarrassment caused to the citizens. He called for the council 19 member to resign. Mayor Reinert noted agenda Item 3D. 20 21 Doug Malson, 8210 Diane Street, told the council about a water issue in his neighborhood. He noted 22 a lot of written information involved that would take more than three minutes allotted for open mike. 23 He asked that the council put the matter on their agenda for discussion. Mayor Reinert remarked 24 that he was made aware of the matter and he understands it involves a culvert and beaver blockage. 25 Mr. Malson suggested it goes further than just the culvert being clogged; there is history involved. 26 Mayor Reinert asked that the council receive more information now and see if more time is needed. 27 Mr. Malson said he has a list of what he’d like accomplished at this meeting; the mayor suggested 28 that the council should make its decision by being as informed as possible so more study may be 29 needed. He called upon the City Engineer to provide more insight on the situation. 30 31 City Engineer Hankee explained that the culvert in question is part of the Anoka County and 32 watershed district system. Staff has talked with the watershed representative and heard that the 33 culvert was replaced in 2013, it was upsized and graded to the size of the ditch system. Anything the 34 city does would have to be in coordination with the watershed district. Staff has cleared the beaver 35 dam and will look at options to prevent further blocking. Mr. Malson confirmed that the problem is 36 more than just beavers. 37 38 Mayor Reinert asked what needs to be dealt with immediately and Mr. Malson said there is flooding 39 of the woods and experience tells him that trees will be lost. Mayor Reinert asked what could be 40 done to help the flooding and Ms. Hankee said a clear culvert will eventually clear the water; it’s a 41 large basin. Ms. Hankee explained that many water bodies and drainage systems are at the hundred 42 year level and are straining; additional staff has been brought in. She clarified that the city cannot 43 drain a basin by grading under watershed laws but it is a top priority to work on the problem. 44 45 COUNCIL MINUTES May 22, 2017 DRAFT 2 Mayor Reinert said he isn’t hearing any suggestion from staff for immediate action other than keeping 46 that culvert clear and trapping the beaver. Mr. Malson noted that there are no trespassing signs 47 posted that prevent him from working around the culvert and Ms. Hankee clarified that staff has 48 received permission from the property owner to work in the area and they will do so on a daily basis 49 as long as that is necessary. 50 51 The council concurred that they will discuss what can be a permanent solution to this problem at their 52 next work session. The council received information from Mr. Malson for their review and for the 53 record. 54 55 Lonny Eibensteiner, 8180 Diane Street, added his concern about the high water in his area. There are 56 homes flooding as a result. He has been watching the water for a month and hasn’t seen anyone 57 working on the culvert. He showed the council a video of the culvert area. He is also calling for a 58 long term solution and considering the blockage, it’s a difficult matter. 59 60 Lisa Crotty, 8117 Diane Street, asked how flooding could impact the septic systems in the area. She 61 fears that could be a real health issue; they are drinking water from a well also. Ms. Hankee said she 62 would verify with the building inspector if the septic systems could be impacted. As far as wells, if 63 they are in compliance with regulations, there shouldn’t be an issue with ground water and septic. 64 Ms. Crotty also suggested that the builder of the property should have some liability. Mayor Reinert 65 suggested that staff include information on the builder’s liability. 66 67 Susan Wienke, 8155 Diane Street, added her concern about the fence in her back yard that is being 68 compromised by the water and that secures her dog as she is required by law. Mayor Reinert said 69 staff will explore that concern as well. 70 71 Jackie Burgeson, 8125 Diane Street, said she has lost her fire pit and wood pile and basically her 72 entire back yard. Maintenance in the area is impossible. 73 74 Robert Mann, 8175 Diane Street, asked who will pay for the damage to his yard after he has recently 75 relandscaped. He feels that a problem occurred due to some grading. 76 77 Mayor Reinert invited those concerned for further discussion at the June 5 work session. 78 79 SETTING THE AGENDA 80 81 The agenda was approved as presented. 82 83 SPECIAL PRESENTATION 84 85 American Legion Post 566 representatives presented awards as followed: 86 Lino Lakes Police Officer of the Year – Matt Paulson 87 Lino Lakes Firefighter of the Year – Mark Hokkanen 88 89 Public Safety Director Swenson announced Public Safety Department promotions as follows: 90 COUNCIL MINUTES May 22, 2017 DRAFT 3 Melissa Christensen, Sergeant – Police Division 91 Brian Finke, Fire Lieutenant 92 Andy Bennett, Public Safety Volunteer Recognition, 20 years 93 94 CONSENT AGENDA 95 96 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1G, as presented. 97 Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 98 99 ITEM ACTION 100 101 Consideration of Expenditures: 102 103 May 22, 2017 (Check No. 105869 – 104 105957, $260,484.71) Approved 105 106 May 1, 2017 Council Work Session 107 Minutes Approved 108 109 May 8, 2017 City Council Meeting 110 Minutes Approved 111 112 May 8, 2017 Board of Appeal Minutes Approved 113 114 Resolution No. 17-46, Extension of Time for the 115 Recording of the Final Plat of St. Clair Estates Approved 116 Resolution No. 17-45, Approving a Permit for Consumer 117 Fireworks Sales at SuperTarget Approved 118 119 Resolution No. 17-47, Approving a Solicitor/Peddler 120 License for Edward Jones Approved 121 122 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 123 124 There was no report from the Finance Department. 125 126 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 127 128 3A) Consider Resolution No. 17-44, Approving Joint Powers Agreement between the City of 129 Lino Lakes and County of Anoka for Assessment of Property – Administrator Karlson explained 130 that the city’s current agreement for assessment services through Anoka County is expiring. At the 131 council’s direction, staff has reviewed the county’s provision of services versus other options and 132 recommends renewal of services through the county for an additional five years. 133 134 Council Member Kusterman reviewed the good reasoning for continuing with county services. 135 COUNCIL MINUTES May 22, 2017 DRAFT 4 136 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-44 as presented. Council Member 137 Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 138 139 3B) Consider Appointment of Joseph Widing to the position of Community Development 140 Intern Position – Human Resources Manager Henning reviewed the written report recommending 141 the appointment of Mr. Widing for a six month period. 142 143 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the appointment of Joseph Widing as recommended. 144 Council Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 145 146 3C) Consider Appointment of Benefits Broker – Human Resources Manager Henning explained 147 the staff’s recommendation, based on the results of a request for proposal, to enter a contract with 148 National Finance Partners to provide the city’s benefit broker services. Staff has determined that the 149 National Finance Partners’ proposal would provide the best value and service level for the city, 150 especially considering the inclusion of free wellness program assistance and GASB review. 151 152 Mayor Reinert remarked that it is usual for the city to seek proposals for services occasionally as it 153 often results in a better value or a confirmation that the city is getting the best deal; this is a change 154 after twenty years with another broker. 155 156 Council Member Kusterman noted that he doesn’t consider this type of service a commodity so he’d 157 like some assurance that the change will not result in a loss of quality. Ms. Henning indicated that 158 she had spoken with two other cities who utilize National Finance Partners and received good 159 reviews. Council Member Kusterman asked that the information be forwarded. 160 161 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the staff recommendation to appoint National Finance 162 Partners as the city’s benefit broker. Council Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion 163 carried on a voice vote. 164 165 3D) Consider Resolution No. 17-48, To Censure Councilmember Maher – Mayor Reinert 166 recalled a situation of a member of the council being on social media and leaving comments that were 167 out of bounds. Based on comments received and the responsibility of the council, feels compelled to 168 respond and feels the appropriate action is to censure. A censure is an expressed severe disapproval 169 in a formal statement. The action of a censure will also allow other council members to go on record 170 on the matter. 171 172 Council Member Maher said she is supportive of the council taking this action. It allows the matter 173 to be put to rest. The council discussed the matter at length at the work session previous to the 174 council meeting and she feels this action is fair and just. 175 176 Mayor Reinert noted that Council Member Maher has shown that she is sorry for the comments 177 through apology and through the media and is accepting of this action as a fair response. 178 179 COUNCIL MINUTES May 22, 2017 DRAFT 5 Administrator Karlson noted that the council approved the removal of certain language from the 180 resolution that relates to the council’s Code of Conduct, as they determined that a violation of that 181 code has not occurred. 182 183 Mayor Reinert moved to approve Resolution No. 17-48 with the amendments to remove reference to 184 the City Council’s Code of Conduct. Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion. 185 186 Council Member Kusterman remarked that the members of the council take their role seriously and 187 accept the responsibility of the role all day even away from the council meetings. He said that 188 Council Member Maher strayed from her role with the inappropriate comments and the action is 189 appropriate. 190 191 Motion adopted upon a voice vote. 192 193 Kelly Gustafson, 135 Ulmer Drive, commended staff and the city officials for how they reacted to this 194 matter. She is glad that Council Member Maher completely owned up to what she calls a complete 195 lack of judgment. Ms. Gustafson explained how she met with Council Member Maher after the 196 incident and worked with her on responding completely and appropriately. As a citizen of Lino 197 Lakes, she is thankful for the response 198 199 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 200 201 There was no report from the Public Safety Department. 202 203 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 204 205 5A) Consider Resolution No. 17-43, Accepting Bids and Awarding a Construction Contract 206 to Sunram Construction, Inc., NorthPointe Park Project – City Engineer Diane Hankee explained 207 that the council is being requested to accept the low bid of Sunram Construction, Inc. for construction 208 of the park. She noted that only one bid was received but staff can confirm that the bid is under the 209 engineer’s estimate and is acceptable. The quality of work of this company has been confirmed and 210 staff is recommending acceptance of their bid. 211 212 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 17-43 as presented. Council Member 213 Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 214 215 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 216 217 There was no report from the Community Development Department. 218 219 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 220 221 There was no Unfinished Business. 222 223 NEW BUSINESS 224 COUNCIL MINUTES May 22, 2017 DRAFT 6 225 There was no New Business. 226 227 COMMUNITY CALENDAR 228 229 Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 230 May 22, 2017 through June 12, 2017 231 Monday, May 29 CLOSED MEMORIAL DAY 232 Wednesday, May 31 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board 233 Thursday, June 1 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC 234 Monday, June 5 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 235 236 ADJOURN 237 238 There being no further business, Council Member Rafferty moved to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. Council 239 Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 240 241 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, June 12, 2017. 242 243 244 245 246 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 247 248 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-55 Approving the Renewal of Liquor, Wine and Beer Licenses VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND All liquor, wine and beer (3.2) licenses in the City of Lino Lakes expire on June 30, 2017. Staff has been working with license holders on meeting the requirements for renewal so as to allow the council to consider approval at this time. A majority of these licenses require additional approval by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Division and they will be forwarded to the state if local approval is granted. Attached is a list of the establishments that have submitted renewal applications. Under city policy, applicants applying for license renewal are required to undergo a background investigation each year. The Lino Lakes Public Services Department performs the investigation and reports any information that would make applicants ineligible for license renewal. Each license is contingent upon the background investigation. Licensees are also required to submit verification of liquor liability and workers’ compensation insurance as well as pay appropriate fees. No license will be released until all requirements are met. The city code requires that when the city council considers the issuance of a liquor license, opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 17-55 approving renewal of liquor, wine and beer licenses for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17-55 Exhibit A - 2017-18 Liquor, Wine and Beer License Renewal List CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-55 Approving the Renewal of Liquor, Wine and Beer licenses for the 2017/2018 licensing period WHEREAS, the licensing period for liquor, wine and beer licenses in the City of Lino Lakes is one year, commencing on July 1 and ending on June 30 the following year; WHEREAS, the City Council is required to approve the renewal of liquor and wine licenses, in some cases, prior to State issuance of a license; WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the renewal applications that have been submitted and verified that local licensing regulations are met; WHERAS, the Lino Lakes Public Service Department has conducted the required background investigations for license renewals; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the renewal of liquor, wine and beer licenses as set forth in Exhibit A that is hereby attached, with said approval contingent upon applicants meeting all city and state requirements for said licenses. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 12th day of June, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member _____________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk 2017-18 Liquor, Wine, Beer and Dance License Renewals Applicant License Type American Legion Post 566 7731 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Charles Lundgren Paul Howard al@legion566.comcastbiz.net On Sale Club Sunday PizzaT d/b/a AJP Corporation 6511 Ware Road #100 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 AJPcorporation@yahoo.com 3.2 On-Sale On Sale Wine Sunday KLVZ Corporation d/b/a Eagle Liquor 730 Apollo Dr, #190 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Stanislav Sidorenko klvzcorp@gmail.com Off Sale C.A. Wagner, Inc. **d/b/a The Tavern on Main 8001 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Chad Wagner millersonmain@yahoo.com Off Sale On Sale Sunday *2 a.m. JP’s Liquor, Wine and Beer 6501 Ware Road Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Jeremy and Patricia Kostrzewski jpsliquorwineandbeer@gmail.com Off Sale Trapper’s Bar & Grill, LLC d/b/a Trapper’s 6810 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Jeff Moore jeff@advancedconstructionconce pts.net Off Sale On Sale Sunday Dance Anoka County d/b/a Chomonix Golf Course 700 Aqua Lane Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Cori Hinz (Golf & Aquatics Manager at Anoka County) Cory.hinz@co.anoka.mn.us On Sale Sunday Target Corporation Store T-1448 749 Apollo Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Off Sale Johnathan 612-761-5959 Hammerheart, LLC d/b/a:Hammerheart Brewing Co. 7785 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 nathaniel@Hammerheartbrewin g.com Off-Sale Brewer On-Sale Taproom Rm Off-Sale Growler & Sunday Metro Wine & Spirits, LLC 6013 Hodgson Rd Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Off Sale Cherokee Liquors, Inc. d/b/a G-Will Liquors 8040 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Off-Sale Rademacher Co Inc. Bill’s Superette 8020 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 3.2 Off Sale La Buonora, Gustavo Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar 7090 – 21st Avenue North Lino Lakes, MN 55038 On Sale Sunday Gratz Ventures, Inc. Elwood 7997 Lake Dr., Suite 130 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 cgratz10@gmail.com 3.2 On-Sale On Sale Wine Sunday Don Julio Lino Lakes Inc. d/b/a Don Julio Mexican Restaurant 701 Apollo Drive Suite #130 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 On Sale Sunday Monica Silva Katrina’s Mexican Grill and Cantina d/b/a Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar 566 Lilac Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 On Sale Sunday Kevin Brown. Liquor Barrel 7997 Lake Dr., Suite 120 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Off Sale CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC Consider Resolution No. 17-56, Approving 2017-2018 Tobacco License Renewals VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority (3/5 Vote Required) INTRODUCTION All tobacco licenses in the City of Lino Lakes expire on June 30, 2017. Staff has been working with the license holders to put in place all renewal requirements to allow for Council consideration at this time. BACKGROUND Attached is a list of the establishments that have submitted renewal applications. As indicated, the applicants have completed the necessary documentation and paid the fee that is required for the license. The Lino Lakes Public Services Department performs the investigation and reports any information that would make applicants ineligible for license renewal. Each license is contingent upon the background investigation. No license will be released until all requirements are met. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 17-56, approving renewal of tobacco licenses for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17-56 2017-18 Tobacco License Renewal List CITY OF LINO LAK ES RESOLUTION NO. 17-56 Approving Renewal of Tobacco Licenses for the 2016/2017 Licensing Period WHEREAS, the licensing period for tobacco licenses in the City of Lino Lakes is one year, commencing on July 1 and ending on June 30 the following year; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to approve the renewal of tobacco licenses; and WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the renewal applications that have been submitted and verified that licensing requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department has completed the required background investigations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota: The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the renewal of tobacco licenses as set forth in Exhibit A that is attached to this resolution. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 12th of June, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member _____________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk 2017-18 Tobacco License Renewal List Applicant License Type KLVZ Corporation d/b/a Eagle Liquor 730 Apollo Drive, #190 (55014) Tobacco JP’s Liquor, Wine & Beer 6501 Ware Road (55014) Tobacco Holiday Stationstores d/b/a Holiday Stationstore #376 7509 Lake Drive (55014) MAIL TO: License Administrator, 4567 American Blvd W Bloomington, MN 55437-1123 Tobacco KRO, Inc. d/b/a Lino Lakes One Stop 6501 Ware Road, Suite 360 (55014) Tobacco Anoka County Parks Chomonix Golf Course 700 Aqua Lane (55014) Tobacco Fast Break 7601 Lake Drive (55014) Tobacco TJ Lino Lakes d/b/a Corner Express Todd M. Steffen 7997 Lake Drive (55014) Tobacco Cherokee Liquors, Inc. d/b/a G-Will Liquors 8040 Lake Drive (55014) Tobacco Rademacher Co. Inc. d/b/a Bill’s Superette 8020 Lake Drive (55014) Tobacco Lakes 1 Stop 7090 21st Ave. No. (55038) Tobacco Northway Tobacco 2, Inc. 717 Apollo Drive Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tobacco Kevin Brown Liquor Barrel 7997 Lake Drive, Suite 120 (55014) Tobacco CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-51, Approving an Application for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, a Cabaret License and an Exemption for Gambling Permit and a Parade Run for the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church August Festival VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION St. Joseph Church is hosting its annual August Festival on Saturday, August 12th and Sunday, August 13th, 2017. BACKGROUND As part of the festival, food and beverages including strong beer and wine will be served. Although temporary on-sale liquor licenses are issued by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, local approval is required. Staff has verified that St. Joseph’s Church is eligible under local ordinance for a temporary license. The Church has also made application to acquire a cabaret license. Bands will be playing live music in the church parking lot on Saturday from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday from 11:00 to 5:00 p.m. The Church has also applied for an Exempt Permit to allow charitable gambling. Non-profit organizations are allowed under State gambling laws to apply for an exempt permit if they conduct fewer than five (5) gambling occasions per year. St. Joseph Catholic Church conducts fewer than five. The Church has also applied for a Parade/Run event permit requesting city permission to conduct this activity. The event is a 5K Run starting at St. Joseph’s Parish church on Elm Street and running along the routes indicated on the attached map. There will be bathrooms available at the church as well as basic first aid. It anticipates there will be approximately 100 participants. The applications and the certificate of liability Insurance have been submitted to cover all of the above events and is filed in the office of the City Clerk. The proper fees have been paid. The Public Safety Department has reviewed the application and has signed off on the permit with the understanding that the applicants will continue to follow their instructions on safety. The applicant must also have in place all necessary permissions for use of property involved in the event if private. RECOMMENDATION Approval of Resolution No. 17-51, Approving an Application for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, a Cabaret License, an Exemption for Gambling Permit and a Parade/Run permit for the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church August Festival. ATTACHMENTS Map of the Race Resolution 17-51 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-51 Approving Applications for a Temporary Liquor License, Cabaret License, Lawful Gambling Permit and a Parade/Run Permit for the Annual Festival at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church WHEREAS, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church has made application for a temporary on-sale liquor license, a cabaret license, an exempt lawful gambling permit and parade/run permit for their annual Summer Festival to be held August 12th and 13th, 2017; and WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the applications submitted for festival events (temporary on-sale liquor, exempt gambling, cabaret and parade/run) for concurrence with city regulations; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that volunteers along the 5K run route have a cell phone to call 911 in case of an emergency and to have a first aid kit along the route as well as at St. Joseph’s Church. WHEREAS, the Permits are contingent on the background investigations being conducted by the Public Safety Department; and WHEREAS, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church has paid the required license fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota: That the City Council hereby approves a temporary on-sale liquor license, a cabaret license, an application for exemption for gambling permit and a parade/run permit for the 2017 St. Joseph’s Catholic Church Festival. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 12th day of June, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member _____ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _____________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 2A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Sarah Cotton MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Accept 2016 Annual Audit Report VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND Andy Hering of Redpath and Company will be in attendance at the meeting to provide a brief overview of the City’s 2016 Annual Financial Report, present the auditor’s management analysis and answer any questions you may have with regard to the financial condition of the City. The 2016 annual audit was undertaken earlier this year, with field work being completed in May. The auditors review all financial transactions and the financial reports of the City over the previous year for their fairness in presentation and for full disclosure of all material aspects of the City’s financial condition. This review is conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in U.S. Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The auditors concluded that the City’s financial statements for 2016 presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City as of December 31, 2016. The auditors also issue their reports on the City’s legal compliance with certain laws, regulations, contracts, etc., our internal control structure, and management issues. It should be noted that the City has received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for its 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The city has received this award each year since 1995. We believe that the report issued for 2016 continues to uphold the high standards of reporting excellence that this prestigious award represents. RECOMMENDATION Following the presentation by Mr. Hering, staff recommends that the City Council formally, by motion, accept the 2016 Annual Audit Report. ATTACHMENTS 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2016 Other Audit Reports COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016 Prepared By: Finance Department Sarah Cotton, Director of Finance Paula Schloer, Accountant - This page intentionally left blank - CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Reference No. Letter of Transmittal 3 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting 8 Organization Chart 9 Principal City Officials 10 Independent Auditor's Report 13 Management's Discussion and Analysis 17 Basic Financial Statements: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position Statement 1 31 Statement of Activities Statement 2 32 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds Statement 3 34 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds To the Statement of Net Position Statement 4 37 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Governmental Funds Statement 5 38 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balance of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities Statement 6 40 Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 7 41 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 8 42 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds Statement 9 43 Statement of Net Position - Fiduciary Funds Statement 10 44 Notes to Financial Statements 45 Required Supplementary Information: Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General Fund Statement 11 86 Schedule of Funding Progress - Retiree Health Plan Statement 12 92 Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability - General Employees Retirement Fund Statement 13 93 Schedule of Pension Contributions - General Employees Retirement Fund Statement 14 94 INTRODUCTORY SECTION FINANCIAL SECTION CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Reference No. Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability - Public Employees Police and Fire Fund Statement 15 95 Schedule of Pension Contributions - Public Employees Police and Fire Fund Statement 16 96 Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios - Lino Lakes Public Safety Department - Fire Division Statement 17 97 Schedule of Contributions - Lino Lakes Public Safety Department - Fire Division Statement 18 98 Notes to RSI 99 Combining and Individual Nonmajor Fund Financial Statements and Schedules: Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 19 106 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 20 107 Subcombining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 21 110 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 22 111 Subcombining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Debt Service Funds Statement 23 115 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Nonmajor Debt Service Funds Statement 24 119 Subcombining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Capital Project Funds Statement 25 127 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Nonmajor Capital Project Funds Statement 26 130 Special Revenue Fund - Program Recreation Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Statement 27 134 Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities - Agency Funds Statement 28 135 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Reference No. Financial Trends: Net Position by Component Table 1 140 Changes in Net Position Table 2 142 Fund Balances, Governmental Funds Table 3 146 Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds Table 4 148 Revenue Capacity: Assessed and Actual Value of Taxable Property Table 5 150 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Capacity Rates Table 6 151 Principal Property Taxpayers Table 7 153 Property Tax Levies and Collections Table 8 154 Debt Capacity: Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Table 9 156 Ratios of Net General Bonded Debt Table 10 158 Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt Table 11 160 Legal Debt Margin Information Table 12 161 Demographic and Economic Information: Demographic and Economic Statistics Table 13 162 Principal Employers Table 14 163 Operating Information: Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees By Function/Program Table 15 164 Operating Indicators by Function/Program Table 16 166 Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program Table 17 168 Schedule of Long-Term Debt Exhibit 1 170 Schedule of Deferred Tax Levies Exhibit 2 172 Debt Service Payments to Maturity Exhibit 3 174 Insurance in Force Exhibit 4 178 Taxable Valuations, Tax Levies and Tax Rates Exhibit 5 179 STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) OTHER INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) - This page intentionally left blank - INTRODUCTORY SECTION 1 - This page intentionally left blank - 2 600 Town Center Parkway – Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1189 City Hall: 651-982-2400 – www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us May 30, 2017 Honorable Mayor Members of the City Council Citizens of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Minnesota State law requires that cities over 2,500 population publish within six months of the close of each fiscal year a complete set of financial statements presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a firm of licensed certified public accountants and submit them to the state auditor. Pursuant to that requirement, we hereby issue the comprehensive annual financial report of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City of Lino Lakes. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City of Lino Lakes has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the City of Lino Lakes’ financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects. The City of Lino Lakes’ financial statements have been audited by Redpath and Company, Ltd., a firm of licensed certified public accountants. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, are free of material misstatement. The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The independent auditor concluded, based upon the audit that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the City’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditors’ report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this report. GAAP require that management provide a narrative introduction, overview and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City of Lino Lakes’ MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors. 3 Profile of the Government The City of Lino Lakes, incorporated in 1955, is a growing community in the southeast corner of the County of Anoka. It covers an area of 33 square miles and has a population of approximately 20,750. The population has more than doubled from the 1990 census figure of 8,807 and has grown by 23.5% since 2000. Within the City’s borders lies the 2,550 acre Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park. Access to St. Paul and Minneapolis is provided by I-35W and I-35E. The City Charter, as amended, establishes a mayor-council form of government and grants the city council full policy-making and legislative authority to the mayor and four council members. The City council is responsible, among other things, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees, and hiring a City administrator. The City administrator has the responsibility of carrying out the policies and ordinances of the City council, for overseeing the day-to-day operation of the city. The City council is elected at-large on a non-partisan basis, with council members serving four-year terms and the mayor serving a two-year term. Elections are held every two years with two council seats and the mayor being up for election each election cycle. The City provides a full range of municipal services. These services include: general government, public safety (police, fire and building inspection), public services (streets, fleet, parks and recreation), conservation of natural resources (environmental and solid waste abatement), community development, public improvements, providing and maintaining sanitary and storm sewer, water infrastructure, and two enterprise funds, the water and sewer funds. The annual budget is the foundation for the City of Lino Lakes’ financial planning and control. All divisions are required to submit appropriations requests to the City administrator for review and consolidation into a proposed budget. The City administrator is responsible for submitting the proposed annual budget to the City Council in August of each year. The city council is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed budget and to adopt by resolution a final budget and certify it no later than December 28. The budget amounts cannot increase beyond the estimated receipts except to the extent that actual receipts exceed the estimate. Division directors may make transfers of appropriations within a department, but transfers of appropriations between departments require council approval. Budget-to-actual comparisons for the general fund and the recreation program fund, the only funds for which an annual budget has been adopted, are provided in Statements 11 and 27, respectively. Factors Affecting Financial Condition The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the City of Lino Lakes operates. Local economy. The economic development effort established by the City Council in 1993 increased the commercial/industrial tax base in the City from 3% of the total tax base to 9% in 2011. Development of three industrial parks - Apollo Business Park on 35W, Marshan Industrial Park on Lake Drive, and the Clearwater Creek Development Center on 35E, provided excellent opportunities for manufacturing and distribution businesses to move their headquarters to Lino Lakes. Before the recession began in late 2007 the Lino Lakes Town Center, comprising approximately 200 acres surrounding the 35W/Lake Drive interchange, was developing at a rapid pace. Super Target and Kohl’s anchor the shopping center quadrant, while Apollo Business Park brought approximately 1,000 new employees to the area. Land was purchased by Anoka County on a third quadrant for future development of a regional library. Due to economic conditions, the County has pushed back construction of the library to a future date. 4 Factors Affecting Financial Condition (Continued) In 2004, the City entered into an agreement with a master developer to develop 40 acres in the southeast quadrant of I-35W and Lake Drive. Called Legacy at Woods Edge, this mixed-use development is intended to include diverse opportunities for housing, retail and office uses. To date, the development includes the Lino Lakes Civic Complex (which houses the city hall and police station), the Chain of Lakes YMCA, a 60-unit workforce housing project, 13,000 square feet of leasable commercial space, and an assisted living facility. The Civic Complex and YMCA provide a civic and community focus as part of the vision for Town Center. A workforce family housing and assisted living facility provide diversity in housing to underserved populations within the City. In 2006, the City placed a major focus on reconstruction of the 35W/Lake Drive interchange and completion of public improvements in Legacy at Woods Edge to accommodate planned development and completed the improvements by 2008. However, it became evident at the end of 2007 that development was stalling. The recession has had negative impacts on the Legacy development. Both the master developer and lender defaulted, sending the remaining 22 acres intended for townhomes and commercial uses into tax forfeit. Development conditions have begun to improve relative to the Legacy property. During 2013, the assisted living facility purchased an adjoining parcel to expand its current operation. The 36-room addition was completed in 2014. In addition, the State Legislature approved City-initiated special legislation which has allowed the City to acquire the tax forfeited property from the State at no cost except for an administrative fee payable to Anoka County if future sale revenues exceed the value of the special assessments on the property. The acquisition of this property will allow the City greater control in marketing the property to potential developers. The solid foundation that was built and strong interest by developers prior to the recession ensures that better economic times will once again bring the interest in residential and commercial growth needed to complete the vision. Street, streetscape, water, sewer, and storm water improvements, as well as a small community park, have been installed within the development area and assessed to the development. The $11.1 million I-35W Interchange improvement was financed through the joint efforts of MNDOT, Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes. The City has issued $4,215,000 in G.O. Tax Increment bonds and will use tax increment financing and Minnesota State Aid funds to finance its portion of the project cost. In anticipation of a strengthening economy, the City took the lead on developing the infrastructure needed to service future growth on the 35E/County Road 14 interchange area. A major reconstruction of the interchange completed a multi-year improvement of County Road 14 from Highway 61 in Hugo, through Centerville, to 35W in Lino Lakes. The City portion of the cost for this bridge reconstruction project is being financed through Anoka County, with the City issuing an initial $4.26 million General Obligation Note to the County. Due to cost savings in this project the Note was amended to $3.695 million in 2011. With both major interstate interchanges complete, the City is preparing for development of several hundred acres in all quadrants of 35E/14. Interest in the commercial interchange has spurred the extension of Otter Lake Road North east of I-35E and planning for the extension of 21st Avenue west of I-35E, which will leave the City well poised to accommodate significant future industrial, commercial and residential development. A McDonald’s restaurant was completed in 2014 at CSAH 14 and Otter Lake Road. In addition, Metropolitan Transit has constructed a 300 space Park and Ride at I35-E at CSAH 14 and 21st Avenue. Development activities continued to increase in 2016. Residential permits were the highest since 2007 and commercial development showed signs of recovery as new construction activities and development planning emerged. The City recently approved preliminary plans for a 876-unit residential development by Mattamy Homes, Inc. Mattamy is currently working with another national developer on the sale of the property. In addition, DR Horton, Inc. entered into a purchase agreement with the City for 11 acres of 5 Factors Affecting Financial Condition (Continued) land in the Legacy at Woods Edge development, and the 112-unit residential development received final approval in September 2016. DR Horton is currently working on their second phase of the development. Developers also broke ground on the 56-acre Clearwater Creek Business Park in 2016. This development includes the construction of a 402,000 square-foot building providing warehousing and fulfillment services. Long-term financial planning. The City’s currently adopted five-year financial plan identifies street and utility improvements totaling $26,590,408 over the five-year period. These improvements are anticipated to be funded through a number of funding sources, including special assessments, municipal state aid road funds, the area and unit trunk fund, the stormwater management fund and voter-approved tax levies. The five-year plan also includes funding projections for operations and operating impacts for the five-year period. This plan is in the process of being revised to reflect the anticipated activity through the year 2021. Relevant Financial Policies The City uses a variety of financial policies to guide its fiscal actions and ensure fiscal stability. Fund balance policy. The City had adopted a Fund Balance policy which identified the required designated amounts in the Fund Balance of the General Fund at fiscal year-end and directed the transfer of any excess revenues to other funds for specific purposes, as identified annually. For the year ended December 31, 2011 and subsequent years, the City amended its Fund Balance policy to conform to the requirements of GASB 54. The new policy targets the unassigned fund balance of the general fund in a range of 40% to 50% of budgeted general fund expenditures and other financial uses. In addition, fund balances are classified in compliance with GASB 54 according to the hierarchy of usable fund balance resources. The unassigned general fund balance as of December 31, 2016 was $6,031,077 which is 61% of general fund budgeted expenditures and other financing uses for the year. Cash management policies and practices. The City’s policy is to invest all available moneys at competitive rates in accordance with Minnesota law. Investments are made by minimizing credit and market risks while maintaining a competitive yield. Funds are invested in certificates of deposit, state and local securities, and U.S. government agencies. Cash is pooled in one account to provide maximum return. The City Council reviews the investment policy annually. The City’s investment policy’s primary objective is safety of principal. Therefore, all deposits were either insured by Federal depository insurance or were collateralized as required by State Statute. Due to the weakened economy, a historically low interest rate environment has persisted over the last several years and has had a dramatic impact on the city’s investment earnings. The average interest income yield on investments for 2016 was 0.75%. Total investment income also includes positive or negative changes in the fair value of investments. Changes in fair value of investments during the current year resulted in unrealized gains of $17,588, or 0.04%, for a total investment yield of 0.79%. The changes in fair value during the current year, however, do not necessarily represent trends that will continue; nor is it always possible to realize such amounts, especially in the case of temporary changes in the fair value of investments the City intends to hold to maturity. It is the City’s practice to purchase and hold investments to maturity and, accordingly, changes in fair value over the term of the City’s investments are expected to net to book value. 6 Awards and Acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awards the Certificate of Achievement for excellence in financial reporting to cities that meet certain criteria. The City of Lino Lakes received this award for its comprehensive annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 2015. This marks the twenty-first consecutive year the City has received this prestigious award. A governmental unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report, the contents of which conform to program requirements. This report must satisfy both GAAP and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. The City is submitting the 2016 report to GFOA for consideration of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. We believe our current report continues to conform to the high standards of the Certificate program. The timely preparation of this report could not have been accomplished without the dedicated services of the Finance Department, auditors and other city staff. I want to express my appreciation to the Mayor and City Council for their support for maintaining the highest standard of professionalism in the management of the financial operation of the City. Respectfully submitted, Sarah R. Cotton Director of Finance 7 Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Lino Lakes Minnesota For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015 Executive Director/CEO 8 City of Lino Lakes Organizational Chart City Council City Administrator Administration Finance Community Development Public Services Public Safety City Clerk Accounting Planning Recreation Police Division Human Resources Utility Billing Economic Development Engineering Environmental Services Government Buildings Public Works Street / Fleet / Utility Maintenance Parks Building Inspections Fire Division Senior Citizen Services Advisory Board & Commissions Network Administration Emergency Management/ Administration Public Information 9 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL CITY OFFICIALS December 31, 2016 Term Expires Mayor: Jeff Reinert December 31, 2017 Councilmembers: William Kusterman December 31, 2017 Rob Rafferty December 31, 2017 Melissa Maher December 31, 2019 Michael Manthey December 31, 2019 City Administrator: Jeff Karlson Appointed Directors: Community Development Michael Grochala Appointed Finance Sarah Cotton Appointed Public Safety John Swenson Appointed Public Services Richard DeGardner Appointed 10 FINANCIAL SECTION 11 - This page intentionally left blank - 12 4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. 13 We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as of December 31, 2016, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison information, the schedule of funding progress, and the schedules of pension information, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, statistical section and other information are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic 14 financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. The introductory section, the statistical section and other information have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them. Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated May 30, 2017, on our consideration of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance. REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota May 30, 2017 15 - This page intentionally left blank - 16 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS As management of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the City), we offer readers of the City’s financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which can be found in the introductory section of this report. Financial Highlights The assets of the City exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $88,543,987 (net position). Of this amount, $24,743,181 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors in accordance with the City's fund designations and fiscal policies. The City’s total net position increased by $3,989,369. As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $27,830,769, an increase of $7,774,754. Of this amount, $6,502,424 is restricted by external constraints established by creditors, grantors, contributors, or by state statutory provisions. At the end of the current fiscal year, the general fund balance was $6,256,191. Unassigned fund balance for the general fund was $6,031,077, or 63% of total general fund expenditures and other financing uses. Total outstanding debt increased by $3,023,790 during 2016. However, refunding bonds in the amount of $3,575,000 were issued during November 2016, the proceeds from which were used to pay off two bonds on February 1, 2017. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. The City’s basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government-wide financial statements. The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City’s assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Over time, increases or 17 Management’s Discussion and Analysis decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g. uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public services, conservation of natural resources and community development. The business-type activities of the City include a water utility and sewer utility. The government-wide financial statements are statements 1 and 2 of this report. Fund Financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financial requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the City's near term financial decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and change in fund balance provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. 18 Management’s Discussion and Analysis The City maintains four individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance for the following major funds: General Fund G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2005A – Debt Service Fund G.O. Improvement Notes of 2009A – Debt Service Fund Area and Unit Charge – Capital Project Fund Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund and its Program Recreation special revenue fund. A budgetary comparison schedule has been provided for those funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements are statements 3 through 6 of this report. Proprietary funds. The City maintains two enterprise funds as a part of its proprietary fund type. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its water and sewer utilities. The proprietary fund statements provide the same type of information as the government- wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the water and sewer funds, which are considered to be major funds of the City. The basic proprietary fund financial statements are statements 7 through 9 of this report. Fiduciary Funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held by the City as an agent for individuals, private organizations, or other governments. Fiduciary funds are not reflected by the government-wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City’s own programs. The basic fiduciary fund statements are Statements 10 and 28. Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government–wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found following Statement 10. Other information. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non- major governmental funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information. Combining and individual fund statements and schedules are presented as Statements 19 through 27. 19 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Government-Wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City, assets exceeded liabilities by $88,543,987 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. The largest portion of the City’s net position ($50,457,954, or 57%) reflects its net investment in capital assets (e.g. land, buildings, equipment, and infrastructure) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City’s investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. City of Lino Lakes’ Net Position 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 Assets: Current and other assets $37,480,144 $32,222,786 $14,501,253 $14,881,531 $51,981,397 $47,104,317 Capital assets 41,154,425 41,228,037 31,860,610 29,127,829 73,015,035 70,355,866 Total assets $78,634,569 $73,450,823 $46,361,863 $44,009,360 $124,996,432 $117,460,183 Deferred outflows of resources $8,780,333 $985,081 $168,302 $11,660 $8,948,635 $996,741 Liabilities: Long-term liabilities outstanding $34,049,287 $27,144,998 $433,812 $111,802 $34,483,099 $27,256,800 Other liabilities 8,999,568 5,900,707 322,072 101,355 9,321,640 6,002,062 Total liabilities $43,048,855 $33,045,705 $755,884 $213,157 $43,804,739 $33,258,862 Deferred inflows of resources $1,546,117 $636,040 $50,224 $7,404 $1,596,341 $643,444 Net position: Net investment in capital assets $18,597,344 $18,230,746 $31,860,610 $29,127,829 $50,457,954 $47,358,575 Restricted 13,342,852 8,635,293 - - 13,342,852 8,635,293 Unrestricted 10,879,734 13,888,120 13,863,447 14,672,630 24,743,181 28,560,750 Total net position $42,819,930 $40,754,159 $45,724,057 $43,800,459 $88,543,987 $84,554,618 Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals $13,342,852 of the City’s net position represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position ($24,743,181) may be used to meet ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net position, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. 20 Management’s Discussion and Analysis The City’s net position increased by $3,989,369 during 2016. Key elements of this increase are as follows: City of Lino Lakes’ Changes in Net Position 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 Revenues: Program revenues: Charges for services $2,744,984 $1,722,872 $2,754,219 $2,636,469 $5,499,203 $4,359,341 Operating grants and contributions 722,858 526,107 - 263,024 722,858 789,131 Capital grants and contributions 5,046,307 1,176,732 1,543,947 3,035,031 6,590,254 4,211,763 General revenues: General property taxes 9,049,671 8,874,910 - - 9,049,671 8,874,910 Tax increment 293,829 267,286 - - 293,829 267,286 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 91,385 5,363 - - 91,385 5,363 Unrestricted investment earnings 210,142 112,961 107,119 51,167 317,261 164,128 Gain on disposal of capital assets 66,255 17,836 - - 66,255 17,836 Total revenues 18,225,431 12,704,067 4,405,285 5,985,691 22,630,716 18,689,758 Expenses: General government 2,456,864 2,016,351 - - 2,456,864 2,016,351 Public safety 6,567,523 5,135,865 - - 6,567,523 5,135,865 Public services 6,228,893 7,971,712 - - 6,228,893 7,971,712 Conservation of naturual resources 216,905 186,111 - - 216,905 186,111 Community development 454,144 432,268 - - 454,144 432,268 Interest and fees on long-term debt 831,529 632,876 - - 831,529 632,876 Water - - 1,367,693 1,394,897 1,367,693 1,394,897 Sewer - - 1,850,962 2,089,842 1,850,962 2,089,842 Total expenses 16,755,858 16,375,183 3,218,655 3,484,739 19,974,513 19,859,922 Increase in net position before special item and transfers 1,469,573 (3,671,116) 1,186,630 2,500,952 2,656,203 (1,170,164) Special item 1,333,166 - - - 1,333,166 - Transfers (914,414) 66,834 914,414 (66,834) - - Change in net position 1,888,325 (3,604,282) 2,101,044 2,434,118 3,989,369 (1,170,164) Net position - January 1, as previously reported 40,754,159 48,734,868 43,800,459 41,444,300 84,554,618 90,179,168 Prior period adjustment 177,446 (4,376,427) (177,446) (77,959) - (4,454,386) Net position - January 1, as restated 40,931,605 44,358,441 43,623,013 41,366,341 84,554,618 85,724,782 Net position - December 31 $42,819,930 $40,754,159 $45,724,057 $43,800,459 $88,543,987 $84,554,618 Business-Type Activities TotalsGovernmental Activities Governmental Activities Governmental activities increased the City’s net position by $1,888,325 during 2016. The cumulative effect of increased Capital Grants and Contributions, partially offset by increases in general government and public safety expenses, and decreased public services spending account for this increase in 2016. In addition, as a result of the City withdrawing from the Centennial Fire district the City received $1,333,166 of cash and equipment, further increasing the net position. This increase was partially offset by transfers out to business- type activities of $914,414. 21 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and expenses: 22 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Business-Type Activities Business-type activities increased the City’s net position by $2,101,044 during 2016. Contributions of capital assets from private sources, as well as the City’s governmental activities, totaled $2,737,582 during the year. This revenue was partially offset by net operating losses ($294,937) and transfers out to governmental activities ($279,221). Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the business-type activities revenues and expenses: 23 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds Governmental Funds. The focus of the City’s governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City’s financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $27,830,769. Approximately 23% of this total amount ($6,502,424) constitutes fund balance restricted by external constraints established by creditors, grantors, contributors, or by state statutory provisions. $326,334 of fund balance is not in a spendable form, $170,950 has been committed, $15,778,480 has been assigned, and $5,052,581 is unassigned. The fund balance of the General Fund increased by $309,778 in 2016, while the City anticipated the use of $423,000 of the general fund balance. Overall, signs of continued economic recovery are being seen with increased building and development activities taking place which resulted in increased license and permit revenues for the year. In addition, reduced expenditures, primarily for personal services through vacant positions, fuel costs, and professional services helped to increase the year end fund balance. The G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2005A fund balance increased by $2,566,307 due to the receipt of $1,975,000 of refunding bond proceeds and $996,679 of tax forfeit land received and sold in lieu of special assessments. On February 1, 2017, the fund made a debt service payment of approximately $2,420,000. The G.O. Improvement Note of 2009A fund, to service the debt issued by Anoka County as the City’s financial commitment for the I-35E interchange project, ended the year with a fund balance of $22, a decrease of $7,362. Special assessment revenue and transfers in are meant to approximate the fund’s debt service commitment each year. The outstanding balance on the note as of December 31, 2016 was $1,345,000. The Area and Unit Charge fund has a total fund balance of $6,266,200, all of which is assigned for financing capital improvements. The fund balance during the current year increased by $1,843,595 due to the collection of prepaid special assessments and trunk utility development fees. The combined fund balance of other governmental funds increased $3,062,436 during 2016. Primary reasons for the increase include the issuance of $1,600,000 of G.O. Tax Abatement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016C, the proceeds from which were used to pay-off the G.O. Tax Abatement Bonds of 2006C on February 1, 2017. Also, the fund balance of the G.O. Bond Fund of 2014A increased $858,219 as special assessment collections significantly exceeded debt service payments during 2016. 24 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Proprietary funds. The City’s proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. The water fund has total net position at year-end of $22,019,271, of which $4,883,004 is unrestricted. The increase in net position of $1,706,346 was primarily due to capital contributions, partially offset by a net operating loss. The sewer fund has total net position at year-end of $23,704,786, of which $8,980,443 is unrestricted. The increase in net position of $394,698 was primarily due to capital contributions, partially offset by a net operating loss and transfers out of the fund. Budgetary Highlights General Fund The General Fund budget was amended several times during the year to reflect increased revenues in building activities, police state aid, and other fines and fees, as well as changes in expenditure areas due to personnel vacancies, changes to professional and contracted services, variances in supplies, tools, and fuel, and finally the transfer for the park land loan. The final amended expenditure budget was $317,388 less than the original adopted budget. Revenues were $185,564 over budget for the year. General property tax and intergovernmental state grant revenues were $50,529 under budget; however, this variance was more than offset by greater than anticipated license and permit revenues, public safety charges for services, and miscellaneous refunds and reimbursements. Expenditures came in under budget by $115,428 due to many factors including lower than expected personal service costs from vacant positions. Fuel and fleet maintenance supply costs were much lower than anticipated and contracted services was lower overall from budgeted levels primarily due to favorability in the streets, parks, and planning and zoning departments. Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. The City’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business- type activities as of December 31, 2016, amounted to $73,015,035 (net of accumulated depreciation), an increase of $2,659,169 from the prior year. This investment in capital assets includes land, construction in progress, buildings, equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure. The City has continued to work to complete the Shenandoah Area Street Improvements, NorthPointe 2nd Addition infrastructure improvements, Fire Station #2, Pump House #6, and the Birch Street turn lanes and infrastructure improvements in 2016. In addition, the City began the reconditioning of Water Tower #1, Aqua Lane to Blackduck Drive water main improvements, and the upgrade of the air conditioning system at the Civic Complex. Developer lead infrastructure improvements at various stages of completion 25 Management’s Discussion and Analysis include NorthPointe 3rd and 4th Additions, Saddle Club 2nd Addition, Century Farms 6th Addition, and Woods Edge. City of Lino Lakes’ Capital Assets (Net of Depreciation) 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 Land $3,275,859 $3,275,859 $ - $ - $3,275,859 $3,275,859 Construction in progress 8,961,062 7,268,375 5,617,436 1,830,071 14,578,498 9,098,446 Buildings 2,706,355 2,802,413 - - 2,706,355 2,802,413 Office equipment and furniture 157,704 133,963 - - 157,704 133,963 Vehicles 1,370,732 1,141,371 - - 1,370,732 1,141,371 Machinery and shop equipment 1,017,332 1,109,527 167,440 152,886 1,184,772 1,262,413 Other equipment 206,385 193,122 - - 206,385 193,122 Infrastructure 23,458,996 25,303,407 26,075,734 27,144,872 49,534,730 52,448,279 Total $41,154,425 $41,228,037 $31,860,610 $29,127,829 $73,015,035 $70,355,866 Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals Additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 5 to the financial statements. Long-term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded debt outstanding of $27,741,081. Of this amount, $18,460,250 comprises tax supported debt and $7,795,000 is special assessment debt. All outstanding debt carries the general obligation backing for which the City is liable in the event of default by the property owners subject to the specific taxes, special assessments or revenues pledged to the retirement of the debt. In addition, the City carries a note to Anoka County for its share of the cost of the I-35E / County Road 14 Interchange project in the amount of $1,345,000 and a note payable to the City of Circle Pines for its share of the cost of capital equipment to be used by the North Metro Telecommunications Commission in the operation of a cable communications system in the amount of $264,000. City of Lino Lakes’ Outstanding Debt 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 General obligation bonds $18,460,250 $16,406,250 $ - $ - $18,460,250 $16,406,250 G.O. special assessment bonds 7,795,000 6,485,000 - - 7,795,000 6,485,000 Note payable - Anoka County 1,345,000 1,720,000 - - 1,345,000 1,720,000 Bond premium 140,831 106,041 - - 140,831 106,041 Total $27,741,081 $24,717,291 $0 $0 $27,741,081 $24,717,291 Business-Type Activities TotalsGovernmental Activities The City of Lino Lakes’ total bonded debt increased by $3,023,790 during the current fiscal year. The key factors for the change include the issuance of $469,000 of Certificates of Indebtedness to finance capital equipment purchases, $1,420,000 of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds to fund Aqua Lane to Black Duck Drive trunk water main improvements, $1,975,000 of Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds to refinance the 26 Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2005A Taxable G.O. Improvement Bonds, $1,600,000 of General Obligation Tax Abatement Refunding Bonds to refinance the 2006C G.O. Tax Abatement Bonds, and a $294,525 General Obligation Capital Note to finance the City’s share of capital equipment to be acquired by North Metro TV. Principal in the amount of $2,769,525 was retired during the year. Additional information on the City’s long-term debt can be found in Note 6. Requests for information. This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City’s finances for all those with an interest in the government’s finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Director of Finance, City of Lino Lakes, 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota, 55014. 27 - This page intentionally left blank - 28 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 29 - This page intentionally left blank - 30 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 1 December 31, 2016 Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total Assets: Cash and investments $28,617,570 $13,470,487 $42,088,057 Accrued interest receivable 69,933 - 69,933 Due from other governmental units 91,736 2,023 93,759 Accounts receivable - net 95,628 358,559 454,187 Prepaid items 226,334 29,247 255,581 Internal balances (559,110) 559,110 - Inventory - 81,827 81,827 Taxes receivable 212,331 - 212,331 Special assessments receivable 8,500,722 - 8,500,722 Long-term notes receivable 225,000 - 225,000 Capital assets - nondepreciable 12,236,921 5,617,436 17,854,357 Capital assets - net of accumulated depreciation 28,917,504 26,243,174 55,160,678 Total assets 78,634,569 46,361,863 124,996,432 Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 8,780,333 168,302 8,948,635 Liabilities: Accounts payable 319,222 200,378 519,600 Salaries payable 107,758 6,020 113,778 Due to other governmental units 2,528 - 2,528 Contracts payable 640,483 74,403 714,886 Other accrued liabilities - 6,485 6,485 Accrued interest payable 261,347 - 261,347 Compensated absences payable: Due within one year 467,558 34,786 502,344 Due in more than one year 266,857 31,604 298,461 Other post employment benefits 97,147 - 97,147 Bonds and notes payable: Due within one year 7,103,525 - 7,103,525 Due in more than one year 20,637,556 - 20,637,556 Net pension liability: Due in more than one year 13,144,874 402,208 13,547,082 Total liabilities 43,048,855 755,884 43,804,739 Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 1,546,117 50,224 1,596,341 Net position: Net investment in capital assets 18,597,344 31,860,610 50,457,954 Restricted for: Debt service 12,481,303 - 12,481,303 Economic development 225,000 - 225,000 Tax increment purposes 438,026 - 438,026 Environmental improvements - nonexpendable 100,000 - 100,000 Environmental improvements - expendable 13,855 - 13,855 Other purposes 84,668 - 84,668 Unrestricted 10,879,734 13,863,447 24,743,181 Total net position $42,819,930 $45,724,057 $88,543,987 Primary Government The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 31 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Program Revenues Charges For Functions/Programs Expenses Services Primary government: Governmental activities: General government $2,456,864 $520,231 Public safety 6,567,523 1,359,426 Public services 6,228,893 865,327 Conservation of natural resources 216,905 - Community development 454,144 - Interest and fees on long-term debt 831,529 - Total governmental activities 16,755,858 2,744,984 Business-type activities: Water 1,367,693 1,094,897 Sewer 1,850,962 1,659,322 Total business-type activities 3,218,655 2,754,219 Total primary government $19,974,513 $5,499,203 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 32 Statement 2 Operating Capital Grants and Grants and Governmental Business-Type Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total $12,535 $ - ($1,924,098)$ - ($1,924,098) 336,701 - (4,871,396) - (4,871,396) 274,430 5,046,307 (42,829) - (42,829) 99,192 - (117,713) - (117,713) - - (454,144) - (454,144) - - (831,529) - (831,529) 722,858 5,046,307 (8,241,709)0 (8,241,709) - 871,552 - 598,756 598,756 - 672,395 - 480,755 480,755 0 1,543,947 0 1,079,511 1,079,511 $722,858 $6,590,254 (8,241,709)1,079,511 (7,162,198) General revenues: General property taxes 9,049,671 - 9,049,671 Tax increment 293,829 - 293,829 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 91,385 - 91,385 Unrestricted investment earnings 210,142 107,119 317,261 Gain on disposal of capital assets 66,255 - 66,255 Special item - withdrawal from fire district 1,333,166 - 1,333,166 Transfers (914,414)914,414 - Total general revenues, special item and transfers 10,130,034 1,021,533 11,151,567 Change in net position 1,888,325 2,101,044 3,989,369 Net position - January 1, as previously reported 40,754,159 43,800,459 84,554,618 Prior period adjustment 177,446 (177,446) - Net position - January 1, as restated 40,931,605 43,623,013 84,554,618 Net position - December 31 $42,819,930 $45,724,057 $88,543,987 Program Revenues Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position Primary Government The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 33 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2016 327 G.O. Improvement General Fund Bonds of 2005A Assets Cash and investments $6,044,322 $3,102,978 Accrued interest receivable 69,933 - Due from other governmental units 91,736 - Accounts receivable - net 59,875 - Prepaid items 225,114 - Advances to other funds - - Taxes receivable: Due from county 96,175 - Delinquent 73,316 - Special assessments receivable: Due from county - - Delinquent - - Deferred - 2,994,379 Interfund loan receivable - - Long-term notes receivable - - Total assets $6,660,471 $6,097,357 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balances Liabilities: Accounts payable $221,010 $200 Salaries payable 107,426 - Due to other governmental units 2,528 - Contracts payable - - Advances from other funds - - Interfund loan payable - 2,876,643 Total liabilities 330,964 2,876,843 Deferred inflows of resources: Unavailable revenue 73,316 2,994,379 Fund balance: Nonspendable 225,114 - Restricted - 226,135 Committed - - Assigned - - Unassigned 6,031,077 - Total fund balance 6,256,191 226,135 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balance $6,660,471 $6,097,357 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 34 Statement 3 333 G.O. Improvement 406 Area and Other Total Note of 2009A Unit Charge Governmental Funds Governmental Funds $22 $6,040,839 $13,429,409 $28,617,570 - - - 69,933 - - - 91,736 - 24,476 11,277 95,628 - - 1,220 226,334 - - 1,350 1,350 - - 27,739 123,914 - - 15,101 88,417 - 8,120 1,635 9,755 - 2,379 10,331 12,710 2,809,742 1,091,408 1,582,728 8,478,257 - 194,525 3,290,003 3,484,528 - - 225,000 225,000 $2,809,764 $7,361,747 $18,595,793 $41,525,132 $ - $1,760 $96,252 $319,222 - - 332 107,758 - - - 2,528 - - 640,483 640,483 - - 1,350 1,350 - - 1,166,995 4,043,638 0 1,760 1,905,412 5,114,979 2,809,742 1,093,787 1,608,160 8,579,384 - - 101,220 326,334 22 - 6,276,267 6,502,424 - - 170,950 170,950 - 6,266,200 9,512,280 15,778,480 - - (978,496)5,052,581 22 6,266,200 15,082,221 27,830,769 $2,809,764 $7,361,747 $18,595,793 $41,525,132 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 35 - This page intentionally left blank - 36 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF GOVERNMENTAL Statement 4 FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION December 31, 2016 Fund balance - total governmental funds (Statement 3) $27,830,769 Net position reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position is different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the funds.41,154,425 Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current-period expenditures and therefore, are reported as unavailable revenue in the funds: Delinquent taxes receivable 88,417 Delinquent special assessments receivable 12,710 Deferred special assessments receivable 8,478,257 Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. Long-term liabilities at year end consist of: Bonds and notes payable (27,600,250) Unamortized bond premiums (166,322) Unamortized bond discounts 25,491 Accrued interest payable (261,347) Compensated absences payable (734,415) Other post employment benefits (97,147) Net pension liability (13,144,874) Deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions are associated with long-term liabilities that are not due and payable in the current period, and therefore, are not reported in the funds. Balances at year end are: Deferred outflows of resources 8,780,333 Deferred inflows of resources (1,546,117) Net position of governmental activities (Statement 1)$42,819,930 37 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 327 G.O. Improvement General Fund Bonds of 2005A Revenues: General property taxes $7,037,596 $ - Tax increment - - Licenses and permits 895,581 - Intergovernmental 654,447 - Special assessments 4,618 996,679 Charges for services 342,690 - Fines and forfeits 220,905 - Investment earnings 37,887 6,964 Net increase in fair value of investments 2,553 368 Miscellaneous 221,034 - Total revenues 9,417,311 1,004,011 Expenditures: Current: General government 1,837,343 - Public safety 4,318,330 - Public services 2,094,753 - Conservation of natural resources 177,185 - Community development 420,298 - Capital outlay: General government 4,583 - Public safety 46,399 - Public services 259 - Conservation of natural resources 5,028 - Debt service: Principal - 400,000 Interest and fiscal charges - 130,860 Bond issuance costs - 34,628 Total expenditures 8,904,178 565,488 Revenues over (under) expenditures 513,133 438,523 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 488,084 152,784 Transfers out (691,439) - Proceeds from issuance of debt - 1,975,000 Premium on bonds issued - - Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - Total other financing sources (uses)(203,355)2,127,784 Special item - withdrawal from fire district - - Net change in fund balance 309,778 2,566,307 Fund balance - January 1 5,946,413 (2,340,172) Fund balance - December 31 $6,256,191 $226,135 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 38 Statement 5 333 G.O. Improvement 406 Area and Other Total Note of 2009A Unit Charge Governmental Funds Governmental Funds $ - $ - $2,037,665 $9,075,261 - - 293,829 293,829 - - - 895,581 - - 52,497 706,944 128,803 1,858,728 1,411,807 4,400,635 - 252,580 698,286 1,293,556 - - 30,748 251,653 - 67,505 87,353 199,709 - 1,550 5,962 10,433 - - 196,414 417,448 128,803 2,180,363 4,814,561 17,545,049 - - 8,324 1,845,667 - - 14,750 4,333,080 - 22,725 1,086,359 3,203,837 - - 24,450 201,635 - - 5,104 425,402 - - 140,081 144,664 - - 521,918 568,317 - - 2,326,347 2,326,606 - - - 5,028 375,000 - 1,994,525 2,769,525 70,165 - 615,337 816,362 - - 64,278 98,906 445,165 22,725 6,801,473 16,739,029 (316,362)2,157,638 (1,986,912)806,020 309,000 1,001 2,570,311 3,521,180 - (315,044)(2,235,476)(3,241,959) - - 3,489,000 5,464,000 - - 41,497 41,497 - - 72,182 72,182 309,000 (314,043)3,937,514 5,856,900 - - 1,111,834 1,111,834 (7,362)1,843,595 3,062,436 7,774,754 7,384 4,422,605 12,019,785 20,056,015 $22 $6,266,200 $15,082,221 $27,830,769 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 39 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 6 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Net change in fund balance - total governmental funds (Statement 5) $7,774,754 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense: Depreciation (2,926,157) Capital outlay 3,044,615 Capital outlay not capitalized (1,038,375) Various other transactions involving capital assets increase (decrease) net position on the Statement of Activities, but are not reported in governmental funds because they do not provide (or use) current financial resources: Contributions of infrastructure from private sources 1,824,535 Contributions of fire vehicles and equipment from fire district 221,332 Contributions of infrastructure to business-type activities (1,193,635) Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets (5,927) Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds: Change in delinquent taxes receivable (25,590) Change in delinquent special assessments receivable (14,255) Change in deferred special assessments receivable (1,206,108) The issuance of long-term debt provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while repayment of the principal of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net position. Also, governmental report the effects of bond premiums and discounts when the debt is first issued, whereas amounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the debt in the Statement of Activities. Bonds and notes issued (5,758,525) Repayment of principal 2,769,525 Bond premium received during current year (41,497) Amortization of bond premiums and discounts 6,707 Some expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Expenses reported in the Statement of Activities include the effects of the changes in these expense accruals as follows: Change in accrued interest payable 77,032 Change in compensated absences payable (45,510) Change in other post employment benefits (6,295) Pension expense in governmental funds is measured by current year employee contributions. Pension expense in the Statement of Activities is measured by the change in the net pension liability and related deferred inflows and outflows of resources. This is the amount by which pension expense exceeded pension contributions.(1,568,301) Change in net position of governmental activities (Statement 2)$1,888,325 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 40 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 7 PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31, 2016 601 Water 602 Sewer Total Assets: Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $4,947,883 $8,522,604 $13,470,487 Due from other governmental units - 2,023 2,023 Accounts receivable - net 142,284 216,275 358,559 Prepaid items 10,161 19,086 29,247 Inventory 81,827 - 81,827 Interfund loan receivable - 559,110 559,110 Total current assets 5,182,155 9,319,098 14,501,253 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Construction in progress 4,282,412 1,335,024 5,617,436 Equipment 124,259 328,432 452,691 Water and sewer systems 20,847,774 22,032,433 42,880,207 Total capital assets 25,254,445 23,695,889 48,950,334 Less: Allowance for depreciation (8,118,178) (8,971,546) (17,089,724) Net capital assets 17,136,267 14,724,343 31,860,610 Total assets 22,318,422 24,043,441 46,361,863 Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 84,151 84,151 168,302 Total assets and deferred outflows 22,402,573 24,127,592 46,530,165 Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable 43,143 157,235 200,378 Salaries payable 3,010 3,010 6,020 Contracts payable 74,403 - 74,403 Other accrued liabilities 3,335 3,150 6,485 Compensated absences payable - current portion 17,393 17,393 34,786 Total current liabilities 141,284 180,788 322,072 Noncurrent liabilities: Compensated absences payable - noncurrent portion 15,802 15,802 31,604 Net pension liability 201,104 201,104 402,208 Total noncurrent liabilities 216,906 216,906 433,812 Total liabilities 358,190 397,694 755,884 Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 25,112 25,112 50,224 Total liabilities and deferred inflows 383,302 422,806 806,108 Net position: Investment in capital assets 17,136,267 14,724,343 31,860,610 Unrestricted 4,883,004 8,980,443 13,863,447 Total net position $22,019,271 $23,704,786 $45,724,057 Business-Type Activities - Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 41 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND Statement 8 PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 601 Water 602 Sewer Totals Operating revenues: Charges for services $1,025,269 $1,638,272 $2,663,541 Hook-up charges 26,010 21,050 47,060 Water meter sales 30,687 - 30,687 Other operating revenue 12,931 - 12,931 Total operating revenues 1,094,897 1,659,322 2,754,219 Operating expenses: Personal services 236,409 239,698 476,107 Materials and supplies 452,100 26,129 478,229 Contractual services 100,243 51,564 151,807 MCES sewer charges - 877,565 877,565 Depreciation 436,384 456,422 892,806 Utilities 86,889 40,229 127,118 Other 18,566 26,958 45,524 Total operating expenses 1,330,591 1,718,565 3,049,156 Operating income (loss)(235,694)(59,243)(294,937) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Investment earnings 37,560 62,404 99,964 Net increase in fair value of investments 2,754 4,401 7,155 Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets (37,102)(132,397)(169,499) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)3,212 (65,592)(62,380) Income (loss) before contributions and transfers (232,482)(124,835)(357,317) Contributions and transfers: Capital contributions from private sources 871,552 672,395 1,543,947 Capital contributions from governmental activities 1,101,903 91,732 1,193,635 Transfer out (34,627)(244,594)(279,221) Total contributions and transfers 1,938,828 519,533 2,458,361 Change in net position 1,706,346 394,698 2,101,044 Net position - January 1, as previously reported 20,401,628 23,398,831 43,800,459 Prior period adjustment (88,703)(88,743)(177,446) Net position - January 1, as restated 20,312,925 23,310,088 43,623,013 Net position - December 31 $22,019,271 $23,704,786 $45,724,057 CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION Business-Type Activities - Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 42 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 9 PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 601 Water 602 Sewer Totals Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users $1,105,801 $1,663,724 $2,769,525 Payment to suppliers (618,143) (882,352) (1,500,495) Payment to employees (226,242) (222,576) (448,818) Net cash flows provided by operating activities 261,416 558,796 820,212 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Transfers (34,627) (244,594) (279,221) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition of capital assets (1,057,604) - (1,057,604) Proceeds from sale of capital assets 100 - 100 Net cash flows provided by (used in) capital and related financing activities (1,057,504) - (1,057,504) Cash flows from investing activities: Investment income 40,314 66,805 107,119 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (790,401) 381,007 (409,394) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 5,738,284 8,141,597 13,879,881 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $4,947,883 $8,522,604 $13,470,487 Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided by operating activities: Operating income (loss)($235,694) ($59,243) ($294,937) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation 436,384 456,422 892,806 Changes in assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in due from other governmental units - (429)(429) Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable - net 10,904 4,831 15,735 Decrease (increase) in prepaid items (2,906) (1,711) (4,617) Decrease (increase) in inventory (39,805) - (39,805) Decrease (increase) in deferred outflows of resources (78,318) (78,324) (156,642) Increase (decrease) in payables 82,366 141,804 224,170 Increase (decrease) in other accrued liabilities (3,805)3,150 (655) Increase (decrease) in compensated absences 1,103 1,103 2,206 Increase (decrease) in net pension liability 69,779 69,781 139,560 Increase (decrease) in deferred inflows of resources 21,408 21,412 42,820 Total adjustments 497,110 618,039 1,115,149 Net cash provided by operating activities $261,416 $558,796 $820,212 Noncash investing, capital and financing activities: Contributions of capital assets $1,973,455 $764,127 $2,737,582 Business-Type Activities - Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 43 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 10 FIDUCIARY FUNDS December 31, 2016 Assets: Cash and investments $825,373 Liabilities: Deposits payable $825,373 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 44 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the City) is a public corporation formed under Minnesota Statute 410. As such, the City is under home rule charter regulations and applicable statutory guidelines. The basic financial statements of the City have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles as applied to governmental units by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The following is a summary of significant accounting policies: A. FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY In accordance with GASB pronouncements and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the financial statements of the reporting entity include those of the City (the primary government) and its component units. The component units discussed below are included in the City’s reporting entity because of the significance of their operational or financial relationships with the City. COMPONENT UNITS In conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the financial statements of the component units have been included in the financial report as blended component units. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Lino Lakes is an entity legally separate from the City. However, for financial reporting purposes, the EDA is reported as if it were a part of the City’s operation because the governing body is substantially the same as the governing body of the City and a financial benefit or burden relationship exists between the City and the EDA. The EDA does not issue separate financial statements. The Housing and Development Authority (HRA) of Lino Lakes is an entity legally separate from the City. However, for financial reporting purposes, the HRA is reported as if it were part of the City’s operations because the members of the City Council serve as commission members and a financial benefit or burden relationship exists between the City and the HRA. The HRA has not yet incurred any financial activity. B. GOVERNMENT-WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities) report information on all of the non-fiduciary activities of the primary government and its component units. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or business-type activity are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or business-type activity. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or business-type activity and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or business-type activity. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. 45 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 The fund financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the government-wide financial statements. The emphasis of governmental and proprietary fund financial statements is on major individual governmental and enterprise funds, with each displayed as separate columns in the fund financial statements. All remaining governmental and enterprise funds are aggregated and reported as nonmajor funds. Proprietary fund operating revenues, such as charges for services, result from exchange transactions associated with the principal activity of the fund. Exchange transactions are those in which each party receives and gives up essentially equal values. Nonoperating revenues, such as subsidies and investment earnings, result from nonexchange transactions or incidental activities. The City reports the following major governmental funds: General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2005A Fund accounts for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, interest, principal and related costs on general long-term debt. General Obligation Improvement Note of 2009A Fund accounts for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, interest, principal and related costs on general long-term debt. The note was used to finance improvement projects at the I-35E and County Road 14 interchange. Area and Unit Charge Fund accounts for the collection of water and sewer unit charges to be used for debt payments and construction of governmental infrastructure. The City reports the following major proprietary funds: The Water Fund accounts for customer water service charges which are used to finance water system operating expenses. The Sewer Fund accounts for customer sewer service charges which are used to finance sanitary sewer system operating expenses. Additionally, the City reports the following fund type: Agency funds account for assets held as an agent for individuals, private organizations and other governmental units. The City’s agency fund accounts for pass-through contractor’s deposits relating to prospective developments. C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS AND BASIS OF ACCOUNTING The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements 46 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 imposed by the provider have been met. The City’s only fiduciary funds are agency funds. Agency funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers all revenues, except reimbursement grants, to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Reimbursement grants are considered available if they are collected within one year of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenues, charges for services and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are transactions that would be treated as revenues, expenditures or expenses if they involved external organizations, such as buying goods and services or payments in lieu of taxes, are similarly treated when they involve other funds of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Proprietary Funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the water and sewer enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. D. BUDGETS Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Annual appropriated budgets are adopted for the General Fund and the Program Recreation Special Revenue Fund. Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year-end. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted and as amended by the City Council. Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year end. Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the appropriation, is not employed 47 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 by the City because it is at present not considered necessary to assure effective budgetary control or to facilitate effective cash management. E. LEGAL COMPLIANCE – BUDGETS The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. The City Administrator submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget (including the General Fund and Program Recreation Special Revenue Fund) for the fiscal year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 3. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution on a departmental basis and can expended by each department based upon detailed budget estimates for individual expenditure accounts. 4. The City Administrator is authorized to transfer appropriations within any department budget. Additional interdepartmental or interfund appropriations and deletions are or may be authorized by the City Council with fund (contingency) reserves or additional revenues. 5. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year for the General Fund. 6. Legal debt obligation indentures determine the appropriation level and debt service tax levies for the Debt Service Funds. Supplementary budgets are adopted for the Proprietary Funds to determine and calculate user charges. These debt service and budget amounts represent general obligation bond indenture provisions and net income for operation and capital maintenance and are not reflected in the financial statements. 7. A capital improvement program is reviewed periodically by the City Council for the Capital Project Funds. However, appropriations for major projects are not adopted until the actual bid award of the improvement. The appropriations are not reflected in the financial statements. 8. Expenditures may not legally exceed budgeted appropriations at the department level unless approved by the City Council. Therefore, the legal level of budgetary control is at the department level (i.e. administration, community development, public safety, public services, and other). 9. The City Council may authorize transfers of budgeted amounts between City funds. F. CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investment balances from all funds are pooled and invested to the extent available in authorized investments. Investment income is allocated to individual funds on the basis of the fund's equity in the cash and investment pool. Investments are stated at fair value, except for investments in external investment pools that meet GASB 79 requirements, which are stated at amortized cost. Interest earnings are accrued at year-end. 48 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, the Proprietary Funds consider all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. All of the cash and investments allocated to the Proprietary Fund types have original maturities of 90 days or less. Therefore, the entire balance in such fund types is considered cash equivalents. Permanently restricted cash and investments represents the principal and earnings portion of resources received that must be retained in a permanent fund. Only earnings from these funds may be used for purposes that support environmental maintenance and improvements. G. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December (levy/assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local School District and other taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May 15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to the City on or before July 15 and December 15 of the same year. Delinquent collections for November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce payment of property taxes by property owners. The County possesses this authority. Within the government-wide financial statements, the City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which taxes were levied. Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported. Within the governmental fund financial statements, the City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes and received by the City in July, December, and the following January are recognized as revenue for the current year. Taxes collected by the county by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) are classified as due from county. Taxes not collected by the county by December 31 are classified as delinquent taxes receivable. Delinquent taxes receivable are fully offset by deferred inflows of resources because they are not available to finance current expenditures. The City's property tax revenue includes payments from the Metropolitan Revenue Distribution (Fiscal Disparities Formula) per State Statute 473F. This statute provides a means of spreading a portion of the taxable valuation of commercial/industrial real property to various taxing authorities within the defined metropolitan area. The valuation "shared" is a portion of commercial/industrial property valuation growth since 1971. H. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE RECOGNITION Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments are collectible by the City over a term of years usually consistent with the term of the related bond issue. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in the same manner as 49 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay future installments without interest or prepayment penalties. Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is subject to tax forfeit sale and the first proceeds of that sale (after costs, penalties and expenses of sale) are remitted to the City in payment of delinquent special assessments. Generally, the City will collect the full amount of its special assessments not adjusted by City Council or court action. Pursuant to State Statutes, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale after three years unless it is homesteaded, agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after five years. Within the government-wide financial statements, the City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been reported. Within the fund financial statements, the revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special assessments are collected by the County and remitted by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent, deferred and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funds are completely offset by deferred inflows of resources. I. INVENTORY For governmental funds, the original cost of materials and supplies are recorded as expenditures at the time of purchase. These funds do not maintain material amounts of inventories. Inventories of the proprietary funds are stated at cost, which approximates market, using the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. J. PREPAID ITEMS Certain prepayments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. Prepaid items are reported using the consumption method and recorded as expenditures/expenses at the time of consumption. K. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds for goods provided or services rendered. Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures / expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as 50 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 expenditures/expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an advance from another fund. Such advances are classified as “advances to/from other funds.” Long- term interfund loans are classified as “interfund loan receivable/payable.” Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as “internal balances.” All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers. L. CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, and infrastructure assets (e.g. roads, sidewalks, street lights, and similar items) are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $2,500 and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at acquisition value at the date of donation. All existing City infrastructure has been capitalized regardless of date placed in service. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. For the year ended December 31, 2016, no interest was capitalized in connection with construction in progress. Depreciation on exhaustible assets is recorded as an allocated expense in the Statement of Activities with accumulated depreciation reflected in the Statement of Net Position. Capital assets are depreciated using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives. Since surplus assets are sold for an immaterial amount when declared as no longer needed for City purposes, no salvage value is taken into consideration for depreciation purposes. Useful lives vary from 3 to 30 years for buildings, office furniture and equipment, vehicles, machine shop and equipment and other assets, and 15 to 50 years for infrastructure. M. COMPENSATED ABSENCES It is the City’s policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation, PTO (Personal Time Off), extended leave and sick pay benefits. All vacation pay and PTO and the portion of sick pay allowable as severance is accrued in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. The current portion is calculated based on historical trends. N. LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental 51 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type Statement of Net Position. Bond premiums and discounts are amortized over the life of the related debt. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. O. DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows and inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to and deductions from PERA’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA, except that PERA’s fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. P. DEFERRED OUTFLOWS AND INFLOWS OF RESOURCES In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents a consumption of net position that applies to future periods and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense) that time. The City has one item that qualifies for reporting in the category. It is the pension related deferred outflows of resources reported in the government-wide Statement of Net Position and the proprietary funds Statement of Net Position. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position reports a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents an acquisition of net position that applies to future periods, and therefore, will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has pension related deferred inflows of resources reported in the government- wide Statement of Net Pension and the proprietary funds Statements of Net Position. The City also has a type of item, which arises only under a modified accrual basis of accounting, that qualifies for reporting in this category. Accordingly, the item, unavailable revenue, is reported only in the governmental fund balance sheet. The governmental funds report unavailable revenues from the following sources: property taxes and special assessments not collected within 60 days from year-end. Q. FUND BALANCE CLASSIFICATIONS In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance in classifications that disclose constraints for which amounts in those funds can be spent. These classifications are as follows: Nonspendable - consists of amounts that are not in spendable form, such as prepaid items and corpus of any permanent fund. 52 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Restricted - consists of amounts related to externally imposed constraints established by creditors, grantors or contributors; or constraints imposed by state statutory provisions. Committed - consists of internally imposed constraints. These constraints are established by a resolution approved by the City Council, and committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the City Council removes or changes the specified use by resolution. Assigned - consists of internally imposed constraints for the specific purpose of the City’s intended use. These constraints are established by the City Council and/or management. The City Council passed a resolution authorizing the Finance Director to assign fund balances and their intended uses. Unassigned - is the residual classification for the general fund and also reflects negative residual amounts in other funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When committed, assigned or unassigned resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use resources in the following order: 1) committed 2) assigned and 3) unassigned. The City formally adopted a fund balances policy for the general fund. The policy establishes an unassigned fund balance range of 40% - 50% of general fund operating expenditures. R. USE OF ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates that affect amounts reported in the financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates. Note 2 DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS A. DEPOSITS In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks authorized by the City Council, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. Custodial Credit Risk – Custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City’s deposits may not be returned to it. Minnesota Statutes require that insurance, surety bonds or collateral protect all City deposits. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of deposits not covered by insurance or bonds. The City has no additional deposit policies addressing custodial credit risk. As of December 31, 2016, the bank balance of the City’s deposits was insured by the FDIC or covered by pledged collateral held in the City’s name. 53 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the City Treasurer or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. Authorized collateral includes the following: a) United States government treasury bills, treasury notes, treasury bonds; b) Issues of United States government agencies and instrumentalities as quoted by a recognized industry quotation service available to the government entity; c) General obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service, or revenue obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national bond rating service; d) General obligation securities of a local government with taxing powers may be pledged as collateral against funds deposited by that same local government entity; e) Irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by Federal Home Loan Banks to a municipality accompanied by written evidence that the bank’s public debt is rated “AA” or better by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Standard & Poor’s Corporation; and f) Time deposits that are fully insured by the Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation. At December 31, 2016, the carrying amount of the City’s deposits with financial institutions was $2,872,639. B. INVESTMENTS Minnesota Statutes authorize the City to invest in the following: a) Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies, its instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of congress, excluding mortgage-backed securities defined as high risk. b) Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are in securities described in (a) above, general obligation tax-exempt securities, or repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements. c) State and local securities as follows: 1) any security which is a general obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service; 2) any security which is a revenue obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national bond rating service; and 3) a general obligation of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency which is a moral obligation of the State of Minnesota and is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating agency. d) Bankers acceptance of United States banks. e) Commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of the highest quality, and maturing in 270 days or less. 54 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 f) Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000; a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; certain Minnesota securities broker-dealers; or, a bank qualified as a depositor. g) General obligation temporary bonds of the same governmental entity issued under section 429.091, subdivision 7; 469.178, subdivision 5; or 475.61, subdivision 6. As of December 31, 2016, the City had the following investments and maturities: Fair Less Investment Type Rating Value Than 1 1 - 5 6 - 8 Wells Fargo money market NR $3,759,721 $3,759,721 $ - $ - 4M Fund NR 9,653,494 9,653,494 - - Mutual funds NR 1,782,066 1,782,066 - - Brokered CD's NR 12,395,765 3,898,818 7,123,353 1,373,594 Municipal bonds * 11,963,565 2,849,918 8,049,217 1,064,430 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.AAA 485,360 - - 485,360 Total $40,039,971 $21,944,017 $15,172,570 $2,923,384 NR - Not Rated Total investments $40,039,971 * AAA $2,191,736; AA+ $1,261,057 Deposits 2,872,639 AA $2,888,737; AA- $5,494,900 Petty cash 820 A+ $127,135 Total cash and investments $42,913,430 Investment Maturities (in Years) These amounts are presented in the financial statements as follows: Cash and investments: Governmental and business-type (Statement 1)$42,088,057 Fiduciary (Statement 10)825,373 Total $42,913,430 The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting principles. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure the fair value of the asset. The hierarchy has three levels. Level 1 investments are valued using inputs that are based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets. Level 2 investments are valued using inputs that are based on quoted prices for similar assets or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly. Level 3 investments are valued using inputs that are unobservable. 55 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 The City has the following recurring fair value measurements as of December 31, 2016: Investment Type 12/31/2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Investments at fair value: Mutual funds $1,782,066 $1,782,066 $ - $ - Brokered CD's 12,395,765 - 12,395,765 - Municipal bonds 11,963,565 - 11,963,565 - Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.485,360 - 485,360 - $1,782,066 $24,844,690 $ - Investments not categorized: Wells Fargo money market 3,759,721 ` 4M Fund 9,653,494 Total investments $40,039,971 Fair Value Measurement Using The 4M Fund is an external investment pool investment which is regulated by Minnesota Statutes and the Board of Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities. It is an unrated pool and the fair value of the position in the pool is the same as the value of pool shares. The pool is managed to maintain a portfolio weighted average maturity of no greater than 60 days and seeks to maintain a constant net asset value (NAV) of $1 per share. The pool measures its investments at amortized cost in accordance with GASB Statement No. 79. The 4M Plus Fund requires funds to be deposited for a minimum of 14 calendar days. Withdrawals prior to the 14-day restriction period are subject to penalty equal to 7 days interest on the amount withdrawn. C. INVESTMENT RISKS Custodial Credit Risk – Investments – For investments in securities, custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of failure of the counterparty to a transaction, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investment securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Investments in investment pools and money markets are not evidenced by securities that exist in physical or book entry form, and therefore are not subject to custodial credit risk disclosures. The City’s investment policy requires its brokers be licensed with the appropriate federal and state agencies. A minimum capital requirement of $5,000,000 and at least five years of operation is mandatory. Investments in securities are held by the City’s broker-dealers. The securities at each broker-dealer are insured $500,000 through SIPC. Each broker-dealer has provided additional protection by providing additional insurance. This insurance is subject to aggregate limits applied to all of the broker-dealer’s accounts. Interest Rate Risk – Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. The City’s policy to minimize interest rate risk includes investing primarily in short-term securities and structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operations. Credit Risk – Credit risk is the risk than an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. The City’s policy to minimize credit risk includes limiting investing funds to those allowable under Minnesota Statute 118A, annually appointing all financial institutions where 56 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 investments are held, and diversifying the investment portfolio. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Concentration of Credit Risk – Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss that may be attributed to the magnitude of a government’s investment in a single issuer. The City places no limit on the amount it may invest in any one issuer. As of December 31, 2016, no individual investments exceeded 5% of the City’s total investment portfolio. Note 3 RECEIVABLES Significant receivable balances not expected to be collected within one year of December 31, 2016 are as follows: Property Special Taxes Assessments Notes Receivable Receivable Receivable Total Major Funds: General Fund $38,521 $ - $ - $38,521 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2005A - 2,994,379 - 2,994,379 G.O. Improvement Note of 2009A - 2,790,523 - 2,790,523 Area and Unit Charge - 984,326 - 984,326 Nonmajor Funds 8,329 1,411,306 225,000 1,644,635 Total $46,850 $8,180,534 $225,000 $8,452,384 Note 4 UNAVAILABLE REVENUE Governmental funds report deferred inflows of resources in connection with receivables for revenues that are not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of unavailable revenue reported in the governmental funds are as follows: Property Special Taxes Assessments Receivable Receivable Total Major Funds: General Fund $73,316 $ - $73,316 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2005A - 2,994,379 2,994,379 G.O. Improvement Note of 2009A - 2,809,742 2,809,742 Area and Unit Charge - 1,093,787 1,093,787 Nonmajor Funds 15,101 1,593,059 1,608,160 Total $88,417 $8,490,967 $8,579,384 57 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 5 CAPITAL ASSETS Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2016 was as follows: Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Governmental activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land $3,275,859 $ - $ - $3,275,859 Construction in progress 7,268,375 1,692,687 - 8,961,062 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 10,544,234 1,692,687 0 12,236,921 Capital assets, being depreciated: Buildings 6,765,619 126,228 - 6,891,847 Office equipment and furniture 629,172 68,000 (37,732) 659,440 Vehicles 3,130,157 628,412 (340,901) 3,417,668 Machinery and shop equipment 2,255,796 57,123 (3,506) 2,309,413 Other equipment 1,005,797 28,329 - 1,034,126 Infrastructure 80,480,767 257,693 - 80,738,460 Total capital assets, being depreciated 94,267,308 1,165,785 (382,139) 95,050,954 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings 3,963,206 222,286 - 4,185,492 Office equipment and furniture 495,212 43,733 (37,209) 501,736 Vehicles 1,988,785 393,648 (335,497) 2,046,936 Machinery and shop equipment 1,146,269 149,318 (3,506) 1,292,081 Other equipment 812,675 15,066 - 827,741 Infrastructure 55,177,358 2,102,106 - 57,279,464 Total accumulated depreciation 63,583,505 2,926,157 (376,212) 66,133,450 Total capital assets being depreciated - net 30,683,803 (1,760,372) (5,927) 28,917,504 Governmental activities capital assets - net $41,228,037 ($67,685) ($5,927) $41,154,425 Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Business-type activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Construction in progress $1,830,071 $3,787,365 $ - $5,617,436 Capital assets, being depreciated: Machinery and shop equipment 449,155 7,821 (4,285) 452,691 Water and sewer systems 43,056,382 - (176,175) 42,880,207 Total capital assets, being depreciated 43,505,537 7,821 (180,460) 43,332,898 Accumulated depreciation for: Machinery and shop equipment 267,730 21,806 (4,285) 285,251 Water and sewer systems 15,940,049 871,000 (6,576) 16,804,473 Total accumulated depreciation 16,207,779 892,806 (10,861) 17,089,724 Total capital assets being depreciated - net 27,297,758 (884,985) (169,599) 26,243,174 Business-type activities capital assets - net $29,127,829 $2,902,380 ($169,599) $31,860,610 58 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the City as follows: Governmental activities: General government $222,823 Public safety 332,173 Public services 2,364,514 Conservation of natural resources 850 Community development 5,797 Total depreciation expense - governmental activities $2,926,157 Business-type activities: Water $436,384 Sewer 456,422 Total depreciation expense - business-type activities $892,806 59 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 6 LONG-TERM DEBT The City issues general obligation bonds and equipment certificates to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities and equipment. City indebtedness as of December 31, 2016 consisted of the following: Final Issue Maturity Interest Original Payable Date Date Rate Issue 12/31/16 Governmental activities: General Obligation Bonds: 2014A Certificates of Indebtedness 2/1/14 12/31/17 1.00% $495,000 $168,000 2015A Certificates of Indebtedness 2/1/15 12/31/18 1.00%198,250 133,250 2015B Certificates of Indebtedness 8/25/15 12/31/20 1.50%963,000 786,000 2016A Certificates of Indebtedness 2/1/16 12/31/19 1.00%469,000 469,000 G.O. Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 2006C 8/15/06 2/1/17 4.00% - 4.30% 2,460,000 1,755,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2006D 8/15/06 2/1/17 4.00% - 4.15% 570,000 70,000 G.O. CIP Refunding Bonds, Series 2006E 11/1/06 2/1/18 4.00% 2,990,000 830,000 G.O. TIF Bonds, Series 2007A 7/15/17 2/1/24 4.00% - 4.125% 4,215,000 2,025,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2012A 11/15/12 2/1/24 1.00% - 2.00% 2,015,000 1,495,000 G.O. Bonds 2015A 8/1/15 2/1/31 2.00% - 3.00% 3,095,000 3,095,000 EDA Lease Revenue Bonds 2015B 10/1/15 4/1/36 2.00% - 3.00% 4,350,000 4,350,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A 11/23/16 2/1/27 2.00% 1,420,000 1,420,000 G.O. Tax Abatement Refunding Bonds 2016C 11/23/16 2/1/23 1.00% - 1.50% 1,600,000 1,600,000 Total General Obligation Bonds 24,840,250 18,196,250 Special Assessment Bonds: G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A 11/1/05 2/1/17 4.35% - 5.15% 5,550,000 2,360,000 G.O. Imp & Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A 7/9/10 2/1/20 2.00% - 3.00% 1,000,000 425,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series, 2013A 7/15/13 2/1/24 1.25% - 4.00% 615,000 495,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2014A 11/20/14 2/1/26 0.40% - 2.30% 2,645,000 2,540,000 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016B 11/23/16 2/1/21 0.875% - 1.50% 1,975,000 1,975,000 Total Special Assessment Bonds 11,785,000 7,795,000 G.O. Improvement Note, Series 2009A 8/1/09 8/1/20 3.70% - 4.00% 4,260,000 1,345,000 G.O. Capital Note, Series 2016A 4/14/16 2/1/26 2.00%294,525 264,000 Unamortized bond premiums 199,750 166,322 Unamortized bond discounts (51,997) (25,491) Compensated absences payable N/A 734,415 Total Government Activities $41,327,528 $28,475,496 Business-Type Activities: Compensated absences payable N/A $66,390 60 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 CHANGES IN LONG-TERM DEBT The following is a schedule of changes in City indebtedness for the year ended December 31, 2016: Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Additions Deletions Balance One Year Governmental Activities: General obligation bonds $16,406,250 $3,489,000 $1,699,000 $18,196,250 $3,793,000 Special assessment bonds 6,485,000 1,975,000 665,000 7,795,000 2,890,000 Total bonded debt 22,891,250 5,464,000 2,364,000 25,991,250 6,683,000 Improvement note 1,720,000 - 375,000 1,345,000 390,000 Capital note - 294,525 30,525 264,000 30,525 Unamortized bond premiums 135,130 41,497 10,305 166,322 - Unamortized bond discounts (29,089) - (3,598) (25,491) - Compensated absences payable 688,905 587,725 542,215 734,415 467,558 Total governmental activities $25,406,196 $6,387,747 $3,318,447 $28,475,496 $7,571,083 Business-Type Activities: Compensated absences payable $64,184 $45,352 $43,146 $152,682 $34,786 DESCRIPTIONS OF LONG-TERM DEBT General Obligation Bonds – The bonds were issued for improvements or projects which benefited the City as a whole and, therefore, are repaid from ad valorem levies. Special Assessment Bonds – The bonds were issued to finance various improvements and will be repaid primarily from special assessments levied on the properties benefiting from the improvements. However, some issues are partly financed by ad valorem levies. Improvement Note – This note was used to finance improvement projects at the I-35E and County Road 14 interchange and will be repaid primarily with special assessments levied on the properties benefiting from the improvements. Capital Note – This note was issued to fund the cost of the acquisition of capital equipment to be used by the North Metro Telecommunications Commission in the operation of a cable communications system. The note will be repaid from franchise fee revenue. Utility Revenue Bonds – These bonds were issued to finance various improvements in the water fund and will be repaid primarily from pledged revenues derived from the constructed assets. 61 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Future principal and interest payments required to retire long-term debt are as follows: Years Ending December 31 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2017 $6,683,000 $548,591 $390,000 $60,165 $30,525 $5,280 2018 2,997,250 412,227 405,000 49,565 31,350 4,670 2019 2,575,000 363,206 420,000 42,415 32,175 4,042 2020 2,401,000 319,761 130,000 13,360 33,000 3,399 2021 2,150,000 274,974 - - 33,000 2,739 2022-2026 5,520,000 869,102 - - 103,950 4,191 2027-2031 2,315,000 423,581 - - - - 2032-2036 1,350,000 138,062 - - - - Total $25,991,250 $3,349,504 $1,345,000 $165,505 $264,000 $24,321 Bonded Debt Improvement Note Capital Note It is not practicable to determine the specific year for payment of long-term compensated absences payable. For governmental activities, compensated absences are liquidated by the General Fund. For business-type activities, compensated absences are liquidated by the Water and Sewer Funds. DEFERRED AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES – BONDED DEBT All long-term bonded indebtedness is backed by the full faith and credit of the City, including special assessment and revenue bond issues. General Obligation bond issues are financed by ad valorem tax levies and special assessment bond issues are partially financed by ad valorem tax levies in addition to special assessments levied against the benefiting properties. When a bond issue to be financed partially or completely by ad valorem tax levies is sold, specific annual amounts of such tax levies are stated in the bond resolution and the County Auditor is notified and instructed to levy these taxes over the appropriate years. The future tax levies are subject to cancellation when and if the City has provided alternative sources of financing. The City Council is required to levy any additional taxes found necessary for full payment of principal and interest. The future scheduled tax levies are not shown as assets in the accompanying financial statements. Future scheduled tax levies for all bonds outstanding at December 31, 2016 totaled $14,800,989. CURRENT REFUNDINGS On November 23, 2016, the City issued $1,975,000 of Taxable General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016B with an average interest rate of 1.29%. On February 1, 2017, the net proceeds will be used to redeem the 2018 through 2021 maturities of the Taxable General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A with interest rates of 5.00% - 5.15%. The City refunded the bonds to reduce its total debt service payments over four years by $145,931 and to obtain an economic gain (difference between the present value of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $130,682. On November 23, 2016, the City issued $1,600,000 of General Obligation Tax Abatement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016C with an average interest rate of 1.34%. On February 1, 2017, the net proceeds will be used to redeem the 2018 through 2023 maturities of the General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 2006C with interest rates of 4.25% - 4.30%. The City refunded the bonds to reduce its total debt service payments over six 62 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 years by $133,718 and to obtain an economic gain (difference between the present value of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $124,952. REVENUE PLEDGED Future revenue pledged for the payment of long-term debt is as follows: Remaining Principal Pledged Term of Principal and Interest Revenue Bond Issue Use of Proceeds Type Pledge and Interest Paid Received 2006D Utility Revenue Bonds Water infrastructure improvements 2007 - 2016 $71,453 $69,254 $69,254 2009A Improvement Note Infrastructure improvements Special assessments 2010 - 2020 $1,510,505 $435,165 $128,803 2011 - 2020 $451,175 $114,250 $60,435 2013A Improvement Bonds Infrastructure improvements Special assessments 2014 - 2023 $569,940 $76,815 $37,946 2014A Improvement Bonds Infrastructure improvements Special assessments 2015 - 2025 $2,696,724 $138,543 $863,193 2016A Capital Note Cable communications equipment Franchise fees 2016 - 2025 $288,321 $41,112 $42,932 2016A Utility Revenue Bonds Water infrastructure improvements 2017 - 2026 $1,584,864 $ - $ - 2016B Improvement Bonds Special assessments 2017 - 2020 $2,044,357 $ - $ - Revenue Pledged Current Year Infrastructure improvements - refunded the 2005A Imp Bonds Water usage charges via transfers 2010A Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds General and water infrastructure improvements Special assessments and trunk charges Trunk utility charges via transfers Note 7 CONDUIT DEBT The City has issued Industrial Development Revenue Bonds and Commercial Revenue Notes to provide financial assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities which are deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property financed and are payable solely from payments on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private sector entity served by the bond issue. The City is not obligated in any manner for the repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. As of December 31, 2016, one series of Industrial Revenue Bonds was outstanding with an aggregate remaining principal balance of $180,000, and one series of Commercial Revenue Notes was outstanding with an aggregate remaining principal balance of $1,379,480. 63 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 8 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS – PERA A. PLAN DESCRIPTION The City participates in the following cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1. General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) All full-time (with the exception of employees covered by PEPFF) and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF). GERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. The Basic Plan was closed to new members in 1967. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. 2. Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) The PEPFF, originally established for police officers and firefighters not covered by a local relief association, now covers all police officers and firefighters hired since 1980. Effective July 1, 1999, the PEPFF also covers police officers and firefighters belonging to a local relief association that elected to merge with and transfer assets and administration to PERA. B. BENEFITS PROVIDED PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state statute and can only be modified by the state legislature. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Increases are related to the funding ratio of the plan. Members in plans that are at least 90% funded for two consecutive years are given 2.5% increases. Members in plans that have not exceeded 90% funded, or have fallen below 80%, are given 1% increases. The benefit provisions stated in the following paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. 1. GERF Benefits Benefits are based on a member’s highest salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERA’s Coordinated and Basic Plan members. The retiring member receives the higher of a step- rate benefit accrual formula (Method 1) or a level accrual formula (Method 2). Under Method 1, the annuity accrual rate for a Basic Plan member is 2.2% of average salary for each of the first ten years of service and 2.7% for each remaining year. The annuity accrual rate for a Coordinated Plan member is 1.2% of average salary for each of the first ten years and 1.7% for each remaining year. 64 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Under Method 2, the annuity accrual rate is 2.7% of average salary for Basic Plan members and 1.7% for Coordinated Plan members for each year of service. For members hire prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65. For members hired on or after July 1, 1989, normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at 66. 2. PEPFF Benefits Benefits for the PEPFF members first hired after June 30, 2010, but before July 1, 2014, vest on a prorated basis from 50% after five years up to 100% after ten years of credited service. Benefits for PEPFF members first hired after June 30, 2014, vest on a prorated bases from 50% after ten years up to 100% after twenty years of credited service. The annuity accrual rate is 3% of average salary for each year of service. For PEPFF members who were first hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal at least 90. C. CONTRIBUTIONS Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state legislature. 1. GERF Contributions Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 9.1% and 6.5%, respectively, of their annual covered salary in calendar year 2016. The City was required to contribute 11.78% of pay for Basic Plan members and 7.5% for Coordinated Plan members in calendar year 2016. The City contributions to the GERF for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $193,684. The City contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. 2. PEPFF Contributions Plan members were required to contribute 10.8% of their annual covered salary in calendar year 2016. The City was required to contribute 16.2% of pay for PEPFF members in calendar year 2016. The City contributions to the PEPFF for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $424,970. The City contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. D. PENSION COSTS 1. GERF Pension Costs At December 31, 2016, the City reported a liability of $3,142,248 for its proportionate share of GERF’s net pension liability. The City’s net pension liability reflected a reduction due to the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $6 million to the fund in 2016. The State of Minnesota is considered a non-employer contributing entity and the state’s contribution meets the definition of a special funding situation. The State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $41,033. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2016, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an 65 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. At June 30, 2016, the City’s proportionate share was 0.0387%, which was a decrease of 0.0023% from its proportionate share measured as of June 30, 2015. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the City recognized pension expense of $394,752 for its proportionate share of the GERF’s pension expense. In addition, the City recognized an additional $12,235 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $6 million to the GERF. At December 31, 2016, the City reported its proportionate share of the GERF’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience $ - $255,261 Changes in actuarial assumptions 615,255 - Difference between projected and actual investment earnings 596,412 - Changes in proportion - 137,116 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date 103,199 - Total $1,314,866 $392,377 $103,199 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability during 2017. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Year Ended Pension December 31, Expense 2017 $215,416 2018 215,415 2019 274,957 2020 113,502 2021 - Thereafter - 2. PEPFF Pension Costs At December 31, 2016, the City reported a liability of $10,394,121 for its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2016 and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial 66 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. At June 30, 2016, the City’s proportion was 0.259%, which was an increase of 0.010% from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2015. The City also recognized $23,310 for the year ended December 31, 2016 as revenue (and an offsetting reduction of net pension liability) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s on-behalf contributions to the PEPFF. Legislation passed in 2013 required the State of Minnesota to begin contributing $9 million to the PEPFF each year, starting in fiscal year 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the City recognized pension expense of $1,818,967 for its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s pension expense. At December 31, 2016, the City reported its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience $ - $1,192,403 Changes in actuarial assumptions 5,720,339 - Difference between projected and actual investment earnings 1,586,216 - Changes in proportion 93,543 - Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date 233,671 - Total $7,633,769 $1,192,403 A total of $233,671 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability during 2017. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as outflows: Year Ended Pension December 31, Expense 2017 $1,333,808 2018 1,333,808 2019 1,333,810 2020 1,205,619 2021 1,000,650 Thereafter - The net pension liability will be liquidated by the general, water and sewer funds. 67 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 E. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS The total pension liability in the June 30, 2016 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions: Inflation 2.50% per year Active member payroll growth 3.25% per year Investment rate of return 7.50% Salary increases were based on a service-related table. Mortality rates for active members, retirees, survivors, and disabilitants were based on RP-2014 tables for the GERF and RP-2000 tables for the PEPFF for males or females, as appropriate, with slight adjustments. Cost of living benefit increases for retirees are assumed to be 1% for all future years for the GERF and PEPFF. Actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2016 valuation were based on the results of actuarial experience studies. The most recent four-year experience study in the GERF was completed in 2015. The experience study for PEPFF was for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009. The following changes in actuarial assumptions occurred in 2016: General Employees Retirement Fund The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. Public Employees Police and Fire Fund The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2037 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate was changed from 7.9% to 5.6%. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. 68 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments is 7.5%. The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block method in which best- estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset are summarized in the following table: Target Long-Term Expected Asset Class Allocation Real Rate of Return Domestic stocks 45% 5.50% International stocks 15% 6.00% Bonds 18% 1.45% Alternative assets 20%6.40% Cash 2%0.50% Totals 100% F. DISCOUNT RATE The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.5%, a reduction from the 7.9% used in 2015. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members and employees will be made at the rate set in Minnesota statutes. Based on that assumption, the fiduciary net position of the GERF was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. In the PEPFF, the fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members through June 30, 2056. Beginning in fiscal years ended June 30, 2057 for the PEPFF, when projected benefit payments exceed the funds’ projected fiduciary net position, benefit payments were discounted at the municipal bond rate of 2.85% based on an index of 20-year general obligation bonds with an average AA credit rating at the measurement date. An equivalent single discount rate of 5.60% for the PEPFF was determined that produced approximately the same present value of projected benefits when applied to all years of projected benefits as the present value of projected benefits using 7.50% applied to all years of projected benefits through the point of assent depletion and 2.85% after. 69 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 G. PENSION LIABILITY SENSITIVITY The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate: 1% Decrease in 1% Increase in Discount Rate (6.5%) Discount Rate (7.5%) Discount Rate (8.5%) City's proportionate share of the GERF net pension liability $4,462,923 $3,142,248 $2,054,371 1% Decrease in 1% Increase in Discount Rate (4.6%) Discount Rate (5.6%) Discount Rate (6.6%) City's proportionate share of the PEPFF net pension liability $14,550,389 $10,394,121 $6,998,133 H. PENSION PLAN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in a separately-issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained at www.mnpera.org. I. PENSION EXPENSE Pension expense recognized by the City for the year ended December 31, 2016 is as follows: GERF $406,987 PEPFF 1,818,967 Fire Relief (Note 9)66,668 Total $2,292,622 70 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 9 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN – FIRE DIVISION A. PLAN DESCRIPTION The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department – Fire Division participates in the Statewide Volunteer Firefighter Retirement Plan (SVF), an agent multiple-employer lump-sum defined benefit pension plan administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). The SVF plan covers volunteer firefighters of municipal fire departments or independent nonprofit firefighting corporations that have elected to join the plan. As of December 31, 2016 (measurement date), the plan covered 19 active firefighters and zero vested terminated fire fighters whose pension benefits are deferred. The plan is established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 353G. B. BENEFITS PROVIDED The SVF provides lump-sum retirement, death, and supplemental benefits to covered firefighters and survivors. Benefits are paid based on the number of years of service multiplied by a benefit level per year of service approved by the City of Lino Lakes. The benefit is selected from 71 possible levels of $100 increments ranging from $500 to $7,500 per year of service. Members are eligible for a lump- sum retirement benefit at 50 years of age with five years of service. Plan provisions include a pro-rated vesting schedule that increases from 5 years at 40% through 20 years at 100%. C. CONTRIBUTIONS The SVF is funded by fire state aid, investment earnings and, if necessary, employer contributions as specified in Minnesota statutes, and voluntary City contributions. The State of Minnesota contributed $0 in fire state aid to the plan for the year ended December 31, 2016. The City recognized $66,668 as pension expense for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s on-behalf contributions to the SVF. Required employer contributions are calculated annually based on statutory provisions. The City’s statutorily-required contributions to the SVF plan for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $0. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute, if applicable. In addition, the City made voluntary contributions of $44,394 to the plan. 71 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 D. PENSION COSTS At December 31, 2016, the City reported a net pension liability of $10,713 for the SVF plan. The net pension liability was measured as of December 31, 2016. The total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability in accordance with GASB 68 was determined by PERA applying an actuarial formula to specific census data certified by the fire department as of December 31, 2016. The following table presents the changes in net pension liability during the year. Plan Net Total Fiduciary Pension Pension Net Liability Liability Position (Asset) (a)(b)(a-b) Beginning balance December 31, 2015 $21,057 $ - $21,057 Changes for the year: Service cost 38,419 - 38,419 Interest on pension liability 3,568 - 3,568 Actuarial experience (gains) / losses (7,804) - (7,804) Projected investment earnings - - - Contributions - employer - 44,394 (44,394) Contributions - State of MN - - - Asset (gain) / loss - 133 (133) Benefit payouts - - - PERA administrative fee - - - Net changes 34,183 44,527 (10,344) Balance end of year December 31, 2016 $55,240 $44,527 $10,713 There were no provision changes during the measurement period. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the City recognized pension expense of $66,668. At December 31, 2016, the City reported deferred inflows of resources from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Difference between projected and actual investment earnings $ - $106 Differences between expected and actual economic experience - 11,455 Total $ - $11,561 72 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Year Ended Pension December 31, Expense 2017 ($3,325) 2018 (3,325) 2019 (3,326) 2020 (1,585) 2021 - Thereafter - E. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS The total pension liability at December 31, 2016, was determined using the entry age normal actuarial cost method and the following actuarial assumptions: Retirement eligibility at the later of age 50 or 20 years of service Investment rate of return of 6.0% Inflation rate of 3.0% There were no changes in actuarial assumptions in 2016. F. DISCOUNT RATE The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 6.0%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions to the SVF plan will be made as specified in statute. Based on that assumption and considering the funding ratio of the plan, the fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current active and inactive members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. G. PENSION LIABILITY SENSITIVITY The following presents the City’s net pension liability for the SVF plan, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City’s net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate 1% lower or 1% higher than the current discount rate: 1% Decrease in 1% Increase in Discount Rate (5.0%) Discount Rate (6.0%) Discount Rate (7.0%) Net pension liability $16,471 $10,713 $5,405 73 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 H. PLAN INVESTMENTS 1. Investment Policy The Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI) is established by Article XI of the Minnesota Constitution to invest all state funds. Its membership as specified in the Constitution is comprised of the Governor (who is designated as chair of the Board), State Auditor, Secretary of State and State Attorney General. All investments undertaken by the SBI are governed by the prudent person rule and other standards codified in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 11A and Chapter 356A. Within the requirements defined by state law, the SBI, with assistance of the SBI staff and the Investment Advisory Council, establishes investment policies for all funds under its control. These investment policies are tailored to the particular needs of each fund and specify investment objectives, risk tolerance, asset allocation, investment management structure and specific performance standards. Studies guide the on-going management of the funds and are updated periodically. 2. Asset Allocation To match the long-term nature of the pension obligations, the SBI maintains a strategic asset allocation for the Statewide Volunteer Firefighter Retirement Plan (VOLP) that includes allocations to domestic equity, international equity, bonds and cash equivalents. The long-term target asset allocation and long-term expected real rate of return is the following: Target Long-Term Expected Asset Class Allocation Real Rate of Return Domestic Stocks 35% 5.50% International Stocks 15% 6.00% Bonds 45% 1.45% Cash 5% 0.50% 100% The 6% long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method. Best estimates for expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of inflation) were developed for each asset class using both long-term historical returns and long-term capital market expectations. The asset class estimates and the target allocations were then combined to produce a geometric, long-term expected real rate of return for the portfolio. Inflation expectations were applied to derive the nominal rate of return for the portfolio. 3. Description of significant investment policy changes during the year The SBI made no significant changes to their investment policy during fiscal year 2016 for the Statewide Volunteer Firefighter Retirement Plan. 74 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 I. PENSION PLAN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION Detailed information about the SVF plan’s fiduciary net position as of December 31, 2016 is available in a separately-issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained at www.mnpera.org. Note 10 OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) A. PLAN DESCRIPTION In addition to providing the pension benefits described in Note 8 and 9, the City provides post- employment health care benefits (as defined in paragraph B) for retired employees through a single- employer defined benefit plan. The City’s OPEB plan is administered by the City. The authority to provide these benefits is established in Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.61 Subd. 2a, and 299A.465. The benefits, benefit levels, employee contributions and employer contributions are governed by the City and can be amended by the City through its personnel manual and collective bargaining agreements with employee groups. The Plan is not accounted for as a trust fund, as an irrevocable trust has not been established to account for the plan. The Plan does not issue a separate report. B. BENEFITS PROVIDED The City is required by State Statute to allow retirees to continue participation in the City’s group health insurance plan if the individual terminates service with the City through service retirement or disability retirement. Active employees, who retire from the City when over age 50 and with 20 years of service, may continue coverage with respect to both themselves and their eligible dependent(s) under the City’s health benefits program until age 65. All health care coverage is provided through the City’s group health insurance plans. The retiree is required to pay 100% of their premium cost for the City-sponsored group health insurance plan in which they participate. The premium is a blended rate determined on the entire active and retiree population. Since the projected claims costs for retirees exceed the blended premium paid by retirees, the retirees are receiving an implicit rate subsidy (benefit). The coverage levels are the same as those afforded to active employees. Upon a retiree reaching age 65, Medicare becomes the primary insurer and the City’s plan becomes secondary. C. PARTICIPANTS As of the January 1, 2014 actuarial valuation, participants of the plan consisted of 48 active employees and 6 retirees and beneficiaries purchasing health insurance coverage through the City. The number of employers participating in the plan was one. 75 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 D. FUNDING POLICY The additional cost of using a blended rate for actives and retirees is currently funded on a pay-as-you- go basis. The City Council may change the funding policy at any time. E. ANNUAL OPEB COSTS AND NET OPEB OBLIGATION The City’s annual OPEB cost is calculated based on the annual required contribution (ARC) of the employer, an amount actuarially determined in accordance with the parameters of GASB Statement No. 45. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed 30 years. The net OPEB obligation as of December 31, 2016, was calculated as follows: Annual required contribution (ARC)$31,590 Interest on net OPEB obligation 974 Adjustment to Annual Required Contribution (3,756) Annual OPEB cost (expense)28,808 Contributions made 22,513 Increase in net OPEB obligation 6,295 Net OPEB obligation - beginning of year 90,852 Net OPEB obligation - end of year $97,147 The net OPEB obligation is generally liquidated by the General Fund. The City’s annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan and the net OPEB obligation for the previous three years was as follows: Percentage of Fiscal Year Annual OPEB Employer Annual OPEB Cost Net OPEB Ended Cost Contributions Contributed Obligation December 31, 2014 $26,468 $36,109 136.4% $91,023 December 31, 2015 28,814 28,984 100.6% 90,852 December 31, 2016 28,808 22,513 78.1% 97,147 F. FUNDED STATUS AND FUNDING PROGRESS As of January 1, 2014, the most recent actuarial valuation date, the City’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) was $547,626. The annual payroll for active employees covered by the plan in the actuarial valuation was $5,265,020 for a ratio of UAAL to covered payroll ratio of 10.4%. 76 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 G. ACTUARIAL METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Examples include assumptions about future employment, mortality and the health care cost trend. Amounts determined regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contributions (ARC) of the employer are subject to continual revision as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made about the future. The schedule of funding progress, presented as required supplementary information following the notes to financial statements, presents multi-year trend information that shows whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits. Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as understood by the employer and plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the employer and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are designed to reduce the effect of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the calculations. In the January 1, 2014 actuarial valuation, the projected unit credit actuarial cost method was used. The actuarial assumptions included a 1% investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses), which is a blended rate of the expected long-term investment returns on plan assets and on the employer's own investments calculated based on the funded level of the plan at the valuation date. The initial healthcare trend rate was 8%, decreasing to an ultimate rate of 3% after six years. These rates include a 3% inflation rate. The UAAL is being amortized as a level percentage of projected payrolls on an open basis. The remaining amortization period at December 31, 2016 was 30 years. Note 11 STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY A. DEFECIT FUND BALANCES The City has deficit fund balances at December 31, 2016 as follows: Fund Balance Deficit Nonmajor Governmental Funds: G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds of 2016A ($450) G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2016B (450) G.O. Tax Abatement Bonds of 2016C (450) Tax Increment Financing 1-11 (774,983) 21st Ave Extension (119,634) Fire House #2 Construction (2,324) The City intends to fund these deficits through future tax levies, special assessment levies, tax increments, transfers from other funds, and various other sources. 77 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 B. EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF BUDGET The following is a listing of expenditure categories within the General Fund that exceed budget appropriations: Final Budget Actual Overage General governmant: Elections $28,504 $28,512 $8 Engineering/planning 105,276 117,744 12,468 Government buildings 506,820 528,723 21,903 Public safety: Police 3,521,366 3,584,901 63,535 Conservation of natural resources: Forestry 52,380 54,176 1,796 Solid waste abatement 79,909 81,402 1,493 Community development: Economic development 102,350 102,816 466 Additionally, actual expenditures of the Program Recreation Special Revenue Fund exceeded final budgeted expenditures by $33,062. Note 12 INTERFUND RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an advance from another fund. A summary of such advances as of December 31, 2016 is as follows: Receivable Payable Nonmajor Funds: G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds of 2016A $ - $450 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2016B - 450 G.O. Tax Abatement Bonds of 2016C - 450 Closed Bond Fund 1,350 - $1,350 $1,350 78 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Long-term interfund loans are classified as interfund loan receivable/payable. A summary of such loans as of December 31, 2016 is as follows: Receivable Payable Major Funds: G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2005A $ - $2,876,643 Area and Unit Charge 194,525 - Sewer Fund 559,110 - Nonmajor Funds: G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2014A 199,452 - Closed Bond Fund 773,018 - Building and Facilities 2,317,533 - Dedicated Parks - 194,525 Tax Increment Financing 1-11 - 773,018 21st Avenue Extension - 199,452 $4,043,638 $4,043,638 Note 13 INTERFUND TRANSFERS Individual fund transfers for fiscal year 2016 are as follows: Transfer In Transfer Out Major Funds: General Fund $488,084 $691,439 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2005A 152,784 - G.O. Improvement Note of 2009A 309,000 - Area and Unit Charge 1,001 315,044 Water Fund - 34,627 Sewer Fund - 244,594 Nonmajor governmental funds 2,570,311 2,235,476 Total $3,521,180 $3,521,180 During 2016, transfers were made to provide funding for capital improvement projects and capital outlay in accordance with the City’s capital improvement plan. Transfers were also made to provide resources for debt service payments, to close capital project funds, and to allocate financial resources to funds that received benefit from services provided by another fund. These transfers are routine and consistent with past practices. 79 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 14 FUND BALANCE At December 31, 2016, a summary of the governmental fund balance classifications is as follows: G.O.G.O.Other General Improvement Improvement Area and Governmental Fund Bonds of 2005A Note of 2009A Unit Charge Funds Total Nonspendable: Prepaid items $225,114 $ - $ - $ - $1,220 $226,334 Corpus of permanent fund - - - - 100,000 100,000 Total nonspendable 225,114 - - - 101,220 326,334 Restricted for: Debt service - 226,135 22 - 5,514,718 5,740,875 Economic development - - - - 225,000 225,000 Blue Heron Days - - - - 11,619 11,619 Narcotics and forfeiture funds - - - - 73,049 73,049 Tax increment purposes - - - - 438,026 438,026 Environmental purposes - - - - 13,855 13,855 Total restricted - 226,135 22 - 6,276,267 6,502,424 Committed for: Cable TV purposes - - - - 134,072 134,072 Recreation purposes - - - - 36,878 36,878 Total committed - - - - 170,950 170,950 Assigned for: Capital improvements - - - 6,266,200 9,512,280 15,778,480 Unassigned 6,031,077 - - - (978,496) 5,052,581 Total fund balance $6,256,191 $226,135 $22 $6,266,200 $15,082,221 $27,830,769 Note 15 PROPERTY UNDER LEASE AGREEMENT The City entered into an agreement to lease space within the City Hall Complex, which at year end had a cost of $4,744,742 and a net book value of $1,963,326, to New Creations Child Care and Learning Center, LLC. The lease is dated July 1, 2014 and continues through June 30, 2019. The lease requires escalating annual lease payments of between $5.94 and $8.65 per square foot over the lease term, for a total of $330,904. Approximate future minimum lease payments receivable under the noncancelable operating lease are as follows: Year Ending December 31, Amount 2017 $75,617 2018 77,901 2019 39,522 $193,040 80 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 16 TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS The City is the administrating authority for three tax increment districts. The City’s tax increment districts are subject to review by the State of Minnesota Office of the State Auditor (OSA). Any disallowed claims or misuse of tax increments could become a liability of the applicable fund. Management has indicated that they are not aware of any instances of noncompliance which could have a material effect on the financial statements. The following table reflects values as of December 31, 2016: TIF 1-5 TIF 1-11 Cottage TIF 1-10 Woods Homesteads Panattoni Edge Authorizing law M.S. 469 M.S. 469 M.S. 469 Year established 1994 2004 2005 Final year of district 2022 2023 2031 Net tax capacity: Original $128 $15,869 $7,241 Current (payable 2016)30,079 218,452 116,280 Captured - retained $29,951 $202,583 $109,039 Note 17 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES A. LITIGATION Existing and pending lawsuits, claims and other actions in which the City is a defendant are either covered by insurance, of an immaterial amount, or, in the judgment of the City’s management, remotely recoverable by plaintiffs. B. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS The City receives financial assistance from federal and state governmental agencies in the form of grants. The disbursement of funds received under these programs generally requires compliance with the terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and is subject to audit by the grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims resulting from such audits could become a liability of the applicable fund. However, in the opinion of management, any such disallowed claims will not have a material effect on any of the financial statements of the individual fund types included herein or on the overall financial position of the City at December 31, 2016. 81 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 C. COMMITTED CONTRACTS At December 31, 2016, the City had commitments of $379,727 for uncompleted construction contracts. Note 18 RISK MANAGEMENT The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets, errors and omissions, injuries to employees and natural disasters. Workers compensation coverage is provided through a pooled self-insurance program through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The City pays an annual premium to LMCIT. The City is subject to supplemental assessments if deemed necessary by the LMCIT. The LMCIT reinsures through Workers Compensation Reinsurance Association (WCRA) as required by law. For workers compensation, the City is not subject to a deductible. The City’s workers compensation coverage is retrospectively rated. With this type of coverage, final premiums are determined after loss experience is known. The amount of premium adjustment, if any, is considered immaterial and not recorded until received or paid. Property and casualty insurance is provided through a pooled self-insurance program through the LMCIT. The City pays an annual premium to the LMCIT. The City is subject to supplemental assessments if deemed necessary by the LMCIT. The LMCIT reinsures through commercial companies for claims in excess of various amounts. The City retains risk for the deductible portion of the insurance policies and for any exclusions from the insurance policies. These amounts are considered immaterial to the financial statements. The City continues to carry commercial insurance for all other risks of loss, including disability and employee health insurance. There were no significant reductions in insurance from the previous year or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for any of the past three fiscal years. Note 19 RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS The Governmental Accounting Standards Boards (GASB) recently approved the following statements which were not implemented for these financial statements: Statement No. 73 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statement 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68. The provisions in Statement 73 are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2015 – except those provisions that address employers and governmental nonemployer contributing entities for pensions that are not within the scope of Statement 68, which are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2016. Statement No. 74 Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other Than Pension Plans. The provisions in Statement 74 are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2016. Statement No. 75 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions. The provisions in Statement 75 are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2017. 82 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Statement No. 80 Blending Requirements for Certain Component Units. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2016. Statement No. 81 Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreements. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Statement No. 82 Pension Issues – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 67, No. 68 and No. 73. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2016, except for the requirements of this Statement for the selection of assumptions in a circumstance in which an employer’s pension liability is measured as of a date other than the employer’s most recent fiscal year-end. In that circumstance, the requirements for the selection of assumptions are effective for that employer in the first reporting period in which the measurement date of the pension liability is on or after June 15, 2017. Statement No. 83 Certain Asset Retirement Obligations. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2018. Statement No. 84 Fiduciary Activities. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Statement No. 85 Omnibus 2017. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2017. The effect these standards may have on future financial statements is not determinable at this time, but it is expected that Statement No. 75 will have a material impact. Note 20 SPECIAL ITEM Effective January 27, 2016, the City formally withdrew from the Centennial Fire District, which was a joint venture among the City of Lino Lakes and two other cities. The City created its own fire department which began operations in January 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the joint powers agreement, the City received its proportionate share of the Centennial Fire District’s cash and firefighting equipment. The transaction is recorded as a special item in the amount of $1,111,834 (cash received) in the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance, and as a special item in the amount of $1,333,166 (cash plus value of equipment received) in the Statement of Activities. No other assets or liabilities were transferred. 83 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2016 Note 21 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT During 2016, it was determined that the allocation of the net pension liability and related deferred inflows and outflows of resources between governmental activities and business-type activities was incorrect as of December 31, 2015. As a result, net position as of January 1, 2016 has been restated as follows: Governmental Water Sewer Activities Fund Fund Total Net position - January 1, as previously reported $40,754,159 $20,401,628 $23,398,831 $84,554,618 Prior period adjustment 177,446 (88,703) (88,743) - Net position - January 1, as restated $40,931,605 $20,312,925 $23,310,088 $84,554,618 Business-type Activities 84 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 85 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 1 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Budgeted Amounts 2016 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) Original Final Revenues: General propery taxes: Current and delinquent $7,108,572 $6,026,378 $6,100,460 $74,082 Fiscal disparities - 1,042,194 928,588 (113,606) Excess tax increments - 8,000 8,548 548 Total general property taxes 7,108,572 7,076,572 7,037,596 (38,976) Licenses and permits: Business 103,300 120,300 136,363 16,063 Non-business 388,683 629,020 759,218 130,198 Total licenses and permits 491,983 749,320 895,581 146,261 Intergovernmental: State: Police state aid 190,000 208,500 208,848 348 OTS grant 110,000 110,000 85,385 (24,615) MSA maintenance 261,000 253,500 253,523 23 Other 19,000 19,000 20,950 1,950 County solid waste grant 75,000 75,000 85,741 10,741 Total intergovernmental 655,000 666,000 654,447 (11,553) Special assessments 15,000 10,000 4,618 (5,382) Charges for services: General government 9,850 9,850 18,508 8,658 Engineering and planning fees 15,000 30,000 35,933 5,933 Public safety 211,200 191,200 212,192 20,992 Public services 25,500 25,500 26,057 557 Investment management charge to other funds 50,000 50,000 50,000 - Total charges for services 311,550 306,550 342,690 36,140 Fines and forfeits 150,500 200,500 220,905 20,405 Investment earnings 30,000 30,000 37,887 7,887 Net increase in fair value of investments - - 2,553 2,553 Miscellaneous: Gas franchise fees 50,000 50,000 43,563 (6,437) Building lease revenue 124,805 104,805 97,873 (6,932) Refunds and reimbursements 30,000 30,000 71,985 41,985 Donations 5,000 5,000 300 (4,700) Other 3,000 3,000 7,313 4,313 Total miscellaneous 212,805 192,805 221,034 28,229 Total revenues 8,975,410 9,231,747 9,417,311 185,564 86 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 2 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Budgeted Amounts 2016 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) Original Final Expenditures: General government: Mayor and city council: Current: Personal services 40,638 40,638 39,131 1,507 Other services and charges 16,500 13,800 13,017 783 Contractual services 16,500 17,250 17,139 111 Total mayor and city council 73,638 71,688 69,287 2,401 Elections: Current: Personal services 20,604 20,604 21,738 (1,134) Supplies 800 800 962 (162) Other services and charges 2,200 2,200 502 1,698 Contractual services 300 300 727 (427) Capital Outlay 4,600 4,600 4,583 17 Total elections 28,504 28,504 28,512 (8) Administration: Current: Personal services 484,235 460,912 432,492 28,420 Other services and charges 26,360 17,860 11,961 5,899 Contractual services 8,000 23,000 21,057 1,943 Total administration 518,595 501,772 465,510 36,262 Finance: Current: Personal services 273,590 273,590 289,955 (16,365) Supplies 900 900 856 44 Other services and charges 146,720 146,720 115,721 30,999 Contractual services 100,900 100,900 100,570 330 Total finance 522,110 522,110 507,102 15,008 Cable TV: Current: Personal services 2,340 2,340 2,364 (24) Capital outlay 500 500 - 500 Total cable TV 2,840 2,840 2,364 476 Legal consultants: Current: Contractual services 140,000 140,000 121,608 18,392 87 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 3 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Budgeted Amounts 2016 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) Original Final Expenditures: (continued) General government: (continued) Engineering/planning: Current: Contractual services 105,276 105,276 117,744 (12,468) Charter commission: Current: Other services and charges 2,500 1,500 1,076 424 Government buildings: Current: Personal services 2,167 2,167 2,374 (207) Supplies 46,400 66,400 72,739 (6,339) Other services and charges 359,253 369,253 382,051 (12,798) Contractual services 79,000 69,000 71,559 (2,559) Total government buildings 486,820 506,820 528,723 (21,903) Total general government 1,880,283 1,880,510 1,841,926 38,584 Public safety: Police: Current: Personal services 3,356,407 3,321,066 3,387,001 (65,935) Supplies 32,100 32,100 28,810 3,290 Other services and charges 95,400 95,400 95,417 (17) Contractual services 43,600 43,600 47,459 (3,859) Capital outlay 29,200 29,200 26,214 2,986 Total police 3,556,707 3,521,366 3,584,901 (63,535) Fire protection: Current: Personal services 513,086 494,160 456,706 37,454 Supplies 12,750 12,750 9,277 3,473 Other services and charges 38,500 33,500 26,188 7,312 Contractual services 20,980 59,380 57,795 1,585 Capital outlay 27,000 27,000 20,185 6,815 Total fire protection 612,316 626,790 570,151 56,639 Building inspection: Current: Personal services 227,454 202,018 199,092 2,926 Supplies 1,650 1,650 1,360 290 Other services and charges 8,060 8,060 6,337 1,723 Contractual services 1,000 3,500 2,888 612 Total building inspection 238,164 215,228 209,677 5,551 Total public safety 4,407,187 4,363,384 4,364,729 (1,345) 88 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 4 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Budgeted Amounts 2016 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) Original Final Expenditures: (continued) Public services: Streets: Current: Personal services 540,201 538,201 534,749 3,452 Supplies 159,000 152,000 173,457 (21,457) Other services and charges 109,600 107,600 110,550 (2,950) Contractual services 198,000 77,275 55,860 21,415 Total streets 1,006,801 875,076 874,616 460 Fleet: Current: Personal services 113,983 113,983 114,930 (947) Supplies 234,000 203,000 156,889 46,111 Other services and charges 66,880 53,380 44,903 8,477 Contractual services 32,000 77,000 97,413 (20,413) Capital outlay - - 259 (259) Total fleet 446,863 447,363 414,394 32,969 Parks: Current: Personal services 464,769 464,769 468,933 (4,164) Supplies 26,500 26,500 31,126 (4,626) Other services and charges 40,650 35,650 54,418 (18,768) Contractual services 55,700 55,700 27,917 27,783 Total parks 587,619 582,619 582,394 225 Recreation: Current: Personal services 212,327 212,327 204,022 8,305 Supplies 2,500 2,500 656 1,844 Other services and charges 14,750 13,950 18,070 (4,120) Contractual services 400 400 860 (460) Total recreation 229,977 229,177 223,608 5,569 Total public services 2,271,260 2,134,235 2,095,012 39,223 89 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 5 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Budgeted Amounts 2016 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) Original Final Expenditures: (continued) Conservation of natural resources: Forestry: Current: Personal services 36,250 36,250 36,032 218 Supplies 750 750 750 - Other services and charges 380 380 380 - Contractual services 10,000 10,000 11,986 (1,986) Capital outlay 5,000 5,000 5,028 (28) Total forestry 52,380 52,380 54,176 (1,796) Environmental: Current: Personal services 53,662 43,662 40,406 3,256 Supplies 1,000 1,000 130 870 Other services and charges 7,050 7,050 6,066 984 Contractual services 1,200 1,200 33 1,167 Total environmental 62,912 52,912 46,635 6,277 Solid waste abatement: Current: Personal services 53,909 53,909 49,408 4,501 Supplies - - 153 (153) Other services and charges 11,500 11,500 13,025 (1,525) Contractual services 6,000 6,000 18,816 (12,816) Capital outlay 8,500 8,500 - 8,500 Total solid waste abatement 79,909 79,909 81,402 (1,493) Total conservation of natural resources 195,201 185,201 182,213 2,988 Community development: Community development: Current: Personal services 200,548 200,548 194,773 5,775 Supplies 100 100 29 71 Other services and charges 8,150 8,150 8,707 (557) Contractual services 1,400 1,400 875 525 Total community development 210,198 210,198 204,384 5,814 Economic development: Current: Personal services 21,637 15,850 16,194 (344) Other services and charges 79,100 86,100 86,222 (122) Contractual services 400 400 400 - Total economic development 101,137 102,350 102,816 (466) 90 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 6 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Budgeted Amounts 2016 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) Original Final Expenditures: (continued) Planning and zoning commission: Current: Personal services 91,628 91,628 95,438 (3,810) Supplies 200 200 - 200 Other services and charges 14,150 14,150 12,353 1,797 Contractual services 40,250 37,750 5,307 32,443 Total planning and zoning commission 146,228 143,728 113,098 30,630 Total community development 457,563 456,276 420,298 35,978 Other: Contingency 125,500 - - - Total expenditures 9,336,994 9,019,606 8,904,178 115,428 Revenues over (under) expenditures (361,584) 212,141 513,133 300,992 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 478,084 478,084 488,084 10,000 Transfers out (539,500) (690,225) (691,439) (1,214) Total other financing sources (uses) (61,416) (212,141) (203,355) 8,786 Net change in fund balance ($423,000) $0 309,778 $309,778 Fund balance - January 1 5,946,413 Fund balance - December 31 $6,256,191 91 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 12 SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS - RETIREE HEALTH PLAN For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Unfunded Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial UAAL as a Actuarial Value of Accrued Accrued Funded Covered Percentage of Valuation Assets Liability (AAL) Liability (UAAL) Ratio Payroll Covered Payroll Date (a)(b)(b-a)(a/b)(c) ( (b-a) / c) January 1, 2008 $0 $329,191 $329,191 0.0% $4,859,980 6.8% January 1, 2011 $0 $474,770 $474,770 0.0% $4,888,702 9.7% January 1, 2014 $0 $547,626 $547,626 0.0% $5,265,020 10.4% 92 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 13 SCHEDULE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF NET PENSION LIABILITY - GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 City's City's Proportionate Proportionate Plan State's Share of the Share of the Fiduciary Proportionate Net Pension Net Net Share Liability Pension Position City's City's (Amount) and the State's Liability as a Proportionate Proportionate of the Net Proportionate as a Percentage Share Share (Amount) Pension Share of the Net Percentage of the (Percentage) of of the Net Liability Pension Liability of its Total Measurement Fiscal Year the Net Pension Pension Associated Associated with Covered Covered Pension Date Ending Liability Liability (a) with City (b) City (a+b) Payroll (c) Payroll ((a+b)/c) Liability June 30, 2015 December 31, 2015 0.0410% $2,124,883 $ - $2,124,883 $2,407,426 88.3% 78.2% June 30, 2016 December 31, 2016 0.0387% 3,142,248 41,033 3,183,281 2,401,546 132.6% 68.9% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 93 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 14 SCHEDULE OF PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS - GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Statutorily Contributions in Contribution Contributions as a Required Relation to the Deficiency Covered Percentage of Fiscal Year Contribution Statutorily Required (Excess)Payroll Covered Ending (a)Contribution (b)(a-b)(c)Payroll (b/c) December 31, 2015 $182,102 $182,102 $ - $2,428,027 7.5% December 31, 2016 193,684 193,684 - 2,582,452 7.5% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 94 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 15 SCHEDULE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF NET PENSION LIABILITY - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLICE AND FIRE FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Proportionate Share Proportionate of the Net Pension Plan Fiduciary Proportion Share (Amount) Liability as a Net Position as (Percentage) of of the Net Percentage of its a Percentage Measurement Fiscal Year the Net Pension Pension Covered Covered of the Total Date Ending Liability Liability (a) Payroll (b) Payroll (a/b) Pension Liability June 30, 2015 December 31, 2015 0.2490%$2,829,223 $2,284,973 123.8%86.6% June 30, 2016 December 31, 2016 0.2590%10,394,121 2,495,778 416.5%63.9% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 95 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 16 SCHEDULE OF PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLICE AND FIRE FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Statutorily Contributions in Contribution Contributions as a Required Relation to the Deficiency Covered Percentage of Fiscal Year Contribution Statutorily Required (Excess)Payroll Covered Ending (a)Contribution (b)(a-b)(c)Payroll (b/c) December 31, 2015 $393,551 $393,551 $ - $2,429,327 16.2% December 31, 2016 424,970 424,970 - 2,623,271 16.2% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. 96 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 17 SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE NET PENSION LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS - LINO LAKES PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT - FIRE DIVISION For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Fiscal year ending and measurement date December 31, 2016 Total pension liability: Service cost $38,419 Interest on pension liability 3,568 Changes of benefit terms - Differences between expected and actual experience (7,804) Changes of assumptions - Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions - Net change in total pension liability 34,183 Total pension liability - beginning 21,057 Total pension liability - ending (a)$55,240 Plan fiduciary net position: Contributions - employer $44,394 Contributions - State of Minnesota - Net investment income 133 Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions - Administrative expense - Other - Net change in plan fiduciary net position 44,527 Plan fiduciary net position - beginning - Plan fiduciary net position - ending (b)$44,527 Net pension liability/(asset) - ending (a) - (b)$10,713 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 80.61% Covered payroll N/A Net pension liability as a percentage of covered employee payroll N/A N/A - the Lino Lakes Fire Department is comprised of paid on-call firefighters, whose pay does not meet the definition of covered payroll. The City created its own fire department in 2016. Therefore, information prior to 2016 is not available. 97 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 18 SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS - LINO LAKES PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT - FIRE DIVISION For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Statutorily Contributions in Contribution Contributions as a Required Relation to the Deficiency Covered Percentage of Fiscal Year Contribution Statutorily Required (Excess)Payroll Covered-Employee Ending (a) Contribution (b)(a-b)(c)Payroll (b/c) December 31, 2016 $ - $44,394 ($44,394) N/A N/A N/A - the Lino Lakes Fire Department is comprised of paid on-call firefighters, whose pay does not meet the defintion of covered payroll. The City created its own fire department in 2016. Therefore, information prior to 2016 is not available. 98 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2016 Note A LEGAL COMPLIANCE – BUDGETS The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the department level for the General Fund. Note B PENSION INFORMATION PERA – General Employees Retirement Fund 2016 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. PERA – Public Employees Police and Fire Fund 2016 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2037 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate changed from 7.9% to 5.6%. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. Single Employer – Fire Division There are no factors that affect trends in the amounts reported, such as change of benefit terms or assumptions. With only one year reported in the RSI, there is no additional information to include in the notes. 99 - This page intentionally left blank - 100 COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL NONMAJOR FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES 101 - This page intentionally left blank - 102 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 103 - This page intentionally left blank - 104 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and payment of, interest, principal and related costs on general long-term debt. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Capital Project Funds account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by Proprietary Funds). PERMANENT FUNDS Permanent Funds account for financial resources that are legally restricted to the extent that only earnings, and not the principal, may be used for purposes that support the City’s programs. The City maintains one permanent fund – the Foxborough Environment Fund. This fund accounts for the use of funds received for environmental maintenance and improvements in the Foxborough area. 105 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 19 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2016 Permanent Fund Total Foxborough Nonmajor Special Debt Capital Environment Governmental Revenue Service Project Fund Funds Assets Cash and investments $266,615 $5,289,529 $7,734,960 $138,305 $13,429,409 Accounts receivable - net - - 11,277 - 11,277 Prepaid items 1,220 - - - 1,220 Advances to other funds - - 1,350 - 1,350 Taxes receivable: Due from county - 27,736 3 - 27,739 Delinquent - 15,008 93 - 15,101 Special assessments receivable: Due from county - - 1,635 - 1,635 Delinquent - 9,582 749 - 10,331 Deferred - 1,173,065 409,663 - 1,582,728 Interfund loan receivable - 199,452 3,090,551 - 3,290,003 Long-term notes receivable 225,000 - - - 225,000 Total assets $492,835 $6,714,372 $11,250,281 $138,305 $18,595,793 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $10,870 $2,000 $58,932 $24,450 $96,252 Salaries payable 332 - - - 332 Contracts payable - - 640,483 - 640,483 Advances from other funds - 1,350 - - 1,350 Interfund loan payable - - 1,166,995 1,166,995 Total liabilities 11,202 3,350 1,866,410 24,450 1,905,412 Deferred inflows of resources: Unavailable revenue - 1,197,654 410,506 - 1,608,160 Fund balance: Nonspendable 1,220 - - 100,000 101,220 Restricted 309,668 5,514,718 438,026 13,855 6,276,267 Committed 170,950 - - - 170,950 Assigned - - 9,512,280 - 9,512,280 Unassigned (205) (1,350) (976,941) - (978,496) Total fund balance 481,633 5,513,368 8,973,365 113,855 15,082,221 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balance $492,835 $6,714,372 $11,250,281 $138,305 $18,595,793 106 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 20 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Permanent Fund Total Foxborough Nonmajor Special Debt Capital Environment Governmental Revenue Service Project Fund Funds Revenues: General property taxes $ - $2,037,598 $67 $ - $2,037,665 Tax increment - - 293,829 - 293,829 Intergovernmental - - 52,497 - 52,497 Special assessments - 1,004,689 407,118 - 1,411,807 Charges for services 166,752 - 531,534 - 698,286 Fines and forfeits 30,748 - - - 30,748 Investment earnings 2,211 16,772 67,307 1,063 87,353 Net increase in fair value of investments 161 983 4,818 - 5,962 Miscellaneous 20,205 42,932 119,826 13,451 196,414 Total revenues 220,077 3,102,974 1,476,996 14,514 4,814,561 Expenditures: Current: General government - - 8,324 - 8,324 Public safety 14,750 - - - 14,750 Public services 172,631 - 913,728 - 1,086,359 Conservation of natural resources - - - 24,450 24,450 Community development 998 - 4,106 - 5,104 Capital outlay: General government - - 140,081 - 140,081 Public safety 20,315 - 501,603 - 521,918 Public services - - 2,326,347 - 2,326,347 Debt service: Principal - 1,994,525 - - 1,994,525 Interest and fiscal charges - 606,759 8,578 - 615,337 Bond issuance costs - 35,504 28,774 - 64,278 Total expenditures 208,694 2,636,788 3,931,541 24,450 6,801,473 Revenues over (under) expenditures 11,383 466,186 (2,454,545) (9,936) (1,986,912) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 1,213 1,155,960 1,413,138 - 2,570,311 Transfers out (10,000) - (2,225,476) - (2,235,476) Proceeds from issuance of debt - 1,600,000 1,889,000 - 3,489,000 Premium on bonds issued - - 41,497 - 41,497 Proceeds from sale of capital asset - - 72,182 - 72,182 Total other financing sources (uses) (8,787) 2,755,960 1,190,341 0 3,937,514 Special item - withdrawal from fire district - - 1,111,834 - 1,111,834 Net change in fund balance 2,596 3,222,146 (152,370) (9,936) 3,062,436 Fund balance - January 1 479,037 2,291,222 9,125,735 123,791 12,019,785 Fund balance - December 31 $481,633 $5,513,368 $8,973,365 $113,855 $15,082,221 107 - This page intentionally left blank - 108 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for particular purposes. The City maintained the following nonmajor Special Revenue Funds during the year. Program Recreation – established to account for various self-supporting recreational programs. Economic Development Authority – established to account for the receipt and uses of funds for economic development purposes. Cable TV Fund – established to account for activities relating to Cable TV. Blue Heron Days – established to account for the activities associated with the Blue Heron Days festival. Federal Narcotics – established to account for activities associated with the receipt and use of federal narcotics forfeitures. State Narcotics – established to account for activities associated with the receipt and use of state narcotics forfeitures DUI Forfeitures – established to account activities associated with the receipt and use of DUI forfeitures. 109 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 21 NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS December 31, 2016 Total 203 Nonmajor 201 Economic Special Program Development 204 Cable 205 Blue 206 Federal 207 State 208 DUI Revenue Recreation Authority TV Fund Heron Days Narcotics Narcotics Forfeitures Funds Assets Cash and investments $47,569 $ - $134,072 $11,619 $29,911 $13,317 $30,127 $266,615 Prepaid items 1,220 - - - - - - 1,220 Long-term notes receivable - 225,000 - - - - - 225,000 Total assets $48,789 $225,000 $134,072 $11,619 $29,911 $13,317 $30,127 $492,835 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $10,564 $ - $ - $ - $ - $85 $221 $10,870 Salaries payable 127 205 - - - - - 332 Total liabilities 10,691 2050008522111,202 Fund balance: Nonspendable 1,220 - - - - - - 1,220 Restricted - 225,000 - 11,619 29,911 13,232 29,906 309,668 Committed 36,878 - 134,072 - - - - 170,950 Unassigned - (205) - - - - - (205) Total fund balance 38,098 224,795 134,072 11,619 29,911 13,232 29,906 481,633 Total liabilities and fund balance $48,789 $225,000 $134,072 $11,619 $29,911 $13,317 $30,127 $492,835 110 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 22 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Total 203 Nonmajor 201 Economic Special Program Development 204 Cable 205 Blue 206 Federal 207 State 208 DUI Revenue Recreation Authority TV Fund Heron Days Narcotics Narcotics Forfeitures Funds Revenues: Charges for services $113,945 $ - $52,807 $ - $ - $ - $ - $166,752 Fines and forfeits - - - - - 13,603 17,145 30,748 Investment earnings 638 - 960 80 242 102 189 2,211 Net increase in fair value of investments 48 - 68 6 19 7 13 161 Miscellaneous - - - 20,205 - - - 20,205 Total revenues 114,631 0 53,835 20,291 261 13,712 17,347 220,077 Expenditures: Current: Public safety - - - - - 10,290 4,460 14,750 Public services 150,712 - - 21,919 - - - 172,631 Community development - 998 - - - - - 998 Capital outlay: Public safety - - - - 20,315 - - 20,315 Total expenditures 150,712 998 0 21,919 20,315 10,290 4,460 208,694 Revenues over (under) expenditures (36,081) (998) 53,835 (1,628) (20,054) 3,422 12,887 11,383 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in - 1,213 - - - - - 1,213 Transfers out (10,000) - - - - - - (10,000) Total other financing sources (uses) (10,000) 1,213 - - - - - (8,787) Net change in fund balance (46,081)215 53,835 (1,628) (20,054) 3,422 12,887 2,596 Fund balance - January 1 84,179 224,580 80,237 13,247 49,965 9,810 17,019 479,037 Fund balance - December 31 $38,098 $224,795 $134,072 $11,619 $29,911 $13,232 $29,906 $481,633 111 - This page intentionally left blank - 112 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, interest, principal and related costs on general long-term debt. The City’s Debt Service Funds account for four types of bonded indebtedness: General Debt Bonds – are repaid primarily from property taxes. Improvement Bonds and Notes – are repaid primarily from special assessments. Public Facility Lease Revenue Bonds – are repaid primarily from lease revenues received from the EDA leasing the buildings to the City of Lino Lakes and other tenants. Revenue Bonds – these bonds were issued to finance various improvements and will be repaid primarily from pledged revenues derived from the constructed assets. Capital Note – this note was issued to finance cable communications equipment and will be repaid from revenues derived from franchise fees. 113 - This page intentionally left blank - 114 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 23 NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Page 1 of 2 December 31, 2016 330 G.O. 328 G.O. 329 G.O. Utility 315 Improvement Tax Abatement Revenue Certificates Bonds Bonds Bonds of Indebtedness of 2005B of 2006C of 2006D Assets Cash and investments $149,501 $31,083 $1,853,505 $188,082 Taxes receivable: Due from county 7,261 19 3,802 - Delinquent 3,513 621 2,718 - Special assessments receivable: Delinquent - - - 9,582 Deferred - 11,945 - 32,066 Interfund loan receivable - - - - Total assets $160,275 $43,668 $1,860,025 $229,730 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $ - $ - $200 $200 Advances from other funds - - - - Total liabilities - - 200 200 Deferred inflows of resources: Unavailable revenue 3,513 12,566 2,718 41,648 Fund balance: Restricted 156,762 31,102 1,857,107 187,882 Unassigned - - - - Total fund balance 156,762 31,102 1,857,107 187,882 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balance $160,275 $43,668 $1,860,025 $229,730 115 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS December 31, 2016 334 G.O. 331 G.O. 332 G.O. Improvement 336 G.O. 337 G.O. CIP TIF and Utility 335 G.O. Improvement Improvement Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds of 2006E of 2007A of 2010A of 2012A of 2013A of 2014A Assets Cash and investments $929,085 $149,896 $66,502 $356,691 $298,558 $786,514 Taxes receivable: Due from county 6,296 - - 2,434 - - Delinquent 4,713 - - 1,427 - - Special assessments receivable: Delinquent - - - - - - Deferred - - 649 36,744 491,147 600,514 Interfund loan receivable - - - - - 199,452 Total assets $940,094 $149,896 $67,151 $397,296 $789,705 $1,586,480 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Advances from other funds - - - - - - Total liabilities 200 200 200 200 200 200 Deferred inflows of resources: Unavailable revenue 4,713 - 649 38,170 491,147 600,514 Fund balance: Restricted 935,181 149,696 66,302 358,926 298,358 985,766 Unassigned - - - - - - Total fund balance 935,181 149,696 66,302 358,926 298,358 985,766 Total liabilities, deferred inflows, and fund balance $940,094 $149,896 $67,151 $397,296 $789,705 $1,586,480 116 Statement 23 Page 2 of 2 339 EDA 341 G.O. 343 G.O. Total Lease 340 G.O. Utility 342 G.O. Tax Nonmajor 338 G.O. Revenue Capital Revenue Improvement Abatement Debt Bonds Bonds Note Bonds Bonds Bonds Service of 2015A of 2015B of 2016A of 2016A of 2016B of 2016C Funds $236,794 $243,205 $113 $ - $ - $ - $5,289,529 3,666 4,258 - - - - 27,736 933 1,083 - - - - 15,008 - - - - - - 9,582 - - - - - - 1,173,065 - - - - - - 199,452 $241,393 $248,546 $113 $0 $0 $0 $6,714,372 $200 $200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $2,000 - - - 450 450 450 1,350 200 200 - 450 450 450 3,350 933 1,083 - - - - 1,197,654 240,260 247,263 113 - - - 5,514,718 - - - (450)(450)(450) (1,350) 240,260 247,263 113 (450)(450)(450) 5,513,368 $241,393 $248,546 $113 $0 $0 $0 $6,714,372 117 - This page intentionally left blank - 118 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 24 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Page 1 of 2 NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 330 G.O. 328 G.O.329 G.O.Utility 315 Improvement Tax Abatement Revenue Certificates Bonds Bonds Bonds of Indebtedness of 2005B of 2006C of 2006D Revenues: General property taxes $534,062 $451 $278,320 $ - Special assessments 121 11,829 150 7,821 Investment earnings 2,130 176 3,692 913 Net increase in fair value of investments 129 11 197 62 Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 536,442 12,467 282,359 8,796 Expenditures: Debt service: Principal 474,000 - 170,000 65,000 Interest and fiscal charges 35,486 - 79,030 4,904 Bond issuance costs - - 35,504 - Total expenditures 509,486 0 284,534 69,904 Revenues over (under) expenditures 26,956 12,467 (2,175)(61,108) Other financing sources: Transfers in - - - 69,254 Proceeds from issuance of debt - - 1,600,000 - Total other financing sources - - 1,600,000 69,254 Net change in fund balance 26,956 12,467 1,597,825 8,146 Fund balance - January 1 129,806 18,635 259,282 179,736 Fund balance - December 31 $156,762 $31,102 $1,857,107 $187,882 119 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 334 G.O. 331 G.O. 332 G.O. Improvement 336 G.O. 337 G.O. CIP TIF and Utility 335 G.O. Improvement Improvement Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds of 2006E of 2007A of 2010A of 2012A of 2013A of 2014A Revenues: General property taxes $460,564 $ - $ - $178,632 $ - $ - Special assessments 267 - 60,435 22,927 37,946 863,193 Investment earnings 4,974 - 312 750 - 2,260 Net increase in fair value of investments 323 - 17 39 - 118 Miscellaneous - - - - - - Total revenues 466,128 - 60,764 202,348 37,946 865,571 Expenditures: Debt service: Principal 380,000 380,000 100,000 230,000 60,000 105,000 Interest and fiscal charges 41,450 90,176 14,900 18,266 17,440 34,193 Bond issuance costs - - - - - - Total expenditures 421,450 470,176 114,900 248,266 77,440 139,193 Revenues over (under) expenditures 44,678 (470,176) (54,136) (45,918) (39,494) 726,378 Other financing sources: Transfers in - 470,176 - 146,637 338,052 131,841 Proceeds from issuance of debt - - - - - - Total other financing sources - 470,176 - 146,637 338,052 131,841 Net change in fund balance 44,678 0 (54,136) 100,719 298,558 858,219 Fund balance - January 1 890,503 149,696 120,438 258,207 (200) 127,547 Fund balance - December 31 $935,181 $149,696 $66,302 $358,926 $298,358 $985,766 120 Statement 24 Page 2 of 2 339 EDA 341 G.O. 343 G.O. Total Lease 340 G.O. Utility 342 G.O. Tax Nonmajor 338 G.O. Revenue Capital Revenue Improvement Abatement Debt Bonds Bonds Note Bonds Bonds Bonds Service of 2015A of 2015B of 2016A of 2016A of 2016B of 2016C Funds $270,887 $314,682 $ - $ - $ - $ - $2,037,598 - - - - - - 1,004,689 673 784 108 - - - 16,772 35 47 5 - - - 983 - - 42,932 - - - 42,932 271,595 315,513 43,045 - - - 3,102,974 - - 30,525 - - - 1,994,525 81,740 175,417 12,407 450 450 450 606,759 - - - - - - 35,504 81,740 175,417 42,932 450 450 450 2,636,788 189,855 140,096 113 (450)(450)(450) 466,186 - - - - - - 1,155,960 - - - - - - 1,600,000 - - - - - - 2,755,960 189,855 140,096 113 (450)(450)(450) 3,222,146 50,405 107,167 - - - - 2,291,222 $240,260 $247,263 $113 ($450)($450)($450) $5,513,368 121 - This page intentionally left blank - 122 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Capital Project Funds account for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities other than those financed by Proprietary Funds. The City maintained the following nonmajor Capital Project Funds during the year: Closed Bond Fund – to account for excess funds from matured bond issues. Building and Facilities – to account for the activities associated with the maintenance and replacement of municipal buildings and facilities. Capital Equipment Revolving – to account for proceeds from Equipment Certificates and funds held to purchase capital equipment. Office Equipment Revolving – to account for the receipt and use of funds for office equipment purchases. Dedicated Parks – to account for the receipts and use of monies collected from park dedication fees. Tax Increment Financing Funds – to account for development projects financed with tax increments. Municipal State Aid (MSA) Construction – to account for the financing of future reconstruction of state aid eligible streets. Sealcoating – to account for money received from levies, assessments, and developer charges for future street sealcoating and overlay projects. Surface Water Management – to account for the financing of surface water management and storm water improvements. Street Reconstruction – to account for the financing of future reconstruction of City streets. Surface Water Maintenance – to account for surface water maintenance activities. I-35E Interchange – to account for activity related to the I-35E / CSAH 14 Interchange Reconstruction Project. Traffic Signal Fund – the Legacy traffic signal charge fund accounts for costs associated with construction of traffic signals in the City. Otter Lake Road Extension – this fund accounts for activities relating to the construction performed in the extension of the Otter Lake Road. 123 - This page intentionally left blank - 124 21st Ave Extension – this fund accounts for activities relating to the construction performed in the expansion of 21st Avenue within the City. Fire House #2 Construction – this fund accounts for activities relating to the construction of Fire House #2. Well #6 Construction – this fund accounts for activities relating to the construction of Well # 6 and well house. Northpointe Improvements – this fund accounts for activities relating to the construction of streets and utilities within the Northpointe development. Birch Street / Centerville Road Improvements – this fund accounts for activities relating to the construction of street improvements and sanitary sewer in conjunction with Fire House #2. 2015 Street Reconstruction – this fund accounts for the construction and improvements to Shenandoah Street. Blackduck / Aqua Lane Watermain Extension – this fund accounts for activities relating to the trunk watermain improvements along Aqua Lane to north of Blackduck Drive. 125 - This page intentionally left blank - 126 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 25 NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Page 1 of 2 December 31, 2016 402 Capital 403 Office 405 301 Closed 401 Building Equipment Equipment Dedicated Bond Fund and Facilities Revolving Revolving Parks Assets Cash and investments $110,622 $223,387 $1,091,703 $34,248 $446,561 Accounts receivable - net - - 5,577 - - Advances to other funds 1,350 - - - - Taxes receivable: Due from county 3 - - - - Delinquent 93 - - - - Special assessments receivable: Due from county - - - - - Delinquent - - - - - Deferred 26,704 - - - - Interfund loan receivable 773,018 2,317,533 - - - Total assets $911,790 $2,540,920 $1,097,280 $34,248 $446,561 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $5,380 $2,500 $ - $ - $ - Contracts payable - - - - - Interfund loan payable - - - - 194,525 Total liabilities 5,380 2,500 0 0 194,525 Deferred inflows of resources: Unavailable revenue 26,797 - - - - Fund balance: Restricted - - - - - Assigned 879,613 2,538,420 1,097,280 34,248 252,036 Unassigned - - - - - Total fund balance 879,613 2,538,420 1,097,280 34,248 252,036 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balance $911,790 $2,540,920 $1,097,280 $34,248 $446,561 127 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS December 31, 2016 411 Tax 417 Tax 418 Tax 422 Surface Increment Increment Increment 420 MSA 421 Water 423 Street Financing 1-5 Financing 1-10 Financing 1-11 Construction Sealcoating Management Reconstruction Assets Cash and investments $249,412 $189,697 $ - $2,012,170 $211,648 $747,048 $686,670 Accounts receivable - net - - - - 5,700 - - Advances to other funds - - - - - - - Taxes receivable: Due from county - - - - - - - Delinquent - - - - - - - Special assessments receivable: Due from county - - - - - 1,635 - Delinquent - - - - - 749 - Deferred - - - - - 290,498 92,461 Interfund loan receivable - - - - - - - Total assets $249,412 $189,697 $0 $2,012,170 $217,348 $1,039,930 $779,131 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $514 $569 $1,965 $ - $8,087 $13,261 $ - Contracts payable - - - - 26,083 - - Interfund loan payable - - 773,018 - - - - Total liabilities 514 569 774,983 0 34,170 13,261 0 Deferred inflows of resources: Unavailable revenue - - - - - 291,248 92,461 Fund balance: Restricted 248,898 189,128 - - - - - Assigned - - - 2,012,170 183,178 735,421 686,670 Unassigned - - (774,983) - - - - Total fund balance 248,898 189,128 (774,983) 2,012,170 183,178 735,421 686,670 Total liabilities, deferred inflows, and fund balance $249,412 $189,697 $0 $2,012,170 $217,348 $1,039,930 $779,131 128 Statement 25 Page 2 of 2 Total 483 Blackduck/ Nonmajor 424 Surface 477 478 Fire 479 480 481 Birch St/ 480 2015 Aqua Lane Capital Water 21st Ave House # 2 Well #6 Northpointe Centerville Rd Street Watermain Project Maintenance Extension Construction Construction Improvements Improvements Reconstruction Extension Funds $85,034 $ - $96,188 $63,796 $386,274 $134,721 $195,703 $770,078 $7,734,960 - - - - - - - - 11,277 - - - - - - - - 1,350 - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - 93 - - - - - - - - 1,635 - - - - - - - - 749 - - - - - - - - 409,663 - - - - - - - - 3,090,551 $85,034 $0 $96,188 $63,796 $386,274 $134,721 $195,703 $770,078 $11,250,281 $2,247 $182 $1,065 $3,236 $ - $1,293 $478 $18,155 $58,932 1,515 - 97,447 37,678 63,985 - - 413,775 640,483 - 199,452 - - - - - - 1,166,995 3,762 199,634 98,512 40,914 63,985 1,293 478 431,930 1,866,410 - - - - - - - - 410,506 - - - - - - - - 438,026 81,272 - - 22,882 322,289 133,428 195,225 338,148 9,512,280 - (199,634) (2,324) - - - - - (976,941) 81,272 (199,634) (2,324) 22,882 322,289 133,428 195,225 338,148 8,973,365 $85,034 $0 $96,188 $63,796 $386,274 $134,721 $195,703 $770,078 $11,250,281 129 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 402 Capital 403 Office 405 301 Closed 401 Building Equipment Equipment Dedicated Bond Fund and Facilities Revolving Revolving Parks Revenues: General property taxes $67 $ - $ - $ - $ - Tax increment - - - - - Intergovernmental - - 10,295 - - Special assessments 16,584 - - - - Charges for services - 177,680 - - 277,574 Investment earnings 6,542 1,868 8,358 569 2,573 Net increase in fair value of investments 463 138 582 51 164 Miscellaneous - - - 935 832 Total revenues 23,656 179,686 19,235 1,555 281,143 Expenditures: Current: General government 7,221 1,103 - - - Public services - - - - - Community development - - - - - Capital outlay: General government - 67,650 - 72,431 - Public safety - 126,228 338,745 - - Public services - - 279,414 2,524 97 Debt service: Interest and fiscal charges - - - - 8,578 Bond issuance costs - - - - - Total expenditures 7,221 194,981 618,159 74,955 8,675 Revenues over (under) expenditures 16,435 (15,295) (598,924) (73,400) 272,468 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in - - - 25,000 50,000 Transfers out (378,084) - - (100,000) - Proceeds from issuance of debt - - 469,000 - - Premium on bonds issued - - - - - Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - 72,107 75 - Total other financing sources (uses)(378,084)0 541,107 (74,925) 50,000 Special item - withdrawal from fire district - - 1,111,834 - - Net change in fund balance (361,649) (15,295) 1,054,017 (148,325) 322,468 Fund balance - January 1 1,241,262 2,553,715 43,263 182,573 (70,432) Fund balance - December 31 $879,613 $2,538,420 $1,097,280 $34,248 $252,036 130 Statement 26 Page 1 of 2 411 Tax 417 Tax 418 Tax 422 Surface 424 Surface Increment Increment Increment 420 MSA 421 Water 423 Street Water Financing 1-5 Financing 1-10 Financing 1-11 Construction Sealcoating Management Reconstruction Maintenance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 38,261 152,784 102,784 - - - - - - - - 702 - - - - - - - - - 376,342 14,192 - - - - - 76,280 - - - 1,661 1,711 - 22,224 3,088 3,982 4,974 71 116 116 - 1,595 242 270 351 4 - - - 32,000 - - - - 40,038 154,611 102,784 56,521 79,610 380,594 19,517 75 - - - - - - - - - - - 79,600 721,116 93,484 - 19,528 652 1,119 2,335 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 652 1,119 2,335 79,600 721,116 93,484 0 19,528 39,386 153,492 100,449 (23,079) (641,506) 287,110 19,517 (19,453) - - - - 514,500 - - 100,725 - (152,784) (102,784) (1,084,576) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 (152,784) (102,784) (1,084,576) 514,500 0 0 100,725 - - - - - - - - 39,386 708 (2,335) (1,107,655) (127,006) 287,110 19,517 81,272 209,512 188,420 (772,648) 3,119,825 310,184 448,311 667,153 - $248,898 $189,128 ($774,983) $2,012,170 $183,178 $735,421 $686,670 $81,272 131 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 474 475 476 Otter 477 I-35E Traffic Lake Road 21st Ave Interchange Signal Extension Extension Revenues: General property taxes $ - $ - $ - $ - Tax increment - - - - Intergovernmental - - - 31,500 Special assessments - - - - Charges for services - - - - Investment earnings - 841 1,111 - Net increase in fair value of investments - 60 80 - Miscellaneous 47,625 - - - Total revenues 47,625 901 1,191 31,500 Expenditures: Current: General government - - - - Public services - - - - Community development - - - - Capital outlay: General government - - - - Public safety - - - - Public services 12,645 - 63,539 50,243 Debt service: Interest and fiscal charges - - - - Bond issuance costs - - - - Total expenditures 12,645 0 63,539 50,243 Revenues over (under) expenditures 34,980 901 (62,348) (18,743) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 224,186 32,000 115,350 122,063 Transfers out - (146,637) (260,611) - Proceeds from issuance of debt - - - - Premium on bonds issued - - - - Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - - - Total other financing sources (uses)224,186 (114,637) (145,261) 122,063 Special item - withdrawal from fire district - - - - Net change in fund balance 259,166 (113,736) (207,609) 103,320 Fund balance - January 1 (259,166) 113,736 207,609 (302,954) Fund balance - December 31 $0 $0 $0 ($199,634) 132 Statement 26 Page 2 of 2 483 Blackduck/ Total 478 Fire 479 480 481 Birch St/ 480 2015 Aqua Lane Nonmajor House # 2 Well #6 Northpointe Centerville Rd Street Watermain Capital Construction Construction Improvements Improvements Reconstruction Extension Project Funds $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $67 - - - - - - 293,829 - - 10,000 - - - 52,497 - - - - - - 407,118 - - - - - - 531,534 959 1,505 2,864 1,251 96 1,059 67,307 77 168 206 91 - 44 4,818 - - - - 38,434 - 119,826 1,036 1,673 13,070 1,342 38,530 1,103 1,476,996 - - - - - - 8,324 - - - - - - 913,728 - - - - - - 4,106 - - - - - - 140,081 36,630 - - - - - 501,603 - 726,730 68,710 23,460 54,393 1,044,592 2,326,347 - - - - - - 8,578 - - - - - 28,774 28,774 36,630 726,730 68,710 23,460 54,393 1,073,366 3,931,541 (35,594) (725,057) (55,640) (22,118) (15,863) (1,072,263) (2,454,545) - - - - 229,314 - 1,413,138 - - - - - - (2,225,476) - - - - - 1,420,000 1,889,000 - - - - - 41,497 41,497 - - - - - - 72,182 0000229,314 1,461,497 1,190,341 - - - - - - 1,111,834 (35,594) (725,057) (55,640) (22,118) 213,451 389,234 (152,370) 33,270 747,939 377,929 155,546 (18,226) (51,086) 9,125,735 ($2,324) $22,882 $322,289 $133,428 $195,225 $338,148 $8,973,365 133 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - PROGRAM RECREATION Statement 27 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016 Budgeted Amounts 2016 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) Original Final Revenues: Charges for services $135,270 $135,270 $113,945 ($21,325) Investment earnings - - 638 638 Net increase in fair value of investments - - 48 48 Total revenues 135,270 135,270 114,631 (20,639) Expenditures: Public services: Current: Personal services 60,150 58,150 63,498 (5,348) Supplies 28,950 28,950 50,128 (21,178) Other services and charges - - 369 (369) Contractual services 27,550 27,550 36,717 (9,167) Total current Capital outlay 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 Total expenditures 119,650 117,650 150,712 (33,062) Revenues over (under) expenditures 15,620 17,620 (36,081) (53,701) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers out (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) - Net change in fund balance $5,620 $7,620 (46,081) ($53,701) Fund balance - January 1 84,179 Fund balance - December 31 $38,098 134 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES Statement 28 AGENCY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 Balance Balance January 1,December 31, 2016 Additions Deletions 2016 Assets: Cash and investments $727,635 $437,702 $339,964 $825,373 Liabilities: Deposits payable $727,635 $437,702 $339,964 $825,373 135 - This page intentionally left blank - 136 STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) 137 - This page intentionally left blank - 138 This part of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures and required supplementary information says about the City's overall financial health. Table Number Financial Trends Tables 1-4 These tables contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial performance and well-being have changed over time. Revenue Capacity Tables 5-8 These tables contain information to help the reader assess the City's most significant local revenue source, the property tax. Debt Capacity Tables 9-12 These tables present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future. Demographic and Economic Information Tables 13-14 These tables offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment wihthin which the City's financial activities take place. Operating Information Tables 15-17 These tables contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City's financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these tables is derived from the comprehensive financial reports for the relevant year. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) Contents 139 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA NET POSITION BY COMPONENT Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Governmental activities: Net investment in capital assets $36,789,153 $28,472,865 $23,400,453 $22,562,217 Restricted 10,324,467 9,870,676 9,414,474 8,428,025 Unrestricted 6,339,528 10,790,359 15,926,322 16,738,885 Total governmental activities net position $53,453,148 $49,133,900 $48,741,249 $47,729,127 Business-type activities: Net investment in capital assets $29,836,775 $30,372,670 $30,071,840 $29,648,461 Unrestricted 8,063,983 9,028,778 10,112,207 10,728,626 Total business-type activities net position $37,900,758 $39,401,448 $40,184,047 $40,377,087 Primary government: Net investment in capital assets $66,625,928 $58,845,535 $53,472,293 $52,210,678 Restricted 10,324,467 9,870,676 9,414,474 8,428,025 Unrestricted 14,403,511 19,819,137 26,038,529 27,467,511 Total primary government net position $91,353,906 $88,535,348 $88,925,296 $88,106,214 GASB 68 was implemented in 2015. Net position was restated for 2014 to reflect the reporting of net pension liability and pension related deferred outflows of resources. Net position for years prior to 2014 was not restated. 140 Table 1 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $24,600,103 $22,166,342 $22,241,821 $19,540,807 $18,230,746 $18,597,344 11,598,803 11,595,112 11,000,033 8,666,357 8,635,293 13,342,852 13,463,210 17,639,038 16,849,636 20,527,704 13,888,120 10,879,734 $49,662,116 $51,400,492 $50,091,490 $48,734,868 $40,754,159 $42,819,930 $29,216,866 $28,798,095 $28,423,284 $27,556,022 $29,127,829 $31,860,610 11,201,362 12,102,013 12,999,182 13,888,278 14,672,630 13,863,447 $40,418,228 $40,900,108 $41,422,466 $41,444,300 $43,800,459 $45,724,057 $53,816,969 $50,964,437 $50,665,105 $47,096,829 $47,358,575 $50,457,954 11,598,803 11,595,112 11,000,033 8,666,357 8,635,293 13,342,852 24,664,572 29,741,051 29,848,818 34,415,982 28,560,750 24,743,181 $90,080,344 $92,300,600 $91,513,956 $90,179,168 $84,554,618 $88,543,987 141 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA CHANGES IN NET POSITION Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Expenses Governmental activities: General government $2,197,672 $2,323,358 $2,201,439 $1,987,415 Public safety 3,730,504 4,051,162 4,299,366 3,971,261 Public services 11,937,693 8,528,574 5,341,113 5,092,970 Conservation of natural resources 183,420 184,624 215,607 197,571 Community development 1,122,802 1,114,158 1,005,997 1,105,254 Interest and fees on long-term debt 980,849 1,045,781 928,668 1,064,172 Total governmental activities expenses 20,152,940 17,247,657 13,992,190 13,418,643 Business-type activities: Water 1,170,902 1,020,770 1,089,569 1,045,901 Sewer 1,298,963 1,287,943 1,432,107 1,466,847 Total business-type activities expenses 2,469,865 2,308,713 2,521,676 2,512,748 Total primary government expenses $22,622,805 $19,556,370 $16,513,866 $15,931,391 Program revenues Governmental activities: Charges for services: General government $91,646 $79,844 $101,741 $98,403 Public safety 1,078,995 1,296,418 725,747 691,005 Public services 575,292 600,325 594,168 605,207 Conservation of natural resources 4,559 3,660 3,858 4,153 Community development 15,839 11,623 8,667 14,148 Operating grants and contributions 851,791 693,065 682,797 617,450 Capital grants and contributions 7,189,346 1,094,789 1,357,015 1,388,984 Total governmental activities program revenues 9,807,468 3,779,724 3,473,993 3,419,350 Business-type activities: Charges for services: Water 1,215,763 1,058,493 1,365,817 1,087,013 Sewer 1,446,112 1,472,093 1,502,164 1,498,218 Operating grants and contributions - - 62,710 - Capital grants and contributions 80,750 10,117 8,769 8,709 Total business-type activities 2,742,625 2,540,703 2,939,460 2,593,940 Total primary government program revenues $12,550,093 $6,320,427 $6,413,453 $6,013,290 142 Table 2 Page 1 of 2 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $1,990,137 $1,883,961 $1,566,388 $2,036,550 $2,016,351 $2,456,864 4,019,101 4,046,415 3,950,197 4,107,759 5,135,865 6,567,523 9,329,451 6,795,150 5,376,671 5,880,030 7,971,712 6,228,893 139,544 184,051 141,204 159,649 186,111 216,905 617,747 430,121 404,726 407,448 432,268 454,144 927,535 837,755 951,842 618,680 632,876 831,529 17,023,515 14,177,453 12,391,028 13,210,116 16,375,183 16,755,858 966,643 949,121 927,800 965,641 1,394,897 1,367,693 1,638,063 1,527,637 1,584,395 1,628,258 2,089,842 1,850,962 2,604,706 2,476,758 2,512,195 2,593,899 3,484,739 3,218,655 $19,628,221 $16,654,211 $14,903,223 $15,804,015 $19,859,922 $19,974,513 $103,687 $129,151 $93,118 $103,072 $818,468 $520,231 713,985 642,745 697,584 763,470 199,498 1,359,426 593,263 668,128 632,002 621,221 603,866 865,327 4,392 19,297 1,347 1,882 - - 5,138 16,940 28,118 39,395 - - 593,798 450,179 527,368 840,676 526,107 722,858 7,347,613 5,125,693 941,960 335,733 1,176,732 5,046,307 9,361,876 7,052,133 2,921,497 2,705,449 3,324,671 8,514,149 1,090,104 1,371,809 1,208,742 965,425 1,014,836 1,094,897 1,494,188 1,505,781 1,516,397 1,564,099 1,621,633 1,659,322 - - - 263,024 263,024 - 1,462 20,018 883 1,035 3,035,031 1,543,947 2,585,754 2,897,608 2,726,022 2,793,583 5,934,524 4,298,166 $11,947,630 $9,949,741 $5,647,519 $5,499,032 $9,259,195 $12,812,315 143 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA CHANGES IN NET POSITION Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Net (expense) revenue: Governmental activities ($10,345,472) ($13,467,933) ($10,518,197) ($9,999,293) Business-type activities 272,760 231,990 417,784 81,192 Total primary government, net (10,072,712) (13,235,943) (10,100,413) (9,918,101) General revenues and other changes in net position: Governmental activities: Property taxes 8,785,280 9,424,697 9,808,324 8,764,183 Unrestricted grants and contributions 256,877 129,607 11,321 4,389 Unrestricted investment earnings 864,578 576,071 429,325 225,677 Gain on disposal of capital assets 17,424 12,512 12,644 - Special item - withdrawal from fire district - - - - Transfers (895,687) (994,202) (136,068) (7,078) Total governmental activities 9,028,472 9,148,685 10,125,546 8,987,171 Business-type activities: Unrestricted investment earnings 365,822 274,498 228,747 104,770 Change in market value - - - - Transfers 895,687 994,202 136,068 7,078 Total business-type activities 1,261,509 1,268,700 364,815 111,848 Total primary government $10,289,981 $10,417,385 $10,490,361 $9,099,019 Change in net position: Governmental activities ($1,317,000) ($4,319,248) ($392,651) ($1,012,122) Business-type activities 1,534,269 1,500,690 782,599 193,040 Total primary government change in net position $217,269 ($2,818,558) $389,948 ($819,082) GASB 68 was implemented in 2015. Pension expense for years prior to 2015 was not restated. 144 Table 2 Page 2 of 2 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ($7,661,639) ($7,125,320) ($9,469,531) ($10,504,667) ($13,050,512) ($8,241,709) (18,952)420,850 213,827 199,684 2,449,785 1,079,511 (7,680,591) (6,704,470) (9,255,704) (10,304,983) (10,600,727) (7,162,198) 8,768,805 8,610,709 8,563,595 8,806,886 9,243,236 9,343,500 4,072 4,941 4,442 4,443 5,363 91,385 251,250 202,828 (54,204)265,695 112,961 210,142 37,579 4,175 - 1,727 17,836 66,255 - - - - - 1,333,166 66,122 41,043 (353,304)69,294 66,834 (914,414) 9,127,828 8,863,696 8,160,529 9,148,045 9,446,230 10,130,034 126,215 102,073 113,402 96,213 81,084 107,119 - - (158,175)58,255 (29,917) - (66,122)(41,043)353,304 (69,294)(66,834)914,414 60,093 61,030 308,531 85,174 (15,667)1,021,533 $9,187,921 $8,924,726 $8,469,060 $9,233,219 $9,430,563 $11,151,567 $1,466,189 $1,738,376 ($1,309,002) ($1,356,622) ($3,604,282) $1,888,325 41,141 481,880 522,358 284,858 2,434,118 2,101,044 $1,507,330 $2,220,256 ($786,644) ($1,071,764) ($1,170,164) $3,989,369 145 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Last Ten Fiscal Years (Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting) 2007 2008 2009 2010 General Fund: Reserved $181,759 $190,825 $196,568 $181,471 Unreserved 5,356,272 5,393,316 5,191,396 5,445,334 Nonspendable - - - - Unassigned - - - - Total general fund $5,538,031 $5,584,141 $5,387,964 $5,626,805 All other governmental funds: Reserved reported in: Special revenue funds $226,921 $226,973 $227,176 $227,342 Capital projects funds 885,825 812,400 736,772 658,875 Debt service funds 3,925,402 3,405,272 3,457,349 2,986,102 Permanent funds 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Unreserved reported in: Special revenue funds 100,955 106,573 93,956 110,471 Capital projects funds 8,395,827 5,927,411 11,611,835 12,537,841 Debt service funds - - (558,443) (1,093,765) Permanent funds 17,023 22,224 15,824 12,676 Nonspendable - - - - Restricted - - - - Committed - - - - Assigned - - - - Unassigned - - - - Total all other governmental funds $13,651,953 $10,600,853 $15,684,469 $15,539,542 Total all funds $19,189,984 $16,184,994 $21,072,433 $21,166,347 The City implemented GASB Statement No. 54 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Information for years prior to 2011 is presented in accordance with fund balance classifications in effect at that time. 146 Table 3 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - - - - - 165,079 180,786 176,797 253,471 220,677 225,114 5,440,101 5,053,031 5,209,286 5,053,064 5,725,736 6,031,077 $5,605,180 $5,233,817 $5,386,083 $5,306,535 $5,946,413 $6,256,191 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 906,010 823,113 101,710 101,302 101,177 101,220 2,658,010 3,041,524 3,651,550 2,830,526 2,637,638 6,502,424 110,568 115,196 121,075 152,078 163,239 170,950 10,808,268 15,573,179 15,710,702 18,027,773 15,022,852 15,778,480 (3,154,496) (3,262,728) (3,393,547) (375,851) (3,815,304) (978,496) $11,328,360 $16,290,284 $16,191,490 $20,735,828 $14,109,602 $21,574,578 $16,933,540 $21,524,101 $21,577,573 $26,042,363 $20,056,015 $27,830,769 147 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Last Ten Fiscal Years 2007 2008 2009 2010 Revenues: Property taxes $8,529,846 $9,095,085 $9,561,570 $8,647,488 Liscenses and permits 694,435 802,135 307,714 330,138 Intergovernmental 6,143,689 1,004,476 1,259,016 1,176,863 Special assessments 1,961,253 950,188 968,995 851,270 Charges for services 753,698 872,534 778,163 780,044 Fines and forfeits 139,932 133,531 111,807 127,203 Investment earnings 864,578 576,071 429,325 225,677 Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments - - - - Miscellaneous 889,901 516,415 513,306 502,992 Total revenues 19,977,332 13,950,435 13,929,896 12,641,675 Expenditures: Current: General government 1,953,960 2,058,267 1,918,246 1,730,390 Public safety 3,513,460 3,806,389 4,122,352 3,798,106 Public services 9,549,932 6,575,568 3,071,646 2,848,232 Conservation of natural resources 183,346 183,024 209,466 185,232 Community development 1,107,328 1,113,232 1,005,095 1,098,682 Capital outlay 2,008,073 585,875 501,806 282,938 Debt service: Principal 1,973,000 1,749,000 1,908,000 1,866,000 Interest and fiscal charges 937,895 1,074,052 994,809 1,042,883 Bond issuance costs - - - - Total expenditures 21,226,994 17,145,407 13,731,420 12,852,463 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenditures (1,249,662) (3,194,972) 198,476 (210,788) Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from sale of capital assets 54,037 13,750 35,700 20,600 Proceeds from issuance of debt 4,375,000 209,000 4,596,000 1,170,000 Premium on bonds issued - - 11,141 10,980 Discount on bonds issued (25,798) - - - Payment to refunded bond escrow agent - - - (965,000) Loan payable reapportionment - - - - Transfers in 2,900,249 4,763,391 1,413,985 1,195,747 Transfers out (3,019,224) (4,796,159) (1,367,863) (1,127,625) Total other financing sources (uses)4,284,264 189,982 4,688,963 304,702 Special item - withdrawal from fire district - - - - Net change in fund balance $3,034,602 ($3,004,990) $4,887,439 $93,914 Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 15.1%17.0%21.9%23.1% Debt service as a percentage of total expenditures 13.7%16.5%21.1%22.6% 148 Table 4 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $8,655,971 $8,560,340 $8,475,214 $8,612,011 $8,950,507 $9,369,090 322,030 319,172 431,654 407,681 551,202 895,581 1,331,914 5,267,570 500,963 823,025 679,627 706,944 904,522 816,998 2,130,519 1,278,202 703,141 4,400,635 812,604 744,633 717,300 731,640 696,501 1,293,556 154,020 155,956 119,079 149,653 127,803 251,653 251,244 202,825 222,810 173,422 163,497 199,709 - - (276,276)92,372 (50,582)10,433 460,710 414,088 384,749 767,477 766,072 417,448 12,893,015 16,481,582 12,706,012 13,035,483 12,587,768 17,545,049 1,773,515 1,619,215 1,569,722 1,692,175 1,643,966 1,845,667 3,791,329 3,861,265 3,744,957 3,845,732 11,895,482 4,333,080 3,251,923 4,396,406 3,956,766 4,156,497 4,779,696 3,203,837 134,122 176,318 134,127 149,292 191,038 201,635 624,286 435,154 418,533 402,750 422,935 425,402 4,209,593 616,931 291,135 674,488 1,566,057 3,044,615 2,030,000 2,145,000 2,214,000 3,664,000 2,802,511 2,769,525 983,129 831,875 774,172 696,780 542,166 816,362 - 47,054 17,137 - 62,831 98,906 16,797,897 14,129,218 13,120,549 15,281,714 23,906,682 16,739,029 (3,904,882)2,352,364 (414,537) (2,246,231) (11,318,914)806,020 50,953 4,175 16,727 1,727 54,522 72,182 120,000 2,165,000 808,000 3,140,000 8,606,250 5,464,000 - - 6,558 - 114,960 41,497 - - - - - - - - (435,000) - - - (565,000) - - - - - 2,971,715 1,979,457 1,722,541 2,608,534 3,392,971 3,521,180 (2,905,593) (1,910,435) (1,650,817) (2,539,240) (3,336,137) (3,241,959) (327,925)2,238,197 468,009 3,211,021 8,832,566 5,856,900 - - - - - 1,111,834 ($4,232,807) $4,590,561 $53,472 $964,790 ($2,486,348) $7,774,754 23.9%22.0%23.3%29.9%15.0%26.2% 17.9%21.1%22.8%28.5%14.0%21.4% 149 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA ASSESSED AND ACTUAL VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY Table 5 Last Ten Fiscal Years Estimated Commercial/ Total Taxable Taxable Payable Residential Industrial Personal Assessed Total Direct Market Year Property Property Property Value Tax Rate Value 2007 $17,605,080 $3,047,965 $288,290 $20,941,335 38.99 $1,927,807,500 2008 18,382,645 3,431,107 279,102 22,092,854 38.97 2,021,961,000 2009 18,919,087 4,002,349 275,496 23,196,932 38.73 2,102,473,000 2010 17,978,917 3,800,004 291,904 22,070,825 37.91 2,001,889,600 2011 16,214,698 3,223,901 303,964 19,742,563 42.04 1,804,121,500 2012 14,743,557 2,945,026 310,870 17,999,453 42.89 1,640,455,854 2013 13,693,905 2,571,769 336,047 16,601,721 46.77 1,519,857,242 2014 13,646,798 2,450,473 341,974 16,439,245 46.68 1,509,921,169 2015 15,455,516 2,536,783 347,316 18,339,615 43.77 1,694,366,064 2016 15,472,329 2,609,482 359,006 18,440,817 46.02 1,699,288,883 The tax capacity (assessed taxable value) of the property is calculated by applying a statutory formula to the estimated market value of the property. Source: Anoka County, Minnesota Assessors' Office 150 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX CAPACITY RATES Table 6 Last Ten Fiscal Years (rate per $100 of Tax Capacity) General Centennial Other Total Direct and Fiscal Basic Obligation Total School District Anoka Taxing Total Overlapping Year Rate Debt Service Direct ISD # 12 County Districts Overlapping Tax Rate 2007 34.356 4.638 38.994 38.090 30.696 5.578 74.364 113.358 2008 34.560 4.407 38.967 35.258 31.078 6.956 73.292 112.259 2009 34.716 4.017 38.733 34.593 32.078 5.611 72.282 111.015 2010 34.086 3.819 37.905 37.285 35.189 5.879 78.353 116.258 2011 37.425 4.616 42.041 43.695 39.952 6.278 89.925 131.966 2012 37.501 5.393 42.894 40.010 41.146 6.691 87.847 130.741 2013 40.964 5.810 46.774 43.681 44.411 6.940 95.032 141.806 2014 39.784 6.899 46.683 46.186 43.239 6.712 96.137 142.820 2015 37.819 5.951 43.770 36.562 38.123 6.021 80.706 124.476 2016 35.025 10.994 46.019 36.426 38.894 6.405 81.725 127.744 The majority of the City is serviced by School District 12. Rates for debt service are based on each year's requirements. Source: Anoka County Property Records and Tax Division City Direct Rate Overlapping Rates 151 - This page intentionally left blank - 152 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS Table 7 Current Year and Nine Years Ago Percentage Percentage of Total City of Total City Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Taxpayer Capacity Rank Capacity Capacity Rank Capacity Target Corporation $202,952 1 1.10% $265,254 1 1.23% Xcel Energy 190,733 2 1.03% 148,787 3 0.69% WI MN AB BIYNAH LLC 183,332 3 0.99% - - - Moline Concrete Products 107,982 4 0.59% 124,375 5 0.58% Gargaro Properties LLC 104,374 5 0.57% 91,274 7 0.42% Taylor Corporation 99,648 6 0.54% 117,902 6 0.55% Kohl's Department Store 99,092 7 0.54% 131,706 4 0.61% Marmon/Keystone Corp 74,216 8 0.40% - - - CenterPoint Energy 72,162 9 0.39% - - - Lino Lakes Business Center LLC 63,729 10 0.35% 89,862 8 0.42% Lino Lakes Realty LLC - - 256,862 2 1.19% F&G Incorporated - - 88,256 9 0.41% Legacy Holdings LLC - - 87,018 10 0.40% Total $1,198,220 6.50% $1,401,296 6.50% Source: Anoka County Property Records and Tax Division 2016 2007 153 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS Last Ten Fiscal Years Collected within the Taxes Levied for the Fiscal Year Fiscal Year of Levy Percentage Fiscal Operating Debt Total Tax of Year Tax Levy Tax Levy Levy Amount Levy 2007 $7,558,995 $897,333 $8,456,328 $8,324,180 98.4% 2008 7,973,236 893,720 8,866,956 8,581,974 96.8% 2009 8,295,172 949,166 9,244,338 8,982,756 97.2% 2010 7,816,232 879,182 8,695,414 8,400,439 96.6% 2011 7,719,240 940,760 8,660,000 8,486,845 98.0% 2012 7,192,818 1,034,441 8,227,259 8,095,502 98.4% 2013 7,190,538 1,025,090 8,215,628 8,094,911 98.5% 2014 7,098,922 1,197,122 8,296,044 8,229,986 99.2% 2015 7,490,578 1,195,494 8,686,072 8,630,830 99.4% 2016 7,018,572 2,039,856 9,058,428 9,022,964 99.6% Current year levies and collections include State levy related credits, but do not include tax increment levies and collections. 154 Table 8 Total Collections to Date Collections in Percentage Outstanding Percentage Subsequent of Delinquent of Levy Years Amount Levy Taxes Outstanding $105,490 $8,429,670 99.7%$26,658 0.3% 129,219 8,711,193 98.2%155,763 1.8% 194,335 9,177,091 99.3%67,247 0.7% 182,204 8,582,643 98.7%112,771 1.3% 124,970 8,611,815 99.4%48,185 0.6% 73,804 8,169,306 99.3%57,953 0.7% 64,688 8,159,599 99.3%56,029 0.7% 39,265 8,269,252 99.7%26,792 0.3% 30,074 8,660,904 99.7%25,168 0.3% - 9,022,964 99.6%35,464 0.4% 155 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE Last Ten Fiscal Years Business-Type Governmental Activities Activities General General Special Other Obligation Fiscal Obligation Assessments Long-Term Revenue Year Bonds Payable Debt Bonds 2007 $11,569,000 $12,520,000 $ - $1,855,000 2008 11,184,000 11,365,000 - 1,530,000 2009 10,712,000 10,265,000 4,260,000 1,170,000 2010 10,141,000 9,175,000 4,260,000 795,000 2011 9,421,000 7,985,000 3,695,000 405,000 2012 10,331,000 7,095,000 3,695,000 - 2013 9,610,000 5,975,000 3,695,000 - 2014 9,036,000 7,640,000 2,080,000 - 2015 16,377,291 6,620,000 1,720,000 - 2016 18,337,081 7,795,000 1,609,000 - Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. See the Demographic and Economic Statistics schedule for personal income and population data. (1) Personal income information is not yet available for 2016 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis Report 156 Table 9 Total Percentage Percentage Primary of Assessed of Personal Per Government Market Value Income Capita $25,944,000 1.35%3.41%$1,307 24,079,000 1.19%3.08%1,205 26,407,000 1.24%3.44%1,301 24,371,000 1.22%3.13%1,206 21,506,000 1.19%2.59%1,049 21,121,000 1.29%2.46%1,024 19,280,000 1.27%2.19%925 18,756,000 1.24%2.04%888 24,717,291 1.45%2.63%1,205 27,741,081 1.62%(1)1,337 157 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA RATIOS OF NET GENERAL BONDED DEBT Last Ten Fiscal Years General Special Total Fiscal Obligation Assessments Primary Year Bonds Payable Government 2007 $11,569,000 $12,520,000 $24,089,000 2008 11,184,000 11,365,000 22,549,000 2009 10,712,000 10,265,000 20,977,000 2010 10,141,000 9,175,000 19,316,000 2011 9,421,000 7,985,000 17,406,000 2012 10,331,000 7,095,000 17,426,000 2013 9,610,000 5,975,000 15,585,000 2014 9,036,000 7,640,000 16,676,000 2015 16,377,291 6,620,000 22,997,291 2016 18,337,081 7,795,000 26,132,081 Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. See the Demographic and Economic Statistics schedule for population data. Governmental Activities 158 Table 10 Less: Amounts Percentage Per Available in Debt Net of Assessed Per Capita (Total)Service Funds Bonded Debt Market Value Capita (Net) $1,213 $3,925,402 $20,163,598 1.05%$1,016 1,128 3,405,272 19,143,728 0.95%958 1,033 3,457,349 17,519,651 0.82%863 955 2,986,102 16,329,898 0.82%808 849 2,638,129 14,767,871 0.82%720 845 3,035,557 14,390,443 0.88%698 748 3,357,196 12,227,804 0.80%587 789 2,501,738 14,174,262 0.94%671 1,121 2,813,226 20,184,065 1.19%984 1,259 8,420,263 17,711,818 1.04%854 159 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT Table 11 As of December 31, 2016 Estimated Estimated Share of Debt Percentage Overlapping Outstanding Applicable*Debt Overlapping debt: Anoka County $116,115,411 6.2%$7,197,130 ISD 12 102,018,685 44.0%44,840,882 ISD 624 86,195,000 3.3%2,803,620 ISD 831 162,965,000 7.2%11,733,873 Metropolitan Council 1,442,296,908 0.6%8,183,009 Rice Creek Watershed District 381,459 32.3%123,351 Anoka County Railroad Authority 49,985,000 6.2% 3,098,198 Total Overlapping 77,980,063 City of Lino Lakes Direct Debt $27,741,081 100%27,741,081 Total Direct and Overlapping Debt:$105,721,144 *For debt repaid with property taxes, the percentage of overlapping debt applicable is estimated using taxable assessed property values. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of another governmental unit's taxable assessed value that is within the City's boundaries and dividing it by each unit's total taxable assessed value. Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the City. This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is borne by the residents and businesses of the City. This process recognizes that, when considering the City's ability to issue and repay long-term debt, the entire debt burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account. However, this does not imply that every taxpayer is a resident, and therefore responsible for repaying the debt, of each overlapping government. Sources: taxable value data used to estimate applicable percentages provided by the County Property Appraiser. Debt outstanding data provided by each governmental unit. 160 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION Table 12 Last Ten Fiscal Years Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2016 Market value $1,699,288,883 Applicable percentage 3% Debt limit 50,978,666 Debt applicable to limit: Total bonded debt 24,787,081 Less: Special assessment bonds (7,795,000) Tax abatement bonds (3,355,000) Tax increment bonds (2,025,000) Utility revenue bonds (1,490,000) 10,122,081 Legal debt margin $40,856,585 Net Debt Net Debt Legal Amount of Debt Applicable Fiscal Debt Applicable to Debt Applicable to to Limit Year Population Limit Limit Margin Debt Limit Per Capita 2007 19,851 $38,556,150 $4,039,000 $34,517,150 10.48% $203 2008 19,987 60,658,830 3,804,000 56,854,830 6.27% 190 2009 20,305 64,036,746 3,642,000 60,394,746 5.69% 179 2010 20,216 60,622,086 3,386,000 57,236,086 5.59% 167 2011 20,505 54,123,645 2,961,000 51,162,645 5.47% 144 2012 20,625 49,213,676 4,591,000 44,622,676 9.33% 223 2013 20,833 45,595,717 4,280,000 41,315,717 9.39% 205 2014 21,129 45,297,635 4,191,000 41,106,635 9.25% 198 2015 20,519 50,830,982 11,941,250 38,889,732 23.49% 582 2016 20,750 50,978,666 10,122,081 40,856,585 19.86% 488 Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Years 2007 Through 2016 161 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS Table 13 Last Ten Fiscal Years (2) (2) Personal Per Income Capita (3) (4) Fiscal (1)(thousands Personal School Unemployment Year Population of dollars)Income Enrollment Rate 2007 19,851 $759,718 $38,271 6,846 4.8% 2008 19,987 781,132 39,082 6,768 6.9% 2009 20,305 768,341 37,840 6,725 7.8% 2010 20,216 777,912 38,480 6,523 7.1% 2011 20,505 831,170 40,535 6,426 5.9% 2012 20,625 857,753 41,588 6,421 5.6% 2013 20,833 879,903 42,236 6,392 4.5% 2014 21,129 917,252 43,412 6,410 3.4% 2015 20,519 934,764 45,556 6,371 3.3% 2016 20,750 Not available Not available 6,473 3.9% Sources: (1) Estimates from Metropolitan Council, except for 2010 which is per the U.S. Census and 2016 which is a city estimate. (2) Information from Bureau of Economic Analysis Report. Anoka County statistics used as local information is unavailable. (3) Information from ISD # 12 website. (4) Information from MN Department of Employment and Economic Development. Anoka County statistics used as local information is unavailable. 162 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS Table 14 Current Year and Nine Years Ago Percentage Percentage of Total City of Total City Employer Employees Rank Employment(1)Employees Rank Employment(1) State of Minnesota Corrections 447 1 22.7% 600 1 33.6% ISD 12 - Centennial Schools 391 2 19.8% - - - Target Corporation 200 3 10.1% 240 3 13.4% Taylor Corporation 200 4 10.1% 260 2 - Anoka County Juvenile Center 130 5 6.6% 160 5 9.0% Molin Concrete Products 130 6 6.6% 135 6 7.6% Rehbein Transit, Inc.130 7 6.6% - - - Kohls 123 8 6.2% - - - YMCA 120 9 6.1% - - - Distribution Alternatives 100 10 5.1% - - - Synovis Interventional Systems - - - 160 4 9.0% Summit Fire Protection - - - 100 7 5.6% Nol-Tech Systems, Inc - - - 70 8 3.9% Customer Manufacturing - - - 60 9 3.4% Total 1,971 1,785 (1)The statistic for total City employment is not available, therefore the percentage represents the percentage of the top ten listed. Information about the 10th largest employer of 2007 is not available. Source: City of Lino Lakes Official Statements and employer surveys 2016 2007 163 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM Last Ten Fiscal Years 2007 2008 2009 2010 General Government: Administration 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 Seniors 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Finance 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.00 Economic Development 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Planning 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Community Development 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.25 Engineering - - - - Building 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Other 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Total General Government 17.28 17.28 17.28 15.28 Public Safety: Sworn Officers 26.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 Civilians 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.25 Fire - - - - Building Inspection 4.25 4.25 4.25 2.75 Total Public Safety 35.00 36.00 36.00 34.00 Public Works: Streets 7.35 7.35 7.35 6.85 Other 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Total Public Works 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.00 Parks, Recreation and Forestry 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.30 Water 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 Sewer 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 Total 74.88 75.88 75.88 70.88 Source: City Finance Office Full-time-Equivalent Employees as of December 31, 164 Table 15 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.00 - - - - - - 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 1.00 1.00 - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.65 11.20 11.20 10.20 10.20 10.20 11.15 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.50 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 31.50 30.50 30.50 32.00 33.00 35.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 8.70 8.70 8.70 7.75 2.15 2.15 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.15 2.15 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 64.00 63.00 62.00 63.50 64.50 67.00 Full-time-Equivalent Employees as of December 31, 165 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM Last Ten Fiscal Years 2007 2008 2009 2010 General Government: Elections 1 2 1 2 Registered voters 10,908 12,723 11,805 12,284 Number of votes cast 2,337 11,051 4,354 8,545 Voter participation (registered)21.4%86.9%36.9%69.6% Public Safety: Police: Calls for Service 7,053 6,871 6,353 6,398 Traffic Citations & Warnings 3,805 3,252 3,187 2,743 Part I Crime Rate 1,279 1,461 1,075 982 Part II Crime Rate 3,432 3,767 3,151 2,911 Inspections: Building Permits (1)2,297 5,041 1,535 509 Value of Building Permits $30,539,559 $15,852,780 $9,586,160 $11,295,493 Public Works: General Maintenance (hours)6,758 6,129 5,870 4,945 Street Mantenance (hours)2,916 3,851 3,267 3,099 Fleet Maintenance (hours)4,144 5,043 4,782 4,850 Snow Plowing/Sanding (hours)1,425 1,353 950 1,638 Culture and Recreation: Parks Park Maintenance (hours)10,939 11,136 12,406 9,257 Utilities: Water Maintenance (hours)4,256 5,716 5,041 3,560 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance (hours)4,148 3,760 3,486 3,531 (1) 1,565, 4,337 and 581 repair permits issued in 2007 - 2009, respectively, due to storm damage Source: Various City Departments 166 Table 16 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 121211 11,705 13,478 12,020 12,610 12,143 13,636 4,314 11,546 1,575 7,854 4,085 11,562 36.9% 85.7% 13.1% 62.3% 33.6% 84.8% 6,384 6,344 6,210 6,281 6,210 6,210 2,604 2,694 2,597 2,296 2,199 2,199 1,117 983 918 631 1,226 1,091 2,911 2,396 2,144 1,836 2,395 3,635 452 459 490 431 654 761 $11,192,264 $10,751,626 $17,683,665 $13,535,514 $26,570,593 $53,390,619 7,416 6,939 3,994 5,200 7,839 5,534 4,352 5,926 5,740 3,840 3,347 4,053 4,214 3,945 4,548 4,746 4,322 4,437 1,534 594 1,639 2,141 754 960 9,813 9,739 8,480 8,537 8,332 9,698 3,568 3,585 3,119 3,189 3,240 3,539 3,557 3,517 3,109 3,178 3,240 3,539 167 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM Table 17 Last Ten Fiscal Years 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Public Safety: Police: Stations 1111111111 Patrol Units 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Fire: Stations 1111111122 Fire Trucks 5555555577 Public Works: Lights 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 815 Vehicles 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 39 City Streets (miles)96.1 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 114.9 Culture & Recreation: Parks: Parks 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 Park Acres 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 139.6 Trails (miles)26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 29.75 Park Shelters 7777666666 Basketball Courts 6666666666 Fishing Pier 1111111111 Skating Rinks 4444444444 Soccer Fields 8888888886 Baseball/Softball Fields 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 8 Tennis Courts 2222222222 Playgrounds 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 Water: Distribution System (miles)64.7 74.7 74.7 74.7 74.7 74.7 74.7 74.7 74.7 85.6 Water Connections 4,112 4,247 4,340 4,382 4,424 4,424 4,484 4,520 4,520 4,649 Gallons Pumped (millions)595 590 589 498 492 609 536 536 449 452 Number of Fire Hydrants 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 1024 1024 Water Tower Capacity (millions gallons)2222222222 Sanitary Sewer: Collection System (miles)64.5 69.8 69.8 69.8 69.8 69.8 69.8 69.8 77.9 77.9 Sewer Connections 4,428 4,447 4,486 4,530 4,567 4,567 4,624 4,685 4,685 4,817 Storm Sewer: Pipe (miles)34.3 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 53.7 Source: Various City Departments 168 OTHER INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 169 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF LONG-TERM DEBT December 31, 2016 Final Interest Issue Maturity Rates Date Date Long-term debt: General Obligation Bonds: 2013A Certificates of Indebtedness 1.00%2/1/13 12/31/16 2014A Certificates of Indebtedness 1.00%2/1/14 12/31/17 2015A Certificates of Indebtedness 1.00%2/1/15 12/31/18 2015B Certificates of Indebtedness 1.50% 8/25/15 12/31/20 2016A Certificates of Indebtedness 1.00%2/1/16 12/31/19 G.O. Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 2006C 4.00% - 4.30% 8/15/06 2/1/17 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2006D 4.00% - 4.15% 8/15/06 2/1/17 G.O. CIP Refunding Bonds, Series 2006E 4.00% 11/1/06 2/1/18 G.O. TIF Bonds, Series 2007A 4.00% - 4.125% 7/15/17 2/1/24 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2012A 1.00% - 2.00% 11/15/12 2/1/24 G.O. Bonds 2015A 2.00% - 3.00% 8/1/15 2/1/31 EDA Lease Revenue Bonds 2015B 2.00% - 3.00% 10/1/15 4/1/36 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A 2.00% 11/23/16 2/1/27 G.O. Tax Abatement Refunding Bonds 2016C 1.00% - 1.50% 11/23/16 2/1/23 Total General Obligation Bonds Special Assessment Bonds: G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A 4.35% - 5.15% 11/1/05 2/1/17 G.O. Imp & Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A 2.00% - 3.00% 7/9/10 2/1/20 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series, 2013A 1.25% - 4.00% 7/15/13 2/1/24 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2014A 0.40% - 2.30% 11/20/14 2/1/26 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016B 0.875% - 1.50% 11/23/16 2/1/21 Total Special Assessment Bonds G.O. Improvement Note, Series 2009A 3.70% - 4.00% 8/1/09 8/1/20 G.O. Capital Note, Series 2016A 2.00% 4/14/16 2/1/26 Total long-term debt 170 Exhibit 1 Payable Payable Principal Original Prior January 1, December 31, Due in Issue Payments 2016 Issued Payments 2016 2017 $193,000 $128,000 $65,000 $ - $65,000 $ - $ - 495,000 160,000 335,000 - 167,000 168,000 168,000 198,250 - 198,250 - 65,000 133,250 67,000 963,000 - 963,000 - 177,000 786,000 193,000 469,000 - - 469,000 - 469,000 155,000 2,460,000 535,000 1,925,000 - 170,000 1,755,000 1,755,000 570,000 435,000 135,000 - 65,000 70,000 70,000 2,990,000 1,780,000 1,210,000 - 380,000 830,000 405,000 4,215,000 1,810,000 2,405,000 - 380,000 2,025,000 400,000 2,015,000 290,000 1,725,000 - 230,000 1,495,000 225,000 3,095,000 - 3,095,000 - - 3,095,000 190,000 4,350,000 - 4,350,000 - - 4,350,000 165,000 1,420,000 - - 1,420,000 - 1,420,000 - 1,600,000 - - 1,600,000 - 1,600,000 - 25,033,250 5,138,000 16,406,250 3,489,000 1,699,000 18,196,250 3,793,000 5,550,000 2,790,000 2,760,000 - 400,000 2,360,000 2,360,000 1,000,000 475,000 525,000 - 100,000 425,000 100,000 615,000 60,000 555,000 - 60,000 495,000 60,000 2,645,000 - 2,645,000 - 105,000 2,540,000 370,000 1,975,000 - - 1,975,000 - 1,975,000 - 11,785,000 3,325,000 6,485,000 1,975,000 665,000 7,795,000 2,890,000 4,260,000 2,540,000 1,720,000 - 375,000 1,345,000 390,000 294,525 - - 294,525 30,525 264,000 30,525 $41,372,775 $11,003,000 $24,611,250 $5,758,525 $2,769,525 $27,600,250 $7,103,525 2016 171 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED TAX LEVIES December 31, 2016 Year of Certificates of Certificates of Certificates of Certificates of Levy/Indebtedness Indebtedness Indebtedness Indebtedness Collection 2014A 2015A 2015B 2016A 2016/2017 $178,164 $71,749 $215,030 $172,189 2017/2018 - 70,258 214,090 167,097 2018/2019 - - 213,119 167,559 2019/2020 - - 214,216 - 2020/2021 - - - - 2021/2022 - - - - 2022/2023 - - - - 2023/2024 - - - - 2024/2025 - - - - 2025/2026 - - - - 2026/2027 - - - - 2027/2028 - - - - 2028/2029 - - - - 2029/2030 - - - - 2030/2031 - - - - 2031/2032 - - - - 2032/2033 - - - - 2033/2034 - - - - 2034/2035 - - - - $178,164 $142,007 $856,455 $506,845 85 172 Exhibit 2 G.O. G.O. CIP G.O. EDA Lease Tax Abatement Refunding Refunding G.O.Revenue Refunding Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 2006E 2012A 2015A 2015B 2016C Total $464,100 $177,692 $273,223 $317,717 $261,560 $2,131,423 - 176,390 274,378 319,397 276,176 1,497,786 - 180,012 270,178 315,722 289,097 1,435,687 - 178,080 271,228 317,297 301,571 1,282,392 - 175,896 266,923 316,877 313,567 1,073,263 - 178,794 267,868 316,299 325,054 1,088,015 - 176,109 273,958 320,814 - 770,881 - - 274,588 319,764 - 594,353 - - 269,863 318,557 - 588,420 - - 269,798 317,192 - 586,989 - - 222,364 315,669 - 538,033 - - 222,626 319,239 - 541,866 - - 222,758 317,244 - 540,002 - - 221,708 320,342 - 542,049 - - - 317,231 - 317,231 - - - 319,200 - 319,200 - - - 318,780 - 318,780 - - - 317,940 - 317,940 - - - 316,680 - 316,680 $464,100 $1,242,972 $3,601,461 $6,041,963 $1,767,024 $14,800,989 86 173 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS TO MATURITY December 31, 2016 Certificates of Certificates of Certificates of Certificates of Indebtedness Indebtedness Indebtedness Indebtedness 2014A 2015A 2015B 2016A Bonds payable $168,000 $133,250 $786,000 $469,000 Future interest payable 1,680 1,996 29,670 13,709 $169,680 $135,246 $815,670 $482,709 Payments to maturity: 2017 $169,680 $68,333 $204,790 $163,989 2018 - 66,913 203,895 159,140 2019 - - 202,970 159,580 2020 - - 204,015 - 2021 - - - - 2022 - - - - 2023 - - - - 2024 - - - - 2025 - - - - 2026 - - - - 2027 - - - - 2028 - - - - 2029 - - - - 2030 - - - - 2031 - - - - 2032 - - - - 2033 - - - - 2034 - - - - 2035 - - - - 2036 - - - - $169,680 $135,246 $815,670 $482,709 174 Exhibit 3 Page 1 of 2 G.O. Tax G.O. Utility G.O. CIP G.O. Abatement Revenue Refunding G.O. TIF Refunding G.O. Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 2006C 2006D 2006E 2007A 2012A 2015A $1,755,000 $70,000 $830,000 $2,025,000 $1,495,000 $3,095,000 37,448 1,453 33,600 323,825 74,403 559,468 $1,792,448 $71,453 $863,600 $2,348,825 $1,569,403 $3,654,468 $1,792,448 $71,453 $430,100 $473,926 $241,311 $257,113 - - 433,500 252,126 244,660 258,262 - - - 254,326 242,590 259,312 - - - 261,026 170,520 255,312 - - - 267,126 168,560 256,263 - - - 272,504 166,400 252,163 - - - 282,016 169,001 253,013 - - - 285,775 166,361 258,712 - - - - - 259,263 - - - - - 254,481 - - - - - 254,362 - - - - - 209,400 - - - - - 209,587 - - - - - 209,150 - - - - - 208,075 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $1,792,448 $71,453 $863,600 $2,348,825 $1,569,403 $3,654,468 175 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS TO MATURITY December 31, 2016 G.O. Tax EDA Lease G.O. Utility Abatement G.O. Revenue Revenue Refunding Improvement Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 2015B 2016A 2016C 2005A Bonds payable $4,350,000 $1,420,000 $1,600,000 $2,360,000 Future interest payable 1,637,193 164,864 82,880 60,118 $5,987,193 $1,584,864 $1,682,880 $2,420,118 Payments to maturity: 2017 $299,237 $19,564 $13,967 $2,420,118 2018 300,888 157,100 244,150 - 2019 302,437 159,450 261,678 - 2020 298,937 161,700 273,770 - 2021 299,488 158,900 285,422 - 2022 299,012 156,100 296,605 - 2023 298,388 158,250 307,288 - 2024 302,538 155,350 - - 2025 301,462 152,450 - - 2026 300,237 154,500 - - 2027 298,863 151,500 - - 2028 297,338 - - - 2029 300,587 - - - 2030 298,613 - - - 2031 301,106 - - - 2032 298,062 - - - 2033 298,800 - - - 2034 298,200 - - - 2035 297,200 - - - 2036 295,800 - - - $5,987,193 $1,584,864 $1,682,880 $2,420,118 176 Exhibit 3 Page 2 of 2 G.O. G.O. Imp & G.O. G.O. Improvement G.O. Utility Revenue Improvement Improvement Refunding Improvement G.O. Capital Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Note Note 2010A 2013A 2014A 2016B 2009A 2016A Total $425,000 $495,000 $2,540,000 $1,975,000 $1,345,000 $264,000 $27,600,250 26,175 74,940 156,725 69,357 165,505 24,321 3,539,330 $451,175 $569,940 $2,696,725 $2,044,357 $1,510,505 $288,321 $31,139,580 $111,250 $75,780 $402,223 $16,309 $450,165 $35,805 $7,717,561 113,175 74,460 399,633 501,575 454,565 36,020 3,900,062 110,025 72,900 406,158 506,780 462,415 36,217 3,436,838 116,725 71,100 401,788 505,868 143,360 36,399 2,900,520 - 69,000 406,390 513,825 - 35,739 2,460,713 - 71,500 162,055 - - 35,904 1,712,243 - 68,900 159,280 - - 36,053 1,732,189 - 66,300 161,151 - - 36,184 1,432,371 - - 162,645 - - - 875,820 - - 35,402 - - - 744,620 - - - - - - 704,725 - - - - - - 506,738 - - - - - - 510,174 - - - - - - 507,763 - - - - - - 509,181 - - - - - - 298,062 - - - - - - 298,800 - - - - - - 298,200 - - - - - - 297,200 - - - - - - 295,800 $451,175 $569,940 $2,696,725 $2,044,357 $1,510,505 $288,321 $31,139,580 177 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA Exhibit 4 INSURANCE IN FORCE December 31, 2016 Amount General Liability: Bodily Injury/Property Damage $2,000,000 Personal Injury/Police Professional Liability 2,000,000 Medical Expense Occurrence Limit 2,500 Medical Expense Aggregate 10,000 Property Damage ($1,000 Deductible) Property: Buildings and Contents (including Mobile and EDP - Electronic Equipment & Valuable Papers)36,318,702 Faithful Performance Blanket Bond 500,000 Storage Tank Liability 250,000 Rented/Leased Equipment ($1,000 Deductible)500,000 Public Official and Employee Liability ($1,000 Deductible each occurrence)1,500,000 Automotive: Bodily Injury and Property Damage 2,000,000 Comprehensive and Collision Actual Cash Value Uninsured Motorists 200,000 Worker's Compensation Statutory Employer Liability 1,500,000 Umbrella Liability 1,000,000 Crime - Theft Disappearance and Destruction ($1,000 Deductible)250,000 Coverage 84 178 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA Exhibit 5 TAXABLE VALUATIONS, TAX LEVIES AND TAX RATES Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Values Values 2015/2016 2014/2015 Taxable valuations: Total $18,440,817 $18,339,615 Fiscal disparities: Distribution 2,755,743 2,639,444 Contribution (1,115,822) (1,072,910) Less: Captured Tax Increment Value (261,525) (236,559) $19,819,213 $19,669,590 Tax Tax Certified Capacity Certified Capacity Levy Rate Levy Rate Taxes Levied: Revenue $7,018,572 35.025 $7,490,578 37.819 Bond and Interest 2,039,856 10.994 1,195,494 5.951 Totals $9,058,428 46.019 $8,686,072 43.770 The tax capacity rate is based on the total certified levy net of the fiscal disparity distribution. 85 179 - This page intentionally left blank - 180 4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated May 30, 2017. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. We did identify a Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Page 2 deficiency in internal control, described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses as item 2016-001, that we consider to be a material weakness. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s Response to the Finding The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s response to the finding identified in our audit is described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s response was not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota May 30, 2017 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Schedule of Findings and Responses For The Year Ended December 31, 2016 2016-001 Financial Statement Corrections Criteria: Audit adjustments are considered to be a deficiency in internal control as defined by auditing standards. Condition: While reviewing the 2015 allocation of the net pension liability, it was determined the allocation between governmental activities and business-type activities was not calculated correctly. Cause: In order to implement GASB Statement No. 68 relating to pension plans, complex calculations were required to allocate the net pension liability and related pension expense. An oversight occurred during the allocation process. Effect: Pension expense of governmental activities was overstated and pension expense of business-type activities (water and sewer funds) was understated. The net effect of the total misstatement was $0. Recommendation: We recommend the City continue efforts to assure that all adjustments are identified during the year-end closing process. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: It is the intent of the City’s staff to minimize the number of audit adjustments needed each year. Staff has added procedures to ensure similar allocations are performed correctly. 4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the City) for the year ended December 31, 2016. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated January 4, 2017. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2016. However, GASB Statement No. 72, Fair Value Measurement and Application, GASB Statement No. 77, Tax Abatement Disclosures, and GASB Statement No. 79, Certain External Investment Pools and Pool Participants, were implemented during 2016 which enhanced disclosures regarding investments and tax increment financing districts. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements were estimates of the net pension liability ($13,547,082) and the pension related deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources. These estimates are based on actuarial studies. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 2 Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. Determining sensitivity is subjective, however, we believe the disclosures most likely to be considered sensitive are Note 8 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans - PERA, Note 20 – Special Item, and Note 21 – Prior Period Adjustment. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent and clear. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. There were no uncorrected misstatements that have an effect on our opinion on the financial statements. One material misstatement was detected relating to the allocation of the net pension liability at December 31, 2015, and was subsequently corrected by management by restating beginning net position. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated May 30, 2017. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 3 Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Other Matters We applied certain limited procedures to the management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison schedule, the schedule of funding progress, and the schedules of pension information, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We were engaged to report on the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the introductory section, the statistical section or the other information which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. Restrictions on Use This information is intended solely for the use of the City Council and management of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota May 30, 2017 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Julie Bartell, City Clerk Lisa Hogstad Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 03-17, Amending the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances, Chapter 701, Relating to Liquor and Beer VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND This year the Minnesota Legislature approved, and the Governor signed, a state law change allowing Sunday off-sale liquor sales effective July 1, 2017. This new law authorizes off-sale between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. The legislation passed during the regular session allowed cities to be more restrictive on the hours of sale but not to opt out of the law. However, as part of this year’s special legislative session, the law was changed so that cities can now be more restrictive than state law on days of sale as well. So cities may choose to concur with all aspects of the state law or: a) opt out of Sunday off-sales; or b) allow Sunday off-sales but choose to be more restrictive on the hours of sale. City staff and the city attorney have reviewed the city’s current liquor regulations and prepared the attached ordinance that would bring the city’s language into concurrence with the new state law. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 03-17, Amending Chapter 701 of the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances relating to Liquor and Beer, to allow the off-sale of liquor on Sundays. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 03-17 1st Reading: Publication: 2nd Reading: Effective: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 03-17 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 700, CHAPTER 701 OF THE LINO LAKES CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO LIQUOR AND BEER. The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1. That Section 701.02, Subdivision 4, of the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances be amended to as follows: 701.02 LICENSES REQIRED (4) Off-sale license. Off-sale licenses shall be issued only to exclusive liquor stores and shall permit off-sale of liquor only. Off-sale liquor may be conducted on Sundays. All Sunday off-sale liquor sales must be made between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Section 2. That Section 701.08, of the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances be amended by adding thereto a Subdivision 7 to read as follows: 701.08 CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE (7) Deliveries. No delivery of alcohol to an off-sale license may be made by a wholesaler or accepted by an off-sale licensee on a Sunday. No order solicitation or merchandising may be made by a wholesale on a Sunday. Section 3. That Section 701.09, Subdivision 3, of the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances be amended to read as follows: 701.09 RESTRICTIONS ON PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION (3) Hours. No on-sale or off-sale of liquor shall be made, nor any licensed premises be occupied, after 2:00 a.m. on Sunday nor until 8:00 a.m. on Monday, except that a holder of a Sunday on-sale license may sell liquor between 8:00 a.m. on Sunday and 2:00 a.m on Mondays and the holder of a off-sale license may sell liquor between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. No on-sale shall be made between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on any weekday. No on-sale shall be made after 8:00 p.m. on December 24. No off-sale shall be made before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. of any day except that no off-sale shall be made on December 24 after 8:00 p.m. No off-sale shall be made on Thanksgiving Day or Christmas Day, December 25. Section 4. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall be in force and effect July 1, 2017. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this ____ day of __________________, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council Member_____________ and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ____________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4A STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Resolution 17-52 Approving Lino Lakes Participation in Anoka County All Hazard Mitigation Plan VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes approved participation in the Anoka County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan process in 2003, which led to the FEMA approval of the county-wide plan in 2007. The plan must be reviewed, updated, and re-approved every 5 years. We are requesting the city council approval to remain a part of the Anoka County plan. BACKGROUND The City of Lino Lakes has historically worked with other cities in Anoka County, as well as the county itself, in addressing the needs that present themselves when disaster strikes. In 2003, the city passed a resolution entering into a formal All Hazard Mitigation Planning with Anoka County. The purpose of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan are: • To involve members of the county, cities, townships, public, private, and other agencies to draft and adopt an action plan that serves as the blueprint for future development and preparedness activities across the county. • To identify the possible risks and hazards that may affect Anoka County through systematic hazard identification and risk assessment process. • To prioritize loss reduction and emergency preparedness activities for disasters. • To determine areas within Anoka County that may be vulnerable to various hazards. • To develop strategies and the best practices to avoid and mitigate the impact of hazards. In 2007, a plan was officially approved and has since been reviewed and updated by all those entities involved. The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) requires this plan to be reviewed and approved every 5 years. One of the steps in this approval is that each of the participating cities must re-approve their involvement in the plan. In order for a city to receive federal disaster assistance, they must have an approved All-Hazard Mitigation plan. By approving our involvement in the Anoka County plan, we will have met this federal requirement. This is also a requirement for the City of Lino Lakes to be eligible for various FEMA grants that may come up that would be utilized for mitigation projects. Approval to participate in the ongoing plan does not restrict the city from developing one independently, nor does it prevent the city from applying for grants independent of other Anoka County government entities. Approval of the plan provides an avenue to define strategies and resources to address the effects of a disaster, and it is drafted and designed with the agencies and personnel we would most likely utilize in the event a disaster strikes Lino Lakes. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Resolution 17-52 affirming the City of Lino Lakes will remain a part of the Anoka County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. ATTACHMENTS Anoka County All Hazard Mitigation Plan – City of Lino Lakes section Resolution 17-52 Anoka County All Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2013 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-52 ADOPTING ANOKA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN, AND EXECUTION OF THE PLAN WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has ordained that every county and incorporated municipality in the state is required to have a Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by the Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, to maintain eligibility for state disaster assistance after November 2004; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 has ordained that every county and incorporated municipality within the county is required to have a Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA in order to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funding for Presidential disasters declared after November 2004; and WHEREAS, under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued an Interim Final Rule that details the minimum criteria for local hazard mitigation plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes agrees with the concept of and necessity for hazard mitigation planning; and WHEREAS, the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee recommends the adoption of the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have conducted a review of and approved the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution #2014-73 adopting amendments to the Multi-Jurisdictional Plan for Anoka County and additional text was added to the Anoka County All Hazards Mitigation Plan to include the construction of safe rooms and storm shelters or the retrofitting of existing structures to be utilized as safe rooms or storm shelters; and WHEREAS, these amendments include all jurisdictions in Anoka County participating in the All Hazards Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes that the city hereby adopts the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and its Amendments and authorizes the execution of that Plan. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member _________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _____________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ALL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA 2013 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan Blank Page Inserted Version 2.0 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ SECTION 1: PLAN INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Emergency Management Background ............................................................................. 2 1.3 Hazard Mitigation Legislative Background ....................................................................... 3 1.4 Plan Purpose ................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Plan Scope ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Plan Authority .................................................................................................................. 7 1.7 Plan Outline ..................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS ....................................................................................... 11 2.1 Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning ........................................................................ 11 2.2 Preparing the Plan ......................................................................................................... 12 2.3 The Planning Team ...................................................................................................... 13 2.4 Community Meetings and Workshops ........................................................................... 16 2.5 Involving the Public ....................................................................................................... 22 2.5.1 Public Participation During Plan Construction ......................................................... 22 2.5.2 Public Opportunity During Plan Review ................................................................... 23 2.6 Involving Stakeholders ................................................................................................... 23 2.7 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation ..................................................................................... 23 2.8 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans ................................................................... 24 SECTION 3:JURISDICTION PROFILES ................................................................................. 27 3.1 Jurisdiction Descriptions ................................................................................................ 27 3.1.1 Jurisdiction Environment-Geography and Climate ................................................... 43 3.2 Jurisdiction Population and Demographics .................................................................... 43 3.2.1 Population ............................................................................................................... 43 3.2.2 Age, Race and Ethnic Demographics ...................................................................... 45 3.3 Jurisdiction Economics, Earnings and Employment ....................................................... 50 3.3.1 Economics .............................................................................................................. 50 3.3.2 Earnings .................................................................................................................. 51 3.3.3 Employment ............................................................................................................ 52 3.5 Jurisdiction Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 61 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................... 75 4.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 75 4.2 Hazard Identification ...................................................................................................... 75 4.2.1 Natural Hazards ...................................................................................................... 76 4.2.1.1 Earthquake ....................................................................................................... 76 4.2.1.2 Flooding/Flash Flooding ................................................................................... 76 4.2.1.3 Landslides/Mudslides ....................................................................................... 76 4.2.1.4 Land Subsidence .............................................................................................. 77 4.2.1.5 Infectious Diseases/Vectors .............................................................................. 78 4.2.1.6 Severe Weather - Drought ................................................................................ 79 4.2.1.7 Severe Weather - Extreme Temperature .......................................................... 80 4.2.1.8 Severe W eather - Thunderstorms ..................................................................... 80 4.2.1.9 Severe Weather - Tornados .............................................................................. 81 4.2.1.10 Severe Weather - Tropical Storm/Hurricane ................................................... 82 4.2.1.11 Severe Weather - Winter Storms .................................................................... 82 4.2.1.12 Wildfires .......................................................................................................... 83 4.2.2 Manmade Hazards .................................................................................................. 83 4.2.2.1 Attack ............................................................................................................... 83 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan ii 4.2.2.2 Civil Disturbance/Strikes/Workplace Violence ................................................... 84 4.2.2.3 Dam/Levee Failure ........................................................................................... 84 4.2.2.4 Hazardous Materials Incident ........................................................................... 85 4.2.2.6 Illegal Methamphetamine Labs ......................................................................... 86 4.2.2.7 Terrorism .......................................................................................................... 87 4.2.2.8 Transportation Accident .................................................................................... 89 4.2.2.9 Urban Fire ........................................................................................................ 89 4.2.2.10 Utility Failure – Power – Water Contamination ................................................ 90 4.3 Hazard Analysis ............................................................................................................. 90 4.3.1 Natural Hazards ...................................................................................................... 92 4.3.1.1 Flooding/Flash floods ........................................................................................ 92 4.3.1.2 Epidemics/Pandemics/Vectors ......................................................................... 94 4.3.1.8 Severe Weather – Thunderstorms-Hail/Lightning/Wind .................................... 96 4.3.1.3 Severe Weather - Tornado ............................................................................... 98 4.3.1.4 Severe Weather – Winter Storms ................................................................... 100 4.3.1.5 Wildfires .......................................................................................................... 102 4.3.2 Manmade Hazards ................................................................................................ 103 4.3.2.1 Hazardous Materials Incident ......................................................................... 103 4.3.2.3 Illegal Methamphetamine Labs ....................................................................... 104 4.3.2.4 Terrorism ........................................................................................................ 106 4.3.2.5 Urban Fire ...................................................................................................... 108 4.4 Hazard Vulnerability .................................................................................................... 111 4.4.1 Jurisdiction Hazard Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................... 111 4.4.1.1 Countywide Hazard Vulnerability .................................................................... 112 4.4.1.2 Municipality Hazard Vulnerability .................................................................... 115 4.4.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .................................................................... 117 4.4.2.1 Repetitive Flooding Analysis ........................................................................... 119 4.4.2.2 Future Structure Vulnerability ......................................................................... 120 4.4.3 Asset Inventory by Hazard .................................................................................... 121 4.4.4 Hazard Loss Calculations ...................................................................................... 127 4.4.5 Tier II Hazardous Materials Assessment ............................................................... 133 4.4.6 Terrorism Vulnerability ......................................................................................... 133 4.4.7 Land Use and Development Trends ...................................................................... 134 SECTION 5: CAPABILITIES, MITIGATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................ 159 5.1 Jurisdiction Capabilities ............................................................................................... 159 5.1.1 Capability Assessment Overview .......................................................................... 159 5.1.2 Conducting the Capability Assessment ................................................................. 159 5.1.3 Capability Assessment Findings ............................................................................ 160 5.1.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability ................................................................ 160 5.1.3.2 Administrative and Technical Capability .......................................................... 164 5.1.3.3 Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................. 167 5.1.4 External Resources ............................................................................................... 168 5.1.5 Disaster Shelters ................................................................................................... 169 5.1.6 Previously Implemented Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 169 5.1.7 Repetitive Flooding Mitigation ............................................................................... 171 5.1.8 Linking Capability Assessments, Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy ......... 172 5.2 Mitigation Strategy ....................................................................................................... 172 5.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 172 5.2.2 Mitigation Goals .................................................................................................... 173 5.2.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques .............................................. 174 5.2.3.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Community Survey ..................................................... 175 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan iii 5.2.4 Selection of Mitigation Techniques ........................................................................ 180 5.2.5 Mitigation Goals and Actions ................................................................................. 182 5.2.6 Mitigation Actions Prioritization .............................................................................. 249 5.2.7 Mitigation Actions Implementation ......................................................................... 261 5.3 Mitigation Implementation and Plan Maintenance ........................................................ 273 5.3.1 Implementation ..................................................................................................... 273 5.3.2 Incorporating Mitigation Into Existing Planning Mechanisms ................................. 273 5.3.3 Monitoring, Evaluation and Enhancement ............................................................. 274 5.3.3.1 Five (5) Year Plan Review .............................................................................. 274 5.3.3.2 Disaster Declaration ....................................................................................... 275 5.3.3.3 Reporting Procedures ..................................................................................... 275 5.3.4 Continued Public Involvement ............................................................................... 276 References and Acknowledgements ................................................................................. 277 Mitigation Meetings, Notices and Minutes .......................................................................... 279 Planning Meeting Attendance Sheets ............................................................................ 280 Notice of Public Meeting ................................................................................................ 283 Resolutions and Adoption .................................................................................................. 285 Resolutions for The Intent to Join the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan .......... 286 Resolutions to Adopt the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan ............................. 305 FEMA Acceptance Documentation ................................................................................ 310 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 1 SECTION 1: PLAN INTRODUCTION This section provides a general introduction to the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan. It consists of the following: Overview Emergency Management Background Hazard Mitigation Legislative Background Plan Purpose Plan Scope Plan Authority Plan Outline 1.1 Overview Anoka County has and may in the future experience a variety of natural and manmade hazards that cause loss of life and damage to property. Anoka County Emergency Management has prepared a countywide hazard mitigation plan that re-shapes Anoka County and local communities into a more resilient framework, enabling it to recover more quickly and easily from disasters. Through the use of this plan, Anoka County and the local jurisdictions will decrease the community’s vulnerability to disasters and enhance response to disasters and public threats. The plan provides a framework on which to base comprehensive mitigation of hazards for all Anoka County political jurisdictions. Risk management tools were used to prioritize and identify vulnerabilities to hazards. The overall hazard analysis determines which areas of the community are affected by hazards, how likely it is that a disaster may occur, and what impact a disaster might have. By assessing the vulnerability countywide, it can be determined which government and private facilities are at risk and to what degree they may be impacted. Natural and manmade hazards pose a threat to every citizen and community within Anoka County on some level and frequency. Often, the reality of potential hazards to a community are not fully understood or realized until a major disaster occurs. It is then that a community experiences the extreme hardship of significant human and economic losses. The process of all-hazard mitigation planning is the first step toward protecting a community from losses associated with hazards and resulting disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with regard to hazard mitigation planning provides the following definitions: Hazard mitigation - Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long- term risk to human life and property from hazards. Planning - The act or process of making or carrying out plans, specifically, the establishment of goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic unit. The process of hazard mitigation planning is a critical part of any community’s planning program. Because most hazards occur infrequently, mitigation programs for hazards are usually initiated and funded as a reaction to recover from the most recent disaster event. This form of hazard mitigation response is typically more costly, both in property and human losses, on a long-term basis, than is pre-disaster planning and mitigation. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 2 1.2 Emergency Management Background Over the past fifty years, the meaning and scope of homeland security and emergency management has significantly evolved in response to changes in political, military, and natural environments. Emergency management has grown from a narrow civil defense focus, to its present position of providing a wide array of services in response to natural and manmade hazards, including aspects of homeland security. This evolution has resulted in a shift from federal based initiatives to one of fostering both local and state developed and delivered programs. Within this framework, local emergency management organizations work to implement local, state, and federal emergency management and homeland security policy. By working collaboratively with governmental agencies, private industry, and citizens, and by providing technical assistance and support, local emergency management organizations are expanding capabilities to contribute a broad spectrum of professional services. Historically, federal and state perspectives have shaped the focus, scope, and policy of emergency management. Prior to and extending through the 1930s, emergency management programs did not exist except for some “New Deal” social programs, administered by federal agencies, that provided assistance in response to specific disasters. Emergency Management found its beginning and was developed immediately after World War II as a response to military attack. The federal government created a nationwide shelter program under the provisions of the Civil Defense Act. The first federal assistance to state and local governments was provided under civil defense programs. At the federal level, response and recovery from natural and manmade disasters were thought to be within the jurisdiction of state and local governments. These disasters were philosophically and legally separate from “war - related” emergencies until the late 1970s. In 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was established to assist in responding to war caused emergencies, nuclear events and natural and manmade disasters. In the 1980s, response and recovery efforts from other than war caused disasters became eligible for federal funding. This was the first effort to view emergency management as a comprehensive set of services encompassing four phases - mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Emergency Management also experienced a key policy shift. Focus shifted from one of nuclear war preparedness to a more balanced focus on natural and manmade hazards and disasters. An “all-hazards” approach was emphasized. Federal assistance became available for preparedness, direct response and recovery efforts. The increasing demand on federal funds for disaster recovery assistance prompted a change in federal policy to emphasize mitigation and provide technical assistance to build state and local government capabilities to more independently deal with emergencies and disasters that occur within their jurisdictions. In the 1990s, federal, state, and local governments recognized the increasing threat of terrorism. Domestic and foreign events, including the bombing of the New York World Trade Center in February 1993; the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in June 1996; the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in October 2000; and the terrorist attacks on September 2001, demonstrated terrorists’ willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. Federal agencies began to examine the causes and effects of these events, to shape U.S. policy, and fund domestic anti-terrorism preparedness activities. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 3 The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon was a defining moment in the war on terrorism. The restructuring of domestic and foreign policy, and the development of nationwide initiatives to detect and prevent terrorist attacks and protect national critical infrastructure and systems witness this. At the federal level, anti-terrorism activities resulted in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Four phases of Emergency Management 1.3 Hazard Mitigation Legislative Background Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000: In support of the expanded role of emergency management, Congress approved the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, (DMA2K), commonly known as the 2000 Stafford Act. Section 322 is the amendment to the Stafford Act that primarily deals with the development of local hazard mitigation plans. The DMA2K legislation was signed into law on October 30, 2000 (Public Law 106-390). The Interim Final Rule for planning provisions (implemented at 44 CFR Part 201) was initially published in the Federal Register in February 2002 and several additional Interim Final Rules have been published since 2002. Local hazard mitigation planning requirements are implemented in 44 CFR Part 201.6. The purpose of DMA2K was to amend the Stafford Act to establish a national program for pre-disaster mitigation, streamline administration of disaster relief at both the federal and state level, and control federal costs of disaster assistance. Congress envisioned that implementation of these new requirements would result in the following key benefits: Reduction of loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster costs. Prioritization of hazard mitigation planning at the local level, with an increased emphasis placed on planning and public involvement, assessing risks, implementing loss reduction measures, and ensuring critical services/facilities survive a disaster. Establishment of economic incentives, awareness and education to state, tribal, and local governments that result in forming community based partnerships, implementing effective hazard mitigation measures, leveraging additional non-federal resources, and establishing commitments to long-term hazard mitigation efforts. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 4 The DMA2K legislation requires all local, county and tribal governments to develop a hazard mitigation plan for their respective communities in order to be eligible to receive Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds. DMA2K requires that each plan must, at minimum, address or include the following general items: Plan Adoption by All Jurisdictions Planning Process including Public Involvement Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Mitigation Strategy Plan Implementation and Maintenance Procedures Any Specific State Requirements Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: In 1988, Congress established the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) by enactment of Section 404 of the Stafford Act. In 2002, regulations pertaining to the HMGP to reflect the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 were changed by 44 CFR Part 206, Subpart N. An Interim Final Rule was issued in October 2002, wherein the final compliance date was revised from November 1, 2003 to November 1, 2004. The HMGP continues to be updated with the most recent changes occurring in September 2009. The HMGP assists states and local communities in implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures by providing federal funding following a major disaster declaration. Eligible applicants include state and local agencies, tribal organizations, and certain non-profit organizations. Examples of typical HMGP eligible projects include: Property acquisition and relocation projects. Structural retrofitting to minimize damages from high winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or other natural hazards. Elevation of flood-prone structures. Vegetative management programs. Minor flood control projects that do not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies. Localized flood control projects, such as certain ring levees and floodwall systems, that are designed specifically to protect critical facilities. Post-disaster building code related activities that support building code officials during the reconstruction process Purchasing of land for the development and construct tornado-safe shelters Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program was authorized by section 203 of the 2000 Stafford Act, 42 USC (Public Law 106-390). Funding for the program is provided through the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to assist state, local, and tribal Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 5 governments in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program. Two types of grants are offered under the PDM Program. Planning Grants - allocated funds to be used for hazard mitigation plan development. Competitive Grants - distributed funds using a competitive application process wherein all state, local, and tribal governments interested in obtaining grant funds can submit applications to be reviewed and ranked by FEMA using pre-determined criteria. The minimum eligibility requirements for jurisdictions receiving competitive PDM funds include: Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Must not be suspended or on probation from the NFIP. Must have a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program: The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the NFIP. Funding for the program is provided through the National Flood Insurance Fund. FMA provides funding to assist states and communities in implementing measures to: Reduce the number of repetitively or substantially damaged structures and the associated claims on the National Flood Insurance Fund. Encourage long-term, comprehensive mitigation planning. Respond to the needs of communities participating in the NFIP to expand their mitigation activities beyond floodplain development review and permitting. Complement other federal, state and local mitigation programs with similar, long-term mitigation goals. There are three types of grants available under FMA: FMA Planning Grants are available to states and communities to prepare Flood Mitigation Plans. NFIP-participating communities with approved Flood Mitigation Plans can apply for FMA Project Grants. FMA Project Grants are available to states and NFIP participating communities to implement measures to reduce flood losses. Ten percent of the Project Grant is made available to states. Technical Assistance Grants are a part of Project Grants. Up to 10% of the Project Grants funding is made available to the states for technical assistance. These funds may be used by the state to help administer the program. Eligible communities may apply for an FMA planning grant. The NFIRA stipulates that to be eligible to receive an FMA grant, a community must have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan and must be participating in the NFIP. Examples of eligible FMA projects include: Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 6 Acquisition of NFIP-insured structures and underlying real property. Demolition of NFIP-insured structures on acquired or restricted real property. Minor physical flood mitigation projects that do not duplicate the flood-prevention activities of other federal agencies, that lessen the frequency or severity of flooding, and decrease predicted flood damages in local flood areas. These include modification of existing culverts and bridges, installation or modification of floodgates, stabilization of stream banks, and creation of small debris or flood/storm water retention basins in small watersheds. Construction or improvement of major structural flood-control structures such as dikes, levees, dams, seawalls, groins, and jetties, and projects consisting of channel widening or stream alignment are not eligible, as indicated in Section 1366. Other activities that bring an NFIP-insured structure into compliance with the authorized statutory floodplain management requirements of 44 CFR Part 60.3. Relocation of NFIP-insured structures from acquired or restricted real property to sites not prone to flood hazards. Elevation of NFIP-insured residential structures, and elevation or dry flood proofing of NFIP-insured non-residential structures, in accordance with 44 CFR Part 60.3. 1.4 Plan Purpose The key purposes of this plan are: To involve members of the county, cities, townships, public, private, and other agencies to draft and adopt an action plan that serves as the blueprint for future development and preparedness activities across the county. To identify the possible risks and hazards that may affect Anoka County through systematic hazard identification and risk assessment process. To prioritize loss reduction and emergency preparedness activities for disasters. To determine areas within Anoka County that may be vulnerable to various hazards. To develop strategies and the best practices to avoid and mitigate the impact of hazards. 1.5 Plan Scope This Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated and maintained by Anoka County Emergency Management to continually address hazards determined to be of high and moderate risk through the detailed vulnerability assessment for Anoka County. Other hazards that pose a low or negligible risk will continue to be evaluated for future updates to the Plan, but they may not be fully addressed until they are determined to be of high or moderate risk. The geographic scope (i.e., the planning area) for the Plan includes all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Anoka County. This includes the following 22 governmental jurisdictions: Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 7 Anoka County City of East Bethel City of Andover City of Fridley City of Anoka City of Ham Lake City of Bethel City of Hilltop City of Blaine City of Lexington City of Nowthen City of Lino lakes City of Centerville Township of Linwood City of Circle Pines City of Oak Grove City of Columbia Heights City of Ramsey City of Columbus City of Spring Lake Park City of Coon Rapids City of St. Francis 1.6 Plan Authority This Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by Anoka County and its incorporated municipal jurisdictions in accordance with the authority and powers granted to counties, cities and towns as defined by the State of Minnesota. Copies of all local resolutions to adopt the Plan are included starting on page 290. This Plan was developed in accordance with current state and federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation plans. The Plan shall be routinely monitored and revised to maintain compliance with the following provisions, rules, and legislation: Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390); and FEMA's Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Part 201. 1.7 Plan Outline Section 1: Introduction provides the overview scope and purpose of the Plan and planning process. Section 2: Planning Process describes the process used to develop the Anoka County Multi- Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan. The description provides a general overview of local hazard mitigation planning as well as the specific procedures used by Anoka County to prepare its Plan. It includes a description of who was involved as members of the planning team, and documents the outcomes of meetings. It also demonstrates the opportunities for the public and other stakeholders to participate in the plan development process. Section 3: Community Profile describes the general makeup of Anoka County and its local jurisdictions, including prevalent geographic, demographic, and economic characteristics. Building characteristics and land use patterns are presented along with some general historical disaster data. This baseline information provides a snapshot of the countywide planning area Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 8 and thereby assists Anoka County in recognizing those social, environmental, and economic factors that ultimately play a role in determining community vulnerability to hazards. Section 4: Hazard Assessment is made up of three subsections: Hazard Identification, Hazard Analysis, and Hazard Vulnerability. Together, these sections serve to identify, analyze, and assess Anoka County’s overall risk to hazards. The risk assessment also defines any hazard risks that may uniquely or exclusively affect the individual municipal jurisdictions. The risk assessment builds on available historical data from past hazard occurrences, establishes hazard-by-hazard profiles, and culminates in a hazard risk ranking based on conclusions about the frequency of occurrence, spatial extent, and potential impact of each hazard. FEMA’s HAZUS®MR loss estimation methodology was also used in evaluating some known hazard risks by their relative long-term cost in expected damages. The information generated through the risk assessment serves a critical function. As communities seek to determine the most appropriate mitigation actions to pursue and implement, this information enables communities to prioritize and focus their efforts on those hazards of greatest concern and those structures or areas facing the greatest risk. Section 5: Capabilities, Mitigation, and Maintenance provides' a comprehensive examination of Anoka County and the participating local jurisdictions’ capacity to implement meaningful mitigation strategies, identifies existing opportunities to increase and enhance that capability, and details procedures for maintenance and evaluation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Capabilities addressed in this section include planning and regulatory capability, administrative capability, technical capability, and fiscal capability. Information was obtained through the use of detailed survey questionnaires for local officials and an inventory and analysis of existing plans, ordinances, and relevant documents. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any existing gaps, weaknesses, or conflicts in programs or activities that may hinder mitigation efforts, and to identify those activities that should be built upon in establishing a successful and sustainable community hazard mitigation program. The community profile, risk assessment, and capability assessment collectively serve as a basis for determining the goals for the Hazard Mitigation Plan, each contributing to the development, adoption, and implementation of a meaningful mitigation strategy that is based on accurate background information. Mitigation Strategy is made up of two subsections: Mitigation Strategic Goals and Mitigation Actions. Strategic Goals consists of broad, countywide goal statements for each local jurisdiction participating in the planning process to strive for in achieving, as well as a general description of the mitigation tools and techniques available for further consideration. The strategy provides the foundation for identifying and prioritizing mitigation actions. Mitigation Actions are action plans specific to each local jurisdiction, and link proposed mitigation actions for each to locally assigned implementation mechanisms and target implementation dates. This section is designed to make the Plan both strategic, through the identification of long -term goals, and functional, through the identification of short-term and immediate actions that will guide day-to-day decision-making and project implementation. Plan Maintenance includes the measures Anoka County and its municipal jurisdictions will take to ensure the Plan’s continuous long-term implementation. The procedures also include the manner in which the Plan will be regularly evaluated and updated to remain a current and meaningful planning document. During this plan review process each jurisdiction actively participated in reviewing and updating the relevant sections for their jurisdiction. The document below demonstrates how the sections Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 9 of the plan were divided and each jurisdictions individual contribution to the updated County Wide Hazard Mitigation Plan. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 11 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS This section of the Plan describes the mitigation planning process undertaken by Anoka County in preparation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. It consists of eight subsections: Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Preparing the Plan The Planning Team Community Meetings and Workshops Involving the Public Involving Stakeholders Multi-Jurisdictional Participation Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans 2.1 Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Local hazard mitigation planning is the process of organizing community resources, identifying and assessing hazard risks, and determining how to best minimize or manage those risks. This process results in a hazard mitigation plan that identifies specific mitigation actions, each designed to achieve both short-term planning objectives and a long-term community vision. To ensure the functionality of each mitigation action, responsibility is assigned to a specific individual, department, or agency, along with a schedule for action implementation. Plan maintenance procedures are established for the monitoring of implementation progress, and the evaluation and enhancement of the mitigation plan. These plan maintenance procedures ensure that Anoka County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan remains a current, dynamic, and effective planning document over time. Mitigation planning offers many benefits, including: Saving lives and property; Saving money; Facilitate recovery following disasters; Reducing future vulnerability through wise development and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction; Expediting the receipt of pre- and post-disaster grant funding; and Demonstrating a commitment to improve community health and safety. Typically, mitigation planning has the potential to produce long-term and recurring benefits by breaking the repetitive cycle of disaster loss. A core assumption of hazard mitigation is that pre- disaster investments will significantly reduce the demand for post-disaster assistance by lessening the need for emergency response, repair, recovery, and reconstruction. Mitigation practices will enable residents, businesses, and industries to recover in the wake of a disaster to ensure the community economy is re-established quicker and with less interruption. The benefits of mitigation planning go beyond reducing hazard vulnerability. Measures such as the acquisition or regulation of land in known hazard areas can help achieve multiple community goals such as preserving open space, maintaining environmental health, and enhancing recreational opportunities. Thus, it is vitally important that any local mitigation planning process be integrated with other local planning efforts, and any proposed mitigation strategies be congruent with other existing community goals or initiatives. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 12 2.2 Preparing the Plan In preparing this Plan, Anoka County utilized a multi-jurisdictional planning process consistent with the one recommended by FEMA (Publication Series 386). A Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix H, provides a summary of FEMA’s current minimum standards of acceptability for compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and notes the location where each requirement is met within the Plan. These standards are based upon FEMA’s Interim Final Rule as published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, in Part 201 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The planning process included eight major steps that were completed during the development of the Plan. These steps are illustrated in Figure 2.1. Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: 1 An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; 2 An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and 3 Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(1): The plan shall document the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. FMA Requirement §78.5(a): Description of the planning process and public involvement. Public involvement may include workshops, public meetings, or public hearings. A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the plan? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 13 Figure 2.1 Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Process 2.3 The Planning Team A community-based planning team developed the original Plan in cooperation with the Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEM) and consulting company Excelliant Services created the original Hazard Mitigation Plan. During the review and update process for the current document, a planning team engaged government officials in local meetings and planning workshops to discuss and complete tasks associated with preparing the Plan. This working group coordinated all aspects of the plan development process and became formally recognized as the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. In addition to regular meetings, committee members routinely communicated and were kept informed through a dedicated e-mail distribution group. Additional participation and input from B. Does the plan indicate who was involved in the planning process? (For example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) Mitigation Planning Community “Kickoff” meeting Capabilities, Hazard Risk, and Vulnerability Data Collection Data Methodology Community meeting Community meeting to review data collection progress Mitigation Goals and Plan Maintenance Draft Plan Review Community Meeting Plan Adoption Community Meeting Community Workshop to develop mitigation actions Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 14 county residents and other identified stakeholders were sought through the distribution of public notices and the facilitation of public meetings. A committee was selected participate and complete the comprehensive update for the 2012 version of Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Committee consists of participants representing all areas of the county and is responsible for the development of the updated plan. The designated primary and alternate points of contact are the Anoka County Emergency Management Director and the Emergency Management Specialist. These points of contact provided the interface for the Anoka County Emergency Management Department to the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. The Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee’s role and responsibility is to provide policy and strategic direction in order to ensure that the Anoka County Planning Committee continues to fulfill its goals and objectives. Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee Ryan Kelzenberg Emergency Management Specialist Anoka County Emergency Management Terry Stoltzman Emergency Manager Anoka County Emergency Management Greg Hayes Emergency Management Specialist Anoka County Emergency Management An Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was named and consists of representatives to the Anoka County Emergency Management Group. This committee has the function of reviewing and updating mitigation strategies and goals for Anoka County and the individual jurisdictions within Anoka County. The role of the planning committee was to gather data, ensure consistent progress toward project completion and provide oversight in the development of jurisdictional goals and activities. ANOKA COUNTY PLANNING COMMITTEE Member Name/email/Phone Representing Role Decision maker contributor writer member etc Focus Planning Hazards mitigation etc ANOKA CONTY POINT OF CONTACTS Primary Alternate Name Ryan Kelzenberg Greg Hayes Title Emergency Management Specialist Emergency Management Specialist Department Anoka County Emergency Management Anoka County Emergency Management Phone 763-323-5264 763-323-5264 Fax 763-323-5682 763-323-5682 Email Ryan.Kelzenberg@co.anoka.mn.us Greg.Hayes@co.anoka.mn.us Street Address 2100 Third Ave Ste 700 2100 Third Ave Ste 700 City, State, Zip Anoka, MN 55303 Anoka, MN 55303 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 15 Linda Hanson Linda.Hanson@co.anoka.mn.us 763-323-5826 Anoka County Emergency Management Contributor Writer Mitigation Ryan Kelzenberg Ryan.kelzenberg@co.anoka.mn.us 763-323-5264 Anoka County Emergency Management Contributor Hazard Greg Hayes Greg.Hayes@co.anoka.mn.us 763-566-5264 Anoka County Emergency Management Contributor Planning Terry Stoltzman Terry.Stoltzman@co.anoka.mn.us 763-323-5761 Anoka County Emergency Management Contributor Mitigation Dan Winkel dwinkel@ci.andover.mn.us 763-755-9825 City of Andover Contributor Hazards Mitigation Scott Nolan snolan@ci.anoka.mn.us 763-576-2832 City of Anoka Contributor Hazards Mitigation Ginger Berg info@bethelmn.govoffice2.com 763-434-4366 City of Bethel Contributor Hazards Mitigation Kerry Fenner Kfenner@ci.blaine.mn.us 763-785-6131 City of Blaine Contributor Hazards Mitigation Corrie LaDoucer cladoucer@qwestoffice.net 763-441-1347 City of Nowthen Contributor Hazards Mitigation Chief Jim Coan jcoan@clpdmn.com 763-784-5201 City of Centerville City of Circle Pines City of Lexington Contributor Hazards Mitigation Russ Blanck rblanck@clpdmn.com 763-784-2501 City of Centerville City of Circle Pines City of Lexington Contributor Hazards Mitigation Gary Gorman Gary.Gorman@ci.columbia- heights.mn.us 763-706-8150 City of Columbia Heights Contributor Hazards Mitigation Elizabeth Mursko cityadministrator@ci.columbus.mn.us 651-464-3120 Town of Columbus Contributor Hazards Mitigation Cary Parks cparks@ci.coon-rapids.mn.us 763-767-6504 City of Coon Rapids Contributor Hazards Mitigation Mark DuCharme Mark.ducharme@ci.east- bethel.mn.us 763-434-9569 City of East Bethel Contributor Hazards Mitigation Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 16 Brian Weierke weierkeb@ci.fridley.mn.us 763-572-36232 City of Fridley Contributor Hazards Mitigation Don Krueger dkrueger@ci.ham-lake.mn.us 763-434-9555 City of Ham Lake Contributor Hazards Mitigation Ruth Nelsen rnelsen@hilltop.govoffice.com 763-571-2023 City of Hilltop Contributor Hazards Mitigation Kendall Minske linwoodfire@frontiernet.net 651-462-2812 City of Linwood Contributor Hazards Mitigation Sherry Fiskewold sfiskewold@ci.oak-grove.mn.us 763-404-7000 City of Oak Grove Contributor Hazards Mitigation Dean Kapler dkapler@ci.ramsey.mn.us 763-427-4452 City of Ramsey City of St. Francis Contributor Hazards Mitigation Doug Ebeltoft debeltoft@ci.spring-lake-park.mn.us 763-792-7200 City of Spring Lake Park Contributor Hazards Mitigation Susan Carolan Susan.Carolan@co.anoka.mn.us 763-422-7046 Anoka County Public Health Contributor Hazards Mitigation Maura Prescher maura.prescher@co.anoka.mn.us 763-323-6127 Anoka County Environmental Services Contributor Hazards Mitigation 2.4 Community Meetings and Workshops The preparation of the Plan required a series of meetings and workshops for facilitating discussion and data collection efforts with the planning team and local community officials. More importantly, the meetings and workshops prompted continuous input and feedback throughout the drafting stages of the Plan. Below is a summary of the key meetings and community workshops for the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. Additional meetings were held by the participating jurisdictions to accomplish planning tasks specific to their community, such as specific mitigation actions for inclusion in their Mitigation Action Plan. Public notices and and/or minutes of these meetings have been scanned into this plan and can be found starting on page 273. The table below summarizes the mandatory meetings of the committee and information sessions discussion the Hazard Mitigation Plan. MANDATORY COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC MEETINGS Date Meeting Number of Attendees February 9, 2011 Planning Kickoff Meeting 22 August 18, 2011 Mitigation Workshop Meeting Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 17 November 9, 2011 Mitigation Workshop Meeting Feb 29, 2012 Anoka Elected Officials Meeting 52 Nov 8, 2012 Anoka County Community Meeting 5 Future Dates Plan Adoption Meeting(s) The Initial Project Review and Update Kick Off was held with officials from Anoka County and representatives of the Anoka County Emergency Management Work Group on February 9th, 2011. The Project Coordinator Ryan Kelzenberg was introduced to the Emergency Management Work Group and discussed steps needed to complete the review and update of the current Hazard Mitigation Plan. The goal is to have the final review completed and be ready to submit the Hazard Mitigation Plan for adoption in November 2012. Discussions focused on the overall project approach, in which emphasis was placed on the steps necessary to meet the requirements of building on the existing Hazard Mitigation Plan, and work already completed at the state and local level. Additional discussions focused on the specific roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in the planning process. In addition to representatives from each of the participating municipal jurisdictions, it was determined that representatives from fire and law enforcement agencies, private businesses, voluntary agencies, and the public would continue to be invited to participate in the process. The steps in updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan were discussed, including the need for ongoing coordination throughout the entire planning process and the need to reach out to organizations that may not have been represented in the previous plan update. Specific data was provided, including the Capability Assessment Survey and hazard and mitigation tools used in the previous update. Specific issues including the need to review, analyze, and incorporate existing information that may be helpful to process such as mitigation or hazard-related plans, policies, programs, studies, reports and technical documentation were discussed. Agendas for future meetings were outlined, including the first official public meeting of the Mitigation Plan Planning. The Mitigation Plan Project Kickoff Public Meeting was held to present the project and its’ benefits and requirements to all participating jurisdictions attendees and invited stakeholders. The intent of the first session meeting was to educate participants on the mitigation planning process and to explain DMA2K multi-jurisdictional planning requirements. The meeting began with a detailed presentation of the mitigation planning process. The presentation introduced the concept of hazard mitigation and detailed the mitigation planning process to be followed. Preliminary data collection efforts for the risk and capability assessment tasks associated with the development of the Plan were discussed. Specific data collection needs were explained, including the need for any available local hazard risk data unique to Anoka County. Following the presentation, Anoka County Emergency Management addressed questions raised by the attendees. These primarily related to the methodologies and data requirements for completing the risk and capability assessments and the types of mitigation actions each jurisdiction should consider for inclusion in their updated Mitigation Action Plans. A project plan/timeline was presented to focus the Mitigation Plan Planning Committee on the required tasks and timeline to complete the Mitigation Plan. Data collection efforts were launched through the distribution and explanation of the existing data to each member of the committee to review for their jurisdiction. Each committee member Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 18 was assigned the task of meeting with appropriate officials from their respective agency or jurisdiction to review and update the information for their jurisdiction. During the original planning process there was concern was expressed regarding the formal adoption of the plan by each of the jurisdictions at the end of the process. It was explained by Anoka County Emergency Management that each of the committee members shared a role in being ambassadors for mitigation, along with the responsibility of educating elected officials and other stakeholders in their communities. Continued education, awareness, and public involvement efforts will enhance support and general consensus on agreeable mitigation action alternatives for Anoka County. During the comprehensive update Anoka County and the plan participants would continue to use this process during the comprehensive update. The Anoka County Community Meeting date was published on the Anoka County Website as required for all public meetings. The meeting was attended by representatives of Anoka County Emergency Management though the attendance from businesses and residents of Anoka County fell short of our attendance goal. ANOKA COUNTY MITIGATION PLAN PROJECT PLAN Mitigation Plan Planning Task Action/Description Responsible Deliverable 1 Obtain approval for mitigation planning. Present FEMA Mitigation Plan requirements benefits, and deadlines to proper officials. Emergency Mgr Resolution to proceed 2 Prepare a letter of interest and submit to all eligible jurisdictions. Emergency Mgr Letter of interest 3 Estimate the dollar amount of “in kind” contribution to mitigation planning. Emergency Mgr Cost estimate 4 Obtain approval, completed commitment letter with signatures from all jurisdictions. Emergency Mgr Resolutions to proceed 5 Identify committee members from county municipalities, public, media, business, industry and volunteer groups. Emergency Mgr Consultant Committee contact list 6 Form a committee of key decision makers from all jurisdictions. Emergency Mgr Consultant Committee roster 7 Provide contact information for the project point of contact and alternate. Emergency Mgr Point of contact data 8 Summarize meetings/minutes and public input. Project Mg Status Report Mitigation Plan Kickoff Meeting Task Action/Description Responsible Deliverable 1 Discuss meeting requirements with the Planning Committee. Project Mgr Agreement 2 Review all information to be presented at the Project “Kickoff” Meeting. Project Mgr Agreement 3 Schedule appropriate meeting location and acquire meeting materials. Project Mgr Meeting Logistics 4 Discuss data collection methodology and distribute plan templates and project plan. Project Mgr Data Templates 7 Prepare a summary document of all meetings, project status and comments Project Mgr Status Report Mitigation Plan Data Collection Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 19 Task Description Responsible Deliverable 1 Provide Jurisdiction Participants the documents that are needed for review and update Project Mgr Plan Sections 2 Review/Edit /update Section 1-Plan Introduction, to reflect Anoka County’s local information. Project Mgr Committee Edited Section 1 3 Review/Edit/update Section 2-Planning Process, to reflect Anoka County’s local information. Project Mgr Committee Edited Section 2 4 Review/Edit/Update Section 3-Jurisdiction Profile to reflect Anoka County’s local information. Project Mgr Committee Edited Section 3 5 Review/Edit/update Section 5- Capabilities Templates. Project Mgr Committee Edited Capabilities 6 Review/Edit/Update Section 4-Hazard Identification to reflect hazards in Anoka County. Add or delete hazards Project Mgr Committee Hazard Templates 7 Review/Edit/Update Section 4-Hazard Analysis to reflect plans hazards. Collect historical hazard data. Project Mgr Committee Hazard Templates 8 Review/Edit/update Section 4-Hazard Vulnerabilities to reflect Anoka County Vulnerabilities. Project Mgr Committee Vulnerabilities Templates 9 Edit/Update Section 4 Hazard Vulnerabilities with Critical Facilities. Project Mgr Committee Critical Facilities Templates 10 Edit/update Section 4-Hazard Vulnerabilities with hazard inventory and loss information. Project Mgr Committee Hazard Inventory and Loss templates 11 Develops GIS Maps of jurisdictions, transportation, hazards and critical facilities and provide JPEG. Anoka County GIS JPEG GIS Maps 12 Develop and distribute citizen input survey forms to obtain broad based citizen opinion on threats and potential mitigation goals. Project Mgr Committee Completed surveys; summarized results Mitigation Workshop Meeting Task Action/Description Responsible Deliverable 1 Discuss meeting requirements with Planning Committee. Project Mgr Agreement 2 Review all information to be presented at the Project “Kickoff” Meeting. Project Mgr Agreement 3 Schedule appropriate meeting location and acquire meeting materials. Project Mgr Meeting Logistics 4 Draft Notice of public meeting and publish according to county standards. Project Mgr Published Notice 5 Conduct Public Meeting. Present data collection progress and results. Project Mgr Handouts 6 Review all data, Identify outstanding items and any issues with data collection. Project Mgr Outstanding Item List 7 Develop countywide mission/vision statement, goals and actions/strategies. Committees Documented goals, etc. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 20 8 Assign municipality representatives to develop and submit municipality specific goals objectives and action items. Project Mgr Contact and Task List 9 Develop a project scoring system, priority, financial impact and implementation. Committees Documented scoring system 10 Review the maintenance and measurement process for the mitigation plan. Committees Documented processes Mitigation Plan Composition Task Action/Description Responsible Deliverable 1 Assimilate all resolutions, minutes public notices, etc., scan to a JPEG image and provide to consultant. Project Mgr JPEG Images 2 Assimilate data and documents and compose Mitigation Plan Introduction, planning process and community profiles. Project Mgr Draft Section 1,2,3 3 Assimilate and compose hazard identification, analysis and vulnerabilities. Project Mgr Draft Section 4 4 Assimilate and compose hazard inventory and loss data. Project Mgr Draft Section 4 5 Assimilate mitigation/maintenance documents into the mitigation plan. Project Mgr Draft Section 5 6 Assimilate JPEG images and develop appendices. Project Mgr Draft Appendices 7 Provide draft plan to committee members for review. Project Mgr Draft Mitigation Plan 8 Review all add/change items recommended by the committee and update plan. Project Mgr List changes & updated plan 9 Prepare the Plan Crosswalk. Project Mgr Completed Crosswalk 10 Provide all members of the committee with updated mitigation plan. Project Mgr Committee Approval Mitigation Plan Approval Task Action/Description Responsible Deliverable 1 Submit draft plan to HSEM. Project Mgr Draft plan 2 Receive and review HSEM crosswalk and comments. Project Mgr FEMA written response 3 Review and insert comments from HSEM review. Project Mgr Draft Mitigation Plan 4 Provide Committee with the Mitigation Plan for final revision. Project Mgr Draft Mitigation Plan 5 Submit plan to FEMA for conditional approval. Project Mgr Mitigation Plan 6 Obtain conditional approval for the plan. Project Mgr Official approval 7 Develop Public notice of mitigation plan acceptance by all jurisdictions. Project Mgr Draft public notice 8 Compose adoption language to all jurisdictions requirements. Project Mgr Adoption Memo 9 Provide final full plan to the jurisdictions. Project Mgr Final Mitigation Plan 10 Conduct a public meeting to adopt the plan, Document comments and minutes. Project Mgr Adoption resolutions Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 21 11 Provide a formal submittal letter with the adoption resolutions to FEMA. Project Mgr Final Mitigation Plan 12 Submit plan to HSEM and FEMA. Project Mgr Final Mitigation Plan 13 FEMA approves the County All Hazards Mitigation Plan. Final Mitigation Plan The “Mitigation Methodology Workshop” was held in the form of a 3-hour “Mitigation Strategy Workshop” for the original Hazard Mitigation Plan. The workshop began with a detailed presentation of the data collection and hazard vulnerability assessment progress. As a part of the comprehensive review, the Hazard Mitigation Team reviewed the original information and updated with currently available data to assist in validating the original vulnerabilities. After completing the general hazard identification and analysis process, and based on a Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) and annualized loss estimates, the following were determined to be “high risk” hazards for Anoka County. 1. Flooding 2. Pandemic 3. Thunderstorms 4. Tornadoes 5. Winter Storms 6. Wildfires 7. Hazmat 8. Methamphetamine Labs 9. Terrorism 10. Urban Fires The CPRI was reviewed for the 2012 update and the risks and loss estimates remain current and valid. The results were based on responses to the Capability Assessment Survey, all jurisdictions in Anoka County have a medium to high capability to implement hazard mitigation actions. Each participating municipality representative was tasked with developing specific goals, objectives and action items specific to each municipality. These goals, objectives and actions specific to each municipality have been reviewed and modified as necessary from the original goals. In the current plan the goals are noted with new, ongoing or completed to represent the change from the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2006. The Anoka County Multi-Hazard, Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan Adoption Meetings will be held according to each municipality’s adoption process. Each municipality will adopt the plan in a regularly scheduled city or town council meeting. The appropriate Public Notice will be published prior to the meeting. Prior to the adoption meetings a copy of the plan will be made available to the public in the appropriate public locations. The plan will also be available for public review the day of the adoption in the city or town council office. During the adoption process, comments on the plan will be solicited from the attendees. Any and all comments will be documented in the minutes of the meeting and provided to the Mitigation Planning Committee. The Anoka County Board of Commissioners will adopt the plan per the county’s adoption process and during a regularly scheduled County Board meeting. The appropriate Public Notice will be published prior to the meeting. Prior to the meeting the plan will be made available to the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 22 public in the appropriate Public locations for public review and comments. The plan will also be available to the public the day of the meeting at the Anoka County Government Center. During the adoption process comments on the plan will be solicited from the attendees. Any and all comments will be documented in the minutes of the meeting and provided to the Mitigation Planning Committee. 2.5 Involving the Public 2.5.1 Public Participation During Plan Construction A fundamental component of Anoka County’s community-based mitigation planning process involves public participation. Citizen involvement provides the Mitigation Committee with a greater understanding of local concerns and ensures a higher degree of mitigation success by developing community “buy-in” from those directly affected by the planning decisions of public officials. As citizens become more involved in decisions that affect their life and safety, they are more likely to gain a greater appreciation of the hazards present in their community and take personal steps to reduce the potential impact. Public awareness is a key component of an overall mitigation strategy aimed at making a home, neighborhood, school, business, or city safer from the potential effects of natural or man made hazards. Public input was sought using three methods: (1) surveys; (2) open public meetings; and (3) publicizing the availability of the draft hazard mitigation plan at government offices, and an Internet site. A Public Participation Survey was designed to capture additional information from residents of Anoka County. Surveys were provided to citizens who attended public meetings and on several communities’ web sites. County and municipal officials distributed additional copies of the survey. Please see the Public Participation Survey Results in Appendix E. The county-level public meeting were held during the Mitigation Plan Approval process to present the findings of the risk and capability assessments and to garner public input regarding unique hazard concerns and possible mitigation actions that could be included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Attendees were provided an informational handout on mitigation planning. The current mitigation process and progress were discussed. Anoka County Emergency Management distributed and explained the Public Participation Survey, and requested that citizens complete and return the questionnaires for committee review. The meeting was advertised through the posting of a public meeting notice at county and municipal offices. The notices though the county and city websites, Community Television, and bulletin boards have a widespread audience, which ensured that local officials, residents, businesses, academia, and other private interests in Anoka County were invited to participate in the local mitigation planning process. The draft Plan and a Review and Comments questionnaire were available on the Anoka County website at www.readyanokacounty.us during the month of May 2006. The approved 2006 Multi- Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan and link to the community survey were added to the http://www.readyanokacounty.us website for public review and comments during the comprehensive review. The2012 draft plan was available for review at the Anoka County Community meeting. C. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 23 The initial community meeting for the 2013 update was held on November 8th 2012 at the Anoka County Sheriff’s Department Community Room and the meeting notification was published by Anoka County and in addition many jurisdictions published the dates on their website and CCTV. 2.5.2 Public Opportunity During Plan Review Members of the community and public were provided with several opportunities to participate in the planning process for the 2013 update. A survey was for the community was created and the link to the survey was published on the Anoka County Emergency Management website and though several of the jurisdiction’s websites. The results from the community survey are located in Annex on page 75. The results from the survey were used to assist the planning team with the concerns of the residents of Anoka County during the planning process. The notice for the Hazard Mitigation Plan Community Meeting was published as required on the Anoka County website and held at 6:00 PM on November 8th,2012 at the Anoka County Sheriff’s Department community meeting room. The Community Meeting notification and sign in sheet are located on pages 283 and 284 of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2.6 Involving Stakeholders A range of stakeholders were invited and encouraged to participate in the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Stakeholder involvement was encouraged through notifications and invitations to select agencies or individuals to participate in the hazard mitigation planning process. These included representatives from Anoka County and each of the incorporated municipalities, LEPC, private sector businesses, voluntary agencies, and citizens. In addition to the Mitigation Committee meetings, Anoka County encouraged open and widespread participation in the mitigation planning process through the publication of newspaper notices promoting open public meetings. These media advertisements and survey instruments provided local officials, residents, businesses, academia, and other private interests in Anoka County the opportunity to be involved and offer input throughout the local mitigation planning process. Anoka County will also encourage continued stakeholder involvement by reminding all participating jurisdictions to make announcements and notifications consistent with their existing local plan adoption procedures. It will be the responsibility of each participating jurisdiction and its local governing body to determine if and how any additional specific stakeholder groups or individuals should be involved in the planning process. Anoka County Emergency Management reached out to the School Districts and Watershed districts that have a presence in Anoka County regarding the process to update the Hazard Mitigation Plan and did not receive any responses to participate in the planning process. 2.7 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation The Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Plan is multi-jurisdictional and includes the participation of Anoka County and its 21 incorporated municipalities. Plan participants are: D. Was there an opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 24 Anoka County City of Andover City of Anoka City of Bethel City of Blaine City of Nowthen City of Centerville City of Circle Pines City of Columbia Heights City of Columbus City of Coon Rapids City of East Bethel City of Fridley City of Ham Lake City of Hilltop City of Lexington City of Lino Lakes Town of Linwood City of Oak Grove City of Ramsey City of St. Francis City of Spring Lake Park To satisfy multi-jurisdictional participation requirements, each of the local jurisdictions was required to perform the following tasks: Designate appropriate officials to serve on the Mitigation Planning Committee; Participate in all mitigation planning meetings and workshops; Provide best available data for the risk assessment portion of the Plan; Complete the Capability Assessment Survey and provide copies of any mitigation or hazard-related documents for review and incorporation into the Plan; Support the development of a countywide mitigation strategy, including the design and adoption of general goal statements for all jurisdictions to pursue; Develop a Mitigation Action Plan with specific mitigation actions for its jurisdiction; Review and provide timely comments on all draft components of the Plan; Adopt the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional, All Hazards Mitigation Plan, including its specific local Mitigation Action Plan. Through the completion of these tasks, each municipality will have fully participated with Anoka County in the development of this Plan. 2.8 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans An important aspect of the planning process involved the review of existing federal, state, and local plans, studies, reports, and technical information, as well as the ordinances, regulations, and resolutions of each Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi- jurisdictional plans. FMA Requirement §78.5(a): Description of the planning process and public involvement. Public involvement may include workshops, public meetings, or public hearings. A. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction participated in the plan’s development E. Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 25 jurisdiction for incorporation into the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Plans and documents reviewed by various members of the committee as pertinent to assigned tasks include: Jurisdictional ordinances, regulations, and resolutions Each Jurisdiction reviewed their documents to insure that all changes and updates were included in the 2012 update. Anoka County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) The Anoka was updated in 2011 from Annexes to Emergency Support Functions. The EOP was reviewed to insure consistency between the EOP and the Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Anoka County Emergency Evacuation Plan Anoka County Community Health & Environmental Services Department All Hazards Emergency Response and Recovery Plan Anoka County Schools Emergency Response/Crisis Management Plan SARA Title II facilities reporting documents and site emergency plans These reports were reviewed for any updates and changes since 2005 and used to create maps for the location of SARA Title II Facilities. State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan Reviewed to insure hazards and risks to Anoka County were included in the Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan and goals for Anoka County Jurisdictions compliment the State of Minnesota’s goals. FEMA Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2011-2014 Reviewed FEMA guidance to insure that the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan compliments the vision in the FEMA Strategic Plan National Incident Management System (NIMS) Anoka County Continues to use NIMSCAST to track training and compliance with NIMS. The documents were reviewed to insure that Anoka County’s Mitigation Plan conforms to NIMS requirements. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Framework Documents The series of documents provide guidance on how the Federal Government will cooperate and assist during incidents and events. These documents were reviewed to insure that the Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan compliments and supports the Frameworks. FEMA National Flood Insurance: Program Description National Weather Service: Operations Present and Future FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guides o Getting Started o Developing the Mitigation Plan o Integrating Human-Caused Hazards into Mitigation Planning o Bringing the Plan to Life This series of documents was reviewed to provide assistance and guidance during the process of updating the Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan These documents, on file at Anoka County Emergency Management Agency in electronic or hard copy format, provided valuable guidance in the planning process. Some served to acquaint committee members with the many roles of emergency management. Planning guides helped to tie together the phases of mitigation planning for committee members from a broad range of backgrounds outside mitigation and emergency management. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 26 State and federal response and homeland security documents were referenced to ensure Anoka County’s goals supported these plans and promoted compliance with requirements. The State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan formed the basis for identifying and analyzing the natural hazards and man-made hazards that could affect Anoka County and the participating jurisdictions. The Anoka County Emergency Operations Plan provided insight into the jurisdictional response to disasters and was used to develop and validate mitigation goals, objectives, and actions. In some cases, these documents identified areas for needed mitigation actions; for example, review of the Anoka County Emergency Evacuation Plan made clear the need for updating and expanding this plan, and goals/actions were written to mitigate this weakness. After review of the ordinances, regulations, and resolutions of each jurisdiction, the Legal and Regulatory Capabilities Summary Table at Section 5.1.3.1 was prepared. This summary made evident that reviewing and updating ordinances and regulations are important to control hazards and reduce risk. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 27 SECTION 3:JURISDICTION PROFILES 3.1 Jurisdiction Descriptions Anoka County and participating municipalities are comprised of 22 jurisdictions. In this section each participating jurisdiction is described as to geography, community history and any special characteristics. ANOKA CONTY JURISDICTIONS Anoka County East Bethel Andover Fridley Anoka Ham Lake Bethel Hilltop Blaine Lexington City of Nowthen Lino Lakes Centerville Linwood Township Circle Pines Oak Grove Columbia Heights Ramsey City of Columbus St. Francis Coon Rapids Spring Lake Park Anoka County Anoka County is bounded by Isanti County on the north, Chisago and Washington Counties on the east, Ramsey and Hennepin Counties on the south, and Hennepin and Sherburne Counties on the west. It lies on both sides of the Rum River, which enters the county approximately 20 miles north of the City of Anoka. Anoka County has grown from a largely rural area in 1857 to the present day urban center. This urban center has diversified industrial, commercial, residential, and professional development. It is one of the largest and fastest growing counties in the State of Minnesota. Anoka County, with its county seat in Anoka, encompasses a 423 square mile area and has a population of approximately 330,844 (U.S. Census 2010). The history of Anoka County starts in 1849 when the Minnesota territorial legislature organized the counties of Washington, Ramsey and Benton. What is now Anoka County was embraced in both Ramsey and Benton Counties because the Rum River was the dividing line between the two counties. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 28 As early as 1850, fur traders began to settle on the Rum River in the area now known as Ramsey. As more settlers came into the area, this thriving community was given the name Anoka. The name originated from the Indian language, meaning "on both sides." In 1856, Sherburne County was detached from Benton County. That territory, lying east of Sherburne County and west of the Rum River, was also detached to become a part of Ramsey County. By an act of the legislature, Anoka County was formed from Ramsey County on May 23, 1857. The original eight townships included: Anoka, Watertown (Ramsey), Round Lake (Andover), Bethel, Columbus, St. Francis, Oak Grove and Centerville. The original boundaries of Anoka County were the same as today except for a small portion of the southeastern tip of the county along the Mississippi River at the south. This strip was a tiny county created from Ramsey County the same day Anoka County was created. This tiny county was given the name of Manomin and occupied only about one-third of a congressional township. It functioned as an organized county until abolished and attached to Anoka County by constitutional amendment November 2, 1869. As an organized township of Anoka County, Manomin kept this name until it was changed to Fridley in 1879. Anoka County, located minutes from the Twin Cities on the banks of the great Mississippi River, is one of the fastest growing counties in Minnesota. Here you’ll find a unique blend of urban amenities in a friendly, small town atmosphere where neighbors still know each other. With award-winning schools, two major hospitals, world-class recreational facilities, and two post-secondary educational institutions, it’s easy to see why so many people are choosing to live and work in Anoka County. In addition to the Mississippi and Rum Rivers, there are 125 lakes and 20 county or regional parks in Anoka County. Anoka County, the fourth most populous county in Minnesota, is part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan region. City of Andover Andover is located 20 miles north of Minneapolis at Latitude 45.23 N and Longitude -93.36 W, has a land area of 34.1 square miles at an elevation of 891 feet. Andover was first organized in 1857 as “Round Lake Township.” In 1860 the name was changed to “Grow Township” in honor of Senator Galusha A. Grow of Pennsylvania. At that time, the population was 330 and included the geographical area we know today as Ham Lake. Ham Lake was considered a part of Grow Township until 1871. In 1972, the Grow Township Board of Supervisors recognized that the town was growing at a rapid rate and felt a village form of government would provide better services to the community. The Board supervisors voted in favor of proceeding with the incorporation process. A new name for the “Andover Village” was chosen because the name Andover had historical interest. The historical interest and name, we believe, came from the Andover “train myth.” The myth states that a train tipped over in a swamp, and an eyewitness, relaying the incident, said it “went over and over,” thereby naming the city “Andover.” However, research reveals that the name Andover first appeared in an article dated March 14, 1899 in the Anoka County Union Newspaper - before train tracks were ever built in the city. The article stated that the Eastern Minnesota line of the Great Northern Railway was in the process of constructing railroad tracks from the Coon Creek Cut-off to the North. The railway announced that new railroad stations with mathematical precision were to be located five miles apart from each other. The new stations Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 29 (from Coon Creek to the North, along the new railroad line) were to be named Andover, Cedar, Bethel, Isanti, Cambridge, Stanchfield, Braham, Grasston, Cornell, and Brook Park. On July 4, 1899, the first train passed through the Andover Station. Andover Village was established in 1972 and then became the City of Andover, a city of the fourth class, in 1974. Today the City of Andover’s population exceeds 31,000, classifying it as a third class city. Andover’s governing body consists of a Mayor and four City Council members. The Andover City Center Complex is located at 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW (at the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard) and is home to the City Offices, Public Works Department, Community Center, and the Senior Center. Andover is served by a full-time Police Department through a contract with the Anoka County Sheriff’s Department. A professional paid on call Fire Department also serves the community. Andover is part of two of the finest school districts in the state. St. Francis School District #15 covers the northern section of the City, while Anoka-Hennepin School District #11 serves the south four-fifths of the City. Crooked Lake Elementary, Andover Elementary, Rum River Elementary, Oak View Middle School and Andover High School are all located within the City of Andover and are part of School District #11. A private institution, Meadow Creek Christian School, is also located in the City. The City of Andover is an exciting place to live, do business, and enjoy the scenic rural atmosphere. With a population exceeding 31,000, Andover is no longer the best-kept secret of Anoka County. Predominantly a residential community, Andover also has abundant parks, trails and recreational areas. The City has more than 500 acres of community and neighborhood parks. Kelsey Round Lake Park is a 136-acre nature area for hiking, skiing and environmental observation. Other recreational facilities include more than 400 acres of the Anoka County Bunker Hills Regional Park (which is home to the Bunker Beach Waterpark), hiking / biking trails, cross-country skiing trails, camping and other outdoor activities. The Rum River Central Regional Park is located immediately north of Andover on County Road 7. The annual Andover Family Fun Fest is held in July. City of Anoka Anoka is 20 miles from Minneapolis at Latitude 45.21 N and Longitude –93.39 W, with a land area of 7.13 square miles and an elevation of 870 feet. Two rivers, the Rum and Mississippi, played an integral part in Anoka's settlement. Father Lewis Hennepin first visited this area in 1680 and settlers came to stay in 1844. Prior to the 1800's, the Dakota Indians claimed the area surrounding Anoka, but later the Ojibwa tribes pushed the Dakota westward across the Mississippi. The territory of Anoka then became a neutral ground between the two tribes. The name Anoka was derived from two Indian words, the Dakota word A-NO-KA-TAN-HAN meaning on both sides of the river, and the Ojibwa word ON-O-KAY, meaning working waters. The first settler in the Anoka area was Joseph Belanger who built a log cabin on the east side of the Rum River near its mouth. The logs were floated down the Rum River to the Mississippi River to the sawmill in St. Anthony. In 1853, the first dam was constructed on the Rum River at its present location and in 1854 the first sawmill began operation. Other saw mills, woodworking plants, and copper shops quickly sprang up along the banks of the Rum River using water as their source of power. For the next twenty years milling was an important industry in Anoka. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 30 After the decline of the sawmills in late 1885, a Board of Trade was organized to encourage other industries to move to Anoka. In 1886, a potato starch factory was built on the west side of the Rum River north of the dam. During this time, before the Red River Valley opened, Anoka was the center of potato production. Also operating at this time was the Anoka Shoe Factory, which employed 80 people and produced 800 pairs of shoes per day. In 1898, a bill was passed by the state legislature to construct a state hospital in Anoka. The hospital is now known as the Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center. In 1856, a ferry was established across the Mississippi river, connecting Anoka with the City of Champlin. After 28 years of operation, the ferry was replaced in 1884 by a steel bridge. The bridge had a turntable in the middle, operated by a hand winch that opened up two channels to allow boats to pass up or down the river. Other transportation in that era was a horse-drawn streetcar system and rail service to St. Paul. The City of Anoka's development was severely damaged by fire during its early years. Five major fires between 1855 and 1884 impeded the City's development. The worst fire in the downtown area, in 1884, destroyed 86 buildings from the Rum River to Third Avenue. Again, tragedy struck the City in 1939. A tornado swept through the east side of town. Many homes, a church, and the armory were destroyed and three lives were lost. It is believed that Anoka was the first city in the United States to put on a Halloween celebration. In early 1920, Anoka merchants and other interested citizens joined together in a move to stop Halloween pranks. The idea was to have a big Halloween party for all the children with free candy and lots of entertainment. In October of 1920, Anoka had its first Halloween celebration. The celebration has been held every year since, with the exception of two years during WWII. Anoka considers it to be the "Halloween Capital of the W orld" and now has many events during October including football games, costume contests, block parties, Grey Ghost 5k run, and two parades. Situated at the confluence of the Rum and Mississippi Rivers, this historic river city has a bountiful array of recreational and leisure activities to enjoy. City of Bethel The city of Bethel is a very small one square mile rectangular shaped rural community in the extreme northern portion of Anoka County. The City of Bethel is located at latitude 45.40 N and longitude 93.26 W and has an elevation of 930 feet. The larger cities of East Bethel and St. Francis surround the city of Bethel. The City of East Bethel is directly east of Bethel and the City of St. Francis is directly west. A quarter mile wide strip of the city of St. Francis separates the City of Bethel from the southern border of Athens Township in Isanti County. Bethel, a city in St. Francis Township, was first settled in 1856 by Quakers and was organized the next year; it was established as a post office in 1865 at a site known as Bethel Corners, incorporated as a village in 1902 and reincorporated in 1913. Its name is from ancient Palestine, meaning "House of God," and was selected for this township by Moses Twitchell, who settled here as an immigrant from Bethel, Maine. The city was incorporated over 100 years ago and was built around the Great Northern Railroad tracks which run north from the city of Minneapolis to the southern shore of Lake Superior at the port cities of Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad currently operates the rail line and is a busy main line running to northern Minnesota and the port cities. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 31 City of Blaine Blaine is located in the south central portion of Anoka County. Its longitude and latitude coordinates are 45.10 N and 93.12 W. It has a land area of 33.9 square miles and an elevation of 900 feet. Phillip Laddy, a native of Ireland, is recognized as the first settler in Blaine. He settled near the lake that now bears his name, Laddie Lake, in 1862. Laddy died shortly after his arrival and his survivors moved on to Minneapolis. He was followed by Englishman George Townsend, who lived for a short time in the area of Lever Street and 103rd Avenue. It was not until 1865, that Blaine's first permanent resident, Green Chambers settled on the old Townsend claim. Chambers was a former slave who moved north from Barron County, Kentucky, following the Civil War. In 1870, George Wall, Joseph Gagner, and some others settled in the area an d it began to grow. In 1877, Blaine separated from Anoka and organized as a Township of its own. That year, the first election was held and Moses Ripley was elected as the first Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Ripley, who had come to Minnesota from Maine, persuaded his fellow Board Members to name the new Township in honor of James G. Blaine, a senator and three-time presidential candidate from Maine. By the year 1880, Blaine's population had reached 128. While many of the other communities in Anoka County experienced growth due to farming, Blaine's sandy soils and abundant wetlands discouraged would-be farmers, and it remained a prime hunting area. Blaine's growth remained slow until after World War II when starter home developments began to spring up in the southern part of town. Blaine's population went from 1,694 in 1950 to 20,640 in 1970. As the Minneapolis/St. Paul area began to enjoy rapid growth, Blaine's wide-open spaces became attractive to many people looking for the suburban life style just a short distance from both downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. With the development of Interstate 35-W, State Highway 65, and State Highway 10, Blaine's accessibility to the Twin Cities was greatly improved. Blaine is one of the metro area’s largest suburbs. The Anoka County Airport is located in Blaine, which is the Metro Area's busiest reliever airport. Blaine is also home of Minnesota’s Olympic-class facility; the National Sports Center (NSC), an athletic and convention facility and designed for training, competition and accommodating a variety of activities and events. The NSC hosts the USA Cup, the world’s fourth largest youth soccer tournament each July. New to the NSC is the Schwann’s Super Rink with four Olympic sized ice sheets under one roof. The NSC draws over 2.6 million people to Blaine each year. New in 2000 is the TPC of the Twin Cities, a private 18-hole professional golf course, designed and owned by the PGA. This course is home to the 3M Senior Classic. City of Centerville Centerville is located in the eastern part of Anoka County at Latitude 45.16 N and Longitude – 93.05 W and an elevation of 899 feet. The city has a total area of 1,597 acres (2.2 square miles.) Located between the shores of Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake. The two lakes are used as a water supply for the city of St. Paul in drought situations. It is a suburb of Minneapolis/St. Paul and is located 20 minutes from St. Paul. Centerville is totally surrounded by the city of Lino Lakes. Centerville settled in 1850-52, was organized in 1857 and incorporated on September 27, 1910. Its village of this name, thence given to the township, was platted in the spring of 1854, having a central situation between the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. The settlers in the village and vicinity were mostly French, and this came to be known as the French settlement, while Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 32 numerous German settlers in the western part of the township caused that to be called the German settlement. The post office was named Columbus, 1856-63, and then Centreville, 1863-93, before its current spelling, and was discontinued in 1905. Charles Peltier built the first sawmill in the county here in 1854. In 1971 a number of streets were renamed to reflect its history. Centerville honors its history and heritage. Settled in 1800’s as a French settlement and stayed mostly French until WW2. This was the main rest stop between Stillwater and Anoka in the earliest days of the Minnesota territory. Has had significant growth in the last 15 years and is close to being fully developed. Centerville's rich French-Canadian heritage is celebrated at the annual summer celebration called Fete des Lacs, which is French for Festival of Lakes. Residents and visitors gather at festival activities all over town to eat, dance, watch a parade, play softball and watch fireworks on Earth Day. City of Circle Pines The city of Circle Pines is located in the southeastern portion of Anoka County at Latitude 45.13 N and Longitude 93.15 W and an elevation of 889 feet. The city has a land area of 1.8 square miles and is a suburban community. The city is bordered by Lino Lakes on the east, Blaine on the north, and Lexington to the west. The city is 15 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul. With fields of oaks and elms, the rural appearance can be deceiving – homes and businesses are fairly closely spaced. In May of 1946 a cooperative village of 1,203 acres was announced "to unite the habitation benefits of a functional and contemporary community with the economic advantages of a consumer's cooperative." Each home would front a park or a walkway. There would be adult education, nurseries, educational and recreational activities; and the commercial facilities and services would be owned cooperatively, as would the municipal utilities. The people who settled into Circle Pines in the late 1940’s honed a "cooperative lifestyle." A group of people joined together to form a company to provide for their own needs rather than buying what is needed from private enterprise. The idea was that if you bought a house in Circle Pines, you would have a stake in the businesses that serve the community. The symbol for cooperatives was a pine tree with a circle around it. Thus, the name Circle Pines was born. After only three years, the cooperative lifestyle was abandoned, in part because of problems in securing financing and rifts among leaders. On April 8, 1950, the area, former territory in Blaine and Centerville townships, was incorporated as a village. In 1974, Circle Pines received city status. City of Columbia Heights The City of Columbia Heights is located at the Southern tip of Anoka County on the northern border of the City of Minneapolis (Hennepin County). Ramsey County borders on the East, with the City of Fridley (Anoka County) on the West border. The city is 3.4 square miles in size with a Latitude of 45.04 N and Longitude of –93.26 W and an elevation of 922 feet. Columbia Heights is a hilly community as the Mississippi River is only 1/4 mile west of town limits. The Village of Columbia Heights was formed on March 14, 1898 when it separated from Fridley Township. With 1696 acres, 100 citizens and 20 houses, paths became roads, traffic patterns Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 33 emerged and a city began. On July 21, 1921 the Charter of the City of Columbia Heights was adopted and the city was formed. City parks of Prestemon, Gauvitte and McKenna were all named for members of this first city council. Ava Ostrander, first woman elected to the council in 1924 also has a park named for her. Columbia Heights is an older community with structures dating back to the early 1900’s. Approximately 2/3 of the community was built right after WWII between the early 1950’s thru the mid 1960’s. 86% of our community is residential with the other 14% as commercial or industrial etc. Many buildings in the “downtown” area are 50 to 80 years old. The City of Hilltop located in the center of our community is entirely surrounded by Columbia Heights. Columbia Heights population from the 2010 census was 19,496, which is down approximately 3,000 from its high in the 1970’s but up almost 1000 from 2000. The city is a fully developed, urban community that is beginning to see areas of redevelopment. By the time parks were considered, most of the high ground was taken, leaving low-lying areas for parks. These areas were filled in and parks developed. Huset Park was the first Columbia Heights Park and was originally called City Park. It was renamed for a Lutheran minister, Elmer Huset of First Lutheran Church and City Manager for a time. The Jefferson pavilion building was constructed in 1959 on the eastern portion of Huset Park. Columbia School was built in 1894 at 41st and Central. In 1911, the south portion of the school was built. This building was razed in 1967. Oakwood School was built in 1915 and closed as a public school in 1974. It is now the home of Oak Hill Baptist Church. Silver Lake School built in 1922, closed in 1981 and became the new home of First Lutheran Church. In December of 1926, Columbia Heights High School on 41st Ave between Jackson and Van Buren became the first high school in Anoka County. It became the Columbia Junior High School in 1961 and in 1981 it was sold to the Northwestern Electronics Institute and operated as a technical college until NEI merged with Dunwoody in 2002. The City purchased the property and tore the structure down. The site became the new home of the Police and Fire Departments when the new Public Safety building opened in 2009. The property surrounding Silver Lake was mostly privately owned and had a privately run beach. In 1920, when a man drowned in the lake, the lake was dynamited in an attempt to find the body. This destroyed many of the natural springs, and water levels dropped greatly. A pipe was laid to the lake from the Minneapolis reservoir since it was felt this was too valuable a resource to allow it to become a swamp. Apparently, some of the springs have reactivated and with storm run-off, the lake levels have remained adequate without additional pumping of water into it. City of Columbus The City of Columbus is located in east central Anoka County in the northerly portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The city is 48 square miles with an elevation of 919 feet at Latitude 45.26 N and Longitude –93.07 W. Wetlands and open water bodies dominate the landscape, as they constitute nearly two-thirds of the city. Some of this area is located within State owned Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), including the Carlos Avery WMA and Lamprey Pass WMA, which make up over one-third of the city. Rural residential uses comprise 9,306 acres of land, including 3,645 acres of wetland and floodplain. Nearly 2,400 acres of land, which is neither encumbered by wetlands nor floodplain, remain vacant or agricultural use. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 34 Both Native Americans and the European settlers that followed influence the history of Columbus. Human settlement of areas within Columbus can be traced back to the presence of the Hopewell Tribe of Native Americans. Archeologists believe that the Hopewell Tribe established extensive trading with tribes over the entire continent. Burial mounds are located around Howard Lake in the Lamprey Pass Wildlife Management Area. Three large mounds were discovered in 1889; and it was not until 1977 that an additional three smaller mounds were discovered. Each of these areas are designated and protected as historic sites by the Minnesota Historical Society. In addition, the Minnesota Historical Society believes that remnants of Native American settlements may exist along Kettle River Boulevard northeast of Howard Lake and along Rice Creek. The city supports archeological research prior to or in conjunction with any excavation or building in these areas. The Township of Columbus was platted in 1856 and a Town organization was formed in 1857. Early settlers sought to develop a village center on the St. Paul-Kettle River Road, one of the earliest stage lines to be developed in the State. This site, known as “Boehm’s Corner,” contained a sawmill and hotel. Efforts to encourage the development of a village center met with no success. The Township lost a bid in the mid-1860s for the Anoka County seat and it was passed over as a potential route for the St. Paul-Duluth Railroad. The village center never materialized, and by 1879, the Township abandoned efforts to establish a village at that site. An Administrative Law Judge ordered the incorporation of Columbus in the summer of 2006 following a citizens’ petition and an effort by the Town Board in evaluating the pros and cons of incorporation and finding it in the best interest of the community. The City officially became a city on September 21, 2006.. City of Coon Rapids The City of Coon Rapids is a second-ring suburb northwest of Minneapolis, located in suburban Anoka County, Minnesota. The city is approximately 22.7 square miles with an elevation of 863 feet at Latitude 45.17 N and Longitude 93.31 W. It is bordered by the Mississippi River and the city of Anoka to the west; the city of Andover to the north; the city of Blaine to the east; and the city of Fridley to the south. Coon Rapids is the most populous city in Anoka County. When the Federal Government surveyed the area in 1847, it found a well -traveled road running through Anoka County. The road was laid out in 1835 for military use and may be the oldest road in this part of the country. In 1843, trade was established from St. Paul to Pembina in the Red River Valley by Norman W. Kittson and the road then became part of the famous Red River Ox Cart Trail. The trail closely followed the present East River Road/Coon Rapids Boulevard alignment. Agriculture was the first industry in the Coon Creek area, with farms ranging in size from 90 to 600 acres. In 1881, Dr. D. C. Dunham organized the first brickyard, which was located near the old City Hall site and was known as the Anoka Pressed Brick and Terra Cotta Company. It represented the first non-agricultural industry in Coon Rapids. A legacy left by that brick industry is still visible today and is known as the "Clay Hole." In the summer of 1898, the Great Northern Development Company proposed to build a dam below the Coon Creek Rapids with a power generating plant on the east side of the river. The actual construction did not start until 1912. Within one year, a small city had sprung up on the shores of the Mississippi River. Streets were laid out and roughly graded. The City’s population grew to over one thousand with laborers and engineers working on the dam. The dam was built Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 35 by the Mississippi Power Company and was operating by 1914. Northern States Power Company ran the dam until 1969. The Hennepin County Park Board acquired and it serves as Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park today. With the dam, Anoka Township took on a new name - Coon Creek Rapids that over the years was shortened to Coon Rapids. In July 1948, an election was held in an attempt to incorporate the Township of Anoka as a village. The idea was initially defeated but eventually passed successfully in October of 1952. In keeping with the progressive nature of the community, the voters went to the polls in November of 1957 and changed the form of village government to the Council/Manager plan. Two years later, in June of 1959, the Village of Coon Rapids became the City of Coon Rapids. The city is predominantly a residential community, with some commercial shopping districts and light industry. It is accessible by three major highways and two rail lines. City of East Bethel The City of East Bethel is a rural community that is known as the Northern Gateway t o the Twin Cities. The city is located at the northern edge of Anoka County and the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area at Latitude 45.33 N and Longitude 93.21 W, with an elevation of 902 feet. The north side of the city is bordered by Athens Township in Isanti County. On its remaining three sides, it is surrounded by other Anoka County Communities. Linwood Township and a small portion of the City of Columbus border it on the east. The City of Ham Lake borders it on the south. On the west it is bordered by the cities of Oak Grove, St. Francis, and Bethel. East Bethel is approximately 25 miles directly north of the City of Minneapolis. Geographically, the City of East Bethel is one of the largest cities in Minnesota encompassing approximately 48 square miles. The landscape of the community is a gentle undulating plain with vast acres of lakes, parks, open space, and wetlands. This natural environment is often noted as the most important feature and attraction to residents of the community. The City of East Bethel was originally home to the Chippewa Nation. Europeans first settled the area in the 1850s. Settlers originated primarily from Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland, and New Brunswick. Bethel Township was organized in 1858, the same year that Minnesota became a state. The township included all of what is now Linwood Township until 1871, when Linwood Township was organized. The unusually large size of the township originated with lobbying efforts of early Minnesota settlers. Early roads followed native tr ails or paths. Desiring a better and more direct route to the major market destination of Minneapolis, local residents of Bethel worked with the residents of other townships to the south to obtain a real road. Central Avenue was created in 1900-1901. It later became State Highway 65. This road was graded in 1923-24, blacktopped in 1931, widened in 1951, paved in 1952, and became a divided highway in 1969-70. East Bethel started the process to become a village on May 8, 1957. In a township election voters approved the change to a village by 232 to 161, but four residents took the matter to court and the incorporation was declared invalid. The matter came before the 1956 Minnesota Legislature. Only one legislator voted against the bill to allow East Bethel to incorporate as a Village. East Bethel became a legal municipality by action of their Town Council on April 27, 1959. The population at the time was 1,286. Some of the most interesting history of East Bethel involves gangster activity. The Ma Barker gang lived in a house near Cedar Creek on Highway 65 for some time. They left Bethel Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 36 Township just before the FBI discovered their hideout. Some local residents also claim that John Dillinger hid out in a cabin on the south shore of Coon Lake for one winter. City of Fridley The City of Fridley is located in southern Anoka County, approximately 9 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Fridley shares borders with Spring Lake Park, Coon Rapids, Mounds View, New Brighton, Columbia Heights and Minneapolis. On its western border is the Mississippi River. The City of Fridley is 10.2 square miles in size. Fridley is located at Latitude: 45.09 N, Longitude: 93.26 W in Anoka County, with an elevation of 850 feet. Father Louis Hennepin, a Franciscan Monk, and two companions became the first men of European descent to come through Anoka County. What is now Fridley was included in an area that was made part of the province of Quebec. In 1783, the “Treaty of Peace” fixed the United States-Canadian border. In 1803 Fridley was included in the Louisiana Purchase and successively became part of the Northwest Territory, Illinois Territory in 1809, Michigan Territory in 1818, Wisconsin Territory in 1836, and once more unorganized territory in 1848. The Red River Ox Cart Trail passes through Fridley, on what would someday become East River Road, on its way to Pembina, North Dakota. Furs came south and all sorts of supplies came north, from flour to pianos. John Banfill was the area’s first settler in 1847, building a two-story house on the Mississippi River near the mouth of the Rice Creek. In 1851, John Banfill, a territorial senator and Minnesota's first State Auditor, platted the town of Manomin, opened a general store, and erected a sawmill on Rice Creek. The legislature approved $10,000 to improve the trail on the east side of the Mississippi River, to become the first territorial road, from Point Douglas to St. Paul, then to Minneapolis, Anoka and Fort Ripley. It is now known as East River Road. In 1851, Abram M. Fridley, for whom the city was named, settled in Manomin. In1870, Manomin County was annexed by Anoka County and Manomin was granted township status. In 1879, the name was changed to Fridley by act of the Minnesota State Legislature, of which Abraham Fridley was a member. In 1949, Fridley was incorporated as a village. The first Mayor was Carl Hartman who also served as the first police chief and fire chief. In 1857, Manomin County was separated from Ramsey County, becoming the smallest county in the United States with only 18 sections. In 1957, the Village of Fridley became a Home Rule Charter City. About the same time, Fridley experienced an industrial boom. By 1960, Fridley's population swelled to 15,182 residents. On May 6, 1965, Fridley was literally devastated by three tornadoes. One of every four homes was destroyed or damaged. Under the leadership of Mayor Nee and countless other people, the city was rebuilt and again became a prosperous community. In 1974, Fridley celebrated its Silver Anniversary (25 years), which later in 1975 was dubbed '49er Days, this event became an annual city celebration. City of Ham Lake The City of Ham Lake is a thirty-six square mile (23,040 acres) suburb approximately 20 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul, located in the middle of Anoka County, with Latitude of 45.25 N and Longitude of 93.20 W and an elevation of 915 feet. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 37 The earliest record of settlers in Ham Lake dates back to 1855, when a group of men settled in the southern part of the area. A year later they started a town just southwest of the lake shaped like a ham. The town was named Glen Cary, a Scottish name meaning "beautiful valley." The original houses were burned in a prairie fire in 1857, and the settlers moved away. Ham Lake Township, settled in 1857, was attached to Grow Township until 1871 when it was separately organized. It had been previously called Glengarry, a name from Scotland, which its Swedish settlers found difficult to pronounce. The county commissioners therefore named the new township Ham Lake from its lake in sections 16 and 17, which had acquired this name on account of its form. Ham Lake, a city in Ham Lake Township, was incorporated November 13, 1973. In 1880, the census found the population to be 253. In 1903, the first telephone service was available for $6 a year. In the late 1930's, the Rural Electrification provided power to the farm families...to have electric lights by turning a switch was a wonder. In the beginning, there was no mail delivery, but it could be picked up in An oka. One farmer picked up mail for others so often that his farm became the first post office. The mailing address bore the farmer's name of Jesperson, Minnesota. As recently as 1984, Ham Lake residents were served by four different post offices. In 1985 the U.S. Postal Service consolidated service to Ham Lake through the Anoka Post Office. In the early 1920's there was no bus service and the closest railroad station was in Cedar. Central Avenue (Highway 65) was only a wagon trail through a lot of swampland and sand. Through the years the road was widened, graded and graveled, and finally hard-surfaced. The additional lanes were added in 1954. City of Hilltop Hilltop is located at Latitude 45.05 N and Longitude 93.25 W in Anoka County, Minnesota, has a land area of .1 square miles and an elevation of 1015 feet. The City of Hilltop is a small community located in the southern portion of Anoka County, Minnesota. Hilltop is located entirely within the City of Columbia Heights, a first-ring suburb located immediately to the northeast of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The city is surrounded on all four sides by the City of Columbia Heights. Hilltop’s northern, eastern, southern and western borders are, respectively, 49th Avenue, State Highway 65, 45th Avenue and Monroe Street. Dairy farmers and a horse stable/riding academy previously used Land in Hilltop. A small community of “trailer camps” developed in the 1940’s. Owners of the camps organized members of the community accomplished incorporation as a city in 1956. Hilltop is a predominantly residential community with a population of 766. Hilltop is a low- income community. Hilltop is fully developed and as such, no significant growth in population, number of households or business is projected. In addition to being completely surrounded by one other city, Hilltop’s signature is manufactured housing, which accounts for 63% of the housing stock. There are also apartments, condominiums and site-built homes. Hilltop’s modest commercial areas are comprised entirely of small retail and business establishments including, but not limited to the following: drug stores, liquor store, restaurants, Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 38 car sales, insurance sales, dental offices, barber shops/salons, flooring store, exercise studio, tobacco store, hardware store, electronics store and a grocery store. City of Lexington Lexington is located at Latitude 45.13 N and Longitude 93.17 W in Anoka County, Minnesota and has a land area of .7 square miles with an elevation of 909 feet. The City of Lexington is geographically one of the smallest communities in Anoka County. It covers only 440 acres and is located in south central Anoka County. The city of Blaine surrounds Lexington on three sides, the north, the south and the west. The city of Circle Pines borders the east side of Lexington. Lexington was originally an agricultural area beginning about 1855 in south ½ sections 26 and north ½ 35 of what was then Blaine Township (T. 31, R. 23) and not developed at that time. The first development in the community started in the 1940’s. The community was officially incorporated as the City of Lexington May 12, 1950 with a population of 569. City of Lino Lakes Lino Lakes is located in the southeast corner of Anoka County, Minnesota, has an elevation of 880 feet and covers an area of 33 square miles on the north side of the Twin Cities in Anoka County at Latitude 45.17 N and Longitude 93.10 W. The pristine 2,700 - acre Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve is situated within the heart of the city, guaranteeing the area will maintain its natural settings and habitats for wildlife for years to come. When the first settlers arrived in the area, Native Americans had already been making their home in the area where Reshanau, Baldwin, Rice and Marshan Lakes cluster. The Dakota Indians found this to be a land of plenty with wild rice and an abundance of small game. Today, several Indian burial grounds are still located in the area. White hunters and trappers began coming to this area from both Canada and the eastern states around 1850. Those who settled on the west side of the lake had names like Ramsden, Speiser and Wenzel. Families including the Cardinals, LaMottes, Houles and Dupres settled the east side of the lake. Many of their descendants still live in the area today. The first unit of local government in the area was the township of Centerville. It was organized August 11, 1857 and encompassed an area of 36 square miles. The population was less than 300 persons and organized into three loosely knit communities known as the "German settlement" west of the lakes, the "Swede settlement" south of the lakes, and the "French settlement" east of the lakes. In the 1950s neighboring villages started annexing land away from Centerville Township. To protect the boundaries and allow for the financing of public improvements, the residents of the township voted to incorporate into a village. Several names were suggested for the new village, and most contained the word "lakes." Although the origin of the word "Lino" is unknown, a Lino post office operated for about 10 years in the late 1800s. The town board decided to name the new village "Lino Lakes." On May 11, 1955, the new Village of Lino Lakes was incorporated. The village covered the original Centerville Township, with the exception of the Village of Centerville. At incorporation, the new village was comprised of 21,000 acres of land, and 1,800 citizens. In 1972, the State Legislature passed a law changing all Minnesota villages to cities, hence Lino Lakes' current status. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 39 Town of Linwood Linwood Township at Latitude 45.37 N and Longitude 93.08 W, is a thirty-six square mile community in the northeast corner of Anoka County, and has an elevation of 892 feet. Linwood Township first settled in 1855 and organized in 1871, received its name from Linwood Lake, the largest and most attractive one in a series or chain of ten or more lakes extending from northeast to southwest through this township and onward to Ham Lake. The name doubtless refers to the Lin tree or linden. Our American species (Tilia Americana), usually called basswood, is abundant here and is common or frequent through nearly all this state. The township had a post office between 1865-1903, in section 8, as well as a number of small businesses, a general store, and a Methodist church. A series of lakes, tributary in its northern part to the Sunrise River and at the south to Coon Creek, lies in Linwood, Bethel, and Ham Lake Townships. This series includes from northeast to southwest Typo Lake and Lake Martin; Island Lake, named for its island; Linwood Lake, giving its name to the township; Boot Lake, named from its outline; Rice Lake, having wild rice; Coon Lake and Little Coon Lake, named, like the creek, for raccoons, formerly much hunted here; and Lake Netta and Ham Lake, the latter, as before noted, being named from its form and giving name also to its township. Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area is located in the southern and eastern areas of the township. There are three major lakes located in the Township. Linwood has been a community consisting of family farms and cabins located around the three major lakes. The farmland is in the process of being developed to residential homes and the cabins around the lakes have been converted to permanent homes. City of Nowthen The City of Nowthen is located in the northwest corner of Anoka County, Minnesota at Latitude 45.33 N and Longitude 93.44 W and an elevation of 925 feet. The city has a total area of 35.2 miles. Of this total, 33.8 miles is land and 1.4 miles water. The total area is 3.95% water. There are 11 lakes in Nowthen, with Twin Lake being the largest. As of 2010, Nowthen had a total of 19,760 acres as rural residential agricultural use, 795 acres of Commercial/Industrial, 335 acres of Public/Quasi Public, 153 acres of parks and 1,486 acres of water/wetlands/other. Active farming operations exist throughout Nowthen. Continuation of these agricultural activities represents an important land use within the City consistent with the heritage and desired character of the community. Burns Township was established in 1869. Originally Burns Township was a part of the City of St. Francis. The first election in the township was held in 1869 and the first church was built in 1878. On July 8, 2008 Burns Township incorporated into the City of Nowthen. The City of Nowthen has consisted of family owned farms and large parcels of land for many years. Within the last few years a lot of the farmland has been developed into residential homes. Some of the larger land parcels are still be used for agricultural operations. In 1870 the population in Nowthen was 340 and as of the 2010 census, the city had a total population of 4,443. Nowthen has three different school districts covering our community (St. Francis District #15, Anoka District #11 and Elk River District #728 and also three different post offices (zip codes) for our City. City of Oak Grove Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 40 The City of Oak Grove is a community in the northwestern quadrant of Anoka County at Latitude 45.34 N and Longitude 93.33 W. It has a land area of 33.7 square miles and an elevation of 915 feet. Its 22,700 acres are bounded by the City of Andover, City of Nowthen, City of East Bethel, and City of St. Francis. The principal water features within the City include the Rum River, Cedar Creek, Seelye Brook, and Lake George. Oak Grove was primarily a farming community, but has evolved into an ex-urban bedroom community. Oak Grove Township settled in 1855 and was organized in 1857. "The name is derived from the profuse growth of oak trees, which are about equally distributed over the township" (History of the Upper Mississippi Valley, p. 285). Oak Grove, a village in section 18, located on the Rum River, was first settled in 1854, had a post office between 1857-1901, and was incorporated in 1993. The heart of the City of Oak Grove began at the enclave of Cedar. In 1880, Oak Grove was home to 305 people. The amenity of Lake George attracted seasonal and some year round residents as well. From those early years until 1950, the population had limited growth. After 1950, Oak Grove’s population has steadily grown. Oak Grove is a residential community with a rural environment. A major east/west and north/south Anoka County Road passes through the City making it close to additional services and cities. There are several small home businesses in Oak Grove, which make it a good place to live and work. The Rum River Tree Farm is an example of a business located in Oak Grove. City of Ramsey The City of Ramsey is located in western Anoka County, approximately 30 miles north of Minneapolis/St Paul at Latitude 45.26 N and Longitude 93.44 W and an elevation of 879 feet. Ramsey has a land area of 28.8 square miles and shares its borders with Anoka, Oak Grove, City of Nowthen and Elk River. On its southern border is the Mississippi River and to the East, Rum River. The City of Ramsey is 29 square miles in size. Ramsey is a suburban city with a population of 26,668. The first settlement in Ramsey began because of trading along the banks of the Mississippi. Many settlers came here on a steamboat called "The Governor Ramsey" named after our first territorial governor. This is how the city acquired the name. Only a few of the first houses and structures built in Ramsey remain today. The most notable structure of historic significance is identified on the National Register of Historic Places, the Old Ramsey Town Hall, located west of Highway 47 just north of County Road 116. This structure was built during the 19th century and was originally used as a schoolhouse. A significant effort has been made to preserve and maintain this building The Township of Ramsey was first organized in 1857 as Watertown Township later to become Ramsey Township in the fall of 1858. The name “Dover” township was also used sometime between Watertown and Ramsey. Ramsey was named after Governor Ramsey, who aside from having a steamboat named after him, was the first territorial governor of Minnesota. In November of 1974 Ramsey Township was incorporated as a city. Ramsey is a bedroom community, with a mixture of farms, single -family homes on large parcels of land and single-family homes on urban sized lots ranging from starter homes to executive style homes. Senior housing apartments are also available, as well as numerous styles of town Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 41 homes. The city’s business district is growing with numerous light industrial companies in our three business parks. Along with the abundant tree canopy, natural waterways give shape and identity to the city. The Rum River, with its canopy of flood plain forest, has become an ideal location for many new upper scale homes. Ramsey citizens also have access to the river at the two parks located along its banks, Rum River Central County Park and River’s Bend City Park. The Rum River is also regionally significant as a State Canoe Route and is protected through its designation as a Wild and Scenic River under the Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. US Highway 10 (an alternate State Great River Road), and the railroad separate most of Ramsey from the Mississippi River. Except for the flat terrace along Highway 10, the presence of the Mississippi River is not obvious. The Wayside Rest State Park (Daytonport), an undeveloped Mississippi West County Park, and a planned (and partially built) River Corridor Trail are Ramsey’s links to the mighty river. The stretch of the Mississippi River through Ramsey is within the Critical Area Corridor for the Mississippi River and is part of the Mississippi National River & Recreation Area (MNRRA). This stretch of the Mississippi River is also designated as “recreational” under the Wild and Scenic River’s Act. The Wayside Rest State Park has facilities for camping, drinking water, and canoe launching along the Mississippi River. Surrounded by many wetlands, Trott Brook creates a large natural corridor across the northern part of Ramsey, stretching from the western border east to the Rum River. While Trott Brook has been ditched to relieve residents of water problems, it remains relatively undeveloped along its banks. Other ditches create waterway corridors through northern Ramsey connecting a series of wetlands that drain east into the Rum River. These ditches form the backbone of the sub-watersheds in Ramsey. The city boasts a growing business district. Within this district there is three business parks, Energy Park, Business Park 1995 and Gateway Park. Since 2007, 225,000 square feet of industrial space has been added. We are proud of our commitment to attract economically and environmentally sound commercial development. The City staff and City Council are working hard to give order and control over future growth to continually provide employment opportunities to the citizens and provide for the future with a steady tax base. The city is proud to have Connexus Energy as the lead employer. Looking ahead, the city is working toward a retail and commercial area that includes restaurants, shopping, entertainment and employment opportunities. Ramsey is served by two school districts, Elk River #278, and Anoka-Hennepin #11. Anoka-Hennepin students have exceeded the state average on the Minnesota Basic Standards in math, reading, and writing. Scores of Anoka-Hennepin students on college entrance exams are well above the national average in all areas tested. The City of Ramsey is home to major employers including Life Fitness/500, Vision Ease/400, Connexus Energy/230, Anderson & Dahlen/160, ALTRON, Inc/104, Command Tooling/84, ACE Solid Waste/80, Zero Zone Refrigeration/59, Wendells/50, Heritage Millwork/45, Airgas North Central/42, and RJM/Gen Paper Products/40. Additionally the City of Ramsey employs 68 full time staff. City of St Francis St. Francis is a city located in the northwest corner of Anoka County, Minnesota at Latitude 45.38 N and Longitude 93.35 W, with an elevation of 922 feet. The city has a total area of 60.91 square kilometers. Of this total, the amount of surface water is .0577 square kilometers. The population in St. Francis was 7218 as of the 2010 census. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 42 Once referred to as Otona and established in 1855, St. Francis has seen a transition from being a small sawmill town of old to a center for several state of the art operations. Dwight Woodbury started a sawmill in 1885 at the “new town.” Ezra Randall and Armsby Fowler filed claims and became known as the first settler of St. Francis. Throughout the last couple of years, a lot of land has been developed into residential homes. Some of the larger parcels are still being used to agricultural operations and the city has grown with many retail businesses. Within St. Francis there are commercial retail businesses consisting of County Market grocery store, Nova Care Rehabilitation, Anoka Hennepin Federal Credit Union, Village Bank, Bridge Street Coffee, St. Francis Physical Therapy, Verizon, St. Francis Eyecare, Fairview Medical Clinic, various restaurants, Pond’s Golf Course, American Legion, Anytime Fitness, chiropractic offices and other retailers. Northland Screw Products and Temperature Specialists have flourished in the city business climate. The Rum River County Park in St. Francis consists of 80 acres for camping, sightseeing and fishing including paved limestone aggregated biking/hiking trails. St. Francis has an annual Pioneer Days Festival that is a major attraction as well. City of Spring Lake Park The City of Spring Lake Park is located in Anoka County and Ramsey County at Latitude 45.10 N and Longitude 93.23 W, with an elevation of 915. Spring Lake Park is located in the Northern Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro Area. The City of Fridley to the south, the City of Blaine to the North, and the City of Coon Rapids to its west and the City of Mounds View to the east border Spring Lake Park. The City of Spring Lake Park is predominately a bedroom community with some light industry. The City of Spring Lake Park is home to approximately 6,234 residents and occupies slightly less than three square miles of Anoka County. Spring Lake Park is as close to a demographic image of the State of Minnesota as you’re likely to find. Browse the latest data from the 20 10 census and you’ll see Minnesota’s own Mini-Me. Spring Lake Park stands out as a veritable cross-section of the state, average enough to make even Sheriff Andy Taylor feel right at home. The city is largely made up of tree-lined streets with block after block of tidy ramblers, many built in the suburban rush of the 1950’s and 1960’s. There’s no room for exclusive grated subdivisions and there is no wrong side of the tracks. Spring Lake Park has some commercial and industrial development along Minnesota Highway 65, Minnesota Highway 47 and County Road 10 but has no downtown, no post office, no big shopping center, no library or hospital, though all are close in neighboring communities. From the late 1930’s to the early 1950’s, the area called Spring Lake Park was an area bounded to the west by the Mississippi River, north to the farm area of Blaine Township, east to the Turtle Lake area and south to Columbia Heights, in other words, the Spring lake Park area encompassed all of Fridley Township, part of Blaine and Mounds View. Spring Lake Park got its name from one of Bronson-Erickson Real Estate salesmen. Due to a leakage from the St. Paul Water Work’s Water Main, between Wood Lake and Osborne Road, (Spring Lake), the salesman thought it to be a spring fed lake and called it “Spring Lake.” Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 43 A few pioneer citizens resided in the area, most of them owning large lots with cows and horses. Others were farming, but after World W ar II, when the American suburban expansion began developing, residential area and business places grew by “leaps and bounds.” In the early 1950’s the Village of Fridley incorporated almost the entire southern part of Fridley Township. The north part of the township and parts of Mounds View and Blaine tried to incorporate by means of a referendum, but it failed. The Village of Fridley tried to annex the remainder of the township. It also failed. In December of 1953, the northern part of the township and a small part of Mounds View Township (that portion of Ramsey County) incorporated by a referendum, the portion of Ramsey was included because the fire department was located there and it bore the name Spring Lake Park. The first election of village officers was held in January 1954. At the time of incorporation, the population was approximately 960, with an incorporated area of 1,280 acres. Spring Lake Park is noted not only locally but also throughout the State of Minnesota and possibly elsewhere as the City with the red, white and blue water towers. The City of Spring Lake Park had a city celebration that began in 1972 with many activities scheduled around the beach at Spring Lake. The city celebration ceased in 1974. In 1975 the City Council commissioned a group of community residents to rejuvenate the community celebration for the Bicentennial in 1976. The commission worked very hard and raised enough funds to have the water tower painted after “Old Glory” with stars and stripes in red, white and blue. After painting the water tower, the committee decided to use it as a theme for the community celebration. Since that time, the celebration has been referred to as “Tower Days.” 3.1.1 Jurisdiction Environment-Geography and Climate Anoka County Location Area Elevation SQ. Miles Feet Latitude 45.23 N, Longitude 93.43 W 242 878 June Average Temperature January Average Temperature Average Precipitation High Low High Low Rain Inches Snowfall Inches 79.0 57.8 21.9 4.3 29.41 55.9 Prevailing Winds Average annual freeze-free days Northeast @ 10.6 MPH 139 3.2 Jurisdiction Population and Demographics 3.2.1 Population Anoka County is the fourth largest county in the state of Minnesota by population. From 1990 to 2000, Anoka County grew almost twice as fast as the rest of Minnesota. The county's population increased by over 20% and the number of households increased by almost 30%. Anoka County is one of 87 counties in Minnesota. The estimated population in 2004 was 319,950. This was an increase of 7.34% from the 2000 census. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 44 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POPULATION FORECASTS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 2004 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 2009 Total 85,916 154,712 195,998 243,641 298,084 319,950 335,582 Change 68,796 41,286 47,643 54,443 21,876 15,632 Percent Change 80.07% 26.69% 24.31% 22.35% 7.34% 4.88% City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 15,216 26,588 37,400 42,000 44,600 Anoka 17,192 18,076 19,000 19,800 20,800 Bethel 394 443 550 570 650 Blaine (pt.) 38,975 45,014 57,186 72,000 76,000 Centerville 1,633 3,202 3,730 4,860 6,200 Circle Pines 4,704 4,663 5,400 5,300 5,400 Columbia Heights 18,910 18,520 20,000 21,400 21,700 Columbus 3,690 3,957 4,200 5,150 5,850 Coon Rapids 52,978 61,607 65,700 66,000 65,000 East Bethel 8,050 10,941 12,600 18,400 23,500 Fridley 28,335 27,449 27,000 26,900 27,500 Ham Lake 8,924 12,710 16,200 18,000 19,600 Hilltop 749 766 770 1,150 1,150 Lexington 2,279 2,142 2,250 2,250 2,300 Lino Lakes 8,807 16,791 22,500 26,300 30,700 Linwood Township 3,588 4,668 4,920 5,000 5,400 Nowthen 2,401 3,557 4,480 4,990 5,800 Oak Grove 5,488 6,903 9,200 10,300 11,300 Ramsey 12,408 18,510 28,100 36,200 43,500 Spring Lake Park (pt.) 6,429 6,667 6,600 6,600 6,800 St. Francis 2,538 4,910 7,700 10,400 12,800 Anoka County total 243,688 271,496 357,400 407,670 438,550 154,712 195,998 243,641 298,084 319,950 331,582 330,844 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Population 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 2009 2010 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 45 3.2.2 Age, Race and Ethnic Demographics Ethnic Demographics: On the 2000 Census questionnaire, race and Hispanic ethnicity are listed as separate questions. A person of Hispanic ethnicity is anyone who identifies with that social group, and so can be of any race. This can make data on race and ethnicity difficult to interpret. Race data is also difficult to compare from Census to Census because categories have changed over time. For example, the 2000 Census was the first to offer the category "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," and those people could have responded in a number of different ways in previous years. The 2000 Census also marked the first time that respondents were allowed to select more than one racial category. On earlier Censuses, multiracial individuals were asked to choose a single racial category, or respond as "Some Other Race." * Non-Hispanic only, in and 1990 "Asians" includes Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. Age Distribution: When drawn as a "population pyramid," age distribution can hint at patterns of growth. A top-heavy pyramid suggests negative population growth that might be due to a number of factors, including high death rates, low birth rates, and increased emigration from the area. A bottom heavy pyramid, suggests high birthrates, falling or stable death rates, and the potential for rapid population growth. Most areas fall somewhere between these two extremes and have a population pyramid that resembles a square, indicating slow and sustained growth with the birth rate exceeding the death rate, though not by a great margin. In 2010, the median age in Anoka County was 7.1 years. 26 percent of the population were under 18 years and 9.7 percent were 65 years and older. The age distribution of Anoka County is depicted below. The 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census is used as the basis for all responses. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races Ethnic Demographics 1990 2000 2010 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 46 Andover: The Andover total population is 30,598 and is 15,524 (50.7%) male and 15,074 (49.3%) female with the Median resident age of 37.3 years. The races makeup is White Non-Hispanic (94%), Asian (2.2%), Two or more races (1.9%), Hispanic (2.0%), American Indian (0.3%) and Black (1.7%). Ancestries include, German (36.5%), Norwegian (17.5%), Swedish (13.6%), Irish (12.9%), Polish (8.4%) and English (6.4%). Anoka Anoka’s population was 17,142, Males: 8,533 (49.7%), Females: 8,609 (50.2%) with a Median resident age of 37.6 years. Races in Anoka are White Non-Hispanic (89.8%), Black (4.7%), Hispanic (4.2%), Two or more races (3.0%), American Indian (1.0%) and Other race (1.6%). Ancestries are German (33.0%), Norwegian (17.1%), Swedish (12.8%), Irish (11.3%), English (6.1%) and Polish (5.8%). Bethel: Bethel Population is approximately 466, Males: 254 (54.5%), Females: 212 (45.5%), with a Median resident age of 34.3 years. The races makeup is White Non-Hispanic (97.6%), Black (0.9%), Hispanic (2.1%), Asian (0.4%), Some other race (0.9%) Ancestries are German (29.6%), Swedish (13.3%), Irish (13.3%), Norwegian (11.5%), Italian (7.4%) and French (5.6%). Blaine: Blaine’s population is 57,186 and consists of, Males: 28.742 (450.26%), Females: 28,444 (49.74%), with a Median resident age of 36.3 years. 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Under 5 Years 10 to 14 Years 20 to 24 Years 30 to 34 Years 40 to 44 Years 50 to 54 Years 60 to 64 Years 70 to 74 Years 80 to 84 Years Age Distribution in Thousands Male Female Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 47 Races in Blaine are White Non-Hispanic (83.96%), Two or more races (1.7%), Hispanic (2.89%), American Indian (0.63%), Black (2.25%), Other race (3.87%), and Other Asian (6.49%). Ancestries are German (38.3%), Norwegian (17.6%), Irish (12.6%), Swedish (12.5%), Polish (6.6%) and English (5.9%). City of Nowthen: City of Nowthen’s population is 4,443 people and consists of, Males: 2,314 (52.1%), Females: 2,129 (47.9%), with a Median resident age of 39.9 years. Races in the City of Nowthen are White Non-Hispanic (96.5%), Hispanic (1.0%) Two or more races (0.9%), American Indian (0.5%), Black (0.9%), Asian (1.2%) and Other race (0.1%). Ancestries are German (40.6%), Norwegian (19.8%), Swedish (13.2%), Irish (9.4%), Polish (6.4%), English (6.3%), French (4.8%) and Czech (4.3%). Centerville: Centerville’s population is 3,792, Males: 1,927 (50.8%), Females: 1,865 (49.2%), with a Median resident age of 35.8 years. Races in Centerville are White Non-Hispanic (94.7%), Black (0.3%). Asian (2.7%), Two or more races (1.8%), Hispanic (1.6%) and American Indian (0.4%). Ancestries are German (46.7%), Irish (17.6%), Norwegian (13.0%), Swedish (11.2%), Italian (7.1%) and French (5.8%). Circle Pines: Circle Pines population is 4,918, Males: 2,412 (49.8%), Females: 2,506 (50.2%), with a Median resident age of 40.5 years. Races in Circle Pines are White Non-Hispanic (92.6%), Black (1.8%) Two or more races (2.1%), American Indian (0.4%), Hispanic (2.0%) and Asian (3.3%) Ancestries are German (44.8%), Norwegian (18.3%), Irish (16.3%), Swedish (13.9%), English (8.4%) and Polish (7.8%). Columbia Heights: Columbia Heights population is 19,496, Males: 9,458 (48.5%), Females: 10,038 (51.5%), with a Median resident age: 36.9 years. Races in Columbia Heights are White Non-Hispanic (73.7%), Black (13.3%), Hispanic (11.9%), American Indian (1.5%), Two or more races (4.3%), Other race (6.3%), and Asian (4.8%). Ancestries are German (30.3%), Norwegian (16.3%), Irish (12.4%), Swedish (12.1%), Polish (11.3%) and English (5.8%). City of Columbus: City of Columbus population is 3,914, Males: 2,030 (51.8 %), Females: 1,884 (48.1%), with a Median resident age of 45.3. Races in City of Columbus are White Non-Hispanic (97.6%), Two or More Races (1.0%), American Indian (0.6%), Hispanic (1.5%), Asian (0.6%), Black (0.7%) and Other race (0.2%). Ancestries are German (40.9%), Swedish (14.6%), Norwegian (11.9%), Irish (9.7%), English (7.1%), French (6.5%) and Polish (5.1%). Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 48 Coon Rapids: Coon Rapids population is 61,476, Males: 29,742 (48.4%), Females: 31,734 (51.6%), with a Median resident age of 36.9 years. Races in Coon Rapids are White Non-Hispanic (87.2%), Black (5.5%), Two or more races (2.8%), Hispanic (3.2%), American Indian (0.7%) and Other race (1.2%). Ancestries: German (36.4%), Norwegian (18.1%), Swedish (13.0%), Irish (12.4%), Polish (7.1%) and English (6.6%). East Bethel: East Bethel population is 11,626, Males: 6,067 (52.2%), Females: 5,559 (47.8%) with a Median resident age of 38.6 years. Races in East Bethel are White Non-Hispanic (98.8%), Black (0.4%), Two or more races (1.2%), American Indian (0.5%) and Hispanic (1.0%). Ancestries are German (37.1%), Norwegian (16.9%), Swedish (15.1%), Irish (10.9%), Polish (9.4%) and United States (6.9%). Fridley: Fridley population is 27,208, Males: 13,474 (49.5%), Females: 13,734 (50.5%), with a Median resident age of 37.1 years. Races in Fridley are White Non-Hispanic (77.8%), Black (11.5%), Two or more races (4.2%), Hispanic (2.2%), American Indian (1.2%), Other race (1.1%), and Asian (4.9%). Ancestries are German (32.0%), Norwegian (16.1%), Swedish (12.6%), Irish (11.1%), Polish (9.2%) and English (6.0%). Ham Lake: Ham Lake population is 15,296, Males: 7,815 (50.1%), Females: 7,481 (48.9%), with a Median resident age of 40.1 years. Races in Ham Lake are White Non-Hispanic (95.4%), Two or more races (1.3%), Hispanic (1.1%), American Indian (0.4%) and Black (0.7%). Ancestries are German (37.5%), Norwegian (20.4%), Swedish (16.1%), Irish (13.5%), Polish (8.3%) and French (5.1%). Hilltop: Hilltop population is 744, Males: 396 (50.8%), Females: 348 (49.2%), with a median resident age of 42.7 years. Races in Hilltop are White Non-Hispanic (75.9%), Black (11.3%), Hispanic (15.3%), American Indian (1.6%), Two or more races (6.6%), Asian (2.7%), and Other race (6.9%). Ancestries are German (22.5%), Norwegian (15.8%), Irish (9.0%), Polish (7.6%), Swedish (7.6%) and English (5.4%). Lexington: Lexington population is 2,049, Males: 1,166 (52.0%), Females: 983 (48.0%) with a median resident age of 34.6 years. Races in Lexington are White Non-Hispanic (90.7%), Hispanic (5.4%), Two or more races (2.5%), American Indian (1.1%), Black (2.7%) and Other race (2.6%). Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 49 Ancestries are German (37.4%), Norwegian (14.5%), Irish (13.3%), Swedish (9.8%), Polish (7.6%) and English (6.5%). Lino Lakes: Lino Lakes population is 20,216, Males: 10,880 (53.8%), Females: 9,336 (46.2%), with a Median resident age of 37.2 years. Races in Lino Lakes are White Non-Hispanic (91.2%), Black (2.7%), Hispanic (1.7%), Two or more races (1.6%), American Indian (0.7%) and Other races (0.3). Ancestries are German (43.0%), Norwegian (16.2%), Irish (14.0%), Swedish (11.3%), English (7.1%) and French (6.2%). Linwood Township: Linwood Township population is 5,123, Males: 2,667 (52.1%), Females: 2,456 (47.9%), with a Median resident age of 47.7 years. Races in Linwood Township are White Non-Hispanic (98.8%), Two or more races (1.3%), Hispanic (1.4%), American Indian (0.4%), Black (0.4%), Asian (0.8%), American Indian (0.6%) and Some other race (0.1%). Ancestries are German (35.6%), Swedish (12.6%), Norwegian (12.2%), Irish (11.4%), American (6.6%), Italian (5.1%), English (5.0%), French (4.6%) and Polish (4.6%). Oak Grove: Oak Groves Population is 8,031, Males: 4,197 (52.3%), Females: 3,834 (47.7%), with a Median resident age of 40 years. Races in Oak Grove are White Non-Hispanic (96.2%), American Indian (0.3%), Two or more races (1.3%), Hispanic (1.1%), Asian (1.9%) and Black (0.5%). Ancestries are German (41.5%), Swedish (20.9%), Norwegian (20.6%), Irish (14.1%), Polish (7.6%), English (4.9%). Ramsey: Ramsey population is 23,668, Males: 11,905 (50.3%), Females: 11,763 (49.7%), with a Median resident age of 34.9 years. Races in Ramsey are White Non-Hispanic (97.2%), Black (2.8%), Hispanic (2.2%), Two or more races (1.1%) and American Indian (0.4%). Ancestries are German (40.7%), Norwegian (19.4%), Swedish (13.0%), Irish (12.1%), Polish (9.1%), English (6.3%). St. Francis: St. Francis population is 7,218, Males: 3,571 (49.5%), Females: 3,647 (50.5%), with a Median resident age of 31.5 years. Races in St. Francis are White/Non-Hispanic (96.2%), Two or more races (2.0%), American Indian (0.4%), Hispanic (1.3%), Black (0.6), and Asian (0.8%). Ancestries are German (35.8%), Norwegian (14.5%), Irish (12.1%), Swedish (8.0%), English (6.3%) and Polish (5.4%). Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 50 Spring Lake Park: Spring Lake Park population is 6,234, Males: 3,044 (47.9%), Females: 3,190 (52.1%), with a Median resident age of 41.4 years. Races in Spring Lake Park are White Non-Hispanic (86.4%), Hispanic (3.4%), Other race (2.0%), Two or more races (3..7%), Black (3.9%), American Indian (0.9%), Asian (5.0%) Ancestries are German (33.2%), Norwegian (17.1%), Swedish (12.8%), Irish (12.3%), Polish (8.7%) and English (5.7%). * American Indian includes both American Indian and Alaska Native. 3.3 Jurisdiction Economics, Earnings and Employment 3.3.1 Economics Anoka County is one of 87 counties in Minnesota. It is part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul- Bloomington, MN-WI (MSA). The 2009 population of the MSA reached a population of 3.3 Million. Anoka is the fourth largest county in Minnesota. Anoka County Retail Sales 2000 2003 2004 2008 2009 Building Materials 269,376,833 341,299,797 411,487,411 333,396,930 304,292,853 General Merchandise 477,789,646 755,751,615 720,549,770 665,163,524 693,502,193 Food Stores 439,509,839 558,641,951 608,951,831 696,582,502 671,616,527 Autos, Boats, Aircraft 435,938,137 499,357,840 510,038,686 409,327,271 387,200,781 Service Stations Included in above # 276,269,087 339,980,289 537,738,413 447,378,911 Furniture & Home Décor 221,626,486 125,047,985 133,388,403 108,696,314 89,280,863 Apparel & Accessory 63,982,172 88,590,405 117,819,113 189,010,454 176,327,392 Eating & Drinking 228,755,404 285,145,781 300,170,064 349,631,695 345,971,590 Other Retail 433,914,632 418,387,508 324,260,409 329,308,243 372,531,438 Total 2,570,893,149 3,348,491,969 3,466,645,976 3,618,857,354 3,488,102,548 Source: Minnesota Department of Revenue – Sales & Use Revenue by County MIDWEST CITIES CLASS B/C CONSUMER PRICE INDEX SEASONAL ADJUSTED Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2002 109.5 109.6 110.2 110.7 110.8 111.2 111.3 111.4 111.5 111.9 111.7 111.4 110.9 2003 112.0 112.8 113.6 113.2 113.0 113.2 113.1 113.6 113.9 113.6 113.6 113.3 113.2 2004 114.1 114.7 115.2 115.6 116.4 116.8 116.3 116.5 116.8 117.4 117.7 117.3 116.2 2005 117.3 118.1 118.7 119.6 119.3 119.6 120.2 120.9 123.1 122.6 121.3 120.9 120.1 2006 121.6 121.6 122.3 123.3 123.7 124.0 124.1 124.1 123.2 122.6 123.1 123.0 123.1 2007 122.9 123.9 125.2 125.7 127.2 127.4 127.1 126.9 127.5 127.3 128.4 128.0 126.5 2008 128.8 128.9 130.1 131.5 132.7 134.0 134.6 134.0 134.0 131.9 129.0 128.0 131.5 2009 128.6 129.1 129.3 129.6 130.0 131.6 131.4 131.7 131.8 131.7 132.0 131.7 130.7 2010 132.4 132.5 133.1 133.5 133.8 133.8 134.1 134.4 134.3 134.1 134.1 134.3 133.7 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 51 3.3.2 Earnings Per capita personal income In 2006 Anoka County had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $35,640. This PCPI was 92 percent of the state average of $38,859, and 103 percent of the national average of $36,714. In 2003 Anoka County had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $32,620. This PCPI ranked 8th in the state and was 96 percent of the state average of $34,031, and 104 percent of the national average of $31,472. The 2003 PCPI reflected an increase of 2.5 percent from 2002. The 2002- 2003 state change was 2.6 percent and the national change was 2.2 percent. In 1993 the PCPI of Anoka County was $20,663 and ranked 8th in the state. The 1993-2003 average annual growth rate of PCPI was 4.7 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 4.6 percent and for the nation was 4.0 percent. ANOKA COUNTY AVERAGE WAGE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Wage 33,401 34,585 37,271 38,871 38,781 39,309 40,594 41,750 42,167 42,265 43,190 Total personal income In 2003 Anoka County had a total personal income (TPI) of $10,255,751. This TPI ranked 4th in the state and accounted for 6.0 percent of the state total. In 1993 the TPI of Anoka County was $5,408,214 and ranked 4th in the state. The 2003 TPI reflected an increase of 3.8 percent from 2002. The 2002-2003 state change was 3.4 percent and the national change was 3.2 percent. The 1993-2003 average annual growth rate of TPI was 6.6 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 5.7 percent and for the nation was 5.1 percent. Components of total personal income Total personal income includes net earnings by place of residence; dividends, interest, rent and personal current transfer receipts received by the residents of Anoka County. In 2003 net earnings accounted for 78.4 percent of TPI (compared with 81.2 in 1993); dividends, interest, and rent were 11.8 percent (compared with 10.7 in 1993); and personal current transfer receipts were 9.8 percent (compared with 8.0 in 1993). From 2002 to 2003 net earnings increased 4.4 percent; dividends, interest, and rent decreased 2011 135.1 135.7 136.8 138.0 138.8 139.1 139.2 139.5 139.5 138.6 138.5 138.2 138.1 2012 138.9 139.2 140.9 141.3 141.1 141.0 140.9 142.1 142.3 MEDIAN INCOME Andover $76,241 East Bethel $57,880 Anoka $42,659 Fridley $48,372 Bethel $45,125 Ham Lake $67,750 Blaine $74,271 Hilltop $26,528 City of Nowthen $63,819 Lexington $41,618 Centerville $63,696 Lino Lakes $75,708 Circle Pines $60,469 Linwood Township $58,596 Columbia Heights $40,562 Oak Grove $70.169 City of Columbus $67,500 Ramsey $68,988 Coon Rapids $55,550 St. Francis $51,982 Spring Lake Park $46,646 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 52 2.3 percent; and personal current transfer receipts increased 7.1 percent. From 1993 to 2003 net earnings increased on average 6.2 percent each year; dividends, interest, and rent increased on average 7.6 percent; and personal current transfer receipts increased on average 8.7 percent. Earnings by place of work Earnings of persons employed in Anoka County increased from $5,492,028 in 2002 to $5,816,477 in 2003, an increase of 5.9 percent. The 2002-2003 state change was 4.4 percent and the national change was 4.1 percent. The average annual growth rate from the 1993 estimate of $3,063,977 to the 2003 estimate was 6.6 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 5.9 percent and for the nation was 5.3 percent. Earnings 3.3.3 Employment Employment and employers: Anoka County residents are well educated and take pride in their work and community. Businesses, attracted by affordable land, are building and expanding in Anoka County. Major corporations like Medtronic, Aveda, United Defense, Hoffman Engineering, Onan, and Federal Cartridge have found homes in Anoka County. In fact, Medtronic, the world's leading medical technology company, recently built its global headquarters in Anoka County. In 2000, almost two-thirds of Anoka County workers were employed in sales, office, and management, professional and related occupations. The Anoka County Economic Development Partnership (ACEDP), established in 1985, is a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization focused primarily on creating a business environment conducive to growth and development in Anoka County. The ACEDP Board of Directors consists of 17 persons representing businesses, education and government leaders, and conducts its work through two staff persons. Four additional volunteer Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 53 boards and/or committees, totaling 109 persons, were established by the ACEDP to oversee separate entities or programs created by the ACEDP and help it accomplish its mission. ACEDP has been involved in a variety of economic development initiatives, such as: attracting businesses and events to Anoka County, including NCR/Comten/Aveda, Merit Corporation, National Sports Center, Burnett Senior Classic, Air Cure Technologies, Inc., Northeast YMCA, Possis Medical, Quality Sterilization, Biotest Labs, and over 30 emerging technology companies located throughout the county. ACEDP also assists businesses with relocating within the county by creating a business network "one stop shop" for area businesses to obtain financial and business or technical assistance through the ACEDP's network of public and private service providers. Other assistance includes: helping to establish business parks in Anoka County, including Minnesota Medical Enterprise Park in Coon Rapids and Pheasant Ridge Industrial Park in Blaine, conducting countywide labor force and workforce assessments, as well as a workforce development plan for the county, promoting Anoka County to businesses and real estate developers from other areas, both local to international, promoting speaking engagements, seminars, meetings with developers/realtors, public information, access to resources and the creation of a countywide marketing consortium with representation from all cities within the county, utility companies that service the area, area colleges, jobs and training organizations, chambers of commerce and Anoka County government. To accomplish its goals, ACEDP uses a variety of financial tools. The Anoka Sherburne County Capital Fund (ASCCF), established in 1993 by the ACEDP, provides seed money for start-up high technology companies to encourage them to locate in Anoka County or Sherburne Counties. The Anoka Investors LLC investors club provides an additional source of equity for start-up companies by offering an opportunity for private investors to invest in companies in the ASCCF and ACEDP's incubator program. The ASCCF and the Investment Club have their own governing boards, and pay ACEDP to manage their funds. The ACEDP's Business Incubator Program in Columbia Heights provides furnished office space in exchange for company stock. The ACEDP Business Loan Fund, part of the State of Minnesota Urban Challenge Grant Program, provides additional funds for start-up businesses in Columbia Heights as a match to equity investments made by the ASCCF. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 54 Metropolitan Council Employment Forecasts Regional Development Framework Adopted January 14, 2004 City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 15,216 26,588 33,000 39,000 40,500 Anoka 17,192 18,076 19,000 19,800 20,800 Bethel 394 443 450 460 510 Blaine (pt.) 38,975 45,014 63,300 72,000 76,000 Nowthen 2,401 3,557 4,480 4,990 5,800 Centerville 1,633 3,202 3,700 4,100 4,700 Circle Pines 4,704 4,663 5,400 5,300 5,400 Columbia Hgts. 18,910 18,520 20,000 21,400 21,700 Columbus Twp. 3,690 3,957 4,000 4,240 4,680 Coon Rapids 52,978 61,607 65,700 66,000 65,000 East Bethel 8,050 10,941 11,800 11,700 12,100 Fridley 28,335 27,449 27,000 26,900 27,500 Ham Lake 8,924 12,710 15,200 15,200 15,200 Hilltop 749 766 770 770 770 Lexington 2,279 2,142 2,250 2,250 2,300 Lino Lakes 8,807 16,791 22,500 26,300 30,700 Linwood Twp. 3,588 4,668 4,920 5,000 5,400 Oak Grove 5,488 6,903 7,400 7,600 8,100 Ramsey 12,408 18,510 30,000 43,000 44,000 St. Francis 2,538 4,910 7,700 10,400 12,800 Spring Lake Park (PT) 6,429 6,667 6,600 6,600 6,800 ANOKA COUNTY TOTAL 243,688 298,084 355,170 393,010 410,760 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Production, Transportation, & Material… Construction, Extraction, Maintenance &… Farming, Fishing, & Forestry Sales & Office Service Professional & Related Occupations Management, Business, & Finance… Civilian Employment Population. Age 16+ in Thousands Occupation Occupation by Sex, 2009 Male Female Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 55 Andover Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (20.0%), Educational, health and social services (17.7%), Retail trade (13.6%). Anoka Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (20.1%), Educational, health and social services (18.4%), Retail trade (12.8%). Bethel Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (31.6%), Construction (12.1%), Educational, health and social services (10.5%). Blaine Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (22.8%), Educational, health and social services (16.1%), Retail trade (11.7%). City of Nowthen has limited employment opportunities available. The average commute time for Burns workers is 32 minutes, compared with 26 minutes nationwide. Centerville Industries providing employment: Educational, health and social services (20.9%), Manufacturing (19.3%), Retail trade (10.7%). Circle Pines Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (21.1%), Educational, health and social services (15.5%), Retail trade (13.1%). Columbia Heights Industries providing employment: Educational, health and social services (17.8%), Manufacturing (17.6%), Retail trade (13.0%), Professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste management services (10.3%). City of Columbus employment consists of: Gander Mountain Retail-100. Various smaller employers (approx. 40) to include: auto sales, contractor shops, recreational vehicle sales, office, manufacturing employing less than 30 employees. Coon Rapids Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (20.0%), Educational, health and social services (18.8%), Retail trade (13.6%). East Bethel Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (22.1%), Educational, health and social services (15.2%), Construction (11.5%), Retail trade (11.2%). Fridley Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (20.5%), Educational, health and social services (16.8%), Retail trade (13.2%). Ham Lake Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (21.1%), Educational, health and social services (15.2%), Retail trade (11.9%), Construction (11.8%). Hilltop Industries providing employment: Educational, health and social services (19.3%), Manufacturing (18.3%), Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services (12.6%), Retail trade (12.1%). Lexington Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (22.0%), Retail trade (14.1%), Educational, health and social services (14.0%), Construction (10.8%). Lino Lakes Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (20.6%), Educational, health and social services (18.8%), Professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste management services (11.6%), Retail trade (10.4%). Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 56 Linwood Township Industries is limited to a few small businesses. These consist of automotive repair, convenience store, landscaping and homebuilders. There are no major businesses in Linwood Township. Oak Grove Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (20.5%), Educational, health and social services (17.9%), Construction (13.8%), Retail trade (13.4%). Ramsey Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (21.6%), Educational, health and social services (20.0%), Retail trade (10.5%). St. Francis Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (22.9%), Educational, health and social services (18.9%), Construction (15.3%). Spring Lake Park Industries providing employment: Manufacturing (20.3%), Educational, health and social services (16.3%), Retail trade (12.7%). ANOKA COUNTY UNEMPLOYEMENT Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann 1995 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.3 2.8 3.3 2.9 2.6 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.02 1996 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.18 1997 3.4 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.65 1998 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.09 1999 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.19 2000 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.78 2001 3.4 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.1 4.1 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.08 2002 5.1 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.1 4.8 4.5 4.1 4.3 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.52 2003 5.4 5.0 5.2 4.8 4.5 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.80 2004 5.4 5.0 5.3 4.4 4.2 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.4 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.53 2005 4.7 4.3 4.6 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.89 2006 4.6 4.5 4.4 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.7 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.2 3.97 2007 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.8 4.60 2008 5.3 5.1 5.3 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.8 6.8 5.42 2009 8.5 9.1 9.4 8.9 8.6 9.3 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.0 7.8 8.8 8.67 2010 9.1 9.0 9.0 8.0 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.88 2011 7.8 7.6 7.4 6.7 6.4 6.9 7.0 6.3 6.2 5.7 5.5 5.9 6.62 2012 6.4 6.7 6.7 5.5 5.4 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.5 6.14 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 57 3.4 Jurisdiction Housing Anoka County experienced substantial population and household growth during the 1990s as development continued to push northward across the County. Areas of the largest household growth during the 1990s were Coon Rapids, Ramsey, Andover, Blaine, and Lino Lakes. These communities had an ample supply of land within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary. Beyond these communities to the north, the County is largely urban-rural with zoning restrictions that limit residential development to primarily large-lot single-family homes. The current MUSA boundary constrains the development of higher housing densities in most of the County. The greatest amount of housing development is occurring in areas with land serviced by municipal sewer and water. Very little multifamily housing will be built in communities in the northern portion of the County, which is not serviced by municipal sewer and water. Median House Value Andover $158,400 Anoka $119,000 Bethel $102,900 Blaine (pt.) $125,600 City of Nowthen $157,500 Centerville $142,400 Circle Pines $116,300 Columbia Heights $103,000 City of Columbus $154,600 Coon Rapids $124,600 East Bethel $138,300 Fridley $120,300 Ham Lake $150,300 Hilltop $55,000 Lexington $104,100 Lino Lakes $162,700 Linwood Township $135,200 Oak Grove $151,100 Ramsey $143,500 St. Francis $128,500 Spring Lake Park (pt.) $120,000 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 58 Land outside the MUSA is being consumed at a rapid pace by the development of housing at lower densities. For example, with an average single-family lot size of 2.5 acres (a typical lot size in the townships), the amount of land to develop 100 homes would be about 300 acres (including land for streets), compared to about 33 acres for an average single-family lot size of 12,000 square feet. Thus, the more rural sub markets are consuming land at a pace similar to the more urban sub markets that are adding a much greater amount of housing. Metropolitan Council Household Forecasts Regional Development Framework Adopted January 14, 2004 City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 4,430 8,107 12,100 14,600 15,500 Anoka 6,394 7,262 7,900 8,500 9,000 Bethel 130 149 160 180 200 Blaine (pt.) 12,825 15,926 24,800 29,300 31,200 City of Nowthen 754 1,123 1,500 1,900 2,300 Centerville 519 1,077 1,340 1,600 1,850 Circle Pines 1,562 1,697 2,050 2,100 2,200 Columbia Heights 7,766 8,033 8,600 9,200 9,300 City of Columbus 1,129 1,328 1,450 1,600 1,750 Coon Rapids 17,449 22,578 25,000 26,500 27,000 East Bethel 2,542 3,607 4,400 5,000 5,500 Fridley 10,909 11,328 11,600 11,900 12,300 Ham Lake 2,720 4,139 5,700 6,800 7,200 Hilltop 410 400 400 400 400 Lexington 829 820 900 950 1,000 Lino Lakes 2,603 4,857 7,100 8,600 10,100 Linwood Township 1,146 1,578 1,850 2,100 2,300 Oak Grove 1,638 2,200 2,600 2,800 3,000 Ramsey 3,620 5,906 10,300 15,500 16,500 St. Francis 760 1,638 2,800 4,000 5,000 Spring Lake Park (pt.) 2,302 2,676 2,750 2,800 3,000 Anoka County total 82,437 106,429 135,300 156,330 166,600 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 59 ANOKA COUNTY SINGLE FAMILY NEW HOUSE CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PERMITS 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Jurisdiction Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty Andover 411 342 285 218 179 153 91 49 46 71 Anoka 20 9 17 30 39 10 1 24 2 20 Bethel 2 3 2 4 15 3 1 0 1 0 Blaine (pt.) 703 564 667 817 807 403 299 311 283 331 Centerville 76 55 43 47 35 10 12 1 3 3 Circle Pines 0 0 0 73 126 2 0 0 0 0 Columbia Heights 16 6 8 12 11 125 88 91 18 42 Columbus 14 10 14 15 25 9 8 1 5 2 Coon Rapids 235 135 152 160 332 172 91 9 13 18 East Bethel 127 93 95 78 115 38 23 6 5 5 Fridley 3 16 31 9 17 10 3 1 1 43 Ham Lake 192 164 158 143 170 78 36 18 16 19 Hilltop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lexington 1 1 0 2 2 10 1 0 0 1 Lino Lakes 245 240 201 218 112 91 152 31 30 31 Linwood Twp 26 17 13 27 34 31 31 14 11 14 Nowthen 56 29 33 55 98 26 16 4 3 4 Oak Grove 61 43 77 70 99 65 37 12 6 7 Ramsey 123 108 102 161 441 176 230 75 45 60 St. Francis 161 147 137 199 191 49 23 4 10 13 Spring Lake Park 13 0 17 20 21 1 0 1 0 1 Anoka Co. Total 2485 1982 2052 2358 2869 1481 1134 579 506 685 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 60 2030 Regional Development Framework - Revised Forecasts as of December 31, 2010 (pt) denotes part of a city; remainder of city is in neighboring county. ** = Forecasts revised by Council action in 2010 * = Forecasts revised by Council action in 2006-2009 All other forecasts approved by Council actions, January 14, 2004, and August 24, 2005 POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover* 26,588 37,400 42,000 44,600 8,107 11,400 14,000 15,900 3,583 4,490 5,040 5,500 Anoka 18,076 19,000 19,800 20,800 7,262 7,900 8,500 9,000 13,489 14,400 15,200 16,200 Bethel* 443 550 570 650 149 200 220 260 229 330 380 440 Blaine (pt)* 45,014 59,100 76,100 78,000 15,926 21,500 29,300 31,200 16,757 21,900 26,200 27,400 Centerville* 3,202 3,730 4,860 6,200 1,077 1,350 1,900 2,450 363 600 1,000 1,210 Circle Pines 4,663 5,400 5,300 5,400 1,697 2,050 2,100 2,200 2,150 2,250 2,400 2,450 Columbia Heights 18,520 20,000 21,400 21,700 8,033 8,600 9,200 9,300 6,397 6,600 6,800 7,000 Columbus* 3,957 4,200 5,150 5,850 1,328 1,450 1,880 2,180 507 1,200 1,600 2,000 Coon Rapids 61,607 65,700 66,000 65,000 22,578 25,600 26,500 27,000 21,682 24,200 26,000 27,800 East Bethel* 10,941 12,600 18,400 23,500 3,607 4,500 6,800 9,000 1,374 2,000 3,300 4,500 Fridley* 27,449 27,000 26,900 27,500 11,328 11,600 11,900 12,300 26,257 24,500 26,000 26,600 Ham Lake* 12,710 16,200 18,000 19,600 4,139 5,400 6,300 7,100 3,194 3,050 3,200 3,450 Hilltop** 766 770 1,150 1,150 400 410 600 600 257 350 420 470 Lexington 2,142 2,250 2,250 2,300 819 910 950 1,000 634 880 1,050 1,120 Lino Lakes* 16,791 22,500 26,300 30,700 4,857 7,500 9,100 10,600 2,671 4,100 6,200 8,000 Linwood Twp. 4,668 4,920 5,000 5,400 1,578 1,820 1,950 2,090 154 140 150 160 Nowthen 3,557 4,480 4,990 5,800 1,123 1,530 1,820 2,120 337 350 400 450 Oak Grove* 6,903 9,200 10,300 11,300 2,200 3,000 3,600 4,100 359 520 680 820 Ramsey** 18,510 28,100 36,200 43,500 5,906 9,800 13,000 16,300 4,008 6,700 9,100 11,900 St. Francis 4,910 7,700 10,400 12,800 1,638 2,800 4,000 5,000 1,247 1,630 1,900 2,220 Spring Lake Park (pt) 6,667 6,600 6,600 6,800 2,676 2,700 2,750 2,950 4,401 4,600 4,800 4,850 Anoka County Total 298,084 357,400 407,670 438,550 106,428 132,020 156,370 172,650 110,050 124,790 141,820 154,540 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 61 3.5 Jurisdiction Infrastructure Anoka County No matter your interest, there’s a lot to do in Anoka County! Whether hiking or canoeing, horseback riding or playing golf, swimming or listening to music, shopping or going to restaurants, Anoka County offers something for every member of the family. The National Sports Center (NSC) in Blaine has the largest soccer complex in the world, as well as world-class hockey, cycling, track and field, and an impressive new youth golf facility. The USA Cup, one of soccer's premier events, is held each year at the NSC. This and other events bring more than one million visitors to the NSC and Anoka County each year. The NSC provides unique sports opportunities and its success has generated hundreds of jobs. Anoka County has more than 20 parks spread over 9,000 acres of land. In addition, there are 13 golf courses in the county, including the TPC of the Twin Cities, home of the Senior PGA 3M Championship. Andover Business uses occupy 435.91 acres or about 2% of the city and are composed of businesses that are mainly retail, service, and light industrial. Commercial activities in Andover have increased with construction of a number of new businesses throughout the City. The City is currently marketing Andover Station North, a 120- acre redevelopment area (located north of Bunker Lake Boulevard and west of Hanson Boulevard) to attract upscale retail service oriented businesses, offices and restaurants. Andover infrastructure includes 191.94 miles of roads, 23 miles of trails, 41 miles of storm sewer, 76 miles of water mains, 70 miles of sanitary sewer and 59 parks with 541 developed acres. The educational needs of the community are provided by two school districts. St. Francis Independent School District #15 covers the northern portion of the city and Anoka-Hennepin School District #11 covers the southern part of the city. The city has two public schools with District #11 and two private schools, two medical clinics and an assisted living facility. Connexus Energy, CenterPoint and Qwest provide utilities. Transportation includes the BNSF railroad. There is approximately 525 acres of city owned parkland in Andover. The larger parks include Kelsey Round Lake Park (136 acres), Sunshine Park (39 acres), Prairie Knoll Park (19.5 acres), and Fox Meadows Park (12.75 acres.) Additionally, Bunker Hills Park, which is owned and operated by Anoka County, encompasses over 400 acres. Nearly 190 acres within the city are owned by school districts. The City Hall and Public Works complex covers over 55 acres. The City of Andover’s water treatment plant went online in October of 2004. It is capable of treating up to 9 million gallons per day. As of 2004, there was a total of 191.94 miles of City, County, and State Aid roads in the city. A major upcoming road improvement project is the reconstruction of County Road 47 (Hanson Boulevard). This project, scheduled to begin in 2006, will be a joint effort between the State of Minnesota, Anoka County, and the cities of Andover and Coon Rapids. Additional city and county road improvements will be necessary to accommodate the development of the Rural Reserve. A new trunk sanitary sewer line will be Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 62 constructed to provide service to the Rural Reserve, and a second water treatment plant may be needed to serve the area as well. Anoka The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad dissects the city. US TH 10 and State Highways 169 and 47, which connect commuter traffic from Minneapolis to northern and northwestern suburbs, also split the city. The city has transit service provided by the Metropolitan Transit Commission and the Anoka County Traveler. A heavy-rail commuter rail line is planned for the near future to connect Minneapolis with the northwest suburbs. The city has one high school, two middle schools, and four elementary schools and two early childhood/pre-schools with the Anoka-Hennepin School District #11. In addition, there are five private schools (Grades 1–up); several private pre-school/kindergartens; and Anoka-Hennepin Technical College. There are two nursing homes and assisted living facilities. There is one major clinic, Riverway Clinic and several medical professional office facilities. The city is serviced by Mercy Hospital located less than one-half mile to the east of Anoka in Coon Rapids. Anoka City Municipal Power provides electricity. CenterPoint Energy of Minneapolis provides natural gas service. The City of Anoka Public Utilities provides water and sewer services. Telephone services are provided by Century Link Communications. The Minneapolis Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press provide daily newspaper coverage and the Anoka County Union is a weekly newspaper. Quad-City Cable TV is the local community cable television provider. Over 500 businesses are located in Anoka, ranging from in-home offices to major international corporations. The major employers in the City include: Federal Cartridge Corporation, Hoffman Enclosures, Inc., Lakeland Tool & Engineering Company, Mate Precision Tooling, Copper Sales, and Rural Community Insurance Services. In addition, the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center, Anoka-Hennepin District #11 schools, along with the City of Anoka and County of Anoka, offer many job opportunities. There are over 14,000 jobs in the city. Throughout its history, Anoka has been strongly involved in promoting economic development. Bethel The City of Bethel has several small manufacturing and industrial business, however it is primarily a residential community with limited retail options. Residents travel to the surrounding communities for the majority of their retail services. Independent School District 15 covers all of the City of Bethel. The Sandhill Center for the Arts School is located in the City of Bethel. There are no hospitals, clinics or care facilities within the City of Bethel. Currently the City of Bethel has its own Fire Department, but contracts with the City of St. Francis for the police protection on a 911 emergency basis. Connexus Energy handles utilities for electric power along with a small portion of the community having natural gas by Center Point Energy. A large portion of the community uses propane gas. Century Link provides the telephone service. Blaine The City of Blaine has eleven industrial parks, competitive land costs, a strong labor pool, and excellent freeway and highway access. With the development of Interstate 35-W, State Highway 65, and State Highway 10, Blaine's accessibility to the Twin Cities was greatly improved. Because of this, Blaine has become a very attractive location for business and residential development. Blaine has attracted many new corporate residents, such as the Aveda Corporation, Bermo, Dayton Rogers Manufacturing, Infinite Campus, ParaMetrics, General Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 63 Pattern, and Carley Foundary. Blaine is also home to the National Sports Center, an Olympic class training facility, as well as home to a Tournament Players Club golf course. Transportation infrastructure includes Blaine Airport, Interstate 35W, State Highway 10, and State Highway 65. Blaine has a strong and growing industrial and commercial business sector. Blaine is home to nearly 1800 businesses. The city has a Federal Post Office, a State National Sports Center and Anoka County Human Service Center, two libraries and a county license bureau. Utilities include four water towers, one water reservoir, three water treatment plant, two power transfer stations, seventeen wells, two natural gas odorizing station, natural gas pipelines, bulk fuel transfer pipelines, city sewer and water, household hazardous waste collection site and five solid waste transfer stations. The city has a City Hall/Police Department building, a senior center, four fire stations, five senior apartment buildings, a public works facility and twelve schools. Three school districts cover the City of Blaine. They are Independent School District #11, #12 and #16. There are six large childcare centers and three large medical clinics. The closest hospital is located five miles from the city border in the City of Fridley. Recreation includes a private golf course, the TPC of the Twin Cities and over 62 parks and 81 miles of trails. Blaine is host to two large national spectator events. The USA Cup and the 3M Championships. These events draw several hundred thousand spectators each year. City of Nowthen City of Nowthen has 55 miles of roads with 26 miles being gravel and 29 miles of blacktop. Burns has a heavily traveled county road (Anoka County Road #22) running east and west through the community and running north and south is Anoka County Road #5. Three different school districts (Independent School District # 11, # 15 & # 728) cover City of Nowthen. There are no hospitals, clinics or care facilities within City of Nowthen. Currently City of Nowthen is contracted with Ramsey Fire Department and Oak Grove Fire Department for fire protection. City of Nowthen is covered by the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office on a 911 emergency basis. Connexus Energy handles utilities for City of Nowthen for electric power along with a small portion of the community having natural gas by Center Point Energy. A large portion of the community uses propane gas. Century Link provides telephone service. Within City of Nowthen, as of 2000, there was 11 acres with the land use of commercial retail businesses, 5 acres in industrial businesses, 40 acres with institutional use and 14 acres in parks. The Burns Town Center and the Burns Commercial Park are being developed. Centerville Centerville city properties have city sewer and over half of the properties have city water service. Natural gas and electric service are available throughout the city. Centennial School District #12 covers the city, with one elementary school within the city limits. A new city hall was opened in 1993. Centennial Lakes Police Department provides police protection for the community. Centennial Fire Department provides fire and rescue services for the city. City government is a mayor/city council structure, with a City Administrator. There are no major businesses in Centerville; they are mostly small retail shops. They include two liquor establishments of which one service food, a machine shop, auto repair, woodworking, construction, and service type business. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 64 Circle Pines Many citizens for commuting into the metropolitan area use Park and Ride systems. No medical facilities exist within the city. Mayor and City Council with City Administrator is the general form of government. Centennial School District #12 covers the entire city with one of the elementary schools located within the city limits. Circle Pines is the only suburban city in Minnesota that operates its own natural gas distribution company. The city is in close proximity to a major growth area in its neighboring city of Blaine; a heavily used sports center complex, a TPC golf course. One third of the city land area is devoted to parks and open spaces. Businesses in Circle Pines are mostly retail and are located on the west side of the city (near Lake Drive and Lexington Ave). Another retail center is in the center of the city, along Lake Drive. Columbia Heights Columbia Heights has State Highways 65 and 47 running north/south. Most commercial property lies along these two heavily traveled roads. Metro Transit provides many routes of bus service with a small bus transfer hub building in the city. Amoco Oil has one large underground pipe that runs along our northern border for approximately ½ mile. One of the Minneapolis water treatment facilities is located in Columbia Heights. There are two 48-inch water mains, which run from this treatment plant to Minneapolis through the city. This plant provides a significant amount of the water used by Minneapolis and some surrounding suburbs including Columbia Heights. Columbia Heights School District #13 covers the city. The city has two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, a private catholic grade school, an alternative school and a charter school. There is one medical clinic, many dental offices, childcare facilities and a large nursing home complex. Due to the elderly population of CH, Crestview Nursing Home has grown into a very large complex. Beside the nursing home it includes a 75-unit independent living apartment building, and two large assisted living buildings all connected together. They also have another assisted living building off campus, which includes a locked memory care unit. Columbia Heights provides public water and sewer service. Water is purchased from the City of Minneapolis. The city also has a complete storm water drainage system. Telephone service is provided by Century Link Communications with many residential consumers using the cable phone service provided by the city cable company, Comcast. CenterPoint Energy provides natural gas service. Xcel Energy provides electrical service. Columbia Heights has 16 parks of varying sizes and amenities. Anoka County has one park within the City. Huset Park, where most of the athletic fields are located, is in the early stages of being redeveloped with new athletic fields, walking paths etc. This will take a few years with an approximate cost of 3 million dollars. The City has three wading pools in its park system though these are old pools that are in need of expensive upgrading. The City has an ongoing 7-8 year schedule for replacement/repair of city streets and alleys. Included with this schedule is the replacement of water, sewer, natural gas, and storm drains. The city is broken into 7 zones with one zone being done each year. 2006 was the last year of the initial time through the city. Public works has been working on a storm water mitigation plan for the last ten years. This has included purchasing some residential properties that are prone Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 65 to flooding. These properties were turned into storm water retention ponds. A City park was remodeled to include a storm water retention pond due to street flooding nearby. The City continues inspecting homes for sump pumps being deposited into sewer systems due to the sewer systems backing up in areas during heavy rains. A plan is in place to assist home owners with the cost of installing a valve on their main sewer lines in their homes to shut off future sewer backups. The City has a small area that has been prone to surface flooding that has caused significant backups of the sewer system into homes. Along with a plan to assist home owners with the cost of installing a valve on their main sewer lines in their homes to shut off future sewer backups, the city has made repairs and upgrades to the storm water and sewer system in the area to minimize possible future flooding/backups. City of Columbus There are two primary commercial areas within Columbus which account for 6% of the total city area. The first is a 2 – mile long corridor along the southerly portions of Lake Drive north of Lino Lakes. The second commercial area (3 square miles) surrounds a portion of Interstates 35W, 35E, and 35 and is designated in Columbus as the I-35 Corridor. There are approximately 670 gross acres and 375 net acres of developed commercial and industrial uses within the Lake Drive and the I-35 corridor. Business development along Lake Drive has historically allowed a mix of commercial and industrial land uses. The Lake Drive commercial/industrial area is currently served with private sewer and water systems. The entire I-35 Corridor is located within the designated Metro area MUSA district. Municipal services are planned for the entire district and will be completed in phases. Columbus has become the home of the Running Aces harness track. As a regional entertainment facility, the race track is located close to the I-35 interchange and is situated among other planned higher intensity commercial retail uses. Columbus conducted an informal survey of 72 businesses in the City in the spring of 2008. A response by 55 businesses (75%) revealed a current total of 1,094 full time jobs and 283 seasonal part-time positions. Running Aces opening in 2008 anticipated 350-400 full and part- time jobs which would in addition to the numbers stated above. The City of Columbus has a statutory form of government with a Mayor and four (4) City Council members. Independent School District #831 covers all of Columbus. There is one elementary school within Columbus. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids is dissected by the Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad which has a double-set of tracks leading from Minneapolis to points west and a single-set of tracks that connect Minneapolis with the Duluth, MN - Superior, WI area. The city has a well-traveled freeway system that includes US TH 10 and MN TH 610, connecting commuter traffic from Minneapolis to north and northwest suburbs. The city has transit service provided by the Metropolitan Transit Commission and the Anoka County Traveler. There are two major Park-N-Ride locations. The Northstar Rail commuter rail line runs from Big Lake, Minnesota, to Minneapolis with a rail station in Coon Rapids. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 66 The city has several commercial districts with both large and small retail establishments, including Target, Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Sears and Kohl’s. There are manufacturing and light industrial business including Honeywell, RMS Inc., John Roberts Printing, and Vincent Metals. Coon Rapids offers numerous neighborhood and regional parks, a municipal golf course, indoor ice arenas, outdoor ice rinks, softball and baseball fields, tennis courts, hiking and biking trails, swimming pools, and a major shopping development for everyone to enjoy. The city has thirteen (13) public schools: 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, and 9 elementary schools (K-5). In addition, there are three (3) private schools (K-8), and Anoka-Ramsey Community College. There are five (7) established childcare facilities, and six (6) nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The city is serviced by Mercy Hospital and two medical clinics, as well as several medical professional office facilities. Electricity is provided by three sources: Connexus Energy of Ramsey, Xcel Energy of Minneapolis, and Anoka (City) Municipal Power. CenterPoint Energy of Minneapolis provides natural gas service. Water and sewer services are provided by the City of Coon Rapids public utilities. Century Link Communications and Comcast Cable Television provide telephone services. The Minneapolis Star Tribune and Saint Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press provide daily newspaper coverage, and the Coon Rapids Herald is a weekly paper. Comcast Cable of St. Paul is the local cable television provider. East Bethel The City of East Bethel has a city administrator form of government. A city council of five members, a mayor and four council members represent the electorate and guide city affairs. Day to day operations is under the direction of the city administrator and other key city staff members. The city is currently in the process of updating its comprehensive plan and planning for the future of the community. The current transportation system in East Bethel is a network of local streets, county highways and a state highway. State Highway 65 runs the length of the community from north to south a total of 8 miles. It is a major state highway that provides access to the northern suburbs to and from the core City of Minneapolis, approximately 25 miles directly south of East Bethel. It also holds the concentration of retail and commercial development for East Bethel. Viking Boulevard (Anoka County Road 22) is the city’s main east/west road. There are a total of 36.7 miles of county roads and County State Aid Highways in East Bethel. These roads along wit h Minnesota State Highway 65 provide the transportation backbone for East Bethel. The City of East Bethel contracts with the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office for its law enforcement services. In 2005 the city completed installation of 15 state of the art weather warning sirens that provide community wide coverage. The 35 members of the East Bethel Volunteer Fire Department, which operates out of three fire stations, provide fire protection. The educational needs of the community are provided by two school districts. St. Francis School District #15 covers the majority of East Bethel. The southeastern corner of the city is covered by Forest Lake School District #831. District #15 junior high and senior high students attend school in St. Francis, while District #831 students attend schools in Forest Lake. East Bethel does have two elementary schools in the community. These schools are part of District #15. The two schools, East Bethel Community School and Cedar Creek Elementary School share 160 acres of land. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 67 The Anoka County Traveler, sponsored by Anoka County, provides pre-scheduled door-to-door transportation in northern Anoka County, including the City of East Bethel. There are no major medical facilities in East Bethel. Commercial development in East Bethel has been concentrated along the Highway 65 corridor. The commercial activity that dominates Highway 65 is primarily service commercial and public/institutional uses. Connexus Energy provides electrical service. Reliant Energy or Excel Energy provides gas service. Century Link or Frontier provides hard- wired telephone service. US Cable provides Cable TV service. Four private companies provide garbage service to the community. Fridley The City of Fridley is conveniently located in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region approximately 5 miles north of downtown Minneapolis and 10 miles northwest of downtown St. Paul. Interstate 694 runs east/west in the southern area of the city. Two State Highways run through the City of Fridley, State Hwy 65 and State Hwy 47, as well as numerous county roads and municipal state aid roadways. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Yard is located in the southern part of Fridley and the railroad runs north/south throughout the city. The City of Fridley is served by four school districts, which include 4 public elementary schools, Woodcrest Elementary, Stevenson Elementary, Hayes Elementary, and North Park Elementary. There is also the Fridley Middle School and Fridley High School as well as “FLIP,” an alternative learning center. In addition to the public schools, there are several private schools located within the city. Al-Amal is a private Islamic school. Woodcrest Baptist School and Totino Grace High School also privately serve residents of Fridley and the surrounding communities. Unity Hospital and numerous other medical clinics are located in Fridley and provide medical services to its residents. Connexus Energy and Xcel Energy provide the areas electrical needs and CenterPoint Energy provides natural gas service. Fridley has a strong park system offering areas for active and passive recreation. The existing park system consists of land owned by the city, four different school districts, as well as Anoka County, provide residents over 727 acres of park and open space areas and miles of paved trails. Springbrook Nature Center, Innsbruck Nature Center, as well as the Anoka County owned Riverfront Park, Locke Lake Regional Park, and Islands of Peace Park on the Mississippi River provide large open spaces for residents to picnic, hike, and fish. Ham Lake There is one K-5 school, (McKinley Elementary), Two childcare facilities, two chiropractic clinics, a mental health clinic, and two dental facilities. As a part of the public health program, the City provides (through Anoka County) a low cost program for well testing. CenterPoint and Xcel Energy provide natural gas. Connexus Energy provides electricity. Qwest and Comcast provide telephone service and Comcast provides cable. There are sox cellular phone towers in the City at this time. All homes/businesses have their own private wells and on-site sewer systems, except for Flamingo Terrace Mobile Home Park, which has one shared system. Police protection is provided by contract with the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office and Ham Lake Volunteer Fire Department consisting of approximately 37 members provides fire protection. The Fire Department currently has two stations, with plans for a third. At its completion, all residents will be within a five-mile radius of a fire station, thereby meeting ISO requirements. In Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 68 2006 an Emergency Management Director was added to the staff that is also the Fire Chief. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan was completely updated in 2008, and revised in 2011. An addition to Fire Station 1 as well as remodeling to the existing building is planned for 2011. The addition includes a training room that will also serve as the Emergency Operations Center for the City of Ham Lake. Currently the City is served only by individual private septic systems and wells. Lexington The City of Lexington is nearly fully developed, with residential uses constituting a majority of the area. Lake Drive (CSAH 23), where most of the commercial activity of the city is located, divides the city from the northeast to the southwest. Retail uses dominate commercial areas, although there are automobile service uses, restaurants, storage facilities, professional offices, and other commercial use as well. Two public transit operators serve the City of Lexington. The City of Lexington owns and operates Lexington Memorial Park. It is nearly 20 acres in size and supports two tennis courts, five ball fields, a hockey rink, a skating rink and a warming house. There are also two neighborhood playgrounds in the city. The City of Lexington is located entirely within the Centennial Independent School District #12. Mayor and City Council with City Administrator is the general form of government. Police protection is provided by the Centennial Lakes Police Department though a joint powers agreement between the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines and Lexington. The Lexington Paid- on-Call Fire Department provides fire protection for the city. Lino Lakes Lino Lakes contains the 3,600-acre Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve including 13 lakes and several seasonal wetlands. Within the City there is 3,580 acres of public lands. This includes a 2,646-acre regional park, and churches, schools, city offices, public works facility and a fire station. Within the City, there are nearly 160 acres of public parks, and 62 acres of school district property. Due to the amount of wetlands, approximately one-third of the City will not be developed. Two State Highways run through the City of Lino Lakes, Highway 35E and Highway 35W. Lino Lakes has four schools, Blue Heron Elementary, Lino Lakes Elementary, Rice Lake Elementary and Centennial Middle School. Additionally, there is Abiding Branches Corporation ABC Pre- School and Pat-a-Cake Daycare. Fairview-Lino Lakes Clinic and North Suburban Clinic serve as the local clinics. Connexus Energy and Minnegasco provide the area’s power (electricity) needs. Lino Lakes is a Charter City, with a City Administrator and a five person Council. Within the City of Lino Lakes there is a county public golf course, Chomonix. Lino Lakes has two private airport facilities, the Hansen Sea Plane Base and the Lino Lakes Airpark. The City of Lino Lakes continues to see high growth in its industrial and commercial sectors due primarily to the City’s efforts in establishing and promoting new industrial and commercial areas at both of the City’s freeway interchanges. This will allow the City to define the community’s image. The availability of vacant land, municipal utilities, and freeway access each are strong amenities that will allow Lino Lakes to compete for future economic development. New development has occurred with the extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 69 Between 1991 and 2004, the City has added 995,000 square feet of industrial space and between 1996 and 2004, 425,000 square feet in commercial/retail space. The Lino Lakes Town Center, once completed will add nearly 250,000 square feet in new commercial/retail space. Linwood Linwood has two major east/west Anoka County highways passing through the Township. There are some small businesses located in the township. These consist of automotive repair, convenience store, landscaping and homebuilders. There are no major businesses located in the township. Linwood Township has five elected Town Supervisors, one elected Treasurer and one elected Town Clerk. The educational needs of the community are provided by two school districts. St. Francis Independent School District #15 covers a very small portion of the township. The majority of Linwood Township is covered by Forest Lake School District #831 of which Linwood Elementary is located in the township. Police protection is provided by the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. The volunteer Linwood Fire Department provides fire protection. Linwood Township has no centralized sewer or water, and there are no existing plans for it at the present time. The Township of Linwood has 260 acres of public land. These areas include churches, schools, township offices, fire station, public works, and township parks. The Martin-Island-Linwood Lakes Regional Anoka County Park is located in Linwood Township as well, and is 700 Acres in size. Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area is also located in Linwood and is 5760 acres in size. Oak Grove Anoka County State Aid Highways (CSAH) provides the main transportation routes through the City. There are no state highways in Oak Grove except for about 1-¼ miles of Highway 47 in the extreme northwest corner of the City along the St. Francis border. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad line runs the length of the city from north to south. It continues south into the Minneapolis / St. Paul metropolitan and intersects with the Northstar Corridor. The BNSF rail line is used for a commuter rail line and a station has been constructed near Viking Boulevard (CSAH 22). One bridge spans the Rum River. There are several small retail and home businesses in Oak Grove. The Rum River Tree Farm is a business located in Oak Grove. The Anoka County Sheriff’s Office provides police protection on a contract basis. The volunteer On-Call Oak Grove Fire Department provides fire protection. The educational needs of the community are provided by two school districts. They are Independent School District #15, which covers the majority of the city, with the Lifelong Learning Center located within the city limits and Anoka-Hennepin School District #11, which covers a small portion of the south western part of the city. Connexus Energy provides electricity, Center Point Energy provides gas, Comcast provides cable TV and Centurylink and Comcast provide telephone service for the community as well as internet service. Mayor and City Council with City Administrator is the general form of government. Lots are primarily acreage lots served by private wells and onsite septic systems. There are two exception areas served by public water systems and/or wastewater collector systems. One area is Lake George, served by a city sewer/wastewater facility. The westerly side of Lake George includes a redevelopment area with a 52-unit senior apartment building and 14 single- Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 70 family lots, which is serviced by the city sewer facility and the West Lake George Public Well water system. A second area is the new Ponds 18-hole golf course and housing development with 206 urban size single-family lots and 18 townhouse lots. The City of St. Francis provides the drinking water and wastewater is handled by a wetland treatment system. Ramsey Ramsey Infrastructure includes two State Highways Highway 10 and Highway 47. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad runs east/west through the city, which sits along the “Northstar” corridor. The Ramsey Police Department provides police protection to the city and the paid on call Ramsey Fire Department provides fire protection. The educational needs of the community are provided by two school districts. They are Anoka-Hennepin School District #11 and Elk River School District #728. Ramsey has two schools from District #11, Ramsey Elementary and PACT Charter. Additionally, there is Lord of Life Preschool, and Children’s World Daycare. Ramsey Medical Clinic, which built a new facility in 2011 as a local clinic. Connexus Energy and City of Anoka provides the area’s electricity needs. Century Link or Comcast Cable provides telephone service and Center Point Energy provides gas to most of the residents. Some of the more rural residents use propane for gas. Part of the city has city sewer and water, while the remaining residents and business have wells and septic systems. Ramsey is a Charter City, with a City Administrator and a seven person Council. The City has 266 acres of public land within the City. These areas include churches, schools, city offices, public work facilities, and fire stations. Within the City, there is nearly 1000 acres of public parks. The larger City-owned parks are Elmcrest Park (95 acres), Central Park (41.3 acres), Rivers Bend Park (47.3 acres), Peltzer Park (32 acres). In addition, Anoka County has two regional parks within the City of Ramsey. They are Mississippi West Regional Park (204 acres) and Rum River Central Park (308.8 acres). The State of Minnesota operates a wayside rest along Highway 10 that is 18 acres in size. Within the City of Ramsey, there are two public golf courses, Rum River Hills, along Highway 47, and Northfork, along Highway 10. The Boy Scouts own 160 acres of land along Highway 47 and the Rum River that they use for camping and other scout activities. Approximately 1500 acres within the City of Ramsey receive the agricultural property tax classification by the Anoka County Assessors Office. While the City of Ramsey has an abundance of trees, there are no publicly managed forestlands. There are several private business tree nurseries located within the City of Ramsey. The City of Ramsey’s growth, like most slowed considerably in the past couple of years. The Ramsey Town Center, now renamed the COR continues to work to bring in new projects. In 2012 a luxury apartment project will begin bringing in over 200 units adjacent to the parking ramp near city hall. Also planned is a seniors building project, which details are still being completed. Ramsey will continue to be a market for light industrial and retail areas. There are many planned infrastructure projects planned for the future. In regards to transportation, projects include conversion of U.S. Highway 10 to a limited access freeway, a new bridge crossing over the Mississippi River, the relocation of State Highway 169 through Ramsey, and the improvement and widening of County and State aid roads. For utilities, the City will be extending sewer and water trunk lines north of the existing service area to facilitate residential development. The City will also be constructing several new city wells, another water tower, and a water treatment plant within the next 5 years. St. Francis Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 71 St. Francis Infrastructure includes 77.8 miles of roads with 67.4 miles being blacktop and 10.6 miles being gravel. St. Francis has a major highway (State Highway 47) running north and south through the community and running east and west is Anoka County Road 28. Anoka County Road 24 runs east and west with Anoka County Roads 7 and 9 running north and south into the City of St Francis. The City of St. Francis consists of a City Administrator and a Council of five individuals. Independent School District #15 covers St. Francis. The city is home to four of the schools for the district. They are: St. Francis High School, St. Francis Middle High School, St. Francis Intermediate School, St. Francis Elementary School and Crossroads School & Vocational Center. A medical care facility is located within the city. Currently St. Francis has a fire department with paid on call fire fighters for fire protection. The police department has nine sworn officers to cover 911 emergency calls and is also assisted by the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office in need of emergency. Connexus Energy handles utilities for St. Francis for electric power along with natural gas supplied by CenterPoint Energy. Century Link provides telephone service. Cable service is currently available through Midcontinent. Spring Lake Park Spring Lake Park has two State Highways; they are Highway 47 and Highway 65 that runs north and south. Anoka County Road 10 runs east to west through the northern portion of Spring Lake Park connecting both Highway corridors. Spring Lake Park School District #16 covers the City of Spring Lake Park. Spring Lake Park High School/ALC is located centrally in Spri ng Lake Park just of MN Hwy 65 and 81st Ave NE. Park Terrace Elementary and Kenneth Hall Elementary are also housed within the city. The City has 186 acres of public land within the City. These areas include churches, schools, city offices, public work facilities, and fire stations. Within the City, there is 39 acres of public parks. Spring Lake Park does not have a wide range of commercial businesses. Commercial businesses in the city either attempt to capture pass-by traffic along Highway 65, County Road 10 and University Avenue, or they are destination businesses. Light industrial businesses are located east of Highway 65. The City is home to private schools Prince of Peace, Emmanuel Christian Center as well as early child hood development schools. The City of Spring Lake Park has no medical facilities within the city but neighboring communities Fridley and Coon Rapids do. Xcel Energy provides area electricity. The city provides the sewer and water system. The City of Spring Lake Park consists of a City Administrator and a Council of five individuals Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 72 Infrastructure Chart ANOKA COUNTY EDUCATION/HEALTH CARE K – 5 K – 12 Middle (6-8) High (9-12) Number Enrollment Number Enrollment Number Enrollment Number Enrollment 43 23327 66 63985 12 14303 11 21669 Private Schools College/University Technical Child Care Number Number Enrollment Number Enrollment Family Center 26 1 12,587 1 3,143 684 89 Hospitals Clinics Nursing / Long term care and Assisted Living Facilities Number Beds Number 2 490 21 8 ANOKA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION General Aviation Commercial Aviation Highways Location Blaine Location Bloomington Interstate 35W, 35E, 694 Runway Length 4,855 & 5000 Distance 45 Miles U.S. 10, 169 Runway surface Asphalt Daily flights 1197 State 47, 65, 242, 610 Communications Control Tower Airlines Air Canada, Air Tran Airways, America West, American, Comair, Continental, Delta, Frontier, Icelandair, KLM, Mesaba, Midwest, Pinnacle, SkyWest, Sun Country, United, US Airways Local 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 49, 51, 52, 60, 61, 68, 78, 83, 116, 132 Lighting Beacon, VOR/DME Repairs Sun Country, Champion, Mesaba, Signature Flight Support, General Dynamics Fuel Jet A, JP4, JP5, Gasoline Railroad Common Carriers Bus Service Burlington Northern Santa Fe ABF Freight Systems Greyhound Amtrak Manning Transfer MTC (Metro Transit Company) Soo Line - Canadian Pacific Old Dominion Anoka County Traveler Minnesota Commercial Railway Dawes Transport Jefferson Bus Lines Union Pacific Distribution Alternative Murphy Warehouse USF Holland Con-Way Central Express Copeland Trucking Midwest Coast Transport ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES Telephone Newspaper Radio TV/Cable/Satellite Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 73 Century Link Minneapolis Star Tribune WCCO 830 AM KTCA channel 2 Comcast St. Paul Pioneer Press KSTP 1500AM 94.5 FM WCCO channel 4 Verizon Anoka County Union KTIS 900 AM 98.5 FM KSTP channel 5 Nextel Anoka County Shopper KTCN 1130 AM KMSP channel 9 Sprint Blaine Banner KNOW 91.1 FM KARE channel 11 T-Mobile Blaine/Spring Lake Park Life WLTE 102.9 FM KTCI channel 17 Citizens Blaine/Spring Lake Park Sun Focus KDWB 101.3 FM KMWB channel 23 Cellular One Coon Rapids Herald KQRS 92.5 FM WFTC channel 29 AT&T Forest Lake Times KQQL 107.9 FM KSTC channel 45 Fridley/Columbia Heights Sun Focus KSJN 99.5 FM US Cable WFMP 107.1 FM Comcast Cable KTCZ 97.1 FM Dish Network KJZI 100.3 FM Midcontinent WXPT 104.1 FM Electricity Gas Water Sewage/Landfill Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Community Public Utilities Municipal Sewer Systems Connexus Energy Northern States Power Minneapolis Water Works Anoka Municipal Power CenterPoint Energy Municipal Water Systems Centennial Utilities Centennial Utilities Centennial Utilities Minnegasco Reliant Energy Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 75 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT 4.1 Overview Anoka County and its communities are vulnerable to a wide array of natural and manmade hazards that threaten life and property. The Hazard Identification section provides background information for these hazards from a broad perspective. It is important that all of these hazards be initially considered for relevance in advancing through the hazard mitigation planning process. Subsequent sections of the Plan—the Hazard Analysis and the Vulnerability Assessment—address the hazards of specific concern to Anoka County in greater detail from a localized perspective. 4.2 Hazard Identification The Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee considered and evaluated all hazards in terms of their potential risk to Anoka County and participating municipalities. The State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies Blizzards and Ice Storms individually. For the purpose of this mitigation plan those hazards are combined under Winter Weather. In addition, Lightning, Windstorm and Hailstorm were individually identified. As those hazards are almo st always encountered during thunderstorms, they are combined under the Thunderstorm category. Infectious disease is a category that was re-categorized under Epidemics/Pandemics, which also includes Vectors. Water contamination is categorized under public utilities and radiological is categorized under Hazardous Materials. Depicted in the table below is a comprehensive, listing of specific hazards that are identified by FEMA, the State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan and Anoka County as hazards that may potentially threaten Anoka County and its municipalities. It is followed by brief definitions or descriptions of each hazard. Summary of Natural and Manmade Hazard Threats to Minnesota Communities Natural Hazards Manmade Hazards Earthquake Attack - Conventional/Nuclear Flooding/Flash Flooding Civil Disturbance/Strikes/Workplace Violence Landslides/Mudslides Dam Failure Land Subsidence Sinkholes Caves Mines Hazardous Material Incidents Pandemics/Vectors Fixed Facilities Severe Weather Radiological Facilities Drought Transportation Extreme Temperatures Hostage Situation Thunderstorm/Hail/High Winds/Lightning Methamphetamine Labs Tornadoes Terrorism CBRNE-Cyber Tropical Storms/Hurricanes Transportation Accident Winter Storm Urban Fire Wildfire Utility Power/Water Contamination Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. A. Does the plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? If the hazard identification omits (without explanation) any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the jurisdiction, this part of the plan cannot receive a Satisfactory score. Consult with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer to identify applicable hazards that may occur in the planning area. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 76 4.2.1 Natural Hazards 4.2.1.1 Earthquake An earthquake is a naturally induced shaking of the ground, caused fractures and sliding of rock within the Earth's crust. Earthquake magnitude is determined by the dimensions of the rupturing fracture (fault) and the amount of displacement that takes place. The larger the fault surface and displacement, the greater the energy produced. This energy produces shaking and a variety of seismic waves that radiate throughout the Earth. Earthquake magnitude is measured using the Richter Scale Table (referenced at 4.3.1.1) and earthquake intensity (how strong an earthquake was felt at a given site) is measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Most property damage and earthquake-related deaths are caused by the failure and collapse of structures due to ground shaking. The level of damage depends upon the amplitude and duration of the shaking, which are directly related to the earthquake size, distance from the fault, site, and regional geology. Other damaging earthquake effects include landslides and liquefaction. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles, cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars, loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of persons, and disrupt the social and economic functioning of the affected area. 4.2.1.2 Flooding/Flash Flooding Flooding is an overflowing of water onto normally dry land and is one of the most significant and costly of natural disasters. Three principle types of floods are riverine floods, flash floods, and dam break floods. Riverine floods result from precipitation over large areas and occur in river systems whose tributaries may drain large geographic areas. Flash floods usually result from a torrential rain on a relatively small drainage area and produce localized floods of great volume and short duration. Dam break floods are usually the result of intense rainfall producing flooding larger than dam design, faulty design, construction, or operational inadequacies. 4.2.1.3 Landslides/Mudslides Landslides (rockslides, mudslides, etc.) are among the most common natural hazards. Unlike most natural hazards, however, most damage is not caused by extreme events, but by uncounted (and often unreported) minor events. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 77 Slumps usually damage utilities within or below the slide mass, but seldom cause a threat to life. Flows, in addition to the above hazards can flow around well-built structures, preserving them but causing damage from water and mud. Translational slides can be the most catastrophic. In addition to presenting a hazard to structures and utilities, they can cause damage and death both far from and only slightly below the source. The hazards associated with landslides are as diverse as the types of failure. Falls may damage roads or buildings at the base of a steep slope, injure climbers, or remain on a road as a hazard to transportation. In addition to the direct hazards of a landslide moving out from under or onto structures or utilities, there is a major indirect hazard. Large slides generally do not stop moving until they reach the bottom of a valley where they block streams, usually resulting in flooding and damage to the system ecology (e.g. sediment). 4.2.1.4 Land Subsidence Subsidence is the formation of depressions, cracks, and sinkholes in the earth's surface, which normally occurs over many days to a few years. Karst topography develops when beds of relatively soft limestone and dolomite are present. The diluted organic acids present in water percolates downward and dissolves these formations. In such places, rock is honeycombed with cracks, fissures and potentially sizable caverns, which can collapse. In some areas natural drainage occurs primarily below ground rather than surface streams. These underground passages are commonly connected to the surface by funnel-shaped depressions called sinkholes. The formation of these sinkholes often leads to ground subsidence or collapse. This results from the settlement of collapse of overlying materials into solution openings beneath the surface, such as caves or enlarged joints. Sinkhole development is usually a slow process, however, they may occur suddenly, without warning. Abandoned mines, mine shafts, and tunnels sometimes give way. Incidence of subsidence is always a danger to property, dams, factories, and utility lines, but when sudden failures occur, they can also threaten lives. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 78 4.2.1.5 Infectious Diseases/Vectors Pandemics occur when disease affects large numbers of the population worldwide. Epidemics occur when large numbers are affected in a more localized area such as a city, region, state, or nation. Pandemics have occurred three times in the world’s human population. The 1918-1919 Spanish Flu caused the highest number of deaths. India had 16 million deaths. The U.S. had 675,000 deaths. Worldwide, the estimated fatalities were 20 million to 50 million. The 1957-58 Asian Flu was identified in February 1957 in China. By June, it entered the U.S. Globally it caused a million deaths. In the U.S., 70,000 persons died. It was a Type A virus. The 1968-69 Hong Kong Flu caused four million deaths worldwide and 34,000 deaths in the U.S. It was a Type A virus. Influenza occurs every year and nations attempt to prepare for the “flu season” which brings one to two weeks of symptoms, even pneumonia and death. The cost in the U.S. is $71 to $167 billion annually. Some 36,000 in the U.S. and 250,000 to 500,000 worldwide die annually. Three types of influenza viruses exist: A, B, and C. Type A viruses are of most concern for humans, pigs, marine mammals and birds. Type B virus has been identified in the seal population and is fatal. Influenza C virus is associated with ticks. Influenza viruses are constantly evolving. The viruses undergo minor and major modifications through antigentic drift and antigentic shift. Antigentic drift is the mechanism responsible for creating small changes in the genetic composition of the virus. Antigentic drift occurs in Type A and B influenza. Antigentic shift describes significant changes in the genetic structure of the virus. It occurs only in type “A” when two different virus strains are simultaneously present in a host or after transmission of viruses from different hosts. The two viruses swap genetic material creating a “new” virus never before seen. The ability to jump species, the constant changes in the generic makeup of the influenza virus, the potential for vaccine loss, and the rapid spread of Flu viruses are some of the reasons influenza is always a threat to the world’s population. Avian flu was first discovered in Canada. It is estimated that 50% of wild ducks in Canada carry various forms of the flu. Highly infectious forms are destructive to domestic poultry causing a rise in food costs. Three strains of avian influenza viruses are known to jump the species barrier from birds to non-human animals to humans: A(H9n2), A(H7N7) and A(H5N1). A(H5N1) is the most lethal, causing death in 68% of humans infected with it. Coughing or sneezing, victims spew infectious droplets at a rate of 150 feet per second. Shaking hands or contact with contaminated public washrooms and doorknobs can spread the disease very quickly. Scientists expect that an Avian H5 Flu virus, which has swept through chickens and other poultry in Asia, will change genetically into a flu that can be transmitted to humans. It has emerged as a highly pathogenic strain of influenza virus that is affecting the entire western component of Asia. The CDC is preparing for a possible pandemic. Humans have no immunity to this new avian flu. Small Pox (variola major) was last seen in the US in 1949. The last naturally occurring case was in Somalia in 1977. Smallpox vaccination in the US ended in 1972 except for military personnel. When smallpox was considered eradicated worldwide, only two laboratories were designated to keep the virus. One lab was the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, and the other lab was in Russia. When the USSR break-up occurred, the location of Russia’s smallpox virus became unknown. It was widely thought that at least four other countries received part of the virus. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 79 Variola is classified as a biological weapon, included on the “A” list by the CDC. The virus can be transmitted from person to person, may result in high mortality rate (30%), and cause panic and social disruption. Variola has a moderate to high potential for large-scale dissemination and requires special action for public health preparedness and response. Hepatitis A Virus results from eating food or drinking water contaminated with human excrement. Outbreaks are associated with consumption of produce. Hepatitis A virus attacks the liver, is highly infectious, and can lead to varying degrees of illness, hospitalization and death. Emerging Pathogens: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) started in China in late 2002. The World Health Organization reported 29 countries were affected by the end of July 2003. There were 8,500 cumulative cases and 774 deaths. Health care workers accounted for 1,707 cases. In the United States, 29 cases were confirmed. SARS is closely associated with influenza and is of major concern to all public health officials. Emerging Pathogens: Monkey Pox Virus is an orthopoxvirus, which also includes cowpox and smallpox. It is a viral disease occurring in the rain forests of central and West Africa. Monkey pox is milder than smallpox. It was seen in the US June 14, 2003. It was introduced to this country by prairie dogs infected by Gambian rats imported by a distributor of exotic pets. By June 18, 2003, 87 persons in six states were confirmed with the virus. Animal and Vector-Based Hazards; One of the "new" or "emerging" series of threats to communities is vector-based threats - bacteria, insects, and animals, that pose a direct or indirect hazard to humans, their food supply, or the economy. Although many people don't consider Foot and Mouth Disease to be a "threat," an outbreak of the disease in Europe caused widespread concern over the safety of the meat supply, as well as the possibility of resulting infection of humans. Federal, state and local officials, including the emergency services community, have plans and procedures for handling incidents involving these threats. 4.2.1.6 Severe Weather - Drought Drought occurs when water supplies cannot meet established demands. Severe drought conditions endanger livestock and crops and significantly reduce surface and ground water supplies, increasing the potential risk for wildfires, and causing significant economic loss. Drought may not be constant or predictable and does not begin or end on any schedule. Long-term droughts last for periods of two to ten years. Droughts are classified as the following types: Meteorological drought is defined by the level of “dryness” when compared to an average, or normal, amount of Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 80 precipitation over a given period of time. Agricultural drought relates characteristics of drought to specific agricultural- related impacts. Emphasis is placed on factors such as soil water deficits, water needs based on differing stages of crop development, and water reservoir levels. Hydrological drought is directly related to the effect of precipitation shortfalls on surface and groundwater supplies. Changes in land use can alter the hydrologic characteristics of a basin. Socio-economic drought is the result of water shortages that limit the ability to supply water-dependent products in the marketplace. 4.2.1.7 Severe Weather - Extreme Temperature Extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover ten degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Health risks from extreme heat include heat cramps, heat fainting, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. According to the National Weather Service, heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States and has killed more people than lightning, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes combined in the last 10 years. The effects of extreme heat are: Heat Stroke: Body’s inability to control its temperature. Temperature will rise rapidly. Sweating does not occur. This can cause permanent disability. Highest risk populations include outdoor laborers, elderly, children, and people with poor health. Heat Exhaustion: Occurs when there is an excessive loss of water and salt released in sweat. Those at highest risk include the elderly, people with high blood pressure, outdoor laborers, and those exercising outdoors. Heat Syncope: Results in a sudden loss of consciousness, which generally returns when the person lies down. There is little or no permanent harm as a result of heat syncope. This disorder is usually associated with people who are not properly acclimated to the weather. Heat Cramps: Occurs as a result of a mild fluid and electrolyte imbalance and generally ceases to be a problem after becoming accustomed to the heat. This occurs in people who exercise outdoors when they are not used to the activity. 4.2.1.8 Severe Weather - Thunderstorms Thunderstorms are formed from a combination of moisture, rapidly rising warm air, and a force capable of lifting air (such as a sea breeze, a warm and cold front, or a mountain). Thunderstorms may occur singly, in clusters, or in lines. Some of the most severe weather occurs when a single thunderstorm affects one location for an extended time. Straight-line winds can exceed 100 miles per hour and are responsible for most thunderstorm damage. One type of straight-line wind, the downburst, can cause damage equivalent to a tornado. Thunderstorms are associated with tornadoes and heavy rains that lead to floods. All thunderstorms contain lightning, which is an electrical discharge that results from the buildup of positive and negative charges. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a "bolt." This flash of light usually occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 81 ground. A bolt of lightning reaches a temperature approaching 50,000 degrees in a split second. In the United States, 75 to 100 citizens are killed each year by lightning. Lightning's electrical charge and intense heat electrocutes on contact, splits trees and ignites fires. Hail is produced by many strong thunderstorms and is a product of the updrafts and downdraf ts that develop inside the clouds of a thunderstorm where super cooled water droplets exist. The transformation of droplets to ice requires a temperature below 32 degrees, and a catalyst in the form of tiny particles of solid matter, or freezing nuclei. Hail can be smaller than a pea or as large as softballs and can be destructive to property, crops, livestock, and people. 4.2.1.9 Severe Weather - Tornados Tornados are violent windstorms characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. A tornado is spawned by a thunderstorm or hurricane and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. A funnel does not need to reach to the ground for a tornado to be present. A debris cloud beneath a thunderstorm is all that is needed to confirm the presence of a tornado. The damage from a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. Tornados can occur at any time of the year; however, the season is generally March through August. Over 80% of all tornadoes strike between noon and midnight. The most violent tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction with wind speeds of 250 mph or more. Damage paths can be in excess of 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Even with advances in meteorology, adequate warning time for tornadoes is short or sometimes not possible. The intensity, path length, and width of tornadoes are rated according to a scale developed by T. Theodore Fujita and Allen D. Pearson. The Fujita-Pearson Tornado Scale is presented below. Tornadoes classified as EF0-EF1 are considered weak, those classified as EF2-EF3 are considered strong, while those classified as EF4-EF5 are considered violent. Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale Description Table EF- Scale Damage Winds (mph) Description EF-0 Light 65-85 Chimney damage, tree branches broken EF-1 Moderate 86-110 Mobile homes overturned EF-2 Considerable 111-135 Considerable damage, trees downed, mobile homes demolished EF-3 Severe 136-165 Roofs/walls torn down, trains and cars overturned EF-4 Devastating 166-200 Well-constructed walls leveled EF-5 Incredible 200 + Homes lifted off foundation and carried considerable distances Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 82 4.2.1.10 Severe Weather - Tropical Storm/Hurricane A hurricane is a tropical storm with winds that have reached a constant speed of 74 miles per hour or more. Hurricane winds blow in a large spiral around a relative calm center known as the "eye." The "eye" is generally 20 to 30 miles wide, and the storm may extend outward 400 miles. As a hurricane approaches, the skies will begin to darken and winds will grow in strength. As a hurricane nears land, it can bring torrential rains, high winds, and storm surges. A single hurricane can last for more than 2 weeks over open waters and can run a path across the entire length of the eastern seaboard. August and September are peak months during the hurricane season that lasts from June 1 through November 30. The center, or eye, of a hurricane is relatively calm. The most violent activity takes place in the area immediately around the eye, called the eye wall. At the top of the eye wall (about 50,000 feet), most of the air is propelled outward, increasing the air's upward motion. Some of the air, however, moves inward and sinks into the eye, creating a cloud-free area. Tropical cyclones are classified as follows: Tropical Depression An organized system of clouds and thunderstorms with a defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 38 mph (33 knots) or less. Tropical Storm An organized system of strong thunderstorms with a defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph (34-63 knots). Hurricane An intense tropical weather system with a well-defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 mph (64 knots) or higher. Hurricanes are called "typhoons" in the western Pacific, while similar storms in the Indian Ocean are called "cyclones." 4.2.1.11 Severe Weather - Winter Storms Winter storms produce an array of hazardous weather conditions including heavy snow, blizzards, freezing rain, ice pellets, and extreme cold. The extreme cold associated with winter storms is a deceptive killer as it indirectly causes injury and death resulting from exhaustion and overexertion, asphyxiation, hypothermia, and frostbite from wind chill. Extreme ice and snow events are the most potentially disruptive to society, for they can bring down trees and power lines and lead to roof collapse. All forms of severe winter weather can make travel treacherous. Severe winter storms are extra-tropical cyclones (storms that form outside of the warm tropics) fueled by strong temperature gradients and an active upper-level jet stream. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 83 4.2.1.12 Wildfires Wildfires are uncontrolled burning of grasslands, brush, or woodlands. According to FEMA, people start over four out of five forest fires. Negligent human behavior such as irresponsible smoking or not extinguishing campfires is the cause of many fires. The other primary causes of forest fires are lightning and arson. There are three different classes of wild-land fires. A surface fire is the most common type and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A ground fire is usually started by lightning and burns on or below the forest floor. Crown fires spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the tops of trees. Wild-land fires are usually signaled by dense smoke that fills the area for miles around. The potential for wildfire depends upon surface fuel characteristics, recent climate conditions, current meteorological conditions, and fire behavior. Hot, dry summers and dry vegetation increase susceptibility to fire in the fall, a particularly dangerous time of year for wildfire. Wild-land fires are wildfires in an area where development is essentially nonexistent except for roads, railroads, power-lines, and similar facilities. Urban wild-land interface fires are wildfires in a geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wild-land or vegetative fuels. 4.2.2 Manmade Hazards 4.2.2.1 Attack An "enemy attack" is considered an attack of one sovereign government against another as a declared or undeclared act of war. Although the chances of a strike on the U.S. have greatly diminished, several countries throughout the world have developed nuclear capability. In addition, the possibility exists that a terrorist organization might acquire nuclear weapons. There are four primary potential effects experienced as the result of a nuclear bomb. Overpressure: is when a nuclear weapon explodes in the atmosphere, a blast or shock wave is created that initially moves at speeds higher than the speed of sound. INR/EMP: Initial nuclear radiation (INR) is radiation in the first minute after detonation and is hazardous to unprotected people within about 1.5 miles. Electromagnetic radiation pulse (EMP) is conversion of nuclear energy into electromagnetic frequency and occurs when a nuclear weapon is detonated outside of earth’s atmosphere. EMP Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 84 disrupts electrical and electronic equipment across entire continents. The equipment is unusable until repaired. Fire Risk: The combined effects of blast overpressure damage and the thermal pulse or fireball can ignite combustible materials, causing sustained fires. Primary fires are those ignited directly by the thermal pulse. Secondary fires are generated by damage and destruction from blast overpressures and result from the disruption of furnaces and gas and electric lines. Fallout risk: A nuclear explosion near the ground makes a big crater. Earth fr om the crater is changed from solids into hot gas and fine dust. This hot gas and dust, together with vaporized materials, form a giant fireball that rises rapidly and becomes the top part of the nuclear mushroom cloud. The heavier particles of earth become the stem of the mushroom cloud. The earth in the stem and in the mushroom cloud becomes radioactive. The top of the mushroom is a cloud of fine particles. The heavier, larger particles settle close to the point of explosion, the small particles float several hundred miles in the wind. The first 24 hours is the most dangerous period as the initial fallout is highly radioactive. The delayed fallout particles lose much of their radioactivity and reaches earth in rain or snow over periods ranging from days to years. The three kinds of dangerous radiation in fallout are alpha, beta and gamma. Gamma radiation penetrates the body, causing damage to organs, blood and bones. Large doses of gamma radiation can cause sickness or death. Small doses incurred over a long period of time may not have an immediate effect, but may cause various forms of illness later in life. Genetic damage in subsequent generations may also result. Alpha radiation is stopped by the outer skin layers and does not usually present an external hazard. However, if contaminated air, food, or water enters the body in sufficient quantity, considerable internal damage can occur. Beta radiation is more penetrating and may cause burns where fallout particles have deposited on the skin. The effects of a nuclear attack have varying effects on populations. Those people located near the explosion would be killed or seriously injured by the blast, heat, or initial nuclear radiation. People a few miles away would be subject to blast, heat, and fires. A high percentage of the population residing in the lighter damaged areas would probably survive, but might subsequently be endangered by radioactive fallout. 4.2.2.2 Civil Disturbance/Strikes/Workplace Violence Civil disorder is defined as any incident intended to disrupt community affairs and threaten the public safety. Civil disorders include: riots mob or strike violence, and any demonstration resulting in police intervention and arrests. Workplace Violence is defined as employees who are exposed to the use of harassment, intimidation, physical force, or the abuse of power or authority, where the intent is to control by causing pain, fear or hurt. 4.2.2.3 Dam/Levee Failure A dam/levee is a barrier constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of storage, control, or diversion of water. Dams generally fall into the following categories Earth Dams make up the vast majority of dams and are safe if they are properly constructed and maintained. Concrete Gravity Dams are designed to resist sliding and shaped to resist overturning. Arch Concrete Dams are used to narrow sites and have strong abutments. Gravity Arch Concrete Dams are a conservative design of the Arch. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 85 Buttress Concrete Dams have a strong foundation and are resistant to sliding, overturning and overflowing. Stone Masonry Dams are constructed of stone or block with masonry joints. Dam break floods are usually associated with intense rainfall or flood conditions. Dam failure may be caused by faulty design, construction and operational inadequacies, or a flood event larger than the dam design. The degree and extent of damage depends on the size of the dam. The greatest threat to people and property is in the area immediately below the dam since flood discharges decrease as the flood wave moves downstream. A small dam retaining water in a stock pond may result in little damage, but could result in the loss of irrigation water, causing financial hardship to farmers. Failure of a larger dam failure might bring about considerable loss of property, destruction of cropland, roads, and utilities, and loss of life. Far-reaching consequences can include loss of income, disruption of services, and environmental devastation. 4.2.2.4 Hazardous Materials Incident Hazardous materials are chemical substances, when, released or misused, pose a threat to the environment or health. These chemicals are used in industry, agriculture, medicine, research, and consumer goods. Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive materials. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation or industrial accidents. Hazardous materials in various forms can cause death, serious injury, long-lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, homes, and other property. Many products containing hazardous chemicals are used and stored in homes. Varying quantities of hazardous materials are manufactured, used, or stored at an estimated 4.5 million facilities in the United States--from major industrial plants to local dry cleaning establishments or gardening supply stores. Hazardous materials are transported by highway, railway, waterway, and pipeline daily, so any area is considered vulnerable to an accident. Hazardous materials incidents typically take three forms: fixed facility incidents, transportation incidents/pipeline incidents and radiological incidents. It is reasonably possible to identify and prepare for a fixed site incident, as laws require those facilities to notify state and local authorities about what is being used or produced. Transportation and pipeline incidents are much harder to prepare for, as the material involved and the incident location are not known until the accident actually happens. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 86 Fixed Facility Incident is any occurrence of uncontrolled release of materials from a fixed site that poses a risk to health, safety, and property as determined in the EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These materials are classed identically to those specified in the section on transportation accidents. Radiological Incident is defined as the unintentional exposure to materials that emit ionizing radiation. Nuclear power plants are a significant potential source of ionizing radiation. The health and environment impacts from the Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, Russia disasters illustrate the potential hazards from nuclear power plants. Other sources of ionizing radiation include medical and diagnostic X-ray machines, certain surveying instruments, some imaging systems used to check pipelines, radioactive sources used to calibrate radiation detection instruments, and even some household fire detectors. Transportation/Pipeline Incident is any occurrence of a hazardous material release during transport that poses a risk to health, safety, and property, as defined by Department of Transportation materials transport regulations. Hazardous materials transportation incidents can occur at any place, although the majority occurs on interstate highways, major federal or state highways, or on the major rail lines. 4.2.2.5 Hostage Situation A hostage situation is one in which people are held against their will and negotiations take place for their release. The situation may range from a simple domestic or isolated criminal act to an attempt to impose will on a national or international scale to intimidate or coerce a government to further a political, social, or religious objective. 4.2.2.6 Illegal Methamphetamine Labs Domestic labs that produce methamphetamine are dependent on supplies of the precursor chemical pseudoephedrine, which can be diverted from legitimate sources. It is also smuggled from Canada and Mexico. Domestic laboratory operators also produce and distribute methamphetamine. Typically “meth” is a white powder that easily dissolves in water. Another form of meth is clear, chunky crystals called crystal meth, or ice. Meth can also be in the form of small, brightly colored tablets. The pills are often called by their Thai name, yabba. Street terms for methamphetamine are meth, poor man's cocaine, crystal meth, ice, glass, and speed. . Amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, methamphetamine, and their various salts are collectively referred to as amphetamines. In fact, their chemical properties and actions are so similar that even experienced users have difficulty knowing which drug they have taken. Methamphetamine is the most commonly abused. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 87 Effects of usage include addiction, psychotic behavior, and brain damage. Chronic use can cause violent behavior, anxiety, confusion, insomnia, weight loss, auditory hallucinations, mood disturbances, delusions, and paranoia. Damage to the brain caused by meth usage is similar to Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and epilepsy. 4.2.2.7 Terrorism The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.” Events typically would be expected in urban areas near public gatherings, government facilities, or highly visible areas, but no one area is less likely to be a target than any other. Terrorism is the use of force or violence against people or property for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists use threats to create fear among the public, to convince citizens that governments are powerless to prevent terrorism, and to get publicity. Most terrorist incidents have involved small extremist groups who use terrorism to achieve a designated objective. Local, state and federal law enforcement officials monitor suspected terrorist groups and try to prevent or protect against a potential attack. Additionally, the U. S. Government works with other countries to limit support for terrorism. The FBI categorizes terrorism in the United States primarily as one of two types - domestic terrorism or international terrorism. Domestic terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction. International terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are foreign-based and/or directed by countries or groups outside the U. S., or whose activities transcend national boundaries. Terrorist events in this country have included the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the U. S. Capitol, Mobil Oil's corporate headquarters in New York City, and the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. More recently, the World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon were the targets of a well- planned terrorist attack involving the use of commercial aircraft as flying bombs. A terrorist attack can take several forms, depending on the technical means available to the terrorist, the nature of the political issue motivating the attack, and the points of weakness of the terrorist's target. Bombings are the most frequently used method in the U. S. Other possibilities include an attack at transportation facilities, utility systems or other public services, or an incident involving chemical or biological agents. Chemical & biological weapons: There are four major categories under which the chemical agents may be classified: Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 88 Blister agents are intended to incapacitate, rather than kill. These agents were used extensively during World War I. Their use by a terrorist group largely depends on the group’s objectives and moral views. If the intent of an attack were to injure numerous people and overload the area’s medical facilities without causing many deaths, then a blister agent would be the best choice. Choking agents were the agents most used during WW I. With the advent of nerve agents, they have lost much of their usefulness. These substances are intended to cause death and are convenient and readily available to terrorists. Blood agents are cyanide-based compounds. Unsuited for use on multitudes of people, the primary use would be the assassination of targeted individuals. Nerve agents are the most recently developed chemical weapons. Originally developed by German scientists 1930's as insecticides, nerve agents were used as chemical weapons by the Nazi military. Hundreds of times more lethal than blister, choking, or blood agents, nerve agents have been stockpiled as the primary chemical weapon. These chemicals are the most useful to terrorists due to the small quantity needed to inflict a substantial amount of damage. Fortunately, these chemicals are more difficult to obtain. Several nations have developed biological agents to use in warfare. Such agents are selected or adapted from bacteria, fungi, viruses, or toxins that cause various diseases in humans, animals, or food crops. Currently, the development of biological agents as weapons has kept pace with our ever-evolving day-to-day technology. Despite the widespread ban, international diplomatic efforts have not been entirely effective in preventing the enhancement and proliferation of offensive biological warfare programs. Cyber-Terrorism: The U.S. interest in promoting cyber-security extends well beyond its borders. Critical domestic information infrastructures are directly linked with Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia, and South America. The nation’s economy and security depend on far-flung U.S. corporations, military forces and foreign trading partners that require secure and reliable global information networks to function. The vast majority of cyber attacks originates or passes through systems abroad, crosses several borders, and requires international cooperation to stop. In 1998, the United States received a wake-up call to the national security dimensions of the threat. Eventually dubbed "Solar Sunrise," this incident found U.S. military systems under electronic assault, with computer systems in the United Arab Emirates the apparent source. Unclassified logistics, administrative, and accounting systems essential to the management and deployment of military forces were penetrated at a time that military action was being considered against Iraq. The timing of the attacks raised U.S. suspicion that this was the first wave of a major cyber attack by a hostile nation. It was eventually learned that two California teenagers under the guidance and direction of a sophisticated Israeli hacker, himself a teenager, had orchestrated the attacks using hacker tools readily available on the Internet. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 89 Another event illustrated the threat to the global economy no less starkly. Early in February 2000, computer servers hosting several of the largest commercial web sites on the Internet were flooded with connection requests, which clogged systems and consumed server capacity. Ultimately, these distributed denial-of-service attacks paralyzed large parts of the Internet. Only through close cooperation between U.S. and Canadian law enforcement investigators was it discovered that a Canadian teenager had been breaking into legions of computers around the world for many months. Retaining control over these compromised servers, he created a "zombie army" which on command would flood the servers of his next corporate victim. The cost of slowdowns and outages that occurred was an estimated billion dollars in economic losses. Only a few months later, on the morning of May 4, 2000, the "I love you" virus began infecting computers around the globe. First detected in Asia, this virus quickly swept around the world in a wave of indiscriminate attacks on government and private sector networks. By the time the destructive pace of the virus had been slowed, it had infected nearly 60 million computers and caused billions of dollars in damage. Cooperation among law enforcement authorities around the world led to the identification of the perpetrator, a computer science dropout in the Philippines. He was neither charged nor punished for his deeds because, at the time, the Philippine criminal code did not explicitly outlaw such actions. Together, these incidents make clear that U.S. domestic efforts alone cannot deter or prevent cyber attacks. We must work closely with our international partners to put into place those cooperative mechanisms that can help prevent the damage of such attacks. 4.2.2.8 Transportation Accident A transportation accident is an incident related to a mode of transportation (highway, air, rail, waterway, port, harbor) where an emergency response is necessary to protect life and property. These are incidents involving air or rail passenger travel resulting in mass casualties or mass fatalities, and incidents the release, or potential release, of hazardous materials. Common day- to-day highway accidents are excluded because they are generally handled without emergency management organization involvement. 4.2.2.9 Urban Fire Fire is a rapid, persistent chemical reaction that releases heat and light, especially the exothermic combination of a combustible substance with oxygen. A fire is categorized as both a natural hazard and a technological hazard. An urban fire is any instance of uncontrolled burning which results in major structural damage to large residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or other properties in developed areas. Generally a large structure is defined as any structure exceeding 25,000 square feet. Large structural fires therefore would include fully involved structures of this size or greater. Multiple stories may be involved as well and constitute square footage. Almost every county has at least one city that has significant development including a downtown area, industrial park, hospital, government center, Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 90 churches, manufacturing facilities, warehouses, and multiple-story buildings. Each of these locations is a prime target for urban fire events. 4.2.2.10 Utility Failure – Power – Water Contamination A major electrical power failure is defined as a failure of the electrical distribution system that will exceed twenty-four hours in duration and effect greater than 33% of the geographical area of the county. Electrical distribution systems can be interrupted for a number of reasons, but those that have historically been the main cause are high winds, severe thunderstorms and winter storms. A prolonged major electrical distribution system failure during the middle of winter, accompanied by very cold temperatures, can have dramatic effects on a population Drinking water comes from surface water and from ground water. Large-scale water supply systems tend to rely on surface water resources such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Smaller water systems tend to use ground water pumped from wells that are drilled into aquifers, geologic formations that contain water. Microbiological and chemical contaminants can enter water supplies. Chemicals can each through soils from leaking underground storage tanks, feedlots and waste disposal sites. Human wastes and pesticides can also be carried to lakes and streams during heavy rains or snow melt. 4.3 Hazard Analysis The Hazard Analysis section focuses on those hazards initially identified in the Hazard Identification section and that are of particular concern and relevance to Anoka County. This section provides specific historical occurrences in Anoka County and identifies the future potential for a hazard event to occur. This includes identifying location and spatial extent of the event and best available data regarding the impact on the county. The table below is a comprehensive listing of specific hazards that are identified by the State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan to potentially threaten Minnesota communities. All of these hazards were initially considered for relevance in the hazard mitigation planning process. The table below indicates the specific hazard types identified by Anoka County for further study and analysis. 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 91 Summary of Natural and Manmade Hazard Threats to Minnesota Communities Natural Hazards Manmade Hazards Earthquake Attack - Conventional/Nuclear X Flooding/Flash Flooding Civil Disturbance/Strikes/Workplace Violence Landslides/Mudslides Dam Failure Land Subsidence Sinkholes Caves Mines X Hazardous Material Incidents X Pandemics/Vectors Fixed Facilities Severe Weather Radiological Facilities Drought Transportation/Pipeline Extreme Temperatures Hostage Situation X Thunderstorm/Hail/High Winds/Lightning X Methamphetamine Labs X Tornadoes X Terrorism CBRNE-Cyber Tropical Storms/Hurricanes Transportation Accident X Winter Storm X Urban Fire X Wildfire Utility Power/Water Contamination The Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee considered and evaluated all hazards in terms of their potential risk to Anoka County and participating municipalities. The decision to focus on the hazards checked in the above table was based on research of historical events, local knowledge, and the general priorities for implementing mitigation-planning efforts. The State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies Blizzards and Ice Storms individually. For the purpose of this mitigation plan those hazards are combined under Winter Weather. In addition, Lightning, Windstorm and Hailstorm were individually identified. As those hazards are almost always encountered during thunderstorms, they are combined in the thunderstorm category. Infectious disease is a category that was re-categorized under Epidemics/Pandemics, which also includes Vectors. Water contamination is categorized under public utilities and radiological is categorized under Hazardous Materials. The hazards not included in this plan are listed below along with explanations of why they were not included. 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the type, location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events A. Does the plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? If the hazard identification omits (without explanation) any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the jurisdiction, this part of the plan cannot receive a Satisfactory score. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 92 4.3.1 Natural Hazards Hazard selection for mitigation planning is primarily based on the historic occurrence of disasters that have occurred in the jurisdiction. However, new development and environmental changes may introduce new hazards that must be considered for inclusion in a mitigation plan. Examples include a new industry that introduces a hazardous material, the political climate, such as 9/11, which introduced terrorism, and other events such as human, animal and plant diseases, and infestations. Each participating municipality was tasked with identifying and describing historical incidents of hazards from local sources such as newspapers, archives, etc. Anoka County Emergency Management then combined the local information with information from external sources such as Minnesota State Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanographic Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), National Weather Service (NWS), and other sources to develop a complete historic analysis of hazards that have affected Anoka County and participating jurisdictions. 4.3.1.1 Flooding/Flash floods Flooding occurs when abnormally high stream flow overtops the natural or artificial banks of a watercourse. The three-principle types of floods, which may affect Anoka County, are: riverine floods, flash floods, and dam break floods. Overland flooding is a concern in Anoka County for events that have a high rainfall amounts over a short amount of time. The prominent soil type in Anoka County is sand which will allow normal amounts of rain water to percolate though the soil and move though the storm water drainage systems move water though the six Watershed Districts in Anoka County. Appendix B pages 48–69 illustrate the structures and critical infrastructure in Anoka county that are located in and around the 100 and 500 year flood 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a] description of the … location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 93 plain. The Anoka County Flood Vulnerability Report located in Appendix A pages 14-28 review the historical information available regarding flooding in Anoka County and includes several case studies on the probable losses due to future flood events in Anoka County. The report also reviews infrastructure that is located in and around the 100 year flood plain and may be affected due to 100 year flood event. In reviewing the information on the infrastructure, facilities, and their physical location related to the flood plain from the maps provided by Anoka County GIS, the property may be in or next to a flood plain and property is marked as being in the flood plain. Many pieces of the infrastructure and structures were completed to meet current building codes and comply with the National Flood Insurance requirements and elevated above the 100 year flood plain level. As part of the Anoka County Mitigation Plan, jurisdictions will continue to review mitigation options to reduce the impact of flooding on infrastructure and structures that do not comply with the National Flood Insurance requirements and / or are at risk for loss from flooding. Flooding tends to occur in Anoka County during anomalous years of prolonged, regional rainfall (such as an El-Nino year) and excessive snowfall, and is typified by increased humidity and high spring/summer temperatures. Flash flooding is a critical natural hazard caused by too much rain falling and/or snow melt in a short time, often a result of thunderstorms or the remnants of a tropical storm. Several factors contribute to flash flooding: rainfall intensity and duration, topography, soil conditions, and ground cover. Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms, repeatedly moving over the same area, or by multiple storm cells colliding. Flash flooding can occur within a few minutes of excessive rainfall or from a quick release from a dam or levee failure. Thunderstorms produce flash flooding, often far from the actual storm, and water may rise at night when natural warnings may not be noticed. Anoka County and participating jurisdictions have experienced flood events 37 times since 1965 resulting in one fatality and five injuries. A total of $203,714,028 in structure damage has been logged along with $481,287 in content damage. A detailed list of flood events is provided in Appendix A. In 1997, City of Anoka, which is located along the lower Rum River and Mississippi River was impacted to the extent that residents were evacuated, city streets closed, and septic and drain fields failed. Clean up was extensive in removing sandbags and debris. For Ramsey, Fridley and Anoka the likelihood of occurrence is moderate but the impact is considered high. Columbia Heights also experienced flooding citywide in 1997, with street flooding and flooding of structures in low areas. The likelihood of occurrence is considered moderate. Loss impact of future occurrence is Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 94 less likely due to mitigation projects to correct flooding problems although the impact will continue to be moderate. Coon Rapids located along the east bank of the Mississippi River experienced flooding from the Mississippi River in April of 1965, 1997 and 2001. All three years were the result of heavy spring rains combined with heavy winter snowfall amounts in the Mississippi River drainage areas. The southwest corner of the city requires sandbagging for approximately 25 homes. Additional sandbagging is necessary for an additional 12 properties in the northwest corner of the city. The river overflowing its banks threatens homes and property, utilities, and back-flooding of sanitary and storm water sewer systems. Out of banks flooding is likely to occur once or twice per decade. Future impact is considered moderate. Blaine experiences minimal localized flooding with extensive rains and melting snow runoff, but occurrences are infrequent and the impact minimal. Oak Grove which is located adjacent to the Rum River and experiences minimal flooding with extensive rains and melting snow runoff but occurrences are infrequent and the impact minimal. Lino Lakes, Spring Lake Park and St. Francis experience storm-water flooding during periods of heavy rain. The flooding is infrequent and the impact minimal. 4.3.1.2 Epidemics/Pandemics/Vectors Pandemics (World Wide epidemics) have occurred three times in the world’s human population. Anoka County has experienced minor cases of infectious diseases over the last 50 years that have been considered isolated occurrences or minor exposures. Anoka County has experienced 10 pandemic/epidemic incidents over 94 years. The impact was 89 fatalities and 5,929 injuries. The 1918-1919 Spanish Flu caused the highest number of deaths. India had 16 million deaths. The U.S. had 675,000 deaths. In England 230,000 died. In Germany 225,000 and in France 166,000 perished. World wide, the estimated fatalities were 20 million to 50 million. During the Spanish Flu pandemic, Spain closed its government. New York City closed its port and trains did not run. The British Navy did not sail for three weeks. The 1957-58 Asian Flu was identified in February 1957 in China. By June, it had crossed the Pacific and entered the U.S. Globally, it caused a million deaths. In the U.S., 70,000 persons died. It was a Type A virus. The 1968-69 Hong Kong Flu caused four million deaths worldwide and 34,000 deaths in the U.S. It was a Type A virus. Epidemics in Minnesota were major killers in the 1700s and 1800s. The worst culprits were smallpox, polio, influenza, measles, and cholera, and yellow fever. In 1918, the Spanish flu pandemic struck Minnesota, 10,000 Minnesotans died, over twenty percent in the Twin Cities. Small towns were infected as severely as larger cities. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 95 In the twin cities in 1935, a failure of the chlorination units at the public water supply plant resulted in a serious typhoid epidemic with 213 cases and 7 deaths. In 1979 an outbreak of Red Measles occurred, over 200 cases were reported. In 1952 there were 20 cases of polio reported in Anoka County. In July 2005, officials with Anoka County closed Coon Lake Beach in the City of Columbus for four days following an E. Coli outbreak that sickened at least four children. Anoka County has developed a mass clinic plan to administer vaccine and other necessary drugs in the event of an epidemic or pandemic event. This plan was tested in August 2004 during the county’s participation in the Strategic National Stockpile drill and has been revised to remediate weaknesses discovered in the plan. Anoka County and its municipalities have experienced illness and fatalities from pandemic/epidemic events, and the county is at risk of future events. The entire county would be equally impacted by pandemic/epidemic events. A detailed event lists of epidemics/pandemics that have impacted Anoka County in the past is provided in Appendix A. Animal and Vector-Based Hazards – One of the "emerging" threats to Minnesota and its citizens are vector-based threats - bacteria, insects and other animals that pose a direct or indirect hazard to humans, their food supply, or the state's economy. Vector-borne diseases diagnosed in Minnesota include: Western equine encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis, Colorado tick fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Lime Disease, tularemia, rabies, plague, and Hanta-Virus. Lyme disease is a potentially serious bacterial infection caused by the bite of an infected deer tick. The disease affects both humans and animals. The Minnesota Department of Health is monitoring the spread of the disease across the state and working with residents to limit exposure to the ticks causing the disease. In Minnesota, the area where Lyme disease is endemic is primarily the drainage basin of the St. Croix River. The ticks are endemic to Washington County along the St. Croix Valley, and to Chisago, Anoka, Pine, Mille Lacs, Crow Wing, Kanabec, and Atkin counties. As long as vectors are present in the state, the potential for recurring disease exists. Based on historical incidence, the vector-borne diseases Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 96 to which the population is most vulnerable are St. Louis encephalitis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Colorado tick fever, tularemia and Hanta-Virus. The likelihood of Western equine encephalitis and St. Louis encephalitis infecting the population is greater in the high mountainous areas of the state. Colorado tick fever and Rocky Mountain spotted fever have been small problems in the state. The state should be considered vulnerable to future incidence of tick fever. Most, but not all cases of tularemia appear to be associated with ticks in the southeastern part of the state. Anoka County has had no reported cases of these diseases. While the probability of future events exists, the risk is low for all jurisdictions. Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is a highly infectious and difficult to control disease of cloven- hoofed mammals including cattle, swine, wild sheep, goats, deer, and pigs. Should an outbreak occur anywhere in the United States, routine livestock movements could rapidly spread the disease making early detection, combined with immediate eradication of affected animals, crucial for controlling the disease. Left unchecked, the economic impact of FMD could reach billions of dollars in the first year. Deer and other wildlife would likely become infected and be a source for re-infection of livestock. FMD is not known to cause illness in humans. Anoka County has not experienced FMD. Livestock in the rural areas of the county would be at greatest risk for FMD. The probability of this disease-affecting Anoka County is low. West Nile Virus (WNV) is one of several mosquito-borne viruses in the United States. The virus exists in nature primarily through a transmission cycle involving mosquitoes and birds. Mosquitoes become infected with WNV when they feed on infected birds. Less than one percent of humans infected may develop meningitis or encephalitis, the most severe forms of the disease, which occur primarily in persons over 50 years of age. Symptoms of encephalitis or meningitis may include severe headache, high fever, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, tremors, convulsions, paralysis, coma and sometimes, death. Tests performed in 2004 on a dead bird confirmed the presence of WNV in Anoka County. No human cases have been reported. While the probability for future events exists, this hazard presents a low risk to Anoka County and its municipalities. 4.3.1.8 Severe Weather – Thunderstorms-Hail/Lightning/Wind Thunderstorms are formed from a combination of moisture, rapidly rising warm air, and a force capable of lifting air (i.e. warm and cold front, a sea breeze, or a mountain). Thunderstorms may occur singly, in clusters, or in lines. It is possible for several thunderstorms to affect one location in the course of a few hours. Most severe weather occurs when thunderstorms affects one location for an extended time. All thunderstorms contain lightning, an electrical discharge that occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning reaches a temperature approaching 50,000 degrees F. In the United States, 75 to 100 Americans are hit and killed each year. Hailstones are products of thunderstorms and are developed by downdrafts and updrafts that develop inside the cumulonimbus clouds of a thunderstorm, where super cooled water droplets exist. The transformation of droplets to ice requires a temperature below 32 degrees and a catalyst in the form of tiny particles of solid matter, or freezing nuclei. Continued deposits of super cooled water cause the ice crystals to grow into hailstones. Hail can be smaller than a pea or larger than softballs and can be destructive to property, crops, livestock, and people. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 97 Straight-line winds, which have exceeded 100 miles per hour, are responsible for most thunderstorm damage. One type of straight-line wind, the downburst, can cause damage equivalent to a tornado. Thunderstorms are also associated with tornadoes and heavy rains that can lead to flooding. All of the jurisdictions of Anoka County have experienced occurrences of severe thunderstorms accompanied by high winds, lightning and sometimes damaging hail. Since 1961, 144 severe thunderstorms, hail, lightning, and wind have impacted Anoka County and its jurisdictions resulting in 4 fatalities and 27 injuries. In addition $15,116,306 in structure damage and $15,382,477 in content damage has been logged. The city of Anoka experienced an unusually severe storm in September of 2005. There was damage to homes and trees, streets were closed due to flooding, and septic and drain field failures occurred. Extensive debris removal was required. Blaine experienced severe thunderstorms in 1987, 1991 and 2002. In 1987 the Police Department fleet of squad cars sustained $74,000 in damage from large hail. Downed trees and roof damage was the major impact of these storms. Damage amounts are unknown, but estimated in the $500,000 range per major storm event. The likelihood of occurrence of these storms is high due to Blaine’s climate and geographic location. Thunderstorms are a frequent occurrence for the City of Blaine. With Blaine’s rate of growth and construction practices what they are, loss from future severe thunder storms would be more significant than what has been seen historically. City of Nowthen, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Ham Lake, Oak Grove, Spring Lake Park, St. Francis and Hilltop experienced severe Thunderstorms, hail, winds, lightening in 2001, 2004 and twice in 2005. In all cases power outages occurred resulting from downed power lines. Hundreds of trees have been destroyed by these storms. It is expected that the frequency of these storms will continue to be moderate and the impact moderate. In the 2005 severe weather event, Coon Rapids experienced hundreds of trees uprooted, power outages due to downed lines; property damage including but not limited to debris damage to private property; some roofs taken off, streets blocked by debris and downed trees; urban flooding due to heavy rainfall and catch basins clogged with debris; hail damage. In 1996, Fridley encountered over 2 Million dollars in damage from a severe storm. In 1998 another 2.2 million in damage and over 1.5 million in damage from the September 2005 storm. Ham Lake, on July 1, 1997, was impacted by a severe storm. The Fire Department responded to many calls, municipal employees worked overtime, pumping was required to stabilize a pond in one neighborhood and prevent loss of property/lives, the fire station required roof repair, and a city owned billboard required repair. Overall the frequency of future occurrences will continue and are considered moderate. The impact of these severe storms is moderate to high and as construction and population continue to increase the impact is expected to increase to high. A detailed list of severe s torms is provided in Appendix A. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 98 4.3.1.3 Severe Weather - Tornado Tornados are violent windstorms characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. Spawned by a thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result of a hurricane), the funnel does not need to reach t o the ground for a tornado to be present. A debris cloud beneath a thunderstorm is all that is needed to confirm the presence of a tornado. The damage from a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. The intensity, path length, and width of tornadoes are rated according to a scale developed by T. Theodore Fujita and Allen D. Pearson. The Fujita-Pearson Tornado Scale is presented below. Tornadoes classified as F0-F1 are considered weak, those classified as F2-F3 are considered strong, while those classified as F4-F5 are considered violent. Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale Description Table EF- Scale Damage Winds (mph) Description EF-0 Light 65-85 Chimney damage, tree branches broken EF-1 Moderate 86-110 Mobile homes overturned EF-2 Considerable 111-135 Considerable damage, trees downed, mobile homes demolished EF-3 Severe 136-165 Roofs/walls torn down, trains and cars overturned EF-4 Devastating 166-200 Well-constructed walls leveled EF-5 Incredible 200 + Homes lifted off foundation and carried considerable distances The most violent tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction with wind speeds of 250 mph or more. Damage paths can be in excess of 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Even with advances in meteorology, warning time for tornadoes is short or impossible. Tornadoes can occur in any state, but are more frequent in the Midwest, Southeast and Southwest. Tornado season is generally March through August, although tornadoes can occur at any time of year. They tend to occur in the afternoons and evenings. Over 80% of all tornadoes strike between noon and midnight. There have been 36 tornado events that have impacted Anoka County and participating jurisdictions since 1951. In some cases the same tornado may have impacted multiple jurisdictions and was reported more than once. These tornado events resulted in 84 fatalities and 672 injuries. The reported structure damage was $104,465,290 and content damage was estimated to be $18,679,500. The city of Andover experienced tornadoes in July of 1983 and September of 2005. In the 1983 event 64 structures had significant damage and hundreds of trees were Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 99 destroyed. There were citywide power outages and much debris cleanup. The 2005 impact was even greater, again citywide power outages occurred and hundreds of trees were destroyed. In the 2005 event over 1000 roofs were replaced 300 houses had to be re-sided and 50 additional homes had extensive damage. The City of Blaine suffered significant Tornado damage from Tornado events in 1976 and 1998 and minor damage from tornados in 2005, 2008 and 2011. A second tornado event in 2011 caused minor damage. In the 1976 and 1998 incidents the majority of damage in both occurrences was sustained on the eastern side of Blaine. In 1976, the Centennial High School Building sustained heavy damage and in 1998 wide spread damage was sustained in the residential areas in the same part of the city. Between both occurrences over $500,000 worth of damage was sustained. In the 2005, 2008 and 2011 incidents damage was sustained on the western side of Blaine. Due to climate and geographic location the likely occurrence of tornados can be a frequent occurrence for the City of Blaine. With Blaine’s rate of growth and construction practices loss impact from future tornados would be more significant than what has been seen historically. Coon Rapids has an expectation of a tornado every year. The most recent significant event: 09/21/2005, possible F-2 tornado struck east edge of city and into Blaine. Another significant tornado struck on 07/18/1986 on the east side of the city, near Egret and University Avenue border area from Mississippi River to Evergreen Boulevard, near border with Fridley. Roofs taken off, trees down, hail damaged, homes and businesses destroyed or uninhabitable. The loss impact of future occurrence: potential to be devastating. In 1965, a tornado devastated the city of Fridley, Over 425 homes were destroyed, and 1224 homes were extensively damaged resulting in millions of dollars in losses. The likelihood of future occurrence is considered moderate, with the future impact high. Lino Lakes experienced a Tornado in 1998. Five homes were destroyed; many more homes had roof damage, shingles missing, and siding fascia blown away. Many large trees were destroyed and debris and trees blocked roads. Many homes were without electricity. The likelihood of future occurrence is considered moderate and future impact moderate. Oak Grove experienced Tornados and straight-line winds in 1939, 1965 and 1997. The 1939 tornado destroyed two homes and severely damaged several others. In 1965 there was minimal damage. In1997 many, many trees down with some residential damage. The likelihood of occurrence is that a possible tornado or F0 winds will occur in the City of Oak Grove every decade with the impact moderate. A tornado touched down in Spring Lake Park on May 6, 1965: Two people were killed, hundreds were injured and one-third of the property in Spring Lake Park was destroyed. School Districts in Spring Lake Park and Fridley had estimated damage of $10 Million, public utilities were seriously damaged, and 16,000 phones were out of service. Electric power and natural gas Four Tornados were confirmed in Anoka County in 2011 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 100 service was interrupted for as long as a week. Spring Lake Park had 30% of its residencies impacted. 149 homes totally destroyed and 147 homes were damaged. Neighboring community medical facilities were taxed to maximum capacity. The likelihood of future occurrence is moderate with the impact high. Although tornadoes have affected Anoka County infrequently in the past, probability of damage from this hazard in the future is likely. The entire county is at equal risk of future occurrences. While higher population and housing densities in the municipalities set the stage for increased impact, the potential for property damage and loss of live is equally high for the unincorporated areas of the county due to the large number of mobile homes throughout the rural areas. A detailed list of Tornado incidents is in Appendix A. 4.3.1.4 Severe Weather – Winter Storms Winter storms include heavy snow, blizzards and extreme cold. Winter storms in Minnesota often include extreme cold and ice. These storms are especially hazardous in terms of closing emergency routes, creating power and utility system failures, and immobilizing economic activity. In Minnesota, a heavy snow event is defined by six or more inches of snow in a 12-hour period and eight or more inches of snow in a 24-hour period. Snow is considered heavy when visibilities drop below one-quarter mile regardless of wind speed. Blizzards are the most violent of the winter storms and are characterized by low temperatures, usually below 20o Fahrenheit, accompanied by strong winds in excess of 35 miles per hour with enough snow in the air caused by either falling or blowing snow to create visibilities of one-quarter mile or less for an extended period of time, usually at least three hours or more. While blizzards can occur in Anoka County from October through April, they most commonly occur from November through the end of March. Ice storms bring the entire affected area to a standstill. Ice accumulation causes trees and utility lines to fall, interrupting telephone service and creating significant power outages. Emergency response time is greatly increased, especially to residents in remote, rural areas. Freezing rain, probably the most serious of the ice storms, occurs during a precipitation event when warm air aloft exceeds 32o while the surface remains below the freezing point. When precipitation originating as rain or drizzle contacts physical structures on the surface ice forms on all surfaces creating problems for traffic, utility lines and tree limbs. Since 1962 there have been 81 reported incidences of severe winter weather that has impacted Anoka County and its municipalities resulting in 9 fatalities and 104 injuries. Structure damage is Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 101 reported to have been $286,436 and content loss $1,156,943. In this case content loss includes crop loss. Recent Winter Storms impacted the city of Blaine in 1991, 1996 and 2001. The 1991 & 2001 storms were heavy snowfall events, which impacted transportation, commerce and emergency services. The 1996 events was an ice storm, which resulted in over 35 motor vehicle accidents, 7 injuries and numerous reports of trees and power lines down. Due to climate and geographic location winter storms can be a frequent occurrence for the City of Blaine. With Blaine’s rate of growth and construction practices loss impact from future Winter storms would be mor e significant than what has been seen historically. Columbia Heights experiences severe Winter Storms frequently, usually resulting in downed power lines and downed trees. The resulting impact is power outages to residents and businesses for a day with the loss of business and residents suffering in the cold temperatures. The most severe storm in modern history occurred on January 17, 1996. The winter storm started out with heavy rain, and then turned to snow. Thick ice caused downed trees, branches, and power lines. The likelihood of occurrence is moderate; the loss impact of future occurrence is high. Oak Grove, Centerville and the City of Columbus also experience severe Winter Storms. The worst in recent history was New Years Day 2005. All jurisdictions report power outages and trees down. In Centerville the water tower froze resulting in no water to residents and businesses. Coon Rapids also experiences frequent Winter Storms. The worst in recent history was the Halloween storm of 1991, where 28-inches of snow fell continuously in a three-day period. Roads were impassable, schools closed, businesses closed, public works and emergency crews working non-stop to respond to incidents and re-open transportation routes. The likelihood of future occurrence is high and the impact moderate. Hilltop experienced an ice storm in January 2003. The entire city was affected. There was interruption of electric service to the city water tower and 75 manufactured homes. No permanent damage resulted. The likelihood of occurrence is moderate and the loss impact from future occurrence is minimal. On October 31, 1991, the City of Spring Lake Park experienced a severe Winter Storm. Streets were closed. Some state highways were closed to vehicular traffic due to snow dept h and quantity. There were power outages to many residents and businesses. There was a complete shutdown of businesses and schools. The likelihood of future occurrences is high but the impact is low. During periods of extreme cold, water towers and water lines, particularly in low-income residences with sub-standard insulation, freeze and break, leaving residents without water and creating a burden on the public and private infrastructure. While each municipality is affected, snow and ice have a greater impact on the rural, unincorporated areas of the county. Roads in remote areas may be impassible for several days until the county highway department can complete clearing of county-maintained roads. The probability of future winter storm events is moderate to high, and the entire county is at equal risk. A detailed list of Winter Weather events is in Appendix A. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 102 4.3.1.5 Wildfires Wildfires are incidents of uncontrolled burning in grasslands, brush, or woodlands. In Minnesota, significant wild-land fires do not occur on an annual basis. However, several hundred lesser events occur annually across the entire state. Seasonal wild fires have been destructive, especially during periods of drought. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Forestry has primary responsibility for wild-land fire protection on 22.8 million acres of public and private land. Its total responsibility encompasses 45.5 million acres or 89 percent of the total land base. Wildfires occur throughout Minnesota and according to the Minnesota State Fire Marshal, there are more than 2,000 annual wildfires with an estimated loss of more than $13 million dollars. Due to the abundance of vegetation throughout the county, wildfires are a moderate threat in all rural areas. Significant events occur during periods of inadequate rainfall. Lesser events occur annually, usually as a result of escaped controlled burning or arson. The county's municipal and volunteer fire departments respond to a combined average of 100 wild-land fires annually. Many of these fires occur in mixed interface areas and pose threats to occupied structures. Several municipalities have extensive areas of greenbelt and parkland, and brush fires in these cities create a significant urban interface danger. Wildfires occur throughout the unincorporated areas of Anoka County. Significant events most often occur in the remote areas of the northwestern section. Lesser events can occur at any location throughout the entire county. Fire departments from each of the municipalities occasionally respond to grassland, brush or woodland fires within and around their cities. Anoka County and its municipalities experienced 133 wild-land fire events since 1980. This hazard resulted in three fatalities and six injuries. Structure damage was reported to be $2,173,438 and content loss was estimated to be $4,341,831. This content loss included crop loss. Andover, Coon Rapids, Fridley and Oak Grove experienced occurrences of the wildfire hazard yearly. The most significant event occurred May 3, 1999. The incident occurred along the railroad tracks for fifteen miles through the cities. A passing train caused this very large wildfire. The event lasted for three days. Anoka experienced occurrences of the wildfire hazard yearly. A very significant event occurred in 2004 at Sunny Acres Park adjacent to wetlands. During the fire, residents were evacuated. Large amounts of wetland vegetation burned. The likelihood of future occurrence is minimal and the impact is expected to be minimal. Blaine experiences multiple grass fires every year. Blaine has experienced major incidents in 1998, 2003 and 2004. The 1998 incident was arson related and the other two events occurred at the Anoka County Airport. All fires resulted in mult i-jurisdictional response from fire, police and state resources. 1998 and 2004 fires resulted in minor damage to structures, and one fire Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 103 service injury. Due to the natural environment of the airport property these large-scale fires will occur in the future and the continual development of the properties surrounding this natural environment, results in a higher potential for property loss. The City of Columbus also reports frequent grass fires that occur regularly during non-snow months throughout the City resulting in the loss of property and with the potential loss of life. The likelihood of occurrence is moderate and the impact is moderate. In Linwood Township, grass and peat fires occur occasionally. The most recent major event occurred on October 19, 2000. A major grass fire reached the swamps and lasted for seven days. Four homes were lost, many more homes were damaged, and several outbuildings were lost. One fire truck was lost. Major roads were closed. Many citizens and animals were evacuated. Power outages lasted for several days. Over 57 fire agencies responded over the period of seven days. The likelihood of occurrence is moderate and the impact is moderate. While we have not experienced the massive wildfires of the west, the potential exists, particularly if drought conditions are present. The probability of future wildfire events is moderate, and all areas of Anoka County are at equal risk for wildfires. A detailed list of Wild- land fires is included in Appendix A. 4.3.2 Manmade Hazards In considering manmade hazards, the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee decided to concentrate its analysis and future mitigation efforts on events presently affecting Anoka County, and on those events that would result in major emergencies or disasters, such as hazardous materials incidents and dam failure. Hazards that would result in smaller, isolated events (such as arson or civil unrest) or those that would be difficult to mitigate (such as hostage situation or enemy attack) were not considered for further study under this Plan. Additionally, those hazards that are being addressed through concurrent planning efforts, and those that are the result of other hazards being addressed were not considered for further study under this Plan. It is r ecommended that these manmade hazards become more fully incorporated during future Plan updates and enhancements. 4.3.2.1 Hazardous Materials Incident Hazardous materials (hazmat) incidents are likely to affect many communities. Every city has multiple facilities that produce, store, or use some form of hazardous materials. Every water treatment plant has chlorine on site to rid the water of bacterial contaminants. Almost every county has a farmer's Co-Op, which stores significant quantities of pesticides and fertilizers. Hazardous materials are transported down many roads every day. Propane trucks serve the rural populations, and natural gas, used by both rural and urban citizens, must be treated as a dangerous hazard when a leak occurs. In addition, every home has some hazardous materials present in the form of cleaners, batteries, bleach, paint, and gasoline. Hazardous materials incidents typically take three forms: fixed facility incidents, transportation incidents/pipeline incidents and radiological incidents. It is reasonably possible to identify and prepare for a fixed site incident, as laws require those facilities to notify state and local authorities about what is being used or produced. Transportation and pipeline incidents are much harder to prepare for, as the material involved and the incident location are not known until the accident actually happens. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 104 Fixed Facility Hazardous Materials Incident is any occurrence of uncontrolled release of materials from a fixed site that poses a risk to health, safety, and property as determined in the EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These materials are classed identically to those specified in the section on transportation accidents. A variety of hazardous materials exist in fixed facilities throughout Anoka County. They range from flammable liquids stored or used to fuel vehicles through exotic biological agents. Some materials are particularly lethal even in small amounts, while others require strong concentrations with prolonged exposure. Radiological Incident is defined as the unintentional exposure to materials that emit ionizing radiation. Nuclear power plants are a significant potential source of ionizing radiation. The health and environment impacts from the Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, Russia disasters illustrate the potential hazards from nuclear power plants. Other sources of ionizing radiation include medical and diagnostic X-ray machines, certain surveying instruments, some imaging systems used to check pipelines, radioactive sources used to calibrate radiation detection instruments, and even some household fire detectors. The graphic below provided through the Environmental Protection Agency Identifies the proliferation of facilities and sites in Anoka County that inventory or process hazardous materials. 4.3.2.3 Illegal Methamphetamine Labs Illegal domestic labs that produce methamphetamine (meth) are dependent on supplies of the precursor ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. Sometimes it is smuggled in quantity from Canada and Mexico, but may be readily purchased over-the-counter in the form of the decongestant Sudafed and other pseudoephadrine-containing cold tablets. Depending on the method used, meth is “cooked” using the cold medicine and other easily obtained items such as coffee filters, lye, battery acid, matchbook striker plates, iodine, lithium batteries, and Coleman fuel. The process of cooking meth leaves behind a hazardous coating on walls, floors, and in ventilation systems. State law requires meth-contaminated property be quarantined until clean up operations have been completed and the property tested by a certified contractor as safe for habitation. Cost for cleaning and certifying a 1,200 square foot house is about $9,000. In hotels, rooms adjacent, above, and below must also be certified as safe. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 105 Drug Enforcement Agency officials estimate that for each pound of meth produced, a lab operator winds up with 6 pounds of toxic waste, including leftover chemicals such as anhydrous ammonia, lye and solid meth residue. The county and most municipalities have experienced meth lab seizures. Although meth lab operators may more easily establish labs in the urban and more remote unincorporated areas, all jurisdictions in the county are at risk from this hazard. Meth is a highly addictive drug. The potential for future hazard is high, and all areas will be equally impacted. The meth threat in Minnesota is a two-pronged problem. First, large quantities of meth produced by Mexican organizations based in California are transported into and distributed throughout the state. Second, meth increasingly is being produced in small laboratories, capable of producing only a few ounces at a time. Mexican groups, who receive their product from the West Coast, control distribution of the drug. These traffickers typically send meth from California through the U.S. mail, via Federal Express, and by courier. Methamphetamine (or meth) is a serious threat to public safety in Anoka County. While the exact number of meth users in the county is unknown, the number of felony complaints the county attorney’s office issued for the possession, sale, or manufacture of meth has soared from 100 cases a year in 2001, to 300 in 2002, to 325 in 2003. Meth-related crimes now account for the most frequently charged cases in the county attorney’s office. Due to the aggressive work of the Anoka-Hennepin Narcotics and Violent Crimes Task Force, Anoka County led the state with 42 methamphetamine labs uncovered and investigated in 2002. The Anoka County Sheriff’s Office has found meth labs in apartments, motel rooms, vacant buildings in rural areas, vehicles, campsites, and private homes. The cooking process itself and the waste that results from the manufacture of meth pose significant public health and safety risks. Methamphetamine recipes rely on the use of volatile organic compounds, explosives, acids, bases, metals, solvents, and salts. These ingredients have the potential for explosions, Blaine, Circle Pines, Coon Rapids, Ham Lake and St. Francis have experienced multiple incidences of Methamphetamine Labs. The labs range from sophisticated installations to mobile labs in vehicles. The most common physical impact is the damage to structures and contents from the chemicals employed in the manufacture of Methamphetamine. The resulting clean up runs into thousands of dollars. The most catastrophic incident involving an operational laboratory occurred in Coon Rapids where an explosion occurred resulting in the total destruction of a residence. The likelihood of reoccurrence of Meth labs is high and the impact is moderate to high when social issues are included 0 2 4 6 8 10 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Meth Lab Seizures in Anoka County Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 106 There have been 166 reports of Illegal Methamphetamine Laboratories in Anoka County and participating jurisdictions since 1980. The illegal labs accounted for no fatalities and one injury. 4.3.2.4 Terrorism Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism based on the location of the actors: Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives. International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. Terrorism is the use of force or violence against people or property for the purposes of intimidation, coercion or ransom. Terrorists often use threats to create fear among the public, to try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism, and to get publicity for their causes. The 1966 Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, defines weapons of mass destruction as “any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the dissemination, release or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity.” President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 12938 entitled “Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” also defines weapons of mass destruction to be “nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.” The Domestic Preparedness Program is a partnership of federal, state, and local agencies with the goal of ensuring that, as a nation, we are prepared to respond to a terrorist attack involving nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons - weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Today, the term "Homeland Security" is used to denote the concept of preparing for these kinds of events. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 107 The FBI categorizes terrorism in the United States primarily as one of two types - domestic terrorism or international terrorism. Domestic terrorism, such as the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction. International terrorism, such as the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are foreign-based and/or directed by countries or groups outside the U. S., or whose activities transcend national boundaries. Attacks can take many forms. They are all designed to terrorize citizens. While Anoka County has not experienced terrorist events, the county contains potential target sites for terrorist attack. The presence of these facilities places Anoka County at a high threat level for forms of terrorist attack. A terrorist event at these facilities would affect the entire county. Bioterrorism: In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, concerns about bio- terrorist attack involving smallpox prompted Minnesota health officials to develop a mass vaccination plan. Anoka County Community Health's plan was tested during an August, 2004 Strategic National Stockpile drill and subsequently revised response plans to address problems found during that exercise. During the outbreak of anthrax in the last months of 2001, local firefighters and law enforcement officers investigated several suspicious-looking substances, packages, and mail at a Department of Energy facility, private residences, businesses, a hospital, a post office, and a school. Though all tests were negative, decontamination procedures were initiated at a school and post office. Planned Parenthood received one of several hundred fake anthrax letters mailed by an anti-abortion extremist. The probability of future events exists and the county and its municipalities are at equal risk of Bioterrorism. The Community Health and Environmental Services Department maintains an All Hazards Emergency Response and Recovery Plan, of which components are tested on an annual basis. Bomb Threats: The Northtown Mall was the target of a bomb explosion that damaged the mall but caused no injuries. Though none have been found credible, bomb threats by telephone are becoming an increasing problem for schools and government throughout Anoka County. Bethel, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Lexington, Lino Lakes and St. Francis all experienced multiple terrorist bomb or anthrax threats. All of which are considered domestic in nature. The majority of threats involved schools. A number of the incidents involve actual pipe bombs being found. In 2001 several Anthrax hoax letters were reported. The incident of domestic terrorist threats is decreasing. Cyber-terrorism: Several facilities in Anoka County have been affected by computer viruses and attempted system entry by "hackers." Improved virus detection capability and system security safeg uards have reduced the threat of cyber-terrorism for Anoka County’s larger industrial and government facilities. Smaller businesses and jurisdictions throughout the entire county remain at future risk of this hazard. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 108 Anoka County and its municipalities have reported 176 instances of domestic terrorism since 1992. The vast majority of events are bomb threats. In 2001 there were several instances of anthrax threats. There have been some pipe bombs found and in one case a bomb was detonated in a local mall. The reported losses are $1,001 in structure damage and $4,101 in content damage. The expectation is that the future occurrence of a terrorist’s incident is low but the impact could be high. A detailed list of reported terrorist events is provided in Appendix A. 4.3.2.5 Urban Fire The 2010 Minnesota State Fire Marshall reports on fire in Minnesota reports that structures fires are the most prevalent (44%) type of fire and are responsible for the most deaths and injuries. In structures, the three leading causes are 1) Cooking and 2) Open Flame 3) and other equipment. 36% occurred in structures without an operational smoke alarm. Flame damages were more extensive in rural structure fires, contained to the building, than urban structure fires that were contained to an object or room. Anoka County and its participating jurisdictions experienced 175 structure fires since 1966. These events resulted in 36 fatalities and 3 injuries. The incidences caused a reported $15,041,850 in structure damage and $585,200 in content loss. An urban fire is any instance of uncontrolled burning which results in major structural damage to large residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or other properties in developed areas. Generally a large structure is defined as exceeding 25,000 square feet. Large structural fires would include fully involved structures of this size or greater such as hospitals, government centers, manufacturing facilities, warehouses, barns, and multiple storied buildings. Fires have affected individual structures throughout the rural unincorporated areas of Anoka County and its municipalities, occurring in homes, businesses, and government buildings. The potential for future events exists. The entire county is at equal risk of fires in individu al structures. In terms of large, urban fires within Anoka County, the downtown areas of Municipality’s comprised of adjoining old wood structures, are at greatest risk. All jurisdictions within Anoka County experience structure fires. Blaine has had some of the major fires in 1994, 2003 and 2004. The 1994 fire was a commercial building fire, which was later determined to be arson, caused over three million dollars in damage to the property and contents. The 2003 residential structure fire resulted in the floor of a newly constructed home to collapse and resulted in a firefighter injury. The 2005 residential structure fire with several exposures spread quickly due to high wind conditions and extended to the homes on both sides of it and also sent burning debris across the street which started a deck on fire. The main fire home was a complete loss and there was significant damage to the two neighboring homes. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 109 In December 2004, the City of Oak Grove experienced a major fire in an unoccupied senior high-rise apartment building, which was under construction. The building was a total loss, with damages exceeding $1,400,000. In September 1997, the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Lino Lakes experienced a major fire in the cafeteria that resulted in $1,500,000 in damage. Coon Rapids experienced many structure fires in the past. They have had many house fires, with ten of them resulting in 19 fatalities, 2 injuries and total destruction of the residence. There have been several apartment fires with no fatalities but damage exceeding $2,000,000. The likelihood of occurrence for serious urban fires continues to be a concern and the expectation of future occurrences is moderate and the impact is high. A detailed list of structure fires is included in Appendix A. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 111 4.4 Hazard Vulnerability 4.4.1 Jurisdiction Hazard Vulnerability Assessment This Vulnerability Assessment Section provides a vulnerability summary and builds upon the information provided in the Vulnerability Analysis Section and the detailed list of hazard events in Appendix A. This section identifies community assets and development trends in Anoka County, then assessing the potential impact and amount of damage that could be caused by each hazard event. The objective of the assessment is to prioritize hazards of concern to Anoka County and to identify hazard mitigation strategies that will reduce or eliminate their effects. The vulnerability findings presented in this section have resulted in an approximation of risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative risk from hazards and the potential losses that may be incurred, however, uncertainties are inherent in loss estimation methodology, arising from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning specific hazards and their effects on the environment, as well as incomplete data sets, and from approximations and simplifications that are necessary in order to provide a meaningful analysis. Further, most data used in this assessment covers relatively short periods of records which increases the uncertainty of any statistically based analysis. To complete the assessment, each participating municipality provided the best available local data. The Anoka County Emergency Management Organization then collected data from a variety of external sources, including state and federal agencies, and analyses were performed qualitatively and quantitatively. Additional work will be done on an ongoing basis to enhance, and further improve the accuracy of the baseline established here, and it is expected that this vulnerability assessment will continue to be refined through future plan updates as new data and loss estimation methods or tools become available to Anoka County. Two distinct methodologies were applied to assess the risk for Anoka County. The first includes a quantitative analysis that relies upon best available data and technology, while the second methodology includes a qualitative analysis that relies more on local knowledge and rational decision-making. Upon completion, the methodologies are combined to create a “hybrid” approach for assessing hazard vulnerability for Anoka County that allows for some degree of quality control and assurance. Quantitative Methodology consists of utilizing Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS®MH), a geographic information system (GIS) based loss estimation software available from FEMA. For some hazards, the quantitative assessment also incorporates a detailed GIS-based approach using best available local data from Anoka County. When combined, the results of these vulnerability studies are used to form an assessment of potential hazard losses (in dollars), along with the identification of specific community assets that are deemed potentially at-risk. As the HAZUS-MR software was only acquired by Anoka County during this mitigation planning cycle, its use was limited. Future updates to the plan will fully utilize HAZUS-MR along with the Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. FMA Requirement §78.5(b): Description of the existing flood hazard and identification of the flood risk, and the extent of flood depth and damage potential. A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard? B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 112 Geospacial Analysis software from ESRI that Anoka County Emergency Management would like to purchase in the future to provide for additional features in HAZUS-MR. Qualitative Methodology relies less on technology, and more on historical and anecdotal data, community input, and professional judgment regarding expected hazard impacts. The qualitative assessment is built around varying degrees and weights of risk values as assigned by the consensus of Anoka County’s Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee. The vulnerability assessment for Anoka County uses a scoring system based on the adjacent table. Risk Analysis In 2011 Anoka County completed a risk and hazard assessment using Digital Sandbox. The results are being used to assess and review the natural and manmade risks to Anoka County. 4.4.1.1 Countywide Hazard Vulnerability After analyzing and evaluating all available data, the Hazard Committee developed the hazard history vulnerability assessment. The table below lists the hazards identified by the committee as hazards that have impacted Anoka County and its municipalities in the past and the potential hazards that could impact the county and its municipalities in the future. The committee then used the risk table developed previously to determine the county’s degree of vulnerability to each hazard. Economically in Anoka County flooding has been most costly with a reported cost of over $204 million, or an average 0f $5.5 million per occurrence. Tornadoes were second at over $123 million. Severe weather-Thunderstorms with hail lightning and high winds ranks third with over $30 million in losses. Urban fires rank 4th with over $15.6 million in losses followed by wildfires which accounted for 6.5 million in losses which includes timber and response costs. Pandemics are the most costly in fatalities and injuries with over 6000 fatalities and injuries followed by tornadoes with over 750 fatalities and injuries. When historical information for all selected hazards is evaluated and scored, flooding is the number one hazard that has impacted Anoka County. It was recognized that the availability and quantity of data varied significantly between hazards and thus impacted evaluations. The committee believed that had economic data been accurately recorded, urban fires and severe weather dollars could easily have been up to 5-10 times greater. HAZARD RATING No Fatalities/Injuries 0 Less than 3 injuries 1 Less than 5 fatalities/10 injuries 2 Less than 15 fatalities/50 injuries 3 Less than 25 fatalities/100 injuries 4 More than 26 fatalities/injuries 5 No Economic Damage or Cost 0 Less than 500,000 damage cost 1 Less than 2,000,000 damage cost 2 Less than 5,000,000 damage cost 3 Less than 10,000,000 damage cost 4 More than 10,000,000 damage cost 5 Extent area minimal/no evacuation 0 Extent area local/minimal evacuation 1 Extent area local/some evacuation 2 Extent area 1 mi./some evacuation 3 Extent area 3 mi./major evacuation 4 Extent area >3 mile/evacuation 5 Probability once in 100+ years 0 Probability once in 50 years 1 Probability once in 10 years 2 Probability once in every 5 years 3 Probability once in every 1 year 4 Probability more than once in 1 year 5 No repetitive loss 0 One repetitive loss 1 Three repetitive losses 2 Five repetitive losses 3 Ten repetitive losses 4 More than ten repetitive losses 5 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 113 Below are tables that summarize the hazards that the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee identified as the potential hazards that could affect the communities in the county. In 2011 Anoka County completed a risk and capability assessment though Digital sandbox and is participating in additional regional Threat and Risk Assessment though the Twin Cities Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). The results of these studies will be used to increase the readiness of Anoka County and it’s jurisdictions to respond to large scale events and disasters in Anoka County and the surrounding communities. After analyzing and evaluating all available data, the Hazard Mitigation Committee developed the historic hazard vulnerability assessments below, using the risk table developed previously by assigning a value (1 through 5). This table is a result of the cumulative impact of total hazard events over a period of years ranging from a low of 20 years of data for hazard events to 94 years of data in the case of pandemics/epidemics. ANOKA COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY SUMMARY Hazard Incidents Years Avg./yr Fatalities Injuries Assets Cost Flooding 39 45 1 1 5 165 204,195,335 Pandemics/Vectors 10 99 0.1 89 5929 0 0 Thunderstorms 169 39 4.3 4 27 788 30,498,783 Tornadoes 32 39 0.8 84 672 1,010 123,144,790 Winter Storms 100 38 2.6 9 104 32 1,443,379 Wildfires 133 29 5.5 3 6 33 6,520,269 Hazmat 532 30 21.3 3 1 1 274,780 Illegal Meth Labs 134 29 5.5 0 1 139 1,134,800 Terrorism 176 28 7.5 0 0 1 5,102 Urban Fires 175 40 5 36 3 214 15,627,050 Totals 1472 229 6748 2,383 244,072,448 ANOKA COUNTY HAZARD HISTORIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Hazard Event Fatality and Injury Economic Loss Extent or Impact Probability of Occurrence Repetitive Loss Vulnerability Score Priority Urban Fires 5 5 2 5 3 20 1 Thunderstorms 2 5 2 5 3 17 2 Flooding 2 5 5 3 3 16 3 Tornadoes 5 5 1 3 0 14 4 Wildfires 2 4 3 3 1 13 5 Pandemics/Vectors 5 3 1 1 2 12 6 Winter Storms 4 2 1 3 1 11 7 Hazmat 2 1 0 5 2 10 8 Terrorism 1 1 2 5 0 8 9 Illegal Meth Labs 1 2 1 3 1 7 10 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 114 The second assessment table rates the overall impact of a future hazard event Hazardous Materials became the top priority hazard primarily because of the inventory of hazardous materials, the number of facilities in the county and the frequent shipment of hazardous material through the county. A fire and explosion resulting from an accident or a terrorist attack at these facilities would impact the county more than any other hazard except for severe weather (thunderstorms) and Urban fires. Flooding dropped from first to forth as a result of several mitigation projects that reduced the impact of floods. This table estimates the impact of a sing le severe hazard event. ANOKA COUNTY HAZARD FUTURE ASSESSMENT Hazard Event Fatality and Injury Economic Loss Extent or Impact Probability of Occurrence Repetitive Loss Vulnerability Score Priority Hazmat 5 4 3 3 2 17 1 Thunderstorms 2 3 3 5 2 16 2 Urban Fires 2 4 2 5 1 14 3 Flooding 2 4 3 3 1 13 4 Tornadoes 3 5 1 2 1 12 5 Pandemics/Vectors 5 3 1 1 1 11 6 Terrorism 3 4 2 1 0 10 7 Wildfires 2 2 3 2 0 9 8 Winter Storms 1 2 1 2 1 7 9 Illegal Meth Labs 2 1 1 2 0 6 10 Anoka County has been the subject of several disaster declarations and subsequent disaster funding. The table below identifies those declarations and the economic relief provided. Date Declaration Number Hazard Incident Economic Relief Source 4/11/1965 OEP188 Flooding Unknown FEMA 4/18/1969 OEP255 Flooding Unknown FEMA 4/8/1997 DR-1175 Flooding $137,941 FEMA 8/25/1997 DR-1187 Severe Storms, high winds, tornadoes $217,574 FEMA 6/23/1998 DR-1225 Flooding $103,623 FEMA 5/16/2001 DR-1370 Flooding $36,186,739 FEMA 6/7/2011 DR-1990 Severe Storms and Tornados $47,732 FEMA $36,693,609 ANOKA COUNTY DISASTER DECLARATION ECONOMIC RELIEF Totals Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 115 4.4.1.2 Municipality Hazard Vulnerability In many instances individual municipalities have specific vulnerabilities to hazards that differ from the countywide vulnerabilities. This differentiation can exist due to factors such as geographic location, topography, geologic differences, and proximity to manmade hazards. In addition to this summary section, within the discussion of each hazard in Section 4.4 Hazard Analysis, there is narrative identifying the specific municipalities or areas of the county that have been affected by hazards, the extent of impact and the probability of future occurrence in Anoka County. The table below summarizes each jurisdiction’s specific vulnerability to each identified hazard. ANOKA COUNTY – LIKELIHOOD OF POTENTIAL HAZARD INCIDENT OCCURRING * Very Likely=3 Likely=2 Possible=1 Jurisdiction Flooding Pandemic Thunderstorm Tornado Winter storm Wildfires Hazmat Meth Lab Terrorism Urban Fire Anoka County 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 Andover 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 Anoka 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 Bethel 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 Blaine 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 City of Nowthen 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 Centerville 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 Circle Pines 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 Columbia Heights 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 City of Columbus 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 Coon Rapids 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 East Bethel 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 Fridley 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 Ham Lake 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 Hilltop 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 Lexington 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 Lino Lakes 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 Linwood Township 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 Oak Grove 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 Ramsey 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 St. Francis 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 Spring Lake Park 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 Totals 32 22 66 44 66 50 66 43 22 55 * Likelihood of occurrence in any single year. Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. FMA FEMA 299 Guidance: The Plan should be coordinated with, and ideally developed in cooperation with, all of the local jurisdictions within the geographical area A. Does the plan include a risk assessment for each participating jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique or varied risks? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 116 In addition to differing levels of vulnerability to identified hazards; individual municipalities can also suffer significant differences in losses resulting from the impact and extent of a disaster. Generally these losses are a direct result of population density, commercial development, or housing density/ value. Within the discussion of each hazard in Section 4.3 Hazard Analysis, The narrative identifies those municipalities and specific areas of the county that have increased vulnerability and impact to that hazard and notes the factors contributing to an increased impact or vulnerability. The table below depicts the differing aspects of losses by jurisdiction. ANOKA COUNTY – IMPACT OF POTENTIAL HAZARD INCIDENT * High=3 Medium=2 Low=1 Jurisdiction Flooding Pandemic Thunder- storm Tornado Winter storm Wildfires Hazmat Meth Lab Terrorism Urban Fire Anoka County 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 Andover 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 Anoka 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 Bethel 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Blaine 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 City of Nowthen 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Centerville 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 Circle Pines 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 Columbia Heights 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 City of Columbus 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Coon Rapids 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 East Bethel 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Fridley 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 Ham Lake 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Hilltop 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 Lexington 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 Lino Lakes 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 Linwood Township 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Oak Grove 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Ramsey 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 St. Francis 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 Spring Lake Park 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 Totals 26 66 22 44 22 36 44 22 66 36 3 = High – Significant and lasting destructive effect on lives or property 2 = Medium – Moderate destructive effect on lives or property; recovery is moderately expensive and/or takes longer to accomplish 1 = Low - Lower magnitude of destructive effect on lives or property; recovery can typically be accomplished in a reasonable period of time. Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. FMA Requirement §78.5(b): Description of the existing flood hazard and identification of the flood risk, and the extent of flood depth and damage potential B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 117 4.4.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure According to HSEM, critical facilities and infrastructure are those systems “whose incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defense or economic security of that community.” These systems include the following eight general categories: telecommunications infrastructure; electrical power systems; gas and oil facilities; banking and finance institutions; transportation networks; water supply systems; government services; and emergency services. Anoka County does not maintain an active database for critical facilities and infrastructure, although it has begun to build one through its development of GIS capabilities. All participating municipalities provided the critical facilities and or assets within their communities. Anoka County Emergency management then combined the local jurisdiction information with the county information to identify all critical assets and structures. This information was provided to the County’s Information Technology Department which generated the value information from tax records and other sources. The content value was estimated using the following average percentages. The structure value was used as the basis. Residential=20% Agriculture=30% Government=40% Commercial/Industrial=50% For security purposes the detailed tables are located in Appendix B and contain the asset name or description, the type of facility/asset, time open, capacity, square footage, structure and content value. In addition the following information is provided. In Hazard defines whether the facility is within a hazard such as a Flood Plain, within a 3-mile radius of a major chemical facility, in the path of Dam Waters, within a 5-mile radius of a nuclear facility, etc. Economic Asset defines whether the asset or facility produces significant revenue for the jurisdiction or the loss of the facility would have a significant negative economic impact on the jurisdiction. Historic Asset defines whether or not the asset or its contents is of significant historic value to the jurisdiction. Construction defines the material the facility is constructed of: B=Block or Brick, C=Concrete, M=Metal and W=Wood. Only the predominant material is listed. Emergency Generator identifies if the facility has alternate stand-a-lone power capability. The table below is a summary table that is extracted from the detailed tables in Appendix B and specifically lists the number of potentially at-risk buildings or facilities type, based on the GIS Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area FMA Requirement §78.5(b): Description of the existing flood hazard and identification of the flood risk, including estimates of the number and type of structures at risk, repetitive loss properties. A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings (including repetitive loss structures), infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 118 analysis of Anoka County’s critical facilities database in combination with the databases of hazardous material facilities and Federal and state-owned facilities as provided. ANOKA COUNTY AND PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS CRITICAL FACILITY SUMMARY Jurisdiction Number of Critical Facilities Critical Facilities Total Sq. Footage Total Structure Value Total Content Value Anoka County 33 1,218,567 141,462,381 74,110,957 Andover 44 889,600 138,310,000 55,204,120 Anoka 29 4,091,172 165,723,200 66,289,280 Bethel 4 475,000 950,000 380,000 Blaine 41 4,919,582 563,200,000 241,825,000 Burns 4 67,025 1,571,570 750,000 Centerville 4 73,000 11,500,000 4,600,000 Circle Pines 13 319,635 19,578,689 7,831,475 Columbia Heights 15 611,542 111,812,452 44,724,981 City of Columbus 9 251,069 12,866,646 6,322,314 Coon Rapids 102 5,404, 179 462,169,166 138,358,068 East Bethel 7 228,997 20,474,300 10,302,720 Fridley 32 4,702,725 221,589,091 102,166,296 Ham Lake 13 360,013 50,982,680 26,554,754 Hilltop 5 362,280 22,244,000 8,897,600 Lexington 10 416,779 8,662,500 3,830,000 Lino Lakes 34 112,1733 110,347,642 42,339,059 Linwood 3 112,1733 110,347,642 42,339,059 Oak Grove 7 119,454 15,496,250 9,016,370 Ramsey 21 901,901 55,983,480 25,315,262 Spring Lake Park 14 586,917 68,156,182 28,196,383 St Francis 21 1,971,390 80,407,300 35,099,223 Totals 465 11,899,505 2,393,835,171 974,452,921 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 119 4.4.2.1 Repetitive Flooding Analysis In order for local jurisdictions to qualify for hazard mitigation assistance through the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), local hazard mitigation plans must include documentation in its mitigation strategy that continued enforcement of applicable flood plain management standards is parts of its strategy to reduce flood losses. In addition, a local mitigation plan must include a section in its risk assessment that describes the source of repetitive flooding problems and identifies the number and type (residential, commercial or governmental) of repetitive loss properties in the jurisdiction. This should include the extent of flood depth and damage potential. REPETITIVE FLOODING STRUCTURES Number of Structure Structure Type Residential Commercial Government Critical etc. Structure and Content Loss Response and Recovery Costs Flood Type Storm Water Out Of Banks Low Lying Maintenance Flood Location Number of events Flood Depth-ft Damage Potential-H,M,L 12 Fridley 7,077,762 50,000 Out of Banks Riverview Terrace Residential 4 842 H 12 Coon Rapids 0 5,000 Out of Banks 8200 block of Mississippi Blvd Residential 3 842 M 6 Coon Rapids 0 5,000 Out of Banks 114th & Zea Street Residential 3 838 M 7 Andover 0 32,412 Out of Banks 153rd &7th Avenue Residential 3 844 L 44 Anoka 800,000 25,000 Out of Banks River Avenue Residential 7 842 H 23 Ramsey 0 15,000 Out of Banks Bowers Drive Residential 3 842 M There are currently no plans for mitigation actions for the properties in the city of Coon Rapids. The locations are watched and communication is maintained with the property owners during times that the Mississippi River is elevated. Fridley is examining the possibility of adding a trail between the Riverview Terrance Apartments and the river to create a public walkway near the Mississippi River and also to act as a base in the event that a temporary levee may need to be constructed to prevent flooding. The properties owners in the City of Anoka are aware of the possibility of flooding by the Mississippi River and currently do not have any plans for mitigation action. The residents and City track the water levels and maintain communications with the residents during times that the Mississippi River is elevated. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 120 4.4.2.2 Future Structure Vulnerability In Anoka County only the hazard flooding has an identified geographic location and is defined by 100 and 500 year floodplain maps. The hazard narratives in the hazard analysis section 4.2, describe the vulnerability of current structures in existing flood hazards in terms of impact, extent and future occurrences of flooding. The table below identifies potential new structures that may be constructed in the flood plain area and the vulnerability of those structures to future flooding events within specific municipalities and Anoka County. FUTURE FLOODING STRUCTURE ANALYSIS Number of Structure Structure Type Residential Commercial Government Critical etc. Structure and Content Loss Response and Recovery Costs Flood Type Storm Water Out Of Banks Low Lying Maintenance Flood Location Number of events Flood Depth-ft Damage Potential-H,M,L 12 Commercial Future Development Low Lying Hanson Blvd / Northdale Blvd, Coon Rapids ? L All the above structures will be elevated above the flood elevation and a LOMR will be needed to have the structure area removed from floodplain. Any time de velopment occurs near a floodplain, the cities ensure that the structures are at least two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Structures proposed to be built in floodplain areas must go through the LOMR process with FEMA, so that they can be removed from floodplain status. The cities will not allow a structure to be built in a floodplain where it could be flooded. Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. FMA Requirement §78.5(b): Description of the existing flood hazard and identification of the flood risk, including estimates of the number and type of structures at risk, repetitive loss properties. B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 121 4.4.3 Asset Inventory by Hazard The vulnerability of each of these facilities was partially assessed using GIS analysis by comparing their physical location with the extent of known hazard areas that can be spatially defined through GIS technology. For Anoka County, this is flooding (500-year flood zones). For this vulnerability assessment, the rest of the defined hazard areas are not deemed unique enough to make definitive vulnerability assessments for potentially at-risk buildings or facilities that differentiate them from other areas of Anoka County. The following four hazards were selected to provide an estimate and expectation of th e impact of these hazards on Anoka County and the participating municipalities. Although these are specific geographic locations for a hazardous materials event, tornado or terrorism incident, these hazards and the impact location were arbitrarily selected to demonstrate the possible impact of such an event on a municipality and Anoka County. ANOKA COUNTY/MUNICIPALITY DISASTER ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Hazard Event Hazard Description Estimated Fatalities Estimated Injuries Damaged Assets Estimated Structure, Asset, Contents Damage Cost Estimated Response Recovery Wages Income Loss/Cost Source FEMA State Local etc. Flooding Countywide 500-year flood 0 1 23 2,182,680 110,000 Local Hazmat Large Chemical Facility - 3 mile radius 5 50 153 24,821,884 1,240,000 Local Terrorism High rated terrorist target- 1 square block 45 500 19 85,553,844 4,278,000 Local Tornado Typical municipality- 500yds wide, 2 miles long 1 12 97 31,044,230 1,552,000 Local Incident population and structure/asset information is collected using a GIS system and information from the county property tax assessor. Current and future population and structures are identified and variances calculated within a defined hazard area. For flooding which has an identified geographic location (500 year f lood plan maps), future structure vulnerability is also identified. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 122 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard Hazmat Hazard – 3 mile radius In Hazard Current In Jurisdiction Current % In Hazard (10yr) In Jurisdiction Projected % Proj. Population 56,974 120,030 47.46 59,800 126,000 47.46 Structure Type Residential 15,024 40,974 36.67 15,250 43,000 35.46 Agriculture 11 25 44.00 11 25 44.00 Commercial/Ind 602 845 71.24 602 860 70.00 Government 6 21 28.57 6 21 28.57 Total 15,642 41,865 37.36 15,869 43,906 36.14 Structure Value Residential 2,344,827,800 7,424,372,500 31.58 2,450,000,000 7,800,000,000 31.41 Agriculture 2,190,110 8,760,440 25.00 2,190,110 8,760,440 25.00 Commercial/Ind 368,649,800 474,673,482 77.66 400,000,000 525,000,000 76.19 Government 15,355,600 26,324,105 58.33 15,355,600 26,324,105 58.33 Total 2,731,023,310 7,934,130,527 34.42 2,867,545,710 8,360,084,545 34.30 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard Hazmat Hazard – 3 mile radius Qty Facility or Asset Name or Description and Address Admin Offices Communication Utilities Education Type Emergency Svcs. Law Enforcement Medical Type Financial Svcs. Transportation Capacity Critical Asset Economic Asset Historic Asset Vulnerable Population Construction B,C,M,W Special Considerations Square Feet Asset or Structure and Content Value 15,024 Residential Residential 56,974 Y N N Y W Y 16,732,000 2,813,793,360 11 Agriculture Agriculture 0 N N N N W Y 14,102 2,190,100 602 Commercial/Ind Commercial/Ind 9030 Y Y N N B Y 12,172,586 589,839,680 6 Government Admin Offices Correctional 2210 Y Y N N B Y 732,663 120,291,215 1 Sandburg School Education-Middle 979 Y N Y Y B Y 96,099 5,945,800 1 Fred Moore School Education-Junior 1014 Y N N Y B Y 201,393 17,288,600 1 Franklin School Education-Elem 345 Y N N Y B Y 45,811 3,003,000 1 AMRTC Medical-State Hospital 394 Y Y N Y B Y 300,000 65,800,000 1 Wilson School Education-Elem 553 Y N N Y B Y 52,198 4,018,000 1 St. Stephens School Education-Private 450 Y N N Y B Y 60,000 12,040,000 1 Mercy Hospital Medical 2400 Y Y N Y B Y 490,000 219,802,824 1 Mercy Healthcare Medical 1625 Y Y N Y B Y 88,623 17,927,520 1 U.S. Post Office Government 100 Y Y N N B Y 26,475 2,042,600 1 Hoffman Engineering Major Industrial Employer 3000 Y Y N N C Y 646,199 5,846,680 79,074 31,658,149 3,879,829,379 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 123 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard 500 year flood In Hazard Current In Jurisdiction Current % In Hazard (10yr) In Jurisdiction Projected % Proj. Population 100 18,476 .54 100 23,000 .50 Structure Type Residential 23 5971 .39 23 6500 .35 Agriculture 0 35 0 0 35 0 Commercial/Ind 0 400 0 0 700 0 Government 0 4 0 0 4 0 Total 23 6410 .34 23 7239 .31 Structure Value Residential 3,637,800 856,838,500 .42 3,637,800 932,750,000 .39 Agriculture 0 4,200,000 0 0 4 0 Commercial/Ind 0 329,000,000 0 0 575,750,000 0 Government 0 1,883,080 0 0 1,883,080 0 Total 3,637,800 1,191,921,580 .30 3,637,800 1,510,383,084 .24 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard 500 year flood Qty Facility or Asset Name or Description and Address Admin Offices Communication Utilities Education Type Emergency Svcs. Law Enforcement Medical Type Financial Svcs. Transportation Capacity Critical Asset Economic Asset Historic Asset Vulnerable Population Construction B,C,M,W Special Considerations Square Feet Asset or Structure and Content Value 23 Residences Residential 100 N N N N W N 35,577 4,365,360 Total 35,577 4,365,360 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 124 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard Terrorism – 1 block radius In Hazard Current In Jurisdiction Current % In Hazard (10yr) In Jurisdiction Projected % Proj. Population 4631 61,607 7.51 5,000 65,000 7.69 Structure Type Residential 75 19,400 .38 75 20,400 .36 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Ind 9 900 .01 12 1,495 .80 Government 0 100 0 0 105 0 Total 84 20,400 0.39 87 22,000 1.16 Structure Value Residential 19,250,000 4,387,500,000 .43 24,062,500 6,581,250,000 .36 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Ind 154,178,715 877,500,000 17.57 267,268,073 1,316,250,000 20.30 Government 0 585,000,000 0 0 877,500,000 0 Total 173,428,715 5,850,000,000 18 291,330,573 8,775,000,000 20.66 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard Terrorism – 1 block radius Qty Facility or Asset Name or Description and Address Admin Offices Communication Utilities Education Type Emergency Svcs. Law Enforcement Medical Type Financial Svcs. Transportation Capacity Critical Asset Economic Asset Historic Asset Vulnerable Population Construction B,C,M,W Special Considerations Square Feet Asset or Structure and Content Value 1 Mercy Hospital Medical 2400 Y Y N Y B Y 490,000 219,802,824 1 Mercy Healthcare Medical 1625 Y Y N Y B Y 88,623 17,927,520 2 ECM Printing Commercial 100 N Y N N B N 45,400 7,372,080 2 North Star Glass Commercial 10 N Y N N B N 8,896 407,760 1 Peterson Pinney Commercial 10 N Y N N B N 15,100 751,440 1 Jerry’s Schwinn Commercial 10 N Y N N W N 5,986 424,320 1 Loftus Apartments Apartments 30 N N N Y B Y 24,074 1,974,960 2 Eldorado Apartments Apartments 66 N N N N B N 37,728 3,611,040 2 Dakota Apartments Apartments 30 N N N N B N 24,696 1,402,200 70 Residences Residential 350 N N N Y W N 117,003 16,111,800 Total 4631 857,506 269,785,944 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 125 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard Tornado In Hazard Current In Jurisdiction Current % In Hazard (10yr) In Jurisdiction Projected % Proj. Population 2800 26030 9.29 2868 29,000 9.88 Structure Type Residential 458 8205 5.58 475 9000 5.27 Agriculture 0 35 0 0 35 0 Commercial/Ind 0 300 0 0 330 0 Government 5 10 50 5 10 50 Total 463 8550 5.41 480 9375 5.12 Structure Value Residential 78,891,100 1,299,672,000 6.07 81,900,000 1,425,000,000 5.74 Agriculture 0 4,200,000 0 0 4,200,000 0 Commercial/Ind 0 247,000,000 0 0 275,000,000 0 Government 19,096,100 33,328,674 57.29 19,096,100 39,900,000 47.85 Total 97,987,200 1,584,200,674 6.18 100,996,100 1,744,100,000 5.79 ASSET INVENTORY SUMMARY-BY HAZARD Hazard Tornado Qty Facility or Asset Name or Description and Address Admin Offices Communication Utilities Education Type Emergency Svcs. Law Enforcement Medical Type Financial Svcs. Transportation Capacity Critical Asset Economic Asset Historic Asset Vulnerable Population Construction B,C,M,W Special Considerations Square Feet Asset or Structure and Content Value 458 Residences Residential 2800 N N N N W N 552,445 95,869,320 1 Andover Elementary Elementary 2000 Y Y N Y B Y 76,013 9,695,000 1 Andover City Hall Admin Offices 250 Y Y N N B N 19,441 1,860,320 1 Andover Public Works Utilities 100 Y Y N N B N 130,692 564,060 1 Andover Water Treatment Plant Utilities 50 Y Y N N B N 13,124 2,615,340 1 Andover Fire Station Fire/Rescue 50 Y Y N N B N 21,298 11,999,820 Total 5250 813,013 122,603,860 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 127 4.4.4 Hazard Loss Calculations To complete the loss estimation, the level of damage must be assessed, both as a percentage of the asset structural and content replacement value, and as a function. To illustrate, a library in a flood hazard could suffer 40% damage. The potential loss is calculated by multiplying the value of the structure, the contents, and the use by 40%. To determine the loss to the structure in a particular hazard event, multiply the structure replacement value by the expected percent damage. For example, if the library’s structure replacement value equals $100,000 and the expected damage from a 100-year flood is 40 percent of the structure, then the loss to this structure from a flood is $40,000. To determine the losses to the contents from a particular hazard event, multiply the replacement value of the contents by the expected percent damage. For example, if the library’s content replacement value equals $225,000 and the expected damage from a 100-year flood is 10 percent of the contents, then the losses to these contents from a flood is $22,500. To determine the cost of the loss of function for the period that the business or service was unable to operate due to the hazard event, Estimate the losses to structure use and function by determining functional downtime, or the time (in days) that the function would be disrupted from a hazard event. Then estimate the daily cost of the functional downtime. Divide the average annual budget or sales by 365 to determine the average daily operating budget or sales. Multiply the average daily operating budget or sales by the functional downtime to determine the cost of the loss of function for the period that the business or service was unable to operate due to the hazard event. For example, if an ice cream shop had daily sales of $2,500 during the summertime and was forced to close for two weeks because of damages from a hazard event, the function loss would be $35,000 ($2,500 x 14 days). For a public facility, such as a library with an annual budget of $600,000 and an average daily budget of $1,644 ($600,000 / 365), the loss estimate for a seven-day closure would be $11,508. To determine the cost of the displacement from the regular place of business, determine the time (in days) that a function may need to operate from a temporary location due to a hazard event and multiply by the temporary location cost per day. Multi-hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 128 For example, if the library was closed for 7 days (loss of function) and then resumed operations from an empty trailer rented for $10 per day for the next 90 days, the displacement cost would be $900 (90 days x $10 per day). For residences the cost of displacement would be the cost of alternate facilities and the average time of residential construction in Anoka County. If content value is unknown the following uplift factors can be applied to the structure value: Residences – 20% Agriculture – 30% Government – 40% Commercial – 60% Cubic yards calculations are based on the structures square feet and the estimated damage. Then using appropriate factors to estimate burnable, soil, metal and building demolition debris. Disposal costs per cubic yard and landfill acres costs are provided by local sanitation officials. If square footage is unknown an approximate square footage can be calculated from the structure cost. For example use the typical governmental and commercial construction cost in the county and divide that into the structure cost. If construction cost is $200 per square foot and the structure value is $1,000,000 the approximate square footage is 5,000 square feet. For Residential square footage use the median cost of housing in the county and divide that b y the dollar per square foot building cost across the county. Response, evacuation, recovery and other costs are calculated using a factor times total structure value. The premise is that structure loss is directly related to the impact and extent of the hazard and therefore can be used as a basis for costs estimates. Wages lost are a direct calculation of displaced days, structure capacity or workforce and the average daily wage for the jurisdiction Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 129 ANOKA COUNTY STRUCTURE/CONTENT/FUNCTION/USE COST Hazard Hazmat – 3 mile radius Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Content Value % Loss Content Loss Structure Value % Loss Structure and Content Loss 15,024 Residential 468,965,560 1 4,689,655 2,344,827,800 1 23,448,278 11 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 602 Commercial/Ind 826,461,720 0 0 1,377,436,200 0 0 6 Government 34,368,918 0 0 85,922,297 0 0 1 Sandburg School 1,698,800 0 0 4,247,000 0 0 1 Fred Moore School 4,939,600 0 0 12,349,000 0 0 1 Franklin School 858,000 0 0 2,145,000 0 0 1 AMRTC 18,800,000 0 0 47,000,000 0 0 1 Wilson School 1,148,000 0 0 2,870,000 0 0 1 St. Stephens 3,440,000 0 0 8,600,000 0 0 1 Mercy Hospital 84,426,059 0 0 137,376,765 0 0 1 Mercy Healthcare 6,722,820 0 0 11,204,700 0 0 1 U.S. Post Office 583,600 10 58,360 1,459,000 10 204,270 1 Hoffman Engineer. 1,670,480 20 334,096 4,176,200 20 1,169,336 Totals 1,454,083,557 5,082,111 4,039,613,962 24,821,884 Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Avg. Daily Budget Days Down Lost Function Daily Displace Cost Days Disp Function and Use Cost 15,024 Residential 0 45 0 15,000 45 675,000 11 Agriculture 10,000 2 20,000 0 2 20,000 602 Commercial/Ind 14,081 2 28,162 140 2 28,442 6 Government 671,926 2 1,343,852 6,000 2 1,355,852 1 Sandburg School 21,082 2 42,164 2,108 2 46,380 1 Fred Moore School 21,835 2 43,670 2,183 2 48,036 1 Franklin School 7,429 2 14,858 743 2 16,344 1 AMRTC 8,500 2 17,000 850 2 18,700 1 Wilson School 11,908 2 23,816 1,191 2 26,198 1 St. Stephens 9,690 2 19,380 969 2 21,318 1 Mercy Hospital 460,444 2 920,888 2,000 2 924,888 1 Mercy Healthcare 230,222 2 460,444 1,000 2 462,444 1 U.S. Post Office 15,500 5 77,500 1,550 5 85,250 1 Hoffman Engineer. 20,000 20 400,000 4,000 40 560,000 Totals 1,502,617 3,411,734 37,734 4,288,852 Sq. Foot Damage 1,102,462 Total asset/function loss 29,110,736 Burnable Cu. Yards Soil Cu. Yards Metal Cu. Yards Demolition Cu. Yards Total Cu. Yards Disposal Cost/Yd Landfill Acres Cost Total Debris Cost 61,248 244,991 12,250 48,998 367,487 $10.00 500,000 3,867,487 Response Costs Other Costs Recovery Costs Evacuation Costs Wage Days Lost Average Daily Wage Total Wages Lost Disaster Related Loss 1% .5% 1% .5% 291,107 145,554 291,107 145,554 47 151 7,097 880,418 Total Disaster Cost 33,858,641 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 130 ANOKA COUNTY STRUCTURE/CONTENT/FUNCTION/USE COST Hazard 500 year flood Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Content Value % Loss Content Loss Structure Value % Loss Structure and Content Loss 19 Residences 727,560 50 363,780 3,637,800 50 2,182,680 0 Agriculture Structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 727,560 363,780 3,637,800 2,182,680 Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Avg. Daily Budget Days Down Lost Function Daily Displace Cost Days Disp Function and Use Cost 19 Residences 0 45 0 1,900 45 85,500 0 Agriculture Structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 0 45 0 1,900 45 85,500 Sq. Foot Damage 17,788 Total asset/function loss 2,268,180 Burnable Cu. Yards Soil Cu. Yards Metal Cu. Yards Demolition Cu. Yards Total Cu. Yards Disposal Cost/Yd Landfill Acres Cost Total Debris Cost 988 98 198 791 2,075 $10.00 50,000 70,750 Response Costs Other Costs Recovery Costs Evacuation Costs Wage Days Lost Average Daily Wage Total Wages Lost Disaster Related Loss 1% .5% 1% .5% 226,818 113,409 226,818 113,409 45 151 6,795 707,634 Total Disaster Cost 3,046,564 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 131 ANOKA COUNTY STRUCTURE/CONTENT/FUNCTION/USE COST Hazard Terrorism – High Priority Target/1 square block Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Content Value % Loss Content Loss Structure Value % Loss Structure and Content Loss 75 Residences 3,850,000 20 770,000 19,250,000 20 4,620,000 0 Agriculture Structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Commercial/Industry 3,358,350 20 671,670 5,597,250 20 1,791,120 0 Government/Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mercy Hospital 82,426,059 50 41,213,029 137,376,765 25 75,557,220 1 Mercy Healthcare 6,722,820 20 1,344,564 11,204,700 20 3,585,504 Totals 96,357,229 42,557,593 173,428,715 85,553,844 Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Avg. Daily Budget Days Down Lost Function Daily Displace Cost Days Disp Function and Use Cost 75 Residences 0 45 0 7,500 45 337,500 0 Agriculture Structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Commercial/Industry 36,849 20 736,980 150 60 745,980 0 Government/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mercy Hospital 460,444 14 6,446,216 2000 120 6,686,216 1 Mercy Healthcare 230,222 14 3,223,108 1000 120 3,343,108 Totals 727,515 10,406,304 10,650 11,112,804 Sq. Foot Damage 857,506 Total asset/function loss 96,666,648 Burnable Cu. Yards Soil Cu. Yards Metal Cu. Yards Demolition Cu. Yards Total Cu. Yards Disposal Cost/Yd Landfill Acres Cost Total Debris Cost 47,639 4,763 9,528 14,289 76,219 $10.00 100000 862,190 Response Costs Other Costs Recovery Costs Evacuation Costs Wage Days Lost Average Daily Wage Total Wages Lost Disaster Related Loss .5% .25% 1% .25% 483,333 241,666 966,666 241,666 98 151 14,790 1,948,122 Total Disaster Cost 99,476,960 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 132 ANOKA COUNTY STRUCTURE/CONTENT/FUNCTION/USE COST Hazard Tornado Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Content Value % Loss Content Loss Structure Value % Loss Structure and Content Loss 458 Residences 15,978,220 20 3,195,644 79,891,100 30 27,132,974 0 Agriculture Structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Andover Elementary 2,770,000 20 554,000 6,925,000 20 1,939,000 1 Andover City Hall 531,520 20 106,304 1,328,800 20 372,064 1 Andover Public Works 161,160 5 8,058 402,900 10 48,348 1 Andover Fire Station 747,240 20 149,448 1,868,100 20 523,108 1 Andover Water Treatment 3,428,520 5 171,426 8,571,300 10 1,028,736 Totals 23,616,660 4,184,880 98,987,200 31,044,230 Qty Asset/structure Name/Description Avg. Daily Budget Days Down Lost Function Daily Displace Cost Days Disp Function and Use Cost 458 Residences 0 45 0 9,200 45 414,000 0 Agriculture Structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Andover Elementary 29,373 20 587,460 150 90 600,960 1 Andover City Hall 50,144 5 250,720 150 90 264,220 1 Andover Public Works 25,072 2 50,144 0 0 50,144 1 Andover Fire Station 12,536 2 25,072 0 0 25,072 1 Andover Water Treatment 12,536 1 12,536 0 0 12,536 Totals 129,661 925,932 9,500 1,366,932 Sq. Foot Damage 813,013 Total asset/function loss 32,411,162 Burnable Cu. Yards Soil Cu. Yards Metal Cu. Yards Demolition Cu. Yards Total Cu. Yards Disposal Cost/Yd Landfill Acres Cost Total Debris Cost 14,167 5,667 2,834 11,334 34,002 $10.00 75,000 415,020 Response Costs Other Costs Recovery Costs Evacuation Costs Wage Days Lost Average Daily Wage Total Wages Lost Disaster Related Loss 2 1% 2% .5% 648,223 324,111 648,223 162056 90 151 13,590 1,796,203 Total Disaster Cost 34,622,385 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 133 4.4.5 Tier II Hazardous Materials Assessment On October 17, 1986, in response to a growing concern for safety around chemical facilities, Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Act has a far-reaching influence on hazardous materials issues. EPCRA contains five sections covering issues associated with the manufacture, use, exposure, transportation, and public education of hazardous materials. It is the mission of the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) to implement EPCRA in the State of Minnesota and mitigate the effects of a release or spill of hazardous materials. The State Emergency Response Commission is responsible for implementing federal EPCRA provisions in Minnesota and serving as a technical advisor and information clearinghouse for state and federal hazardous materials programs. The Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management is the lead agency responsible for implementing EPCRA and provides administrative functions and support to the SERC. The Commission conducts quarterly public meetings in varying locations throughout the state. Currently, SERC membership is comprised of Governor-appointed individuals who represent the interests of state and local government, emergency services, industry, and the environment. 4.4.6 Terrorism Vulnerability Hostile attack is the most threatening manmade hazard that could affect Anoka County. There is no history of hostile attacks; however, the potential exists. The most dangerous variants of terrorism - nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks could affect Anoka County. The probability is relatively low. At present, the most likely form of nuclear, biological, or chemical terrorism may be a threat or hoax of a chemical device or sabotage. With the mobility of the world’s population and the possibility of a terrorist attack, it is possible to have a major disease outbreak or nerve gas release anywhere in the US, including Anoka County. It is impossible to assess Anoka County’s vulnerability to international terrorism. Although extremist groups exist within the state, it is unlikely that any terrorist act perpetrated by these groups would be disastrous statewide. Authorities on terrorism generally agree that terrorism cannot be wiped out entirely. For the present, it is a problem to be managed, not solved. Efforts to manage political terrorism in Anoka County should include: Gathering intelligence on terrorist operations, members and their ideology. Pooling intelligence and information with knowledgeable sources. Physically protecting suspected targets. Promoting public awareness. Controlling arms and explosives. Improving screening of applicants for jobs requiring use of arms and explosives. Preparing contingency plans for different kinds of terrorist acts. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 134 4.4.7 Land Use and Development Trends ANOKA COUNTY Geographic location and characteristics - Anoka County is one of the seven metropolitan counties that make up the Twin Cities. It is situated in the northwestern portion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Anoka County is located in the eastern part of the State of Minnesota, roughly midway between the state’s northern and southern boundary. It is bounded on the north by Isanti County, on the east by Chisago and Washington Counties, on the south by Ramsey County, on the south and west by Hennepin County, and on the west by Sherburne County. The Mississippi River forms the southwestern boundary between Anoka County and Hennepin County. Anoka County lies on both sides of the Rum River, which enters the county approximately 20 miles north of its confluence with the Mississippi River in the City of Anoka. The Rum River enters Anoka County in the City of St, Francis and flows south through the Cities of Oak Grove, Ramsey, Andover, and finally Anoka. Anoka County has a total surface area of 430 square miles. This includes approximately 320 square miles of land surface, 90 square miles of wetland surface, and 20 square miles of lakes and streams surface. The southern portion of the county is mostly urbanized and the northern portion of the county is rural in nature. During the past several decades Anoka County has been one of the fastest developing counties in Minnesota. Residential, commercial, and industrial development is continuing with the most activity concentrated in the central portion of the county. Public lands - Anoka County has thousands of acres of public land set aside for all types of activities. There are 11 large State of Minnesota wildlife management areas and land trusts sites in Anoka County. There is numerous smaller land trust and research sites scattered throughout the northern half of the county. The largest of the wildlife management areas is Carlos Avery covering 26,000 acres located in the City of Columbus and Linwood Township. Carlos Avery is a unique natural resource. It is the largest wildlife management area in close proximity to a major metropolitan city. The second largest is Cedar Creek Natural History Area covering 3,000 acres in the City of East Bethel, with an addit ional 500 acres in Isanti County. The third largest management area is the Bethel Wildlife Management Area covering 160 acres located in the City of St. Francis. Anoka County also has a number of major regional facilities. One is the Blaine Anoka County Regional Airport - Janes Field the largest of the reliever airports in the Metropolitan Airports Commission system. Another is the National Sports Center. Both of these facilities are located in the City of Blaine. The Blaine Anoka County Regional Airport is both a recreational asset and a commercial/industrial asset. The National Sports Center is a unique recreational venue. The Center is a nationally recognized facility that supports multiple sporting activities including soccer, hockey, figure skating, cycling, and track and field. As one of the largest amateur sports facilities in the world, the National Sports Center hosts upwards of three million visitors each year for events such as the USA Cup. Within Anoka County there are hundreds of other locations that provide recreational opportunities to residents. There are over 55 major community parks in the cities and townships of Anoka County. Many of the cities in Anoka County support both organized team activities as well as individual and personal types of activities at municipal parks and recreational complexes. Local public and Multi hazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. A. Does the plan describe land uses and development trends? Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 135 private schools also have parks and recreational equipment available to residents year round. In 1963 Anoka County established the Anoka County Park s and Recreation system. There are currently over 9000 acres of parkland and 20 parks in this system. These include major regional parks, county parks, and regional trails. The Anoka County Parks are located throughout the county. Many have access to water and offer water related activities. The list of activities offered at the county parks include: archery, biking, boating, canoeing, camping, fishing, golfing, hiking, horseback riding, picnicking, playgrounds, swimming, water park activities, and cross country skiing. Some county and municipal parks offer educational and informational programs and offer facilities for public meetings and family gatherings. Anoka County has two major higher education institutions. Both are members of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. Anoka Ramsey Community College is a multi-campus institution that first opened in 1965 in a wing of Centennial High School in the City of Circle Pines. In 1967 the college moved to its current 103 acre Coon Rapids Campus along the banks of the Mississippi River in the City of Coon Rapids. In 1978 the College opened its Cambridge Campus in the City of Cambridge in Isanti County. Classes are offered at both campuses as well as at off site locations in the area. The college serves over 9,000 traditional and non- traditional students annually. Anoka Technical College has three campuses and serves over 4,000 students each year. The main campus and the horticulture campus are located in the City of Anoka. The aviation campus is located at the Blaine Anoka County Regional Airport in the City of Blaine. Anoka County has two private hospitals owned and operated by Allina Health Systems that serve the needs of the general public. Mercy Hospital in the City of Coon Rapids and Unity Hospital in the City of Fridley are part of the not for profit Allina Hospitals and Clinic system. The hospitals operate as one business unit from two campuses, one in Coon Rapids and one in Fridley. The hospitals have more than 3,300 employees, 782 affiliated physicians, and 800 youth and adult volunteers. They serve over 225,000 households in the northern metro area. Numerous local clinics and health care facilities also provide for the health care needs of Anoka County residents. Anoka County has 13 golf courses, of which three are publicly owned and operated by local units of government. Chomonix Golf Course in the City of Lino Lakes belongs to Anoka County. Greenhaven Country Club is located in and belongs to the City of Anoka. Bunker Hills Golf Course is located in and belongs to the City of Coon Rapids. The other 10 courses are owned and operated by the private sector and are open to the general public or to members only. Private tee areas - The other major private fee areas in Anoka County are the 10 privately owned and operated golf courses. The courses either serve the general public or are for members only. The courses and there locations are listed here: The Ponds Golf Course St Francis Hidden Haven Golf Course East Bethel Viking Meadows Golf Course East Bethel The Refuge Golf Course Oak Grove The Links Golf Course Ramsey Rum River Hills Golf Course Ramsey Woodland Creek Golf Course Andover Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 136 Majestic Oaks Country Club Ham Lake Tournament Players Club Blaine Kate Haven Golf Course Blaine Agriculture and Forestry - The southern third of Anoka County is fully developed with residential, commercial, and industrial development and has been for many years. This area and the southern most communities are involved in ongoing redevelopment activities. There is almost no agricultural activity in the lower third of the county. The center third of Anoka County has experienced rapid growth and development over the last 15 years. This area has changed from predominately agricultural and wetland to urban and suburban in nature. Large residential, commercial, and industrial developments have occurred in all the communities in the center third of Anoka County. This urbanization process is likely to continue as long as the local economy remains strong. Policies of the Metropolitan Council, a regional planning agency established by the State of Minnesota, guide local and regional planning and development efforts, through the establishment of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (sanitary sewer service.) These policies greatly influence the location and timing of development in the portions of Anoka County where the Urban Service Area is expanding, which is the center third of the county. The northern third of Anoka County is still rural or semi-rural in nature and has a substantial amount of agricultural activity. However, the communities here are also growing and experiencing residential, commercial, and some industrial development. The residential growth is on larger suburban lots several acres in size or in townhouse type developments clustered around amenities such as a golf course or a water feature. The commercial services that are expanding are those that generally follow residential development. These new developments in the northern third of Anoka County usually result in a corresponding loss of agricultural or forested land, and some impact on wetlands. There is no major forest products industrial activity in Anoka County. There is a small amount of wood harvesting activity from farm or suburban wood lots, especially in the northern and central thirds of the county. Forest activity in the very urbanized southern third of Anoka County would be the result of local communities or property owners “caring for” the urban forest. Commercial and Industrial development and trends - The southern third of Anoka County currently has the largest concentration of commercial and industrial development. This type of development is now moving into the central third of the county. Commercial and industrial development is occurring along the three major transportation corridors that exist in Anoka County, Interstate 35W, Highway 10, and Highway 65. Anoka County is the home of several large corporate entities, including Medtronic World Headquarters, Aveda, BAE Systems, Hoffman Engineering, Onan, and Federal Cartridge. The largest commercial growth segment has been in the area of retail. Commercial and retail development has followed the increase in residential development and population in the central portion of the county. The City of Blaine is considering a major master plan development known as The Preserve at Rice Creek. This development will be a master planned community covering 740 acres plus the restoration of 250 acres of wetland. The anchor of the plan was to be the Minnesota Sports and Entertainment Center, which would have included a professional football stadium to be developed in partnership with Anoka County, the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Vikings, and private development interests. The plan included the stadium, team offices, training facilities, a health - wellness component, hotel, commercial and retail space, and a residential community. The northern third of Anoka County has experienced commercial development that is supported by residential development. There has been very limited industrial development so far in the northern third of the county, but it is expected to increase because land costs are significantly less than in the central or southern portions of the county. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 137 Residential Development and Trends - Anoka County has been, and will continue to be in the near future, one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Minnesota. The communities in the southern third of the county are fully developed and are engaged primarily in redevelopment efforts. These redevelopment efforts involve residential, commercial, and industrial property. Original or older residential structures are or will be refurbished and brought up to modern standards. Some commercial and industrial uses are changing to residential use. In the central portion of the county, local communities are engaged in both redevelopment as well as first time residential development. However, the development that is occurring now is not just single family residential. More lifestyle type developments that offer a multitude of living arrangements and options are being built. These include town homes, patio homes, senior housing, as well as multi-family housing. In the northern third of the county the development is still dominated by single family housing units on large multi acre lots, however town homes and/or patio homes are being built around amenities such a water features or golf courses. The northern part of Anoka County is expected to experience significant residential development in the coming years. Infrastructure and Infrastructure projects - Anoka County is planning a number of major capitol improvement projects that will have positive long-term benefits for the State of Minnesota, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, Anoka County, and the local communities in Anoka County. Another major initiative in Anoka County that will have statewide, metropolitan-wide, and countywide significance is the North Star Commuter Rail Project. Anoka County is partnering with the State of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council, and other counties and local communities. Commuter rail service runs along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks from Minneapolis through Anoka County and initially terminates at the City of Big Lake in Sherburne County. The long-term goal is to eventually extend service to St. Cloud in Benton and Stearns County. This is a $289 million dollar project that has been in planning and development since 1997. The project will help relieve traffic congestion along the Highway 10 and Interstate 94 travel corridors ANDOVER Geographic location and characteristics: Andover is located in west-central Anoka County, approximately 20 miles north of downtown Minneapolis. Andover is located at Latitude 45.23N, Longitude 93.36W. The city shares borders with Oak Grove to the north, Ham Lake to the East, Coon Rapids and Anoka to the south, and Ramsey to the west. The Rum River marks the western boundary of the City. The City of Andover encompasses a total of 34.1 square miles. Public lands: There is approximately 525 acres of city owned parkland in Andover. The larger parks include Kelsey Round Lake Park (136 acres), Sunshine Park (39 acres), Prairie Knoll Park (19.5 acres), and Fox Meadows Park (12.75 acres). Additionally, Bunker Hills Park, which is owned and operated by Anoka County, encompasses over 400 acres. Nearly 190 acres within the city are owned by school districts. The City Hall and Public Works complex covers over 55 acres. Agriculture and forestry: Nearly 3011 acres of property in Andover are classified as “Agricultural” by the Anoka County Assessors Office. The city is home to a number of sod farms and traditional farms, as well as a turkey feedlot. There are no publicly managed forests in the City of Andover. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 138 Commercial and industrial development and trends: Commercial and industrial development in Andover is focused around the two major arterial roadways that serve the city: County Road 116 (Bunker Lake Boulevard) and County Road 78 (Hanson Boulevard). The city is currently marketing land that is owned by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) in an area known as “Andover Station North.” The site, nearly 120 acres in total, was formally home to an automobile salvage and crushing yard. The City, with the assistance of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has cleaned the site, and is now mark eting it for a wide range of uses, including town homes, commercial, and light industrial. Commercial development in the city tends to focus on the retail and service industries. Residential development and trends: Andover has been one of the fastest growing cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area during the last 20 years. While the city’s population was 15,216 in 1990, it now exceeds 31,000. The Metropolitan Council has projected a population of 42,000 in Andover by 2020 and 44,600 by 2030. Andover has added an average of 63 new housing units per year over the last 5 years. This rate of growth is expected to increase in the coming years as municipal services are extended to the “Rural Reserve” area, which will open nearly 1,000 acres to urban development. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: The City of Andover’s water treatment plant went online in October of 2004. It is capable of treating up to 9 million gallons per day. As of 2004, there was a total of 191.94 miles of City, County, and State Aid roads in the city. Additional city and county road improvements will be necessary to accommodate the development of the Rural Reserve. A new trunk sanitary sewer line will be constructed to provide service to the Rural Reserve, and a second water treatment plant may be needed to serve the area as well. ANOKA Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Anoka is located in western Anoka County, approximately 25 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Anoka shares its borders with Ramsey, Andover, Coon Rapids, and Champlin. On its southern border are the Mississippi River and the Rum River runs through the center of the City. The City of Anoka is 7.13 square miles in size. Anoka is located at Latitude 45.21N, Longitude 93.39W. Public lands: 30% of the City of Anoka is in public land. These areas include land owned by the State of Minnesota (Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center and Highway Department), the County of Anoka (Anoka County Courthouse, Correctional Facility, and Fairgrounds). Within the city, the areas include churches, schools, city offices, public works facilities, public safety center, parks department, an ice arena, the aquatic center, a city-owned golf course, 13 parks, and 7 trail/corridors through the city. Private fee areas: There are no private fee areas in the City of Anoka. Agriculture and forestry: Approximately 265 acres in the Rum River Nature area, west of 7th Street and north of County Road 116, is presently agriculture and forestry. While the City of Anoka has an abundance of trees, there are no publicly managed forestlands. Commercial and industrial development and trends: 40,000 – 80,000 square feet will be part of a mixed-use redevelopment (modest retail – office buildings). Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 139 Residential development and trends: In 2006, 40 acres south of the High School on 7th Avenue was developed into residential housing. Another 8-acre parcel on west Garfield Street will be developed in the near future. Beyond this, there will only be redevelopment. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Following are infrastructure projects planned for the future. In regards to transportation, projects included are the conversion of U.S. Highway 10 to a limited access freeway and the improvement and widening of County and State aid roads. There will be a center medium placed on County Road 116 from Highway 47 west of Thurston that is scheduled in spring, summer 2006. Streets and sewer systems will be redone in an orderly fashion through the next 5 years. The North Central Business District is working with the city to build a new parking ramp and build retail businesses and multi-resident housing along the Rum River. As planned is a station and parking for the Northstar Commuter Rail. BETHEL Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Bethel is located in central Anoka County, approximately 36 miles north of Minneapolis/St Paul. Bethel shares its borders with St. Francis and East Bethel. The City of Bethel is .9 square miles in size. The City of Bethe l is located at Latitude 45.40N and Longitude 93.26 W and has an elevation of 930 feet. Public lands: The City has 95 acres of public land within the City. These areas include churches, schools, city offices, public work facilities, and fire station. Within the City, there is 45 acres of Public Park. The City-owned Park is Booster Park (45 acres). Private fee areas: Within the City of Bethel, there are no private fee areas. Agriculture and forestry: The City of Bethel has an abundance of trees, and there is the Bethel Wildlife Management Area, DNR Land 40 Acres in size. Commercial and industrial development and trends: The City of Bethel maintains constant growth. Since 2000, the City has added 13 industrial buildings of commercial/retail space. Residential development and trends: The City has a sustained little growth with a population increase of 2.5% on average of growth per year. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: There are few planned infrastructure projects. For utilities, the City will be attempting to install City Water and extend sewer lines through town to accommodate residential development. BLAINE Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Blaine Minnesota is located in southern Anoka County, 13 miles north of downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ramsey County and the Cities of Shoreview and Mounds View are adjacent to its southern border. Adjacent cities in Anoka County include Lino Lakes to the east, Ham Lake to the north, Coon Rapids to the west and Spring Lake Park to the south. An industrial park is within the corporate limits of the City of Blaine and Ramsey County. The City is 34.12 square miles in size. The City of Blaine is located at Latitude 45.168N and Longitude -93.204W and has an elevation of 900 feet (NGVD 29). Public lands: The City of Blaine has 4622.59 acres of public land, including churches, schools, city offices and facilities, and fire stations. Anoka County owns two large park areas in Blaine: Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 140 Bunker Lake and Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Parks. Bunker Lake Park consists of 120.34 acres and is located in the northwest corner of the City. Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park consists of 60.60 acres and is located in the southeast corner of the City. There are sixty-two city owned parks throughout Blaine. The three largest parks are: Aquatore (66.57 acres), Lochness Park (89.22 acres) and Pioneer Park (100.04 acres). Private fee areas: The City of Blaine has 3 private fee area; the Tournament Players Club of the Twin Cities, Kate Haven Golf Course and Metro Gun Club. Agriculture and forestry: Very little agricultural land exists in Blaine. Currently, there are two parcels (totaling 72.56 acres) zoned Agricultural and they are located north of 125th Avenue and west of Radisson Road. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Of Blaine’s 21,795 acres, 3557.75 acres are zoned for commercial or industrial use. 1,500 of these acres are vacant. Residential development and trends: A little less than half of Blaine’s total acreage is dedicated to single-family development. 9,553 acres are zoned for single-family homes, and only 2,619 acres remain vacant. Similarly, 954 acres are zoned for medium-density residential, with 350 acres remaining vacant. Finally, 342 acres are dedicated to high-density residential development, with 178 acres remaining vacant Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: The City of Blaine has an ongoing, aggressive street pavement management program that includes reconstruction, overlays, seal coats and other minor maintenance. Funding of this work is through general fund budget and property assessments. The City has utility fees in place for sanitary sewer, water supply and storm water and performs routine maintenance of these utilities. The city recently completed a five million dollar rehabilitation project of all of its older sanitary sewer lines. The city currently has 240 miles of City, County, State and Federal roads, 134 miles of sidewalks and trails, 242 miles of sanitary sewer, 281 miles of water main, 17 wells, four water towers, one water reservoir, three water treatment plants, and 151 miles of storm sewer. The City’s sanitary sewers connect to three Metropolitan Council interceptors. CENTERVILLE Geographic location and characteristics: Centerville is located in the eastern part of Anoka County at Latitude 45.16 N and Longitude 93.05 W and an elevation of 899 feet. The city has a total area of 1,597 acres (2.2 square miles.) Located between the shores of Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake. The two lakes are used as a water supply for the city of St. Paul in drought situations. It is a suburb of Minneapolis/St. Paul and is located 20 minutes from St. Paul. Centerville is totally surrounded by the city of Lino Lakes. Public lands: There are two parks located in the city. Private fee areas: There are no private fee areas in the city. Agriculture and forestry: Some agriculture left but mostly developed. Commercial and industrial development and trends: The commercial development is increasing with smaller to medium size businesses. There are no major businesses in Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 141 Centerville; they are mostly small retail shops. They include two liquor establishments of which one service food, a machine shop, auto repair, woodworking, construction, and service type business Residential development and trends: Almost completely built out and should be completely built out in the next 10 years. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: City has sewer in almost all of the developed area and they are working on getting water to all areas. Centerville city proper ties have city sewer and over half of the properties have city water service. CIRCLE PINES Geographic location and characteristics: The city of Circle Pines is located in the southeastern portion of Anoka County, and borders Lino Lakes on the east, Blaine on the north, and Lexington to the west. The city is 15 miles north of Minneapolis / St. Paul. The city is two square miles in size, and is a suburban community. With fields of oaks and elms, the rural appearance can be deceiving – homes and businesses are fairly closely spaced. The City of Circle Pines is located at Latitude 45.13N and Longitude 93.15 W and has an elevation of 889 feet. Public lands: 33% of the land in Circle Pines is public. Private fee areas: 67% of the land in Circle Pines is private Agriculture and forestry: Circle Pines is made up of 33% of wetland/park/public areas. A majority of that is County Park Preserve. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Businesses in Circle Pines are mostly retail and located on the west side of the city near Lake Drive and Lexington Avenue and well in the center of the city along Lake Drive. Circle Pines has just finished a mixed -use building with commercial development. Otherwise the city doesn’t have any more room within the city for more development. Residential development and trends: Circle Pines has just built its last residential development of single family homes (52 in 2006) Circle Pines is developmentally full. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Circle Pines is the only suburban city that operates its own natural-gas distribution company-a result of its cooperative past. The system also services a portion of Lino Lakes and Blaine. No new infrastructure projects are planned. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Columbia Heights is located at the southern tip of Anoka County on the northern border of the City of Minneapolis (Hennepin County). Ramsey County borders on the east, with the City of Fridley bordering on the west. Columbia Heights is 3.4 square miles in size and is a fully developed, urban community that is now seeing areas of redevelopment. The City of Columbia Heights is located at Latitude 45.04 N and Longitude 93.26 W and has an elevation of 922 feet. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 142 Public lands: Columbia Heights has 16 parks of varying sizes and amenities. Anoka County has one park within the City. The City has been upgrading parks and athletic facilities over the past five years and will continue as long as funding is available. The City has three wading pools in its park system though these are older pools that are in need of expensive upgrading. Private fee areas: There are no private fee areas in Columbia Heights. Agriculture and forestry: Columbia Heights is fully developed with no agriculture or forest areas. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Columbia Heights is in the process of redeveloping the commercial areas. Many of the commercial properties are very old and cannot meet the needs of today’s businesses. The City is leading the way by joining with developers to buy up and redevelop properties. The City has in the past 5 years razed approximately 20 acres of the old industrial properties. The soils were contaminated and have been cleaned up through state grants. Approximately 200 of the 300 new residential units planned for this area have been built. Future plans are in place for the redevelopment of the remaining industrial properties. Residential development and trends: Most of the housing stock was built in the early 1900’s and then post WWII. There has been a decline in property maintenance. The City as implemented many programs that include initial code inspections by the Building Official of new rental properties prior to licensing, and revoking certificate of occupancies of vacant and abandoned properties. The City’s property maintenance code was updated to maintain the housing stock. The City has also started a program of buying up properties that are in poor condition and then demolishing them for future replacement. With the redevelopment of many areas of Columbia Heights, approximately 500 residential units will be added. Most of these units will be town homes and condos. The recent downturn in the economy and in the townhome and condo market has slowed this redevelopment down. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: The City has an ongoing 7-8 year schedule for replacement/repair of city streets and alleys. Included with this schedule is the replacement of water, sewer, natural gas, and storm drains. The city is broken into seven zones with one zone being done each year. 2006 is the last year of the initial time through the city. The public Works building was updated and remodeled in 2005. A new Public Safety Building was built in 2009 for the Police and Fire Departments. Public works finished the first phase of a storm water mitigation plan. More plans are being proposed for future storm water mitigation issues. This includes purchasing more residential properties that are prone to f looding. These properties are turned into storm water retention ponds. A City park was remodeled to include a storm water retention pond due to street flooding nearby. The City continues to inspect homes for sump pumps being deposited into sewer systems due to the sewer systems backing up in areas during heavy rains. A plan is in place to assist home owners with the cost of installing a valve on their main sewer lines in their homes to shut off future sewer backups. CITY OF COLUMBUS Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Columbus is located in east central Anoka County in the northerly portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It is characterized by its large open spaces and low-density rural character. The City is located at Latitude 45.26 N and Longitude 93.07 W and has an elevation of 919 feet. Wetlands and surface waters dominate the landscape in Columbus, covering nearly two-thirds of the City. While Columbus is Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 143 a large community (48 sections approx. 30,573 acres) the amount of developable land in the City is much less than surrounding communities. Approximately, 9,300 gross acres and 5,660 net acres of land are used as rural residential, which requires a 5 acre minimum lot size. Public lands: The public/institutional land use category includes the Columbus City Hall, Fire Hall, and Public Works complex on Kettle River Blvd. and Notre Dame Street; public utilities; four churches; the Columbus Elementary School; State “school trust” land; and two Wildlife Management Areas. The gross public/institutional acreage is approximately 11,175 acres or over 36% of the total City acreage. The only City site that is on the National Register of Historic Places is the Carlos Avery Game Farm, located at County Highways 17 and 18. It has been on the Register since 1991. It is the site of buildings built by the WPA in the 1930’s and includes an entrance gate to the site that is built of stone and iron. During that era, it was a national showplace for the rearing of quail. The facilities are now the home of the north metro wildlife office of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the headquarters for the DNR’s Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, and the Wildlife Science Center, a nonprofit group that conducts research on wolves. There are approximately 654 acres of City and County park land in Columbus which provide active and passive recreation opportunities to residents and businesses. The City currently has one community park, three neighborhood parks and three undeveloped, natural areas. The City maintains the major community park adjacent to the City Hall that includes land on either side of Kettle River Boulevard. This facility includes five softball diamonds, two tennis courts, a volleyball court, a football field, a picnic area and shelter, and playground equipment. Anoka County owns and maintains Coon Lake County Park, which includes a swimming beach, boat access, and picnic facilities. Private fee areas: There are few fee areas in Columbus. Agriculture and forestry: Columbus has 2 Century Farms. The Furrer Farm and the Thurnbeck Farm. The Furrer farm became a Century Farm in August 1989. Alfred Bergeron (1857 – 1949) came to Minnesota as a young man of seventeen in 1874 from Quebec, Canada. He bought his first forty acres on the eastern edge of Anoka County in the City of Columbus between Forest Lake and Centerville in 1883. The Thurnbeck farm was settled in 1893 and became a Century Farm in 1994. Although Columbus is currently being developed, the minimum lot size is 5 acres, which does allow for the preservation of a significant portion of the current tree cover. These forests are comprised mainly of Northern Pin Oak, Burr Oak, Red Oak, and White Oak. Of the mature forest, the oaks comprise roughly 60 – 70 % of the tree species, with minor contributions of hackberry, red maple, basswood, aspen, white pine, red pine and spruce. The most significant forestry problem currently is oak wilt disease. The community has participated in an extensive oak wilt management program since 1991 to contain the effects of this devastating disease. For the future, tree preservation of its existing woodlots and invasive pests will be the largest threats to this suburban forest. Commercial and industrial development and trends: There are two primary commercial areas within Columbus, which account for 6% of the total City area. One lies along the southerly portions of Lake Drive (CSAH 23) near Lino Lakes. The other surrounds a portion of Interstate 35 comprising a 3 square mile area. The City of Columbus hopes to see high growth in our commercial area as public utilities become available. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 144 Residential development and trends: Recent population and household growth in Columbus was strongest in the 1970’s and 1980’s. This growth reflects a region-wide, outer-ring suburban trend, which largely resulted from the development of the interstate highway system. Communities surround Columbus as well as Anoka County, experienced similar if not more rapid growth. The large lot, rural residential character of housing and the limited amount of developable land in Columbus has resulted in a decrease in the rate of growth since 1990. Housing in Columbus is predominantly single family detached (96%). Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: The City has 52 miles of roadway with 27 miles of blacktop and 25 miles of gravel. The city continues to improve city roads each year based on resident petitions. The city completed the Trunk Sanitary Sewer system and the Trunk Water System in 2007. The City will continue public utility projects based on property owner petitions in the commercial 3 square mile area of the I-35 corridor. COON RAPIDS Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Coon Rapids Minnesota is located fifteen miles north of Minneapolis, MN. The Mississippi River establishes the City’s southern border. Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Park are located across the river. Coon Rapids shares its remaining borders with the cities of Anoka, Andover, Blaine, and Fridley. The City is 23 square miles in size. The City of Coon Rapids is located at Latitude 45.17 N and Longitude 93.31 W and has an elevation of 863 feet. Public lands: The City of Coon Rapids has 3298.01 acres of public land, including churches, schools, city offices and facilities, and fire stations. Anoka County owns two large parks within the City: Bunker Lake Park consists of 863.95 acres and is located in the NE quadrant of the City. The City owns and operates a public golf course in this park. Anoka County also owns Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park (operated by Three Rivers Park District), located on the South border of the City along the Mississippi River. Fifty-five city owned parks are located throughout Coon Rapids. The three largest are Sand Creek Park (73.63 acres), Wilderness Park (73.08 acres), and Erlandson Nature Center (67.09 acres). Private fee areas: No private fee areas exist within Coon Rapids. Agriculture and forestry: Very little agricultural land exists in Coon Rapids. Three sod farms exist in the City: Belfany at Main Street and Shenandoah Blvd (38.7 acres); Peterson at Main Street and University Avenue (38.71 acres); and Rocket Turf at Main Street and Coon Creek Boulevard (85.99 acres). A sixty-three lot single-family plat has been approved for the Peterson farm and is expected to develop in 2006. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Of Coon Rapids’ 11,927 acres, over ninety-seven percent is developed. 960 acres are developed with industrial uses, with sixty- eight acres presently vacant. 293 acres are dedicated to office related uses and twenty-two acres remain vacant. 1090 acres of commercial land is developed, with fifty-four acres remaining vacant. It is unlikely that most of the remaining vacant acres will see development due to easements, soils conditions, storm water detention, or similar constraints. Residential development and trends: The vast majority of Coon Rapids’ acreage is dedicated to single-family development. 8523 acres are zoned for single-family homes, and Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 145 only 101 acres remain vacant. Similarly, 674 acres are dedicated to moderate density development, with forty-nine acres remaining vacant. Finally, 387 acres are dedicated to high- density residential development, with only four acres remaining vacant. Coon Rapids is entering the redevelopment and infill phase of its growth. Given that very little land exists in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Seven County metropolitan area with urban services, Coon Rapids expects to see more moderate and high-density development. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Coon Rapids has an on-going street reconstruction program were a few miles of streets, curbs, and other related services are reconstructed, or otherwise maintained. The City is lobbying for the construction on a wider bridge over US Hwy 10 at Hanson Boulevard with a center-point-diamond design. The city is also lobbying for expansion of US Hwy 10 from four to six lanes. The Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail service is expected to begin in 2009 and will be operated on existing track owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Coon Rapids contains the following: 303 lanes miles of City, County, State, Federal Roads, 246 miles of sewer lines, 282 miles of water lines, 24 wells, 5 water towers, 1 water treatment plant and the Metropolitan Council handles sanitary sewer service. EAST BETHEL Geographic location and characteristics: The city is located at the northern edge of Anoka County and the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area at latitude 45.33 N and longitude .21W and has an elevation of 902 feet. The City of East Bethel is 48 square miles and has 30,432 gross acres. Residential development accounts for the vast majority of the developed areas of the city. Residential development covers approximately 6,086 acres or 20% of the 30,432 total gross acres. Public and institutional property occupies only about 1% (304 acres). Parks, private recreation and open spaces, including Cedar Creek Natural History Area and the developing Sand Hill Crane Nature Preserve account for approximately 17% of the acres (5,173) in the city. Vacant or rural areas account for roughly 54% (16,433) of the acres in the community. Major water bodies account for 7% (2,130) acres. The remainder falls in miscellaneous categories. Public lands: East Bethel has a number of unique natural amenities. These areas offer exceptional recreational, educational, and scientific opportunities. The largest of these is The Cedar Creek Natural History Area. The Cedar Creek Natural History Area encompasses more than 3,000 acres and is the largest open space in East Bethel. It is one of the largest ecological research sites in central Minnesota. The three great ecosystems of North America meet in the vicinity of Cedar Creek - the western prairies, the northern evergreen forests, and the eastern deciduous forests. In addition, within its nine square miles Cedar Creek contains rare ecosystems including spruce bogs, a northern cedar forest, and tracts of never plowed savannas. Cedar Creek was established in 1942 and ranks among the worlds top ecological research sites. Cedar Creek is owned and operated by the University of Minnesota, in cooperation with the Minnesota Academy of Science. Entirely contained within the Cedar Creek Area is Fish Lake. The lake is 332 acres in size and has a maximum depth of 13 feet. Adjacent to and immediately south of Cedar Creek across County Road 26 is the Helen Allison Savanna Scientific and Natural Area. This is an 86-acre area on the Anoka Sandplain that was formed 16,000 years ago by glacial melt water. The area was established in 1960. Oak savanna, which consists of oak trees over prairie vegetation, occupies 54 acres of the preserve. Over 45 species of birds have been documented in the preserve. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 146 Another unique natural resource in East Bethel is the Sand Hill Crane Natural Area. The area includes Ned, Mud, and Deer Lakes. It covers 533 acres and is owned and cooperative managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Anoka County, and the City of East Bethel. Another 74 acres of government land is adjacent to the Sand Hill Crane property bringing the total amount of government land in this unique resource to 607 acres. Another one of East Bethel’s unique physical resources is Coon Lake. It is located in the southeast corner of East Bethel, with portions of the lake in the City of Ham Lake and the City of Columbus. Coon Lake is part of the Anoka County Park System. Coon Lake has numerous access points and is used for boating and swimming. The lake covers 1,259 acres with a littoral area of 1,098 acres. It also supports many forms of wildlife such as loons, ducks, geese, fish, beaver, and turtles. East Bethel also has a number of community focused recreational facilities. The East Bethel Ice Arena is located on Highway 65 at 207th Avenue NE. Booster Park is the oldest and most popular park in the city. It is adjacent to city hall and consists of 45 acres and offers traditional activities such as baseball diamonds, tennis courts, a hockey rink, picnic facilities, and hiking trails. The city recently acquired 32 acres to expand Booster Park. John Anderson Memorial Park surrounding Cooper Lake is in the northwestern corner of the city. It is a total of 70 acres in size. The city also has a number of smaller neighborhood parks that offer recreational opportunities to residents. Private fee areas: East Bethel has two privately owned and operated golf courses. Viking Meadows Golf Club and Hidden Haven Golf Club. Both course are open to the general public. Agriculture and forestry: While a large amount of land in East Bethel is vacant or rural (54%, 16,414 acres) agriculture is limited due to soil conditions and the declining availability of agricultural support and services. Portions of the community are currently zoned for agriculture or are participating in agricultural preserve programs. Commercial and industrial development and trends: The majority of commercial and industrial development has occurred and is expected to continue to occur along the major transportation corridors of the city, specifically along State Highway 65 and Viking Boulevard (County Road 22). Accessibility is the primary factor that has determined past development and that will influence future development. The city is currently in the process of constructing public water and sewer systems for the area surrounding Viking Blvd and Highway 65. Residential development and trends: Residential areas account for the vast majority of developed areas in the City, accounting for approximately 20% of the gross acres in the City. Much of the rural residential development is located near lakes or near Trunk Highway 65. Because of the lack of public wastewater treatment systems, the maximum allowable density in residential areas is one home per two and one-half (2.5) acres. Residential areas also include two manufactures home parks along Trunk Highway 65, one of which is located on the northern border of the City, the other on the southern end. Recent interest in the community for a more diverse housing stock (i.e. multi-family, town homes and senior housing) with areas of high density per acre as part of the City Center development, are more consistent with the community becoming classified as a rural growth cent er. The plan for the City to have a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility is a critical element of the plan for a more varied housing stock. The City is developing appropriate zoning classifications that reflect this change while maintaining, for the most part, larger lots of a minimum of two acres in size. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 147 Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: The East Bethel City Hall complex is currently located at 2241 221st Avenue NE. It is a 7,500 square foot facility. As envisioned in the new comprehensive plan municipal management functions would eventually move to the new “City Center area.” The current transportation system in East Bethel is a network of local streets, county highways, and a state highway. State Highway 65 runs the length of the community from north to south a total of 8 miles. It is a major state roadway that provides access to the northern suburbs to and from the core City of Minneapolis, approximately 25 directly south of East Bethel. The status of Highway 65 in East Bethel was recently changed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) from an expressway to a limited access freeway. Highway 65 holds the main concentration of retail and commercial development for East Bethel. Viking Boulevard (County Road 22) is the city’s main east - west road. County Road 22 is being considered by MnDOT as a future State Highway that would provide for a state highway east - west corridor/connection through northern Anoka County. There are a total of 36.7 miles of county roads and County State Aid Highways in East Bethel. These roads along with Minnesota State Highway 65 provide the transportation backbone for East Bethel. Currently the road system in East Bethel is adequate. As East Bethel continues to grow and develop both governmental and private services will need to be expanded to serve the needs of an increased number of residents of all ages. The new East Bethel Comprehensive Plan lays out the communities’ vision and articulates a strategy to be followed to move towards that vision. FRIDLEY Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Fridley is located in southern Anoka County, approximately 9 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Fridley shares borders with Spring Lake Park, Coon Rapids, Mounds View, New Brighton, Columbia Heights, and Minneapolis. On its western border is the Mississippi River. The City of Fridley is 10.2 square miles in size. The City of Fridley is located at Latitude 45.09 N and Longitude 93.26 W and has an elevation of 850 feet. Public lands: Approximately 14.5% of the communities land area is developed as public or semi-public for uses such as parks, schools, religious institutions, government facilities and other non-profit agencies. Future development in this area is unlikely unless done as part of a redevelopment initiative. Agriculture and forestry: The City of Fridley has no land designated for agriculture or forestry use. Commercial and industrial development and trends: The City of Fridley has a significant portion of land area devoted to industrial and commercial land use. The industrial land uses fall mainly in three areas of the city. (1) Along BNSF railroad tracks from the south border to 61 st Ave, (2) in the northern part of the city between the railroad tracks and University Ave north of 79 Way (3) and along Central Ave near the Medtronic and Onan campuses. The commercial land use is primarily located along University Ave and Hwy 65 near major east/west roadways such as I694, Mississippi St, Osborne Rd, and 57 Ave NE. Vacant lands are available for future commercial and industrial development. Residential development and trends: Residential land use comprises approximately 34 % of the city’s total land area. Residential uses include single-family detached housing, mobile Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 148 homes, multi-family apartment complexes, individual apartment buildings, town homes, twin homes, and condominiums. Single-family residential land use constitutes 29.6% of the total land area. Future opportunities for residential development will likely only be due to redevelopment initiatives due to the limited available land. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Interstate 694 runs east/west in the southern area of the city. Two State Highways run through the City of Fridley, State Hwy 65 and State Hwy 47, as well as numerous county roads and municipal state aid roadways. Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail yard is located in the southern part of Fridley and the railroad runs north/south throughout the city. The Northstar Commuter passenger rail line shares the BNSF tracks, providing service north to Big Lake and south to Minneapolis, making connections to bus and light rail service to many other destinations, including MSP Airport. HAM LAKE Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Ham Lake is a thirty-six square mile (23,040 acres) suburb approximately 20 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul, located in the middle of Anoka County, with Latitude of 45.25 N and Longitude of 93.20 W and an elevation of 915 feet. The city is bordered by East Bethel to the north, It has five natural lakes: Ham Lake (193 acres), Lake Netta (168 acres), Coon Lake (1259 acres with only a portion of this lake located in the City), Mallard Lake (23 acres) and South Coon Lake (49 acres). Ham Lake is basically a mixture of prairie and wetland with some forested areas. Public lands: Currently the City has approximately 350 acres of public parks, which includes 21 neighborhood parks and two regional parks. One regional park is adjacent to the City Hall (Lions Park) and provides ball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, picnic facilities, walking trails, playground facilities, large covered shelter (200 capacity) restrooms and concession stand. The other is Ham Lake Park (over 100 acres), adjacent to Ham Lake, with many of the same amenities but also includes an indoor shelter, public boat access and fishing pier. The concentration has been on developing citywide regional parks, as opposed to neighborhood parks. A trail system has been established to provide safe pathways for bikes and pedestrians, and is implemented as land develops and/or street construction projects take place. Private fee areas: Majestic Oaks Golf Course consists of 330 acres (two eighteen-hole and one nine-hole courses) and is a privately owned facility that must remain open to the public through a development agreement through 2030. Ham Lake Sportsman Club is a clay target range and Ham Lake Campgrounds is located adjacent to Ham Lake with 143 sites available. Carlos Avery Game Farm abuts the City to the east. It is a 106-acre wildlife management area that allows permit hunting. Agriculture and forestry: Of the thirty-six square miles comprising Ham Lake, three square miles are sod fields. There are approximately 4,000 acres of land in the City that is presently either actively farmed for crops, used as pasture, or remains wooded. In terms of contiguous tracts suitable for conventional agriculture, there are nine sites containing as much as 160 continuous acres of land suitable for such purposes. The eastern portion of the City contains the greatest amount of suitable farmland. The City does not consider animal feedlots compatible with urban settlement. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 149 It is expected that the housing market, will eventually lead most of the farming operations to convert to single-family residential uses. Finally, in that sod-farming activity does result in removal of soil, existing sod farms will eventually return to their former status as wetland, and be used as open space and wildlife habitat. It is the City’s intention to prevent the reclaiming of sod farmland by adopting controls that enhance the return of these lands to a natural wetland state. The urban forest of Ham Lake is comprised of individual stands of native tr ees, which include: oak, maple, pine, and lowland species. The City has implemented a Shade Tree Disease Control Program. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Ham Lake currently has eight commercial zoning classifications. I-P (Industrial Park); I-1 (Light Industrial); CD-5 (Commercial Development 1,2,3,4,5 with each allowing specific uses) and GF (Government Facilities). The City of Ham Lake has approximately 400 businesses located in the city. There are currently 5 active major industrial/commercial parks and almost all of the rest of the businesses are abutting the Trunk Highway 65 corridor. The commercial/industrial parks are: Ham Lake Industrial Park (22 light industrial businesses ranging from machine shops to construction companies); Bunker Lake Commercial Park, Majestic Oaks Commercial Park, Fox Tail Ridge, Christensen, Stone Estates, North Pine, Rosewood Addition, Lachinski, and Enterprise Plaza. All commercial/industrial parks maintain high standards of building construction, and are occupied by concrete block buildings. An additional two small industrial Parks are Wybrite and Gilpin, which house only five small businesses. The major retail area of the City is located at Trunk Highway 65 and Crosstown Blvd. This area contains the supermarket, bank, library, and numerous smaller retail facilities. The City will continue to focus to develop/redevelop this area. Neighborhood commercial centers are and will be used to provide convenience facilities in the eastern portion of the City. Residential development and trends: Currently, the City has eight residential zoning categories: R-1 (Single-Family Residential); R-2 (Multi-Family Residential); R-A (Rural Single Family Residential); RS-1 (Shoreland Residential – General Development); RS-2 (Shoreland Residential – Recreational Development); R-M (Manufactured Home); PUD (Planned Unit Development); and R-AH (Affordable Housing District). The City of Ham Lake has approximately 4,600 dwelling units (which includes approximately 450 units for low-income families and senior citizens), with room for perhaps another 1,600. Included in this total are 285 mobile home units in the Flamingo Terrace Mobile Home Park. 90% of all housing in the City is single-family housing. Only about 2/3 of the City’s 23,040 acres are even capable of being developed, but approximately 2,560 acres of this are (or will be) used for parklands, road right -of-way, commercial uses and golf courses, reducing the developable area for residential use to about 58% of the total land area (approximately 13,363 acres). The City prefers to continue to allow all development at a residential density of at least 1.0 acre per unit, both to keep a rural feel and the logistics of attempting to service a community that is comprised of approximately one-third wetlands with a municipal sewer/water. Users of the sewer system must pay for the system, and the cost extending lines across hundreds of acres Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 150 of wetlands to serve relatively small and isolated pockets of residential development is considered prohibitive. It is estimated that when fully developed there will be a resident population of 19,500. This future plan will include approximately 650 housing units available for low-income families and senior citizens. There is no organized historical preservation entity in the City, although Anoka County maintains an active and effective historical society. One site (a pioneer church building) is maintained by the parent congregation. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Ham Lake infrastructure includes a major State Trunk Highway 65 passing through from south to north. County Roads 116, 16, 18, 52, 60, 61, 68, and 17 also bisect Ham Lake. While only one road leading out of the City to the east, the natural barrier created by the Carlos Avery Game Preserve makes this situation necessary and permanent. Intra-City travel if provided by north/south collectors (University Avenue, Radisson Road, Xylite Street and Naples Street). County Roads 116, 16, 18 and 149th Avenue NE, provides the east/west collection function. Currently the City is served only by individual private septic systems and wells. In March 2005 the City contracted to have a study completed regarding the feasibility of a sanitary sewer and water supply. The planning area included the Trunk Highway 65 corridor from 169th Avenue to the City’s north border, and a corridor out to and around Coon Lake. This system could be tentatively joined with a system proposed by the City of East Bethel, which abuts th e city to the north. HILLTOP Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Hilltop is located in southern Anoka County, within the City of Columbia Heights, a first-ring suburb on the northeast border of the City of Minneapolis. Hilltop is completely surrounded by and shares all of its borders with the City of Columbia Heights. Hilltop is 80 acres in size or 0.1 square miles. The City of Hilltop is located at Latitude 45.05 N and Longitude 93.24 W and has an elevation of 942 feet. Public lands: Hilltop has 27 acres of public land within the city. These areas include schools, city offices, public works facilities and a small public park. Private fee areas: There are no such areas in Hilltop. Agriculture and forestry: There are no such areas in Hilltop. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Hilltop is fully developed. There is no significant growth projected. Redevelopment/ renewal of aging commercial areas is all that is expected in the near to distant future. Residential development and trends: Hilltop is fully developed. No growth in the number of households is projected. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: There is no planned expansion of streets, water or sanitary sewer service. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 151 LEXINGTON Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Lexington is located in the SE corner of Anoka County about 5 miles north of HWY 694. Lexington shares North, South, and West borders with Blaine and East Border with Circle Pines. Lexington is about 1 sq mile in size. The City of Lexington is located at Latitude 45.13 N and Longitude 93.17 W and has an elevation of 909 feet. Public lands: The City has 3 public parks, city offices, public works facilities and a fire station. There are 3 churches in Lexington. The City of Lexington owns and operates Lexington Memorial Park. It is nearly 20 acres in size and supports two tennis courts, five ball fields, a hockey rink, a skating rink and a warming house. There are also three neighborhood playgrounds in the city. Private fee areas: There are no private fee areas in Lexington. Agriculture and forestry: There are no agriculture or forestry in Lexington. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Lake Drive (CSAH 23), where most of the commercial activity of the city is located, divides the city from the northeast to the southwest. Retail uses dominate commercial areas, although there are automobile service uses, restaurants, storage facilities, professional offices, and other commercial use as well. There is no future growth anticipated. The center of commercial activity in Lexington is Northway Shopping Center, located along the south side of the Lake Drive frontage road. This center, which includes 90,000 square feet, was built about 1950 and remodeled in 1989. The city considers Northway and its immediate environs to be Lexington’s “downtown.” Residential development and trends: The City of Lexington is nearly fully developed, with residential uses constituting a majority of the area. Maximum anticipated residential growth is 20 homes. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Local road improvements. LINO LAKES Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Lino Lakes is located in northeastern Anoka County, approximately 30 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Lino Lakes shares its borders with Blaine, Circle Pines, Town of Columbus and Hugo. The City of Lino Lakes is 33 square miles in size. While residents are attracted to the city because of its natural amenities, including 13 lakes and several seasonal wetlands, Interstate I-35E and I-35W make it just a 20- minute drive to either downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. The City surrounds the City of Centerville. The City of Lino Lakes is located at Latitude 45.16 N and Longitude 93.08 W and has an elevation of 889 feet. Public lands: Within the City there is 3,580 acres of public lands. This includes a 2,646-acre regional park, and churches, schools, city offices, public works facility and a fire station. Within the City, there are nearly 160 acres of Public Park, and 62 acres of school district property. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 152 Private fee areas: Within the City of Lino Lakes there is a county public golf course, Chomonix. Lino Lakes has two private airport facilities, the Hansen Sea Plane Base and the Lino Lakes Airpark. Agriculture and forestry: Approximately 6,268 acres within the City of Lino Lakes receive the agricultural property tax classification by the Anoka County Assessors Office. While the City of Lino Lakes has an abundance of trees, there are no publicly managed forestlands. Commercial and industrial development and trends: The City of Lino Lakes continues to see high growth in its industrial and commercial sectors due primarily to the City’s efforts in establishing and promoting new industrial and commercial areas at both of the City’s freeway interchanges. This will allow the City to define the community’s image. The availability of vacant land, municipal utilities, and freeway access each are strong amenities that will allow Lino Lakes to compete for future economic development. New development has occurred with the extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water. Between 1991 and 2004, the City has added 995,000 square feet of industrial space and between 1996 and 2004, 425,000 square feet in commercial/retail space. The Lino Lakes Town Center, once completed will add nearly 250,000 square feet in new commercial/retail space. Residential development and trends: The City has a sustained residential growth that will continue over the next 20 years. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: There are many planned infrastructure projects. The freeways physically divide the City, preventing connections between different portions of the City. The City has identified a need to provide convenient pedestrian and automobile connections throughout the community in order to establish a unified community identity. A future interchange location has been identified at 80th Street and I-35E. A new bridge will be constructed at 35W and 80th Street. The City will be constructing new City wells within the next 10 years. For utilities, the City will be extending sewer and water trunk lines to facilitate residential development. LINWOOD TOWNSHIP Geographic location and characteristics: Linwood Township is a thirty-six square mile community located in the northeast corner of Anoka County, approximately 35 miles northeast of Minneapolis/St. Paul. The township is primarily agricultural and residential in land use, with very little commercial development. The Town of Linwood is located at Latitude 45.37 N and Longitude 93.08W and has an elevation of 892 feet. Public lands: The Township of Linwood has 220 acres of public land. These areas include churches, schools, township offices, fire station, public works, and township parks. The Martin- Island-Linwood Lakes Regional Anoka County Park is located in Linwood Township as well, and is 700 Acres in size. Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area is also located in Linwood and is 5760 acres in size. Private fee areas: There are no private fee areas in Linwood Township. Agriculture and forestry: Approximately 4563 acres within Linwood Township receive the agricultural property tax classification by the Anoka County Assessors Office. The Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area does have publicly managed forestlands. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 153 Commercial and industrial development and trends: The Township of Linwood has very little commercial or industrial property within its boundary due to the lack of centralized sewer system. Residential development and trends: The Township has a sustained residential growth that will continue for the foreseeable future as the existing farmland is developed into residential parcels. There have been 206 new single-family dwelling permits issued in Linwood Township from the beginning of the year 1999 through the end of year 2004. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Two Anoka County highways serve as the main corridors for traffic, Fawn Lake Drive on the north, and Viking Blvd on the south. Fawn Lake Drive has had a new overlay within the last year, and Viking Blvd in the process of a complete overlay project. Linwood Township has no centralized sewer or water, and there are no existing plans for it at the present time. CITY OF NOWTHEN Geographic location and characteristics: The latitude of Burns is 45.33N. The longitude is 93.44 W. City of Nowthen is located in the northwest corner of Anoka County, Minnesota. City of Nowthen is bordered by the City of Ramsey on the south, the City of Oak Grove on the east, the City of St. Francis on the north, and the City of Elk River (located in Sherburne County) on the west. The township has a total area of 35.2 miles. Of this total, 33.8 miles is land and 1.4 miles water. The total area is 3.95% water. There are 11 lakes in Burns, with Twin Lake being the largest. Public lands: Ownership of the Twin Lakes County Park (63 acres) will be turned over to City of Nowthen in 2006. This public park will have trails, fishing, play areas and a pond/natural area within it. The trails within this park will connect up to trails currently being developed within neighborhood developments in the township. Private fee areas: A State Wildlife Management area (40 acres) is located within t he township. This public land is open land, which can be used by the public for hunting. Agriculture and forestry: Wetlands consist of 4,927 acres and 14,294 acres are undeveloped/agricultural use. In 2000 there was 1,159 acres classified as Open Water Bodies. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Within Nowthen, as of 2010, there was approximately 55 acres with the land use of Commercial/industrial businesses and 153 acres in parks. Currently the Burns Town Center and the Burns Commercial Park are developed. Within these commercial developments currently there is a bar & grill establishment, mini storage, auto repair, bank, transmission shop, paving company, cabinet business, collision center, nursery, welding and convenient store businesses. Within City of Nowthen there is additional land, currently zoned Commercial and Industrial, available for development. This land located along Highway 47, and land along County Road 5 and County Road 22. Residential development and trends: A total of 2,063 acres are residential land use and within this number 439 acres are classified farmstead use. In 2010 Nowthen only had a total of 7 acres with multifamily use. City of Nowthen currently has (3) new residential developments near completion. Within these developments there are (21) lots open for future single-family dwellings. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 154 Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: A major transportation infrastructure project had been discussed in which County Road 22, which runs from east and west through the City, would be converted to a U.S. Highway. This project would not only involve City of Nowthen but eventually all communities in which County Road 22 runs east and west through and would when completed connect two major highways, Interstate 35W and State Highway 169. OAK GROVE Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Oak Grove is a community in the northwestern quadrant of Anoka County. Its 36 square miles are bounded by the City of Andover, City of Nowthen, City of East Bethel, and City of St. Francis. The principal water features within the City include the Rum River, Cedar Creek, Seelye Brook, and Lake George. The City of Oak Grove is located at Latitude 45.34 N and Longitude 93.32 W and has an elevation of 896 feet. Public lands: Oak Grove has two significant areas of public land: a 160 acre landfill owned by the Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency which is located south on CR22 east of CR9, and the very southeast corner of the city, Section 36 which is State designated land. There is also a wildlife management area located in Section 23 owned by the DNR. There are twelve plus smaller parcels of public land designated for open spaces, the public wastewater system around Lake George along with the public well water system also servicing properties near Lake George, recycling center, easements for roads and public accesses to Lake George. Private fee areas: Lake George Regional Park is maintained by the Anoka County Parks Department. Oak Grove is home to a total of 42 parks, which have various recreational uses. Oak Grove Preserve, Ramblin Rum Estates, Robert C. Burman Estates, Swanson’s Brookview, and the City Hall park require facility use permits which can be obtained from City Hall. Recreational hunting is allowed in Oak Grove. Agriculture and forestry: One-third of Oak Grove is currently designated as agricultural with farmland being used as such. Future trends and plans are addressed in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Currently there are few commercial and industrial areas designated in Oak Grove. The properties that are zoned commercial and industrial are located along Viking Boulevard (CR22) and the railroad tracks. There is no established downtown area in Oak Grove. Residential development and trends: Zoning district classifications in Oak Grove are identified as Single Family Residential (SFR), Agricultural (Ag), Lake George Districts (LG-1-2- 3), Master-Planned Golf Course Community (MPGCC), and Planned Unit Developments (PUD). The historic heart of the City began at the enclave of Cedar in the middle to late 1800s. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan considers future development areas as residential trends assure steady growth for the City of Oak Grove. Lots are primarily acreage lots served by private wells and onsite septic systems. There are two exception areas served by public water systems and/or wastewater collector systems. One area is Lake George, a city sewer/wastewater facility. The westerly side of Lake George includes a redevelopment area with a 52-unit senior apartment building and 14 single-family lots, which is serviced by the city sewer facility and the West Lake George Public Well water system. A second area is the new Ponds 18-hole golf course and housing development with Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 155 206 urban size single-family lots and 18 townhouse lots. The City of St. Francis provides the drinking water and wastewater is handled by a wetland treatment system. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Street mileage for Oak Grove is 116.45 miles (22.34 of which are MN State Aid streets.) One bridge spans the Rum River and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks run north south through the City. Independent School District #15 owns property in Oak Grove for a future elementary school. The Rum River Tree Farm is an example of a business located in Oak Grove. RAMSEY Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Ramsey is located in western Anoka County, approximately 30 miles north of Minneapolis/St Paul. Ramsey shares its borders with Anoka, Oak Grove, City of Nowthen and Elk River. On its southern border is the Mississippi River and to the East, Rum River. The City of Ramsey is 29 square miles in size and has latitude of 45.26 N and longitude of 93.44 W and an elevation of 879 feet. Public lands: The City has 266 acres of public land within the City. These areas include churches, schools, city offices, public work facilities, and fire stations. Within the City, there is nearly 1000 acres of Public Park. The larger City-owned parks are Elmcrest Park (95 acres), Central Park (41.3 acres), Rivers Bend Park (47.3 acres) and Peltzer Park (32 acres). In addition, Anoka County has two regional parks within Ramsey Mississippi West Regional Park (204 acres) and Rum River Central Park (308.8 acres). The State of Minnesota operates a wayside rest along Highway10 that is 18 acres in size. Private fee areas: Within the City of Ramsey, there are two public golf courses, Rum River Hills, along Highway 47, and Northfork, along Highway 10. The Boy Scouts own 160 acres of land along Highway 47 and the Rum River that they use for camping and other scout activities. Agriculture and forestry: Approximately 1500 acres within the City of Ramsey receive the agricultural property tax classification by the Anoka County Assessors Office. While the City of Ramsey has an abundance of trees, there are no publicly managed forestlands. There are several private business tree nurseries (two along Highway 47, and one on Alpine Drive) located within the City of Ramsey. Commercial and industrial development and trends: The City of Ramsey growth has slowed but since 2007 has added 225,000 square feet of commercial and industrial buildings. The Ramsey Town Center, renamed the COR in 2010 once completed will add nearly 750,000 square feet in new commercial/retail space. Residential development and trends: The City has a sustained residential growth that will continue over the next 20 years. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: There are many infrastructure projects planned for the future. In regards to transportation, projects included conversion of U.S. Highway 10 to a limited access freeway, a new bridge crossing over the Mississippi River, the relocation of State Highway 169 through Ramsey, and the improvement and widening of County and State aid roads. For utilities, the City will be extending sewer and water trunk lines north of the existing service area to facilitate residential development. The City will also be constructing several new City wells, another water tower, and a water treatment plant within the next 5 years. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 156 SPRING LAKE PARK Geographic location and characteristics: The City of Spring Lake Park is located mostly in southern Anoka County, with a tiny portion located in the western part of Ramsey County. The City of Spring Lake Park is approximately 10 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Blaine, Fridley, Coon Rapids and Mounds View border Spring Lake Park. The City of Spring Lake Park is 2.9 square miles in size and has latitude of 45.10 N and longitude of 93.23 W and an elevation of 902 feet. Public lands: The City has 186 acres of public land within the City. These areas include churches, schools, city offices, public work facilities, and fire stations. Within the City, there is 39 acres of Public Park. Private fee areas: There are no private fee areas in the City of Spring Lake Park. Agriculture and forestry: There are no agriculture and forestry areas in the City of Spring Lake Park. Commercial and industrial development and trends: Spring Lake Park does not have a wide range of commercial businesses. Commercial businesses in the city either attempt to capture pass-by traffic along Highway 65, County Road 10 and University Avenue, or they are destination businesses. Light industrial businesses are located east of Highway 65. Spring Lake Park due to its size and development does not anticipate much growth in the way of commercial or industrial development. Scattered though out the City of Spring Lake Park are strip malls with numerous other family owned businesses and other small businesses. Residential development and trends: The City is predominately a residential community with families and children. This is expected to continue, although the aging of the population and the need for senior housing, as well as the need for housing for young adults, presents an opportunity for the development of different types of housing, such as multiple-family apartments, townhouses and housing units on one level The Metropolitan Council’s forecasts assumes that growth in Spring Lake Park’s population and households will result almost entirely from the development of multi-family housing at a density of 10 dwelling units per acre. Based on the Council’s estimate of 2,503 households in 1995, that would be an increase of 167 dwelling units during the next 20 years. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: Consists of two State Highways within the City of Spring Lake Park. On the Westside of the City is MN Hwy 47 that runs north and south. The city is also divided in half north and south with MN Highway 65 (Central Ave). Anoka County Road 10 runs east to west through the northern portion of Spring Lake Park connecting both Highway corridors. ST. FRANCIS Geographic location and characteristics: The City of St. Francis is located in northern Anoka County, approximately 35 miles north of Minneapolis/St. Paul. St. Francis shares its borders with Bethel, Oak Grove, and City of Nowthen in Anoka County, and has Isanti County on the northern border. Running through the center of town is the Rum River. The City of St. Francis is 24 square miles in size. The latitude of St. Francis is 45.38 N and the longitude is 93.35 W, with an elevation of 919 feet. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 157 Public lands: The city has 8.51% of its land as public land within City Limits. These areas include churches, schools, city offices, public works facilities and fire stations. W ithin the City, there is over 100 acres of Public Park. There are 13 city parks totaling 82.6 acres. The larger City Owned parks are Deer Creek 1st addition (16.5 acres) and the Community Park (15 acres). In addition, St. Francis has 1 regional park Anoka Rum River North County Park, 6.7 miles of trails. Private fee areas: Within the City, there is one public golf course, The Ponds, located along County Road 24. Agriculture and forestry: Approximately 7% within the City of St. Francis receive agricultural property tax classification by Anoka County Assessors Office. The City of St. Francis has an abundance of trees in the 460-acre Bethel Wildlife Management Area along with the DNR 40 acre land. Commercial and industrial development and trends: The City of St. Francis continues to see high growth in its industrial and commercial sectors. Since 2000, the city has added 1,800 square feet of industrial space and 130,815 square feet of commercial/retail space. The St. Francis City Centre, once completed will add nearly 104,500 square feet in new commercial/retail space. In 2007 the city built a 26,000 square foot water treatment plant. Residential development and trends: The City has sustained residential growth that will continue over the next 20 years. In 2000 there was an estimated 1,638 homes in the City of St. Francis, and in 2004 there was an estimated 2,357 homes total. In 2010 the census reported 2,520 households. Infrastructure and infrastructure projects: There are many infrastructure projects planned for the future. In regards to transportation, projects included in conversation are US Highway 47 through St. Francis, widening and improving the road. For utilities, the City will be attempting to extend City sewer and water trunk lines north and east of the existing service to facilitate residential growth. There is possible construction of new City wells within the next 5 years as well. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 159 SECTION 5: CAPABILITIES, MITIGATION AND MAINTENANCE 5.1 Jurisdiction Capabilities This section of the Plan discusses the capability of Anoka County and the participating local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation actions. It consists of the following eight subsections: Capability Assessment Overview Conducting the Capability Assessment Capability Assessment Findings External Resources Disaster Shelters Previously Implemented Mitigation Measures Repetitive Flooding Mitigation Linking Capability Assessment, Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy 5.1.1 Capability Assessment Overview The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a local jurisdiction to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy, and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or enhancing specific mitigation policies, programs, or projects. As in any planning process, it is important to try to establish goals, objectives and actions that are feasible, based on an understanding of the organizational capacity of those agencies or departments tasked with their implementation. A capability assessment helps determine which mitigation actions are practical and likely to be implemented given a local government’s regulatory framework, level of administrative and technical support, and fiscal resources. A capability assessment has two primary components: an inventory of a local jurisdiction’s relevant plans, ordinances, or programs already in place, and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. A capability assessment also highlights the positive mitigation measures already in place or being implemented at the local level, which should continue to be supported and enhanced through future mitigation efforts. The capability assessment completed for Anoka County and its jurisdictions serves as a critical planning step and is an integral part of the foundation for designing an effective multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation strategy. Coupled with the Risk Assessment, the Capability Assessment helps identify and target meaningful mitigation actions for incorporation in the Mitigation Strategy section of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. It not only helps establish the goals and objectives for Anoka County, but also ensures that those goals and objectives are realistically achievable under given local conditions. 5.1.2 Conducting the Capability Assessment In order to facilitate the inventory and analysis of local government capabilities throughout Anoka County, a Capability Assessment Survey was distributed to Anoka County and its municipalities. The survey was completed by appropriate local government officials and requested information on a variety of “capability indicators” such as existing local plans, policies, programs, or ordinances that contribute to the community’s ability to implement hazard mitigation actions. Other indicators requested included information related to each jurisdiction’s fiscal, administrative, and technical capabilities, such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources for mitigation purposes. At a minimum, survey results provide an extensive inventory of existing local plans, ordinances, programs, and resources in place or under Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 160 development. The survey instrument thereby not only helps accurately assess each jurisdiction’s degree of local capability, but also serves as a good source of introspection for those jurisdictions wishing to improve their capability as identified gaps, weaknesses, or conflicts can be viewed as opportunities for specific actions to be proposed as part of the community’s mitigation strategy. 5.1.3 Capability Assessment Findings The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this Plan to provide insight into relevant capacity of Anoka County’s jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. All information is based upon the responses provided by local government officials to the Capability Assessment Survey and during meetings throughout the planning process. The information provided by participating jurisdictions was scored using a simple scoring methodology to rank each jurisdiction’s overall capability. A total score and general capability rating of “High,” “Medium” or “Low” was then determined for each jurisdiction according to the total number of points. The classifications are designed to provide an assessment of each jurisdiction’s local capability. The result of this multi-jurisdictional capability assessment provides critical information for developing an effective and meaningful mitigation strategy. 5.1.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of existing plans, ordinances, and programs by a local government. These measures can help demonstrate a local jurisdiction’s commitment to guiding and managing growth, development, and redevelopment in a responsible manner while maintaining the general welfare of the community. Such measures include emergency response and mitigation planning, comprehensive land use planning, and transportation planning, in addition to the enforcement of zoning or subdivision ordinances and building codes that regulate how land is developed and structures are built. Although som e conflicts can arise, these planning initiatives present significant opportunities to integrate hazard mitigation principles and practices into the local decision-making process. This assessment is designed to provide an overview of the key planning and regulatory tools in place or under development for jurisdictions in Anoka County, along with their potential effect on loss reduction. This information will help identify opportunities to address existing gaps, weaknesses, or conflicts with other initiatives, in addition to integrating this Plan with existing planning mechanisms, where appropriate. The table below provides a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances, and programs already in place or under development for Anoka County’s participating jurisdictions. A more detailed discussion on jurisdiction planning and regulatory capability follows. Building codes regulate construction standards. In many communities, permits and inspections are required for new construction. Decisions regarding the adoption of building codes (that account for hazard risk), the type of permitting process required both before and after a disaster, and the enforcement of inspections all affect the level of hazard risk faced by a community. Each of Anoka County’s jurisdictions has either recently adopted or has begun the process of reviewing the International Building Code (IBC), which was first introduced in 2000 and recently revised in 2012. Adoption of the new code has become a priority for city officials because of the building code effectiveness. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 161 A Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) guides the scheduling of spending on public improvements. A CIP can serve as an important mechanism to guide future development away from identified hazard areas. Limiting public spending in hazardous areas is one of the most effective long-term mitigation actions available to local governments. A Comprehensive Plan incorporates all aspects of the various tactical plans and programs into a strategic county plan that guides the county and its jurisdictions to successfully improve and enhance the quality of life for all citizens. An Economic Development Plan provides for development of existing business in the county and a strategy to attract new business to locate in the county. A successful Economic Development Plan provides long-term, attractive employment opportunity to communities and increases the tax base. An Emergency Response Plan is part of an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that outlines responsibilities and the means by which resources are deployed following an emergency incident or disaster. Anoka County Emergency Management maintains a countywide EOP. The EOP addresses emergency operations on behalf of all jurisdictions in Anoka County. During a disaster, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as the hub of operations where local government officials and agency representatives from across the county will report to ensure all response efforts are effectively coordinated. The county’s EOP has been determined to have a moderate effect on loss reduction, as its emphasis focuses on preparedness and response operations versus hazard mitigation activities. However, the mission, execution, and implementation of the EOP strongly support the goals of this Plan. A Flood Management Plan (or a flood mitigation plan) provides a framework for action regarding the corrective and preventative measures in place to reduce flood-related impacts. Typical flood control activities include: structural flood control works (such as bank stabilization, levees, and drainage channels), acquisition of flood-prone land, flood insurance programs and studies, river and basin management plans, public education programs, and flood warning and emergency preparedness activities. Anoka County and its municipalities have pursued a variety of flood mitigation activities that strongly support loss reduction efforts. These activities will be built upon as actions in this Plan are implemented. An important strategy for all jurisdictions is participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition to approaches that cut across hazards, such as education, outreach, and the training of local officials, the NFIP contains specific regulatory measures that enable government officials to determine where and how growth occurs relative to flood hazards. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary for local governments, but the program is promoted by FEMA as a basic first step for implementing and sustaining an effective hazard mitigation program. It is therefore used as a key indicator for measuring local capability as part of this assessment. In order for a county or municipality to join the NFIP, it must adopt a local flood damage prevention ordinance that requires jurisdictions to follow established minimum building standards in the floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings and substantial improvements to existing buildings will be protected from damage by the 100-year flood, and that new floodplain development will not aggravate existing flood problems or Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 162 increase damage to other properties. Anoka County and its municipalities participate in the National Flood Insurance program. Another key service provided by the NFIP is the mapping of identified flood hazard areas. Once prepared, the FIRMs are used to assess flood hazard risk, regulate construction practices, and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs are an important source of information to educate residents, government officials, and the private sector about the likelihood of flooding in their community. Another voluntary program that provides significant value is the Community Rating System (CRS). CRS is an incentive-based program that encourages counties and municipalities to undertake defined flood mitigation activities that go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP, adding extra local measures to provide protection from flooding. All of the 18 creditable CRS mitigation activities are assigned a range of point values. As points are accumulated and reach identified thresholds, communities can apply for an improved CRS class. Class ratings, which run from 10 to 1, are tied to flood insurance premium reductions. As class ratings improve, the percent reduction in flood insurance premiums for NFIP policyholders increases. CRS Premium Discounts, by class as defined by FEMA, are depicted in the adjacent table. CR Any community that is in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the NFIP may apply to FEMA for a CRS classification better than class 10. The CRS application process has been greatly simplified over the past several years based on community comments to make the CRS user- friendly. Extensive technical assistance is also available for communities who request it. Anoka County and its municipalities are investigating participation in the CRS program. Participating Anoka County Jurisdictions will continue to be a part of the National Flood Insurance Program by maintaining in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and comply with local regulations pertaining to the NFIP. Jurisdictions participating in the National Flood Insurance Program will follow criteria are established in the NFIP regulations at 44 CFR §60.3. The jurisdictions will adopt and maintain floodplain management ordinance that meets or exceeds the minimum NFIP criteria. As part of the compliance requirements participating Jurisdictions have adopted building codes and flood management plans to regulate construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas. In Anoka County each city is responsible for updating flood maps for their jurisdiction; Anoka County assists Linwood Township with their needs for updating flood maps. Jurisdictions in Anoka County Participating in the National Flood Insurance Program Anoka County Circle Pines Fridley Ramsey Andover Columbia Heights Ham Lake Spring Lake Park Anoka Columbus Lexington St. Francis Blaine Coon Rapids Lino Lakes Centerville East Bethel Oak Grove Growth Control Ordinances are primarily used by local governments to encourage growth in an orderly manner in the areas covered by the ordinance. The purpose of most growth control Class Discount 1 45% 2 40% 3 35% 4 30% 5 25% 6 20% 7 15% 8 10% 9 5% 10 0% Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 163 ordinances is to preserve residential housing values, protect historic areas, and insure that local governments can provide appropriate services to citizens. Hazard Setback and Hillside Ordinances or Regulations are usually part of a comprehensive land use plan. Typically a comprehensive plan is comprised of demographics, land use, transportation elements, and community facilities. Given the nature of the plan and its regulatory standing, the integration of hazard mitigation measures into the comprehensive plan enhances the likelihood of achieving risk reduction goals, objectives, and actions. A Post Disaster Ordinance provides for the protection of lives and property and enhances the recovery from disasters. The ordinance is used to control price gouging, and allows local governments to facilitate the purchase and deployment of equipment and resources to speed disaster recovery. A Post Disaster Recovery Plan provides the framework to establish assistance to victims of disaster, assess the long-term economic effects of disaster on the community, facilitate post- disaster recovery, and assist the community with redevelopment plans. Real Estate Disclosure is an important issue that facilitates real estate transactions and ensures that both buyers and sellers fully understand any mitigating circumstances associated with properties. Shoreline Ordinances identify and provide for shoreline maintenance and control. Shorelines of waterways including creeks, tributaries, canals, rivers lakes and oceans require continual maintenance to mitigate flooding and provide environmental protection. Site Plans/Subdivision Ordinance is intended to regulate the development of residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses, including public infrastructure, as land is subdivided into lots for future development. Subdivision design that accounts for natural hazards can dramatically reduce the exposure of future development. Wildfire Ordinances are a means to control the potential of wildfire occurrence by requiring burn permits and the reduction of fuel for wildfires in both urban interfaces and forests in general. Zoning Ordinances are the means to control land use by local governments. As part of a community’s police power, zoning ordinances are used to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Since zoning regulations enable local jurisdictions to limit the type and density of development, it can serve as a powerful tool when applied in identified hazard areas. All Anoka County jurisdictions have zoning ordinances. The legal and regulatory capability summary below defines deficiencies in existing jurisdictional planning and regulatory tools for Anoka County and its municipalities. This information will serve as a guide for those jurisdictions committed to improving their communities, and goal actions to mitigate these deficiencies are included in this Plan. The survey identifies whether resources are jurisdiction employees/contractors, resources that are provided by other authorities or are not in place Additional information on administrative and technical capability can be obtained through Anoka County or its local jurisdictions. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 164 Regulatory Control in place Yes=1 No=0 0-7=Low 8-14=Medium 15-20=High Jurisdiction Building Codes Capital Improvement Plan Comprehensive Plan COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Flood Management Plan Growth Control Ordinance Hazard Setback Ordinance Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post Disaster Ordinance Post Disaster Recovery Plan Real Estate Disclosure Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Subdivision Regulations Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Regulations Score CAPABILITY Anoka County 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 M Andover 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 13 M Anoka 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 12 M Bethel 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10 M Blaine 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 15 M Centerville 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 M Circle Pines 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 M Columbia Heights 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 12 M City of Columbus 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 12 M Coon Rapids 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9 M East Bethel 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 13 M Fridley 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 15 M Ham Lake 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 13 H Hilltop 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 7 L Lexington 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 M Lino Lakes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 13 M Linwood Twp 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 M Nowthen 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 11 M Oak Grove 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 M Ramsey 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 14 M Spring Lake Park 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 M St. Francis 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 11 M 5.1.3.2 Administrative and Technical Capability The ability of a local government to develop and implement mitigation projects, policies, and programs is directly tied to its ability to direct staff time and resources for that purpose. Administrative capability is evaluated by determining how mitigation activities are assigned to local departments and the personnel resources available to implement the activities. Key Resources to respond to and mitigate disaster include the following: Agriculture Risk Assessor to assess the risk and vulnerability and implement mitigation of crops and livestock. Construction Practices management and monitoring to insure that facilities meet established building codes, land use, and other ordinances in place to mitigate disasters. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 165 Emergency Manager to develop, manage and execute disaster plans in order to protect lives and property from disasters. Emergency Staff to assist the Emergency Manager in the execution of Emergency Management duties. Emergency Medical Technicians to respond to and provide emergency medical services to community populations. Emergency Medical Service – First Response to respond to medical emergencies and support the Emergency Medical Technicians. Fire Service to respond to all fire events to protect lives and property. Flood Plain Manager to manage floodplains and flood information and provide that information to appropriate officials for enforcement purposes. GIS and/or Hazus provides mapping information to jurisdictions that identifies hazard areas and asset and facility location, value, etc. information to appropriate officials. Government Administrative is jurisdiction employees that provide internal and community products and services. Government Elected is elected jurisdiction officials that manage the jurisdiction. Grant Writer is a position that works with the community and officials to identify and apply for grants to mitigate hazards. Hazard Risk Assessor is a position that analyzes potential hazards that may affect jurisdictions and identifies vulnerabilities to those hazards. HAZMAT Team is a team of certified personnel with training and equipment authorized to mitigate hazardous material spills and releases. Land Use Management is a position that develops, manages and enforces land management practices that mitigate disasters. Law Enforcement is agencies and personnel that are trained and equipped to maintain law and order, etc. for jurisdictions. Medical Personnel are trained and equipped medical persons (public or private) that respond to and provide medical services. Public Communications are communications in place to provide alert and warning of disaster events as well as ongoing communications during disaster events. Public Works/Utilities are organizations that provide street/road maintenance, shoreline maintenance and deliver utility services to jurisdictions. Surveyor is a position that provides surveying services to jurisdictions. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 166 The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on administrative and technical capability through the identification of available staff and personnel resources. The survey identifies whether resources are jurisdiction employees/contractors, resources that are provided by other authorities or are not in place. Additional information on administrative and technical capability can be obtained through Anoka County or its local jurisdictions. Resources in place Yes=2 Other Authority=1 No=0 30-40=High 17-29=Medium 0-16=Low Jurisdiction Agriculture Risk Assessor Construction Practices Emergency Manager Emergency Staff Emt’s Certified EMS – First Response Fire Service Flood Plain Manager GIS and/or Hazus Government Administrative Government Elected Grant Writer Hazard Risk Assessor HAZMAT Team Land Use Management Law Enforcement Medical Personnel Public Communications Public Works/Utilities Surveyor Score CAPABILITY Anoka County 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 34 H Andover 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 37 H Anoka 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 37 H Bethel 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 29 M Blaine 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 35 H Nowthen 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 27 M Centerville 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 32 H Circle Pines 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 34 H Columbia Heights 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 32 H City of Columbus 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 30 M Coon Rapids 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 39 H East Bethel 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 28 M Fridley 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 34 H Ham Lake 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 34 H Hilltop 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 28 M Lexington 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 31 H Lino Lakes 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 33 H Linwood Twp 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 28 M Oak Grove 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 27 M Ramsey 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 35 H Spring Lake Park 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 32 H St. Francis 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 35 H Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 167 5.1.3.3 Fiscal Capability The ability of a local government to take action is closely associated with the amount of money available to implement policies and projects. This may take the form of outside grants or local- based revenue and financing. The costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation vary widely. In some cases, policies are tied primarily to staff or administrative costs. In other cases, direct expenses are linked to an actual project such as the acquisition of flood prone homes, which can require a substantial commitment from local, state, and federal funding sources. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on each jurisdiction’s fiscal capability through the identification of locally available financial resources. The survey identifies whether the jurisdiction does or does not have the capability and scores overall fiscal capability. Fiscal Capability in Place Yes=1 No=0 7-9=High 5-6=Medium 0-4=Low Jurisdiction Community Grants Public Debt Procurement Private Debt Procurement Impact Fees Jurisdiction Bonds Project Funding Special Taxes Hazard Spending Restrictions Utility Fees Score CAPABILITY Anoka County 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 7 H Andover 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 H Anoka 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 H Bethel 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 M Blaine 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 H Centerville 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 H Circle Pines 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 H Columbia Heights 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 H City of Columbus 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 M Coon Rapids 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 H East Bethel 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 M Fridley 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 H Ham Lake 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 M Hilltop 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 H Lexington 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 6 M Lino Lakes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 H Linwood Twp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 7 H Nowthen 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 M Oak Grove 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 M Ramsey 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 H Spring Lake Park 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 H St. Francis 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 6 H Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 168 5.1.4 External Resources The table below lists the resources available to Anoka County and its municipalities. ANOKA COUNTY LOCAL MITIGATION CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Agency/Department Name and Function Contact Name and email Contact Telephone Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate Hinder Anoka County Emergency Management Terry Stoltzman Terry.Stoltzman@co.anoka .mn.us 763-323-5761 X X Anoka County Central Communications Linda Hanson Linda.hanson@co.anoka.m n.us 763-323-5826 X X Anoka County Fire Protection Council Harlan Lundstrom hlundstrom@sbmfire.com 763-786-4436 X X Anoka County Tax Assessor Lary Dalien Larry.Dalien@co.anoka.mn .us 763-323-5400 X Anoka County Highway Department Doug Fischer Doug.Fischer@co.anoka.m n.us 763-862-4200 X Anoka County Parks Department John VonDeLinde John.VonDeLinde@co.ano ka.mn.us 763-757-3920 X Anoka County Emergency Medical Service Providers Allina Dallas Anderson North Medical Chuck Lindstrom 651-236-4306 763-520-2893 X American Red Cross Chapter Jill Hallonquist jhallonquist@redcrosstc.or g 612-460-3679 X Salvation Army Drew Hasty drew.hasty@USC.salvation army.org 651-746-3424 X Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Chief Chris Olson (Chair) colson@ci.blaine.mn.us 763-785-6196 X X Anoka County Community Health and Environmental Services Laurel Hoff laurel.hoff@co.anoka.mn.u s 763-422-6918 X X FEDERAL AND STATE MITIGATION CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Agency/Department Name and Function Contact Name and email Contact Telephone Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate Hinder Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Region V 312-408-5500 X X U .S. Department of Homeland Security Central Switchboard 202-282-8000 X X National Flood Insurance Program Ceil Strauss, State NFIP Coordinator 651-259-5713 X X Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 169 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Vikki Hanson victoria.hanson@dhs.gov 312-408-5327 X X Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Kris Eide Kris.Eide@state.mn.us 651-296-2233 X X Minnesota Department of Public Safety Ramona Dohman ramona.dohman@state.mn. us 651-215-1527 X National Weather Service- Chanhassen Todd Krause Todd.krause@noaa.gov 952-368-2554 X Minnesota Department of Human Services Lucinda Jesson Lucinda.Jesson@state.mn. us 651-296-2701 X Minnesota Department of Health Edward Ehlinger Edward.Ehlinger@state.mn .us 651-201-5806 X Minnesota State Fire Marshal/Office of Pipeline Safety Jerry Rosendahl Jerry.Rosendahl@state.m n.us 651-201-7201 X Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Tom Landwehr Tom.Landwehr@state.mn.u s 651-259-2549 X Minnesota Department of Transportation Tom Sorel Tom.Sorel@state.mn.us 651-296-3000 X 5.1.5 Disaster Shelters Anoka County and its participating jurisdictions have several shelters. There are designated Red Cross shelters and other facilities that are designated as shelters by municipalities and Anoka County. The Hazard Mitigation Appendix included the identified shelters and their characteristics. 5.1.6 Previously Implemented Mitigation Measures The success of future mitigation efforts in a community can be gauged to some extent by its ongoing or past efforts. Previously implemented mitigation measures indicate that there is, or has been, a desire to reduce the effects of natural hazards, and the success of these projects can be influential in building local government support for new mitigation efforts. Anoka County’s previous mitigation efforts and programs include the following: Each jurisdiction in Anoka County supports a public works department and many provide water and wastewater treatment facilities. Allina and North Medical provide emergency medical service throughout the county. Law enforcement is provided for each municipality, either by the 10 municipal law enforcement agencies, or by the Anoka County Sheriffs Office. Fire Protection and fire medical / rescue services are provided for each municipality by one of 15 fire departments, with either all paid, a combination of paid and volunteer, or all volunteer firefighters. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 170 Fridley has completed a project to construct a levee and enable bank stabilization along the Mississippi River to protect homes in certain vulnerable areas. The City of Anoka completed a project to acquire property and remove chronically flood threatened homes along the Rum River. Anoka County and the municipalities within, participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Minnesota health officials helped to develop a mass clinic plan. Anoka County Health Department's plan was tested during an August 2004 Strategic National Stockpile drill and subsequently revised to address problems found during that exercise. The plan was implemented for the H1N1 Pandemic. Anoka County is responsible for planning a mass vaccination process should this be necessary due to contagious disease outbreak. Locations for mass dispensing sites have been identified, and a process for administering medicines is being refined and tested. Practice exercises are conducted between HSEM, NWS, FBI, Anoka County Emergency Medical Services, city first responders and Anoka County Emergency Management to assure preparedness. All facilities involved with hazardous materials provide annual TIER II reports. Cities throughout Anoka County continue to add outdoor warning sirens to improve warning effectiveness, and to maintain existing sirens to insure proper operation. The American Red Cross has multiple designated emergency shelters. We continue to work with the Red Cross on pet compliant shelters. Anoka County is part of the North Metro Drug Task Force, which is active in methamphetamine and other drug enforcement, effectively reducing the number of clandestine labs in the county. Multiple Anoka County communities have been active in the Firewise program, which works with the state Department of Natural Resources to remove potential fuel sources that may be involved in wild land fires. This mitigation effort limits the spread of wild land fires, and helps to protect homes. Anoka County participates in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. State mitigation efforts and programs that are significant to Anoka County include the following: State of Minnesota Pipeline Safety Plan: The state of Minnesota, along with gas and oil pipeline providers, maintains a pipeline safety plan. Pipeline providers are required to schedule meetings with local officials to facilitate discussions about mitigation and response to pipeline disasters. The State Emergency Response Commission is responsible for implementing federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) provisions in Minnesota and serving as a technical advisor and information clearinghouse for state and federal hazardous materials programs. The Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency is the lead agency responsible for implementing EPCRA. Minnesota Emergency Management Plan (MEOP): The Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MMP) is the document that provides the foundation for all disaster and emergency response operations conducted within the state of Minnesota. Minnesota state law requires HSEM to develop this plan and update it on a periodic basis. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 171 HSEM Regional Offices: HSEM has six Regional Offices. The regional office serves as the primary day-to-day point of contact with local governments and the citizens of the state. A Regional Program Coordinator heads each office. The Area Coordinators travel to local Emergency Management offices to help coordinate planning and preparedness activities, ensure that federally assisted counties are complying with grant requirements, and provide training to emergency responders. The RPC also serves as the agency’s conduit to state assistance to major emergencies. An HSEM RPC responds to any major emergency, emergencies involving multiple state agencies, hazardous materials, multiple fatalities, and other events upon the request of local officials. Each county in Minnesota has its own Local Emergency Management Director, and at least one designated Assistant Director, who serve at the direction of the respective County Boards. Because disasters occur at the local government level, the Local Director is the key to comprehensive community emergency management. Some local Emergency Management programs receive federal funding assistance through HSEM. Such programs must meet minimum mutually agreed upon criteria. These counties are called Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) counties. The HSEM Regional Offices are responsible for ensuring EMPG counties meet or exceed the minimum EMPG criteria. Anoka County is an EMPG county. The Domestic Preparedness Program is a partnership of federal, state and local agencies with the goal of insuring that, as a nation, we are prepared to respond to a terrorist attack involving nuclear, biological or chemical weapons - weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Today, the term "Homeland Security" is used to denote the concept of preparing for these kinds of events. We continue to review and update our county wide programs as guidance documents are published by the Department of Homeland Security. 5.1.7 Repetitive Flooding Mitigation This section describes the source of repetitive flooding problems and identifies the number and type (residential, commercial or governmental) of repetitive loss properties in the jurisdiction. A repetitive loss structure, as defined by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), is a structure that is covered by flood insurance by NFIP that has suffered flood damage twice over a 10-year period in which the average cost of repair is over 25% of the market value of the structure at the time of the event. The table below identifies the repetitive flooding sources structures and mitigation measures taken to reduce future incidents. REPETITIVE FLOODING MITIGATION Number of Structures Structure Type Residential Commercial Government Critical Facility Etc. Flood Location Flood Type Storm Water Out Of Banks Low Lying Maintenance Number of events Mitigation Action Structure Buy Out Levee Built Drainage Improvement Etc. 12 Residential Riverview Terrace, Fridley Out of Banks 4 Levee Built Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 172 44 Residential River Avenue, Anoka Out of Banks 7 Structure Buy Out 5.1.8 Linking Capability Assessments, Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy The findings of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment serve as the foundation for a meaningful hazard mitigation strategy. During the process of identifying the goals, objectives and mitigation actions, each jurisdiction must consider not only its level of hazard risk but also its existing capability to minimize or eliminate that risk. In jurisdictions where the overall hazard risk is considered to be HIGH, and local capability is considered LOW, specific mitigation actions that account for these conditions should be considered. This may include less costly actions such as minor ordinance revisions or public awareness activities. Also, specific capabilities may need to be improved in order to address recurring threats. In cases where the hazard vulnerability is LOW and overall capability is HIGH, more emphasis can be placed on actions that may impact future vulnerability such as guiding development away from known hazard areas. 5.2 Mitigation Strategy 5.2.1 Overview The intent of the Mitigation Strategy is to provide Anoka County and its municipal jurisdictions with goals that will guide future mitigation policy and project administration, along with a list of proposed actions deemed necessary to meet those goals and reduce the impact of natural and manmade hazards. It is designed to be comprehensive and strategic in nature. Development of the comprehensive strategy included a thorough review of all natural and selected manmade hazards, and identification of policies and projects to reduce the future impacts of hazards and assist the county and municipalities to achieve compatible economic, environmental, and social goals. The strategy ensures that all policies and projects are linked to established priorities and assigned to specific departments or individuals responsible for their implementation with target implementation deadlines. When applicable, funding sources are identified that can be used to assist in project implementation. The first step in designing the Mitigation Strategy includes a review of existing mitigation measures and the identification of countywide Mitigation Goals. Mitigation Goals represent broad statements that are achieved through the implementation of more specific, action-oriented objectives listed in the county’s Mitigation Action Plan. These actions include both hazard mitigation policies (such as the regulation of land in known hazard areas through a local ordinance), and hazard mitigation projects that seek to address specifically targeted hazard risks (such as the mitigation of an area prone to repetitive flooding). The second step involves the identification and analysis of available mitigation measures to help achieve the identified mitigation goals. This is a long-term, continuous process sustained through the development and maintenance of this Plan. Alternative mitigation measures will continue to be considered as future mitigation opportunities become identified, as data and technology improve, as mitigation funding becomes available, and as this Plan is maintained. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 173 The third and last step in designing the Mitigation Strategy is the creation of the local Mitigation Action Plans (MAPs); The MAPs represent unambiguous plans for action, and are considered to be the most essential outcome of the mitigation planning process. They include a prioritized listing of proposed hazard mitigation actions (policies and projects) for each of Anoka County’s jurisdictions, along with accompanying information regarding those agencies or individuals assigned responsibility for their implementation, potential funding sources and an estimated target date for implementation. The MAPs provide those individuals or agencies responsible for implementing mitigation actions with a clear roadmap that also serves as an important tool for monitoring progress over time. 5.2.2 Mitigation Goals The goals of the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan were crafted early in the planning process through a facilitated discussion and brainstorming session with the Mitigation Steering Committee. At each step of the planning process the overreaching goals were reviewed and modified, if necessary, based on any new information that was gathered and assimilated into the Plan. Some additional goals were added based on the analysis of the Capability Assessments submitted by each jurisdiction and feedback received in the community meetings. There are goals established for each hazard identified by the Hazard Committee as hazards that have a significant potential of impacting assets and population of Anoka County and the participating jurisdictions. The following goal statements represent a broad target for Anoka County and its jurisdictions to achieve through the implementation of their own specific Mitigation Action Plans before the next Plan update. COMMUNITY GOALS Jurisdiction Goals Each Mitigation Goal is paired with a Community Goal in section 5.4.2. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. Continue participation in the National Flood Insurance Program or similar Federal Flood Insurance Program. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Review existing codes and ordinances to ensure adequacy in restricting development in identified hazard areas. Support Minnesota Homeland Security strategies to counter terrorism. 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(i): The mitigation strategy shall include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the important first step. It has been determined by the Anoka County Mitigation Steering Committee that the following goal statements are consistent with the State of Minnesota’s current mitigation planning goals as identified in the State of Minnesota’s Hazard Mitigation Plan promulgated by MEMA. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 174 5.2.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques In formulating Anoka County’s Mitigation Strategy, a wide range objectivities were considered in order to help achieve the general countywide goals in addition to the specific hazard concerns of each participating jurisdiction. Multiple objectives have been established for each mitigation goal. All activities considered by the Mitigation Steering Committee can be classified under one of the following six broad categories of mitigation techniques: Prevention activities are intended to keep hazard problems from getting worse, and are typically administered through those government programs or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are constructed. They are particularly effective in reducing a community’s vulnerability, especially in areas where development has not occurred or capital improvements have not been substantial. Property Protection measures involve the modification of existing buildings and structures to help them better withstand the forces of a hazard, or removal of the structures from hazardous locations. Natural Resource Protection reduces the impact of natural hazards by preserving or restoring natural areas and their protective functions. Such areas include floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes and sand dunes. Parks, recreation, or conservation organizations often implement these protective measures. Structural Mitigation Projects are intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the environmental natural progression of the hazard event through construction. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff. Emergency Services Although not typically considered a “mitigation” technique, emergency service measures do minimize the impact of a hazard event on people and property. These commonly are actions taken immediately prior to, during, or in response to a hazard event. Public Education and Awareness are used to alert residents, elected officials, business owners, property buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effect of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 175 5.2.3.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Community Survey (Double Click on Hazard Mitigation Survey to open document in Adobe Reader) Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 176 During the planning process a public survey was created and distributed though the Anoka County Website, Facebook, and Twitter to provide the largest opportunity for residents and businesses to complete the survey. The results will be used by the jurisdictions in Anoka County to meet the needs of the residents and businesses to improve their level of preparedness to respond to events and incidents. The survey consisted of the following questions; 1. Please select the jurisdiction where you live or work in Anoka County Andover Anoka Bethel Blaine Centerville Circle Pines Columbia Heights Columbus Coon Rapids East Bethel Fridley Ham Lake Hilltop Lexington Lino Lakes Linwood Township Nowthen Oak Grove Ramsey Spring Lake Park St Francis What is the 5 digit zip code of your home or work 55005 55011 55014 55025 55038 55070 55079 55092 55110 55126 55303 55304 55330 55421 55432 55433 55434 55448 55449 3. Our Hazard Mitigation Plan has identified the hazards listed below as being most likely to impact Anoka County. Please select the three hazards that are the greatest concern for your home or work Urban Fire (House, Apartment or Business Fire) Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 177 Thunderstorms (Wind and Hail Damage) Flooding Tornados Wild Fires (Large grass fire in a wild land setting) Pandemics / Vectors (Diseases / Viruses) Winter Storms Terrorism Hazardous Materials Illegal Meth Labs (Chemical Hazard) 4. Please list any additional hazards that you feel may impact your home or work 5. What are you doing on your property or inside your home or work to reduce the vulnerability to the above listed hazards? (Please select all that apply) Maintain smoke alarms Maintain NOAA Weather Radio Install backflow preventer on sewer line Defensible space landscaping (clear vegetation around house to reduce wildfire risk) Installed or will install fire sprinklers Strengthened openings (Doors, windows, and/or garage door to reduce high-hazard wind risk) Install or will install safe room in home or work Other (please specify) 6. If a severe hazard event occurred today (large earthquake or dam failure) such that all services were cut off from your home (power, gas, water, and sewer) and you were unable to leave or access a store for 72 hours, which of these items do you have readily available? (Please select all that apply) Potable Water (3 gallons per person) Extra Clothes and Shoes Cooking and eating utensils Blanket(s)/ Sleeping Bag(s) Can Opener Cash Canned / Non-perishable Foods (ready to eat) Flashlight (with batteries) Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 178 Gas grill / Camping stove Gasoline stored approved container Extra Medications Telephone (with batteries) First Aid Kit/Supplies Pet Supplies Portable AM/FM Radio (solar powered, hand crank, or batteries) Handheld "Walkie-Talkie" Radios (with batteries) Important Family Photos/Documentation in a water and fire proof container Additional Preparedness Steps 7. How many days are you prepared for if you are unable to leave your home or business and assistance is unable to reach you Less than 1 Day / Less than 24 Hours 1 Day / 24 Hours 2 Days / 48 Hours 3 Days / 72 Hours 4 Days or Longer 8. Do you have a plan for evacuating large animals and/or pets? (Please select all that apply) Yes, I have a plan for evacuating my pets (cats, dogs, etc). Yes, I have a plan for evacuating my large animals (horses, cows, etc). No, I have pets but have not planned for their evacuation. No, I have large animals but have not planned for their evacuation. Not Applicable, I have no large animals or pets 9. Are you familiar with the special needs of your neighbors or coworkers in the event of a disaster situation (special needs may include limited mobility, severe medical conditions, memory impairments, etc) Yes No 10. Are you a trained member of your Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)? (Note: your community may use a different name than CERT) Yes No Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 179 I would like more information on the CERT Program (Enter Name and Address when requested) 11. What are the most important things local government can do to help communities be more prepared for a disaster Disseminate effective emergency notifications and communication Training and education to residents and business owners on how to reduce future damage Community outreach regarding emergency preparedness Being aware of special needs and vulnerable populations Make a plan to use volunteer residents to help in a disaster Additional Preparedness Steps 12. If you are a homeowner, do you have adequate basic homeowners insurance to cover the hazards that could impact your home? Please note that most basic policies do not cover flooding or sewer backup conditions. Yes, my insurance coverage should be adequate No, I don’t believe my insurance coverage would be adequate for a major disaster Unsure I do not have an insurance policy 13. If you rent your residence, do you have renter's insurance Yes No 14. Do you have flood insurance for your home Yes, I own my home and have flood insurance. Yes, I rent my home and have flood insurance. No, but I am interested in reviewing flood insurance options (http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/). No, I do not need flood insurance. 15. Please recommend any companies or local associations that should be involved in the Anoka County hazard mitigation planning process. 16. Would you like to review and comment on a draft of your jurisdiction’s annex to the Multi- Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Yes, please notify me using my contact information in the next question. No Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 180 17. Please provide your name and email address in order to be notified of future opportunities to participate in hazard mitigation and resiliency planning. If you do not have an email address, please provide your mailing address. 18. Please provide us with any additional comments/suggestions/questions that you have regarding your risk to future hazard events. The Community Survey results are located in Appendix C. 5.2.4 Selection of Mitigation Techniques In order to determine the most appropriate mitigation techniques for Anoka County and its municipal jurisdictions, local government officials reviewed and considered the findings of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment. Other considerations included each mitigation action’s effect on overall risk to life and property, its ease of implementation, its degree of political and community support, its general cost-effectiveness, and funding availability (if necessary). The following table of alternative mitigation actions was the basis for developing the mitigation techniques. ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS HAZARDS> Alternative Mitigation Actions that can affect the above hazards Transportation Chemical Facility Bridge Failure Dam Failure Disease Animal Disease Human Drought/Blight Earthquake Flooding Hazardous Spills Hurricane Terror-Chemical Terror-Biological Terror-Radiological Terror-Nuclear Terror-Explosive Thunderstorm Tornado Urban Fire Wildfire Winter Storm Building codes X X X X X X X X X Density regulations X X X X X X X X X Easements X X X X X X X X X X X X X Development regulations X X X X X X X X X X X X Wildfire fuel reduction X X Hillside regulations X Performance standards X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Setback regulations X X X X X X Special use permits X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Storm water controls X X X X X Rights transfer controls X X X X X X X X X X X X Zoning X X X X X X X X X X X X Acquire in-hazard assets X X X X X X X Facility hazard barriers X X X X X X X Structure elevation X X Relocation of structures X X X X Structure retrofits X X X X X X X X X Dams monitoring X X X X X X Levee/seawall mgt X X X X X X X Real estate disclosure X X X X X Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 181 Forest management X X Erosion controls X X X X X Waterway management X X X X X X Landscape management X X X X X X X X X Wetlands regulations X X X X X X Vital facilities protection X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X COOP/COG Plan X X X X X X X X X X X X X EMAP Accreditation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Emergency Ops. Plan X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Hazard/threat recognition X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Hazard warning systems X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Health/safety information X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Pre-disaster mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Post disaster mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Safe rooms and shelters X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Public education X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FEMA guidance for meeting planning requirements of the DMAK2 specifies that governments should prioritize their mitigation actions based on the level of risk a hazard poses to the lives and property of a given jurisdiction. In response to this requirement, the Anoka County Mitigation Steering Committee completed a Mitigation Technique Matrix to make certain they addressed, at a minimum, those hazards posing the greatest threat. The matrix provides the committee with the opportunity to cross-reference each of the priority hazards with the comprehensive range of available mitigation techniques, including prevention; property protection; natural resource protection; structural projects; emergency services; and public education and awareness. ANOKA COUNTY MITIGATION TECHNIQUE MATRIX Mitigation Technique Flooding Tornadoes Urban Fires Hazardous Materials 1 Prevention Y Y Y Y 2 Property Protection Y Y Y Y 3 Natural Resource Protection Y Y Y Y 4 Structural Mitigation Projects Y Y Y Y 5 Emergency Services Y Y Y Y 6 Public Education/Awareness Y Y Y Y Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 182 5.2.5 Mitigation Goals and Actions The mitigation actions proposed by each of Anoka County’s local governing bodies participating under this Plan are listed on the pages that follow. Each Jurisdictions individual goals has been designed to address the multi-jurisdictional community goals of this Hazard Mitigation Plan, in addition to the particular goals and objectives of each individual jurisdiction. They will be maintained on a regular basis according to the plan maintenance procedures established in the maintenance section of this plan. Below are tables that identify the number of actions that pertain to a given jurisdiction and the number of actions that address structures and infrastructure 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit for the plan Jurisdiction Mitigation Actions Jurisdiction Mitigation Actions Anoka County 46 Fridley 19 Andover 14 Ham Lake 4 Anoka 11 Hilltop 4 Bethel 7 Lexington 7 Blaine 11 Lino Lakes 10 Centerville 13 Linwood Twp 10 Circle Pines 3 Nowthen 7 Columbia Heights 14 Oak Grove 16 City of Columbus 9 Ramsey 22 Coon Rapids 5 Spring Lake Park 10 East Bethel 11 St. Francis 15 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(ii) MITIGATION ACTIONS The mitigation strategy shall include a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effect of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. 268 Actions At first glance, the large number of action items indicated above may seem excessive. However, the Mitigation Committee believes that each of the following goals, objectives, and action items is necessary to continue to address hazard issues in Anoka County. It is important to note that Anoka County’s individual Mitigation Action Plans include an array of actions targeting multiple hazards, not just those classified as high risk. It was the intent of the committee to establish realistic, attainable actions that can be accomplished within the present fiscal capabilities of the participating jurisdictions and accepted by the citizens of the county. All members of the Planning Committee agreed that starting with small steps, accomplishing the stated goals, and publicizing the success of the county’s mitigation efforts will open the community to accept of larger, more costly, projects in the future. Many of the goals are interrelated (e.g. providing various categories of preparedness and awareness information to citizens at community events); these will be accomplished under a single, ongoing project. Many of the goals can be accomplished within existing department Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 183 budgets, costing only the time of employees already on staff. While “time is money” and hours have been estimated in dollars for each action item, there will be no requirement for additional funds to be budgeted to accomplish many of the action items. The success of this Plan hinges on three major action items; Anoka County Emergency Management is tasked with Plan oversight, to include project tracking, progress reports, and reconvening the Steering Committee as needed for Plan review and revision; in addition, Emergency Management will serve as lead agency for many of the action items. Emergency Management staff must pursue all grant opportunities that become available to assist with funding countywide mitigation actions. Staff must receive necessary training on grant writing and evaluation of grant criteria. Without assistance from the various grant programs available, Anoka County cannot afford to begin many of the more expensive mitigation actions described in this plan. GIS hardware and updated software will continue to be purchased and existing county GIS/Technology staff continue training to allow the inclusion of HAZUS-MH capability to more fully assess hazards throughout the county. In addition to hazard assessment, this capability will extend to planning and zoning, school boards, utilities and infrastructure, and all emergency service agencies. The hazard mitigation planning process has brought together a group of dedicated representatives from the twenty-two jurisdictions comprising Anoka County. An early suggestion from several members of the planning committee that the group continue to meet on a regular schedule after Plan approval speaks for the cooperation and sense of community each jurisdiction brings to the planning effort, and instills confidence that the jurisdictions will unite in mitigation and other efforts to meet the following goals. It is the vision of Anoka County and its municipalities to promote citizen and governmental responsibility for hazard awareness and preparedness, and to foster cooperative planning among the jurisdictions to reduce the impact of natural and manmade hazards on public and private assets, and on the safety and welfare of all citizens. During the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Planning team reviewed all the goals from the 2006 plan and marked each goal as being completed, ongoing, or canceled. Jurisdictions were provided with the opportunity to add new mitigation goals to the plan. Through the update process each Jurisdiction reviewed and updated their mitigation goals. The goals are listed in section 5.2.5 as New, Ongoing Completed, or Canceled. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 184 ANOKA COUNTY MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: To prevent damage to persons and property from tornadoes, windstorms and straight line winds. Objective 1.1: Improve the county’s warning and information capabilities. Action Action/Project Description Hazard Addressed Community Goal Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Encourage expansion of outdoor warning sirens to areas that currently do not have coverage and maintain existing outdoor warning sirens. All but 1 community now has outdoor warning sirens Improve Public Alert and Warning Capability in Anoka County Anoka County Emergency Management 250000 1000000 PDM Grant Jurisdiction Budgets Ongoing/ Long Term 1.1.2 Continue to review EAS capabilities and system requirements. Implement IPAWS Warning System Improve Public Alert and Warning Capability in Anoka County Anoka County Emergency Management 0 100000 Dept Budget Ongoing / Long Term 1.1.3 Update NAWAS warning system at Anoka County E-911 Communications Center. Improve Public Alert and Warning Capability in Anoka County Anoka County Central Comm. 2000 100000 Dept. Budget Ongoing / Long Term 1.1.4 Purchase and install an automated wide area rapid notification system. Anoka County Emergency Management Metro Emergency Services 200000 Dept. Budget Emergency Services Board Canceled IPAWS Objective 1.2: Increase citizen awareness of, and preparedness for, severe weather events. 1.2.1 Partner with volunteer agencies to distribute severe weather awareness and preparedness literature at community events. Improve Public Alert and Warning Capability in Anoka County Anoka County Emergency Management Volunteer Agencies 2500 100000 Dept Budget Volunteer Agencies Ongoing / Long Term 1.2.2 Partner with NWS to publicize weather spotter and citizen preparedness training. Anoka County Emergency Management NWS 1500 100000 Dept Budgets Completed Ongoing in Goal 12 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 185 1.2.3 Publish news articles and distribute literature to educate the public on safe rooms and shelter-in-place. All Emergency Management 1500 100000 Dept Budget Completed Ongoing in Goal 12 1.2.4 Continue and expand participation in the Severe Weather Awareness Week campaign. Improve Public Alert and Warning Capability in Anoka County Anoka County Emergency Management NWS 2500 100000 Dept Budgets Ongoing / Long Term Objective 1.3: Ensure provision of critical needs during severe weather. 1.3.1 Maintain and update annually, contact information for suppliers of drugs, food, water and fuel. Improve Capability to prepare, respond, and recover from a disaster Anoka County Emergency Management 1500 100000 Dept Budget Ongoing / Long Term 1.3.2 Install generators in critical government facilities and fuel depots. All All Jurisdictional Governments 450000 750000 PDM Grant Jurisdiction Budgets Complete Some continued as local goal Goal 2: To mitigate losses to people and property during extreme weather conditions, such as, blizzards, bitter cold temperat ures, and during drought and extreme heat. Objective 2.1: Reduce the impact of severe cold and extreme heat on special needs populations. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Support the activities of volunteer and County Human Services agencies in identifying and assisting vulnerable populations during severe weather. Improve Capability to prepare, respond, and recover from a disaster Anoka County Community Health and Environmental Services 12500 100000 Dept Budget Agency Budgets Ongoing / Long Term 2.1.2 Continue and expand participation in the Severe Weather and Winter Hazard Awareness Week All Emergency Management NWS 2500 100000 Dept Budgets Completed Ongoing in Goal 12 Goal 3: Reduce the impact of local flooding events. Objective 3.1: Identify specific and repetitive flood prone areas. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 186 3.1.1 Use HAZUS-MH to map 100/500-year flood plains. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County County and City GIS 50000 100000 Dept Budget Continue 3.1.2 Expand flood plain map data to include residential, commercial, occupied and unoccupied properties on a case by case basis based on construction. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Anoka County County and City GIS 50000 500000 Dept Budget Continue 3.1.3 Identify repetitive loss areas and structures. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County County and City GIS 50000 300000 Dept Budget Continue 3.1.4 Collaborate with City and County organizations to evaluate the need to relocate or acquire structures in flood hazard areas. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County County GIS 25000 250000 Dept Budgets Continue 3.1.5 Collaborate with City and County organizations to use mapping and databases to restrict development in defined flood hazard areas. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Anoka County Anoka County GIS / EM 7500 300000 Dept Budgets Continue Objective 3.2: Eliminate repetitive damage from roadway flooding. 3.2.1 Collaborate with City and County organizations to identify roadways repetitively damaged by flooding. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County County and City GIS 12500 300000 Dept Budget Continue Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 187 3.2.2 Collaborate with City and County organizations to raise grade level of identified roadways. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County Anoka County Public Works and Road Departments 2000000 5000000 MNDOT Jurisdiction Budgets Dept Budgets Continue 3.2.3 Collaborate with City and County organizations to evaluate the feasibility of expanding ditch depth and width along roadways to mitigate road flooding. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Anoka County Anoka County Public Works Dept 12500 500000 Dept Budgets Continue Objective 3.3: Provide motorists warning of roadway flooding. 3.3.1 Collaborate with City, County, and State Public Works / Highway to place signage indicating water depth at flooding points. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education Anoka County Anoka County EM and Highway 25000 100000 PDM Grant Dept Budgets Continue 3.3.2 Collaborate with City, County, and State Public Works / Highway to install gates to block roadways and bridges during flooding. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County Anoka County EM and Highway 50000 100000 PDM Grant Dept Budgets Continue Objective 3.4: Continue participation in, and improve citizen awareness, of the National Flood Insurance Program. 3.4.1 Publish news articles to advise citizens of the availability of flood insurance. All Emergency Management 500 800000 Dept Budget Complete 2010 3.4.2 Partner with local insurance agents for flood insurance literature to be distributed to citizens at community events. (Worked with State of MN Dept. Commerce in 2010) All Emergency Management Insurers of Anoka County 8000 800000 Dept Budget Agency Budgets Complete Objective 3.5: Increase public awareness of flood hazard and safety. 3.5.1 Distribute flood awareness and preparedness literature at community events. (Anoka Co Fair 2011and Night to Unite City Events) All City and County Emergency Management 2500 100000 Dept Budget Complete Goal 4: To prevent injuries and damage to property during an urban fire incident. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 188 Objective 4.1: Increase citizen awareness of fire hazards, prevention, and safety. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Continue aggressive school fire prevention programs. All Anoka County Fire Departments 5000 100000 Fire Dept Budgets Ongoing / Long Term Moved to Goal 12 4.1.2 Collaborate with local fire departments and volunteer agencies to present fire prevention programs to service clubs, senior citizens, and special needs populations. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County Anoka County 5000 100000 Fire Dept Budgets Ongoing / Long Term 4.1.3 Partner with fire departments to distribute fire prevention literature at community events. All Anoka County Fire Departments 5000 100000 Fire Dept Budgets Completed Ongoing in Goal 12 4.1.4 Assist fire departments in obtaining grants to purchase materials and equipment to enhance fire prevention programs. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka County Emergency Management 5000 100000 Grants Ongoing / Long Term Objective 4.2: Reduce the incidence and severity of structure fires. 4.2.1 Continue rigid enforcement of existing fire and electrical codes. All Jurisdictional Planning and Zoning Departments 25000 100000 Dept Budgets Canceled City Enforceme nt 4.2.2 Collaborate with local fire departments and business, industry, and education facilities to develop emergency pre-plans for all public buildings, schools, businesses and churches. Anoka County Anoka County Fire Departments 50000 2000000 Dept Budgets Ongoing / Long Term Objective 6.3: Improve firefighter safety and response capabilities. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 189 4.3.1 Fund training for state and national certifications for career and volunteer firefighters. Centennial Fire Department 2012 Fire Act Grant Training and Recruitment (1.2 Million over 5 years) All Anoka County Fire Departments 25000 100000 Dept Budgets Complete Goal 5: Minimize the impact of wildfires on citizens and property. Objective 5.1: Increase citizen awareness of, and preparedness for wildfire events. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 5.1.1 Publish news articles to promote wildfire awareness. All DNR Anoka County Fire Departments 500 100000 Dept Budgets Complete Ongoing as Goal 12 5.1.2 Partner with the DNR to distribute USFS fuels reduction, wildfire awareness and prevention literature at community events (Firewise.) All DNR Anoka County Fire Departments 2500 100000 Dept Budgets Complete Objective 5.2: Improve firefighter safety and effectiveness of operations during wild land firefighting operations. 5.2.1 Provide fire department compatible portable radios to DNR to permit interoperable communications. All Central Communicatio ns 25000 100000 Dept. Budget Complete ARMER System Goal 6: Reduce loss of life and property from Methamphetamine Labs. Objective 6.1: Improve Meth lab recognition and reporting. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 6.1.1 Provide Meth lab awareness training for citizens, public works employees and emergency responders. All Emergency Management Law Enforcement 25000 100000 Dept Budgets Complete 6.1.2 Partner with schools to promote recognition and reporting of Meth labs. All Law Enforcement Boards of Education 12500 100000 Dept Budgets Complete Objective 6.2: Improve emergency responder safety at Meth Labs. 6.2.1 Fund training, overtime and backfill cost for law enforcement Meth Task Force personnel training. Anoka County Law Enforcement 20000 100000 DOJ HSEM Dept Budget Complete Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 190 6.2.2 Provide equipment to allow responders safe entry at Meth labs. All All Jurisdictional Governments 30000 100000 DOJ HSEM Dept Budget Complete 6.2.3 Support development of Meth lab SOGs for fire and EMS responders. Anoka County Anoka County Fire Departments 5000 100000 Dept Budgets Complete Goal 7: To Minimize the impact of hazardous materials spills and releases at fixed facilities. Objective 7.1: Identify and establish requirements for fixed sites with reportable quantities of hazardous materials. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 7.1.1 Create a GIS Map database of identified sites to display ERG established zones and evacuation perimeters. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Anoka County City GIS and City EM Anoka County 25000 100000 Dept. Budget (Modified from 2006 Goal) 7.1.2 Partner with MN Dept of Public Safety to develop, maintain and annually update an inventory of hazardous materials sites. All Emergency Management Dept of Public Safety Fire Dept 2500 100000 Dept. Budgets MN Dept of Public Safety Complete Ongoing updates with SARA III Reports Objective 7.2: Educate citizens on response to hazard materials incidents. 7.2.1 Publish articles in area newspapers to instruct citizens on shelter- in-place. All Emergency Management 500 100000 Dept Budget Complete Ongoing in Goal 12 7.2.2 Partner with MN Dept of Public Safety to distribute citizen awareness and preparedness literature at community events. All Emergency Management MN Dept of Public Safety 2500 100000 Dept Budget MN Dept of Public Safety Complete Ongoing in Goal 12 Goal 8: Minimize the impact of hazardous materials transportation accidents. Objective 8.1: Improve the safety of emergency responders and countywide response. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 191 8.1.1 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to permit hazardous materials awareness training for all fire, EMS, rescue and law enforcement emergency responders. All Emergency Management EMS Fire Depts. Law Enforcement MN HSEM 150000 400000 Dept. Budgets Homeland Security Grants Complete Ongoing in Goal 12 8.1.2 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to allow for hazardous materials operations level and CBRNE training. All Emergency Management Fire Dept’s MN HSEM 200000 1000000 Dept. Budgets Homeland Security Grants Complete Ongoing / Long Term Moved to Goal 12 8.1.3 Plan and conduct periodic hazardous materials tabletop exercises and drills involving all emergency response agencies. All Emergency Management EMS Fire Dept’s Law Enforcement MN HSEM 25000 100000 Dept Budgets Homeland Security Grants Complete Ongoing in Goal 12 Objective 8.2: Reduce effects to the environment resulting from transportation hazardous materials spills. 8.2.1 Training for all firefighters in containing hazardous spills. All Emergency Management Fire Dept’s 50000 100000 Dept Budgets Complte Ongoin in Goal 12 8.2.2 Provide all fire dept’s equipment to contain hazardous materials spills on roadways. All Emergency Management Fire Dept’s 15000 500000 Jurisdiction Budgets Completed Goal 9: Protect the county’s citizens and assets from domestic and international terrorism. Objective 9.1: Encourage public vigilance and reporting of suspicious activities. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 9.1.1 Publish news articles on the importance of citizen vigilance in the fight against terrorism. All Emergency Management 500 100000 Dept Budget Complete Ongoing as Goal 12 Objective 9.2: Decrease the possibility of and loss of life from attacks on public facilities. 9.2.1 Install caller ID on county courthouse phones. Anoka County County Departments 25000 7000000 County Budget Complete Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 192 9.2.2 Develop and practice evacuation plans for Anoka County Government Facilities. Anoka County County Risk Management Department 12500 100000 County Budget Complete Ongoing testing and training 9.2.3 Collaborate with local law enforcement, Sheriff’s Office and schools to improve security and lock down procedures. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation Anoka County Anoka County EM / Sheriff 12500 100000 Dept Budgets Continued Objective 9.3: Improve terrorism response capabilities and safety of emergency responders. 9.3.1 Continue to participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Support Minnesota Homeland Security strategies to counter terrorism Anoka County Anoka County Sheriff 12500 100000 Dept Budgets Continued Ongoing 9.3.2 Fund overtime and backfill to provide emergency response to terrorism training for all fire, EMS, rescue and law enforcement responders. All All Jurisdictional Governments 50000 100000 HSEM Jurisdiction Budgets Ongoing / Long Term Moved to Goal 12 Goal 10: Minimize the impact of a large-scale infectious disease event. Objective 10.1: Prepare for widespread public health emergencies. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 10.1.1 Develop, recruit and train a Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), other agency staff and community volunteers to support interventions to prevent and control large-scale infectious disease events. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for hazard event Anoka County Anoka Co. Community Health and Environmental Services Department (CHES) 100000 1000000 HSEM Dept. Budgets Continued Ongoing 10.1.2 Exercise all hazards public health response activities Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events Anoka County CHES 25000 5000000 HSEM Dept. Budgets Continued Ongoing Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 193 10.1.3 Participate in local, regional, and state drills and exercises, testing unified responses to a large-scale disease event. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events Anoka County CHES 25000 5000000 HSEM Dept. Budgets Continued Ongoing 10.1.4 Encourage all businesses to develop continuity of operations plans and evaluate what impact a public health incident would have on their business. Continue to build and expand partnerships with public and private sector businesses Anoka County CHES and Cities 20000 1000000 HSEM Dept. Budgets Continued Ongoing 10.1.5 Partner with local medical community to educate public on healthcare and pandemics to include; isolation, quarantine, triage and hospital care. Continue to build and expand partnerships with public and private sector businesses Anoka County CHES 30000 1000000 HSEM Dept. Budgets Continued Ongoing Objective 10.2: Reduce loss of life and mitigate the impact on the community infrastructure. 10.2.1 Direct flow of traffic and support security during mass dispensing or during a compromised event. All All 150000 500000 CHES HSEM Complete 10.2.2 Identify Mass Dispensing Sites and population density data. All County GIS 15000 150000 CHES HSEM Complete 10.3.3 Identify locations or housing for populations at risk. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Anoka County County GIS 15000 150000 CHES HSEM Continued Goal 11: Improve the county's capability to prepare for, respond to, mitigate and recover from all disasters. Objective 11.1: Improve the county’s ability to evaluate and manage hazards Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 11.1.1 Provide GIS Director FEMA training to ensure incorporation of HAZUS-MS in GIS databases. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Anoka County County City 1000 30000 County Budget Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 194 11.1.2 Encourage jurisdictions to partner in developing comprehensive, economic development and continuity of operations plans. Continue to build and expand partnerships with public and private sector businesses Anoka County Emergency Management 1000 500000 Jurisdiction Budgets Continued 11.1.3 Maintain the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and schedule periodic meetings to review plan updates. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation Anoka County Emergency Management 2000 25000 Dept Budgets Continued Ongoing Objective 11.2: Provide hazard awareness preparedness and training information to citizens. 11.2.1 Develop/maintain a web site for citizen information: on shelter-in- place, safe room information, citizen training opportunities, FEMA course listing and links to hazard preparedness sites. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education All Emergency Management 25000 100000 Dept Budget Complete Moved to Goad 12 Objective 11.3: Continue to improve Anoka County Emergency Management Agency capabilities. 11.3.1 After each disaster review Anoka County Emergency Operations Plan. Review and revise annually the Anoka County Emergency Operations Plan. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Anoka County Emergency Management 2500 100000 Dept Budget Continued Ongoing 11.3.2 Develop, maintain and revise annually a countywide comprehensive NIMS-type resource inventory. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Anoka County Emergency Management 21000 200000 Dept Budget Continued 11.3.3 Develop and incorporate into the EOP ESF-format annexes for mass casualty and fatality events. Anoka County Emergency Management 3000 30000 Dept Budget Complete ESF Format Objective 11.4: Improve multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency response to all emergencies and disasters. 11.4.1 Encourage adoption of the National Incident Management System by all Jurisdictions. All Emergency Management 1000 2000000 Dept Budget Complete NIMS Cast Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 195 11.4.2 Schedule and conduct Incident Command training annually for all fire, EMS, rescue and law enforcement personnel as a pre- requisite for NIMS training. All Emergency Management 450000 2000000 HSEM Complete Goal 12: Partnerships Objective 12.1 Increase public outreach and awareness campaigns using Multimedia and Print to provide information to residents and businesses in Anoka County Action Action/Project Description Hazard Addressed Community Goal Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 12.1.1 Public Outreach using print and multimedia campaigns for awareness and reduction of flood related losses working with public and private partners. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Anoka County Anoka County Emergency Management 500 500000 Dept Budgets NEW 12.1.2 Partner with volunteer agencies and NWS to distribute severe weather awareness and preparedness literature including Spotter Training Material at community events. Improve Public Alert and Warning Capability in Anoka County Anoka County Emergency Management Volunteer Agencies 2500 100000 Dept Budget Volunteer Agencies NEW 12.1.3 Was 7.2.1 Participate in Public Information Campaigns to include Multimedia, community newspapers, and flyers on Emergency Management topics such as “Shelter In Place” and “See Something Say Something” Support Minnesota Homeland Security strategies to counter terrorism Anoka County Emergency Management 500 100000 Dept Budget NEW 12.1.4 Was 5.1.1 Publish news articles to promote wildfire awareness. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education Anoka County DNR Anoka County Fire Departments 500 100000 Dept Budgets NEW 12.1.5 Was 11.2.1 Develop/maintain a web site for citizen information: on shelter-in- place, safe room information, citizen training opportunities, FEMA course listing and links to hazard preparedness sites. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education Anoka County Emergency Management 25000 100000 Dept Budget NEW Objective 12.2 Increase Partnerships with Business and Industry to Increase Preparedness for All Hazards Events Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 196 12.2.1 Was 2.1.2 Continue and expand participation in the Severe Weather and Winter Hazard Awareness Week Improve Capability to prepare, respond, and recover from a disaster Anoka County Emergency Management NWS 2500 100000 Dept Budgets NEW 12.2.2 Was 4.1.1 Continue aggressive school fire prevention programs. Continue aggressive fire prevention education Anoka County Anoka County Fire Departments 5000 100000 Fire Dept Budgets NEW 12.2.3 Was 4.1.3 Partner with fire departments to distribute fire prevention literature at community events. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education Anoka County Anoka County Fire Departments 5000 100000 Fire Dept Budgets NEW Objective 12.3 Continue to improve Emergency Responder Training 12.3.1 Was 8.1.1 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to permit training for all fire, EMS, rescue and law enforcement emergency responders. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Anoka County Emergency Management EMS Fire Depts. Law Enforcement MN HSEM 15000 40000 Dept. Budgets Homeland Security Grants NEW 12.3.2 Was 11.4.2 Provides funds and assist in schedule and conduct Incident Command training for all emergency response personnel. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Anoka County Emergency Management 15000 100000 HSEM NEW 12.3.3 Was 8.1.3 Plan and conduct periodic tabletop exercises and drills involving all emergency response agencies. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events Anoka County Emergency Management EMS Fire Dept’s Law Enforcement MN HSEM 7500 100000 Dept Budgets Homeland Security Grants NEW Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 197 12.3.4 Provide funds and assistance to emergency response agencies to acquire and maintain capability to respond for all hazards events. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Anoka County Emergency Management EMS Fire Dept’s Law Enforcement MN HSEM 50000 100000 Dept Budgets NEW ANDOVER MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Provide Auxiliary Power Generator to Fire Station #2 and #3. From 2006 Plan Objective 1.1: To have automatic emergency power generators for both stations in the event that the main power-supply is disrupted. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Identify appropriate size and type of generator for fire station #2 and #3. Andover Andover Bldg Maintenance and Fire Dept. 0 100000 FEMA Andover Complete Purchase/order fire station generators and equipment for proper installation. Andover Andover Bldg Maint. And Fire Dept. 50000 100000 FEMA Andover Complete 1.1.3 Delivery, installation and test operation of fire station generators. Andover Bldg Maint. Dept. 0 100000 FEMA/ Andover Complete Goal 2: Provide emergency power generator for Andover City Hall. From 2006 Plan Objective 1.1: Make sure that all Andover City Hall operations continue to function in the event of a loss of main power supply. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Evaluate power needs to maintain city hall Andover Building Maintenance 1500 120000 FEMA State Andover Complete 2.1.2 Prepare quotes and advertise for bids for city hall auxiliary generator. Andover Building Maintenance 500 120000 FEMA State Andover Complete 2.1.3 Purchase and install new city hall generator. Andover Building Maintenance 30000 120000 FEMA State Andover Complete Goal 3: Identify Access Alternatives for Neighborhoods with Single Access Points Objective 3.1: Establish alternative access routes for emergency response in single access residential developments. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 198 3.1.1 Identify Neighborhoods that have only a single point of access Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Planning 500 10000 Dept Budget Continued 3.1.2 Identify alternative access points for emergency personnel to inaccessible /blocked neighborhoods. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Planning Engineering Fire Dept. 500 10000 Dept Budget Continued Goal 4: Complete Business Database Objective 4.1: Andover Staff will keep up-to-date list of Businesses in the Community Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Create and compile business database Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Andover Planning 5000 10000 City Budget Complete 4.1.2 Maintain and update business database on an annual basis. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Andover Planning 1000 2000 City Budget Continued Goal 5: Improve the Andover’s capability to prepare for respond to mitigate and recover from all disasters. Objective 5.1: Improve the Andover’s ability to evaluate and manage hazards Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 5.1.1 Develop and train a position to use GIS and is competent in Emergency Management command systems. Andover Andover Admin. 2000 50000 City Budget Complete 5.1.2 Purchase hardware and GIS software to create city-mapping databases. Andover Andover Admin 2000 20000 City Budget Complete 5.1.3 Develop and train position capable of using CAMEO related software. Andover Andover Admin 5000 20000 City Budget Complete Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 199 5.1.4 Train Public Works, Fire, and Law Enforcement in mitigation principles to make ongoing assessments. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Emergency Management 20000 1000000 City Budget Continued 5.1.5 Provide comprehensive training annual refresher to all Fire and Public Works staff on ICS. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover City Fire and Emergency Management 2000 500000 Agency Budgets Continued 5.1.6 Recruit and develop teams of volunteers to assist in emergencies. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Emergency Management 2000 20000 City Budget Continued Objective 5.2: Provide hazard awareness, preparedness, and training information to citizens. 5.2.1 Develop/maintain a web site for citizen information such as shelter locations shelter in-place and safe room information citizen training FEMA course listing and links to hazard preparedness web sites. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Andover Emergency Management 500 100000 Dept. Budget Continued 5.2.2 Partner with volunteers and emergency response agencies to post monthly notices of training available to citizens, Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Andover Emergency Management 500 25000 Dept. Budget Continued 5.2.3 Publish monthly in area newspapers notice of upcoming training and availability of citizen’s awareness web site. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Andover Emergency Management 500 50000 Dept. Budget Continued Objective 5.3: Improve Shelter Capabilities. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 200 5.3.1 Partner with volunteer agencies, schools and churches to provide more shelter facilities. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Emergency Management Boards of Education and Clergy Heads 500 100000 City Budget Continued 5.3.2 Assist in finding funding sources to equip shelter facility needs. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Emergency Management Volunteer Agencies 2500 100000 Agency Budgets Continued Objective 5.4: Improve multi-agency response to all emergencies and disasters 5.4.1 Schedule and conduct Incident Command training annually for all Fire, Public Works, and EMS as a pre-requisite for NIMS training. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Emergency Management 3000 2000000 HSEM Continued 5.4.2 Schedule and conduct NIMS training as need for certifications. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Emergency Management 3000 2000000 HSEM Continued 5.4.3 Conduct annual disaster training exercises involving all emergency response agencies. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Andover Emergency Management 3000 2000000 Grants Budgets Continued ANOKA OF ANOKA MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Improve the City of Anoka’s capability to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from all disasters. Objective 1.1: Improve the City of Anoka’s ability to evaluate and manage hazards. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 201 1.1.1 Train all City personnel, Public Works, Police and Fire personnel in NIMS IS-700 and IS-800. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Emergency Management Police and Fire 6000 100000 Anoka MN HSEM DHS Continued 1.1.2 Continue participation in hazard response and recovery planning with Anoka County and evaluate fire methods and funding sources. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Anoka Emergency Management of Anoka, Anoka Co. MN HSEM 10000 100000 Anoka County HSEM DHS Continued 1.1.3 Purchase fire equipment to enhance the sharing of information during EOC activation. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Anoka Emergency Management 10000 100000 City Budget County HSEM DHS Continued 1.1.4 Maintain the Anoka Emergency Operations Plan. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Emergency Management 1000 500000 Anoka County HSEM Continued Goal 2: Mitigate floods and flooding. Objective 2.1: Reduce or eliminate localized on street flooding from storm water. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 New storm sewer installation during Anoka’s annual street renewal project. To prevent on street localized flooding. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Public Works, Planning and Engineering 1000000 2000000 State MN Anoka Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 202 2.1.2 Install larger storm sewer lines while roadway is open for other repairs in flood prone areas. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Public Works, Planning and Engineering 1000000 2000000 State MN Anoka Continued 2.1.3 Clean debris from city owned culverts and catch basins annually. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Anoka Public Works 50000 100000 Anoka Continued Goal 3: Maintenance and evaluation of emergency outdoor warning sirens. Objective 3.1: Maintenance and evaluation of emergency outdoor warning sirens. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Evaluate current warning system and determine level of operability. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Emergency Management 1000 100000 Anoka Continued 3.1.2 Regularly schedule testing of warning units. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Emergency Management 1000 100000 Anoka Continued 3.1.3 Ongoing maintenance of warning units. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Emergency Management 1200 100000 Anoka Continued 3.1.4 Establish warning unit replacement schedule as needed. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare f or, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Anoka Emergency Management 20000 100000 Anoka Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 203 BETHEL MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Improve public access to city facilities. Objective 1.1: Update Bethel City Hall to meet all federal and state guidelines for public access. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Make all necessary improvements to provide public access to City Hall restrooms. City Hall moved to Handicapped Accessible Building Bethel City Council 50000 50000 City budget grants Canceled 1.1.2 Make all necessary improvements to provide public access to City Hall offices. City Hall moved to Handicapped Accessible Building Bethel City Council 50000 50000 City budget grants Canceled 1.1.3 Upgrade Bethel City Hall computer, intranet, and Internet access to improve sharing information and communications in the event of an emergency. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Bethel City Council 20000 100000 City budget grants Continued Goal 2: Improve fire department capabilities. Objective 2.1: Improve fire department skills and equipment. 2.1.1 Train all Fire personnel in NIMS IS-700. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Bethel Fire Dept 2000 100000 Bethel MN HSEM DHS Continued Training as needed 2.1.2 Continue participation in hazard response and recovery planning with Anoka County in fire evaluating methods and funding sources. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Bethel Fire Dept 2000 20000 Bethel County HSEM DHS Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 204 2.1.3 Purchase fire equipment to enhance the sharing of information during disasters. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. Bethel Fire Dept 25000 200000 Bethel County HSEM DHS Continued Anoka Co CAD/RMS 2.1.4 Install water well at Bethel Fire Station Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Bethel Fire Dept 35000 50000 Bethel Grants NEW Goal 3: To mitigate losses to people and property during extreme weather conditions, such as blizzards, bitter cold temp eratures, and during drought and extreme heat. Objective 3.1: Reduce the impact of severe cold and extreme heat on special needs populations. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Support the activities of volunteer and county agencies in identifying and assisting vulnerable populations during times of extreme weather. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Bethel City EM Dept of Human Services Volunteer Agencies 12500 100000 City Budget Continued 3.1.2 Continue and expand participation in the Severe Weather and Winter Hazard Awareness Week campaigns. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Bethel Emergency Management NWS 2500 100000 City Budget Continued BLAINE MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Establish a requirement to require all homebuilders, within the City of B laine, to provide information and approximate costs for the construction of “Safe Rooms,” within the home, to all potential homebuyers. Objective 1.1: Provide safe shelter for residents who live in home without traditional basements. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Establish an ordinance requiring builders to provide safe room information. Blaine City Council 500 100000 City Budget Complete Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 205 1.1.2 Create and provide “Safe Room” information to local builders. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 1500 100000 City Budget Complete 1.1.3 Create a safe room “Matching Grant” incentive to defray costs to homeowner. Blaine City Council Emergency Management 150000 1000000 City Budget Federal Grants Complete 1.1.4 Provide proper safe room training for Building Department Inspectors. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 3000 20000 City Budget Complete 1.1.5 Create and provide “Safe Room” information to local builders and distribute during permitting process. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 1500 100000 City Budget NEW 1.1.6 Create and provide “Safe Room” information to local builders and distribute during permitting process. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 1500 100000 City Budget NEW 1.1.7 Provide proper safe room training for Building Department Inspectors. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 3000 20000 City Budget NEW 1.1.8 Establish an ordinance requiring builders to provide safe room information Review existing codes and ordinances to ensure adequacy in restricting development in identified hazard areas. Blaine City Council 500 100000 City Budget NEW Goal 2: Establish a requirement to require all homebuilders, wit hin the City of Blaine, to provide information and approximate costs for the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system in the home, to all potential homebuyers. Objective 2.1: To educate homeowners about the benefits of a residential sprinkler system and provide the opportunity for the installation of a system at the time of construction. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 206 2.1.1 Establish an ordinance requiring builders to provide fire sprinkler information. Blaine City Council 500 1000000 City Budget Complete 2.1.2 Create and provide residential fire sprinkler system information to local builders. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 1500 1000000 City Budget Complete 2.1.3 Create a fire sprinkler “Matching Grant” incentive to defray costs to homeowner. Blaine City Council Emergency Management 150,000 1000000 City Budget and Federal Grants? Complete 2.1.4 Provide proper fire sprinkler training for Building Department Inspectors. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 3000 500000 City Budget Complete 2.1.5 Create and provide residential fire sprinkler system information to local builders. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 1500 1000000 City Budget NEW 2.1.6 Create a fire sprinkler “Matching Grant” incentive to defray costs to homeowner. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Blaine City Council Emergency Management 150,000 1000000 City Budget and Federal Grants? NEW 2.1.7 Provide proper fire sprinkler training for Building Department Inspectors. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Blaine Emergency Management and Building Dept. 3000 500000 City Budget NEW 2.1.8 Establish an ordinance requiring builders to provide fire sprinkler information Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Blaine City Council 500 1000000 City Budget NEW Goal 3: Retrofit outdoor warning sirens within the City of Blaine with “Battery Backup Systems.” Objective 3.1: Enhance the city’s ability to warn the public during power outages. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 207 3.1.1 Identify siren locations and establish a schedule of sirens to be retrofitted. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 1000 100000 City Budget Complete 3.1.2 Research siren equipment and identify venders. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 500 10000 City Budget Complete 3.1.3 Budget a siren project starting with 2007 Budget. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 160000 500000 City Budget Federal Grants Complete 3.1.4 Install siren Battery Backup Systems. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 160000 100000 City Budget Federal Grants Complete Goal 4: Facilitate the purchase and implementation of Incident Management software. Implement Knowledge Center into Emergency Management and Public Safety Operations. Objective 4.1: Enhance the city’s ability to manage disasters. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Research Incident management software and vendors. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 500 10000 City Budget Complete 4.1.2 Purchase incident management software. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 20000 500000 City Budget Complete 4.1.3 Implement incident management software and train users. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 5000 100000 City Budget Continued 4.1.4 Add Resources and Infrastructure into Knowledge Center Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Blaine Blaine Emergency Mgt. 0 100000 N/A NEW Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 208 4.1.5 Identify Users, create a training time table and set up user guidelines Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Blaine Anoka County EM and Blaine EM 4000 100000 City Budget NEW Goal 5: Facilitate the purchase and implementation of a Reverse 911 System. Objective 5.1: Enhance the counties ability to do mass notifications to the public. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 5.1.1 Research reverse 911 systems and vendors. Blaine Anoka County Emergency Management 1000 100000 County and City partnership Canceled 5.1.2 Purchase a reverse 911 system. Blaine Anoka County Emergency Management 10000 100000 County and City partnership Canceled 5.1.3 Implement a reverse 911 system and training. Blaine Anoka County Emergency Management 10000 100000 County and City partnership Canceled CENTERVILLE MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Improve the City of Centerville's capability to prepare for, respond to, mitigate and recover from all disasters. Objective 1.1: Improve the City of Centerville’s ability to evaluate and manage hazards. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Establish quarterly meetings of Centerville departments to identify problems and develop mitigation strategies. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Centerville Emergency Management 0 25000 Dept Budget Continued 1.1.2 Develop redundancy strategies to prevent loss of public records in the event of damage to critical facilities. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Centerville Centerville Technology Director 10000 100000 Dept Budget Continued Completed Public Safety Building Objective 2.1: Improve the City of Centerville’s warning, evacuation, and information capabilities. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 209 1.2.1 Develop evacuation routes and procedures. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Centerville Fire Dept County 25000 100000 Fire Dept Budget Continued 1.2.2 Partner with schools to implement and maintain a dedicated phone system for parent information on school evacuations. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Centerville Centennial School District 20000 100000 Centerville School Budgets Continued Goal 2: Minimize the impact of hazardous materials spills and releases. Objective 2.1: Educate citizens on response to hazardous materials incidents. 2.1.1 Publish articles in area newspapers to instruct citizens on shelter-in-place. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Centerville Emergency Management 500 100000 Dept Budget Continued 2.1.2 Partner with LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) to distribute citizen awareness and preparedness literature at community events. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Centerville Emergency Management LEPC 2500 100000 Dept Budget LEPC Continued Objective 2.2: Improve safety of emergency responders to hazardous materials incidents. 2.2.1 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to permit hazardous materials awareness training for all fire, EMS, rescue, and law enforcement emergency responders. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Centerville Emergency Management EMS Fire Dept Law Enforcement 5000 200000 Dept Budgets Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 210 2.2.2 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to allow for hazardous materials operations level HMTO and CBRNE training. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Centerville Emergency Management Fire Departments 5000 200000 Dept Budgets Homeland Security Grants Continued 2.2.3 Plan and conduct annual hazardous materials exercises and drills involving all emergency response agencies. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Centerville Emergency Management LEPC 5000 200000 Dept Budget LEPC Continued Objective 2.3: Reduce effects to the environment resulting from transportation hazardous materials spills. 2.3.1 Fund training for all firefighters in containing transportation hazardous spills. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Centerville Emergency Management Fire Dept 5000 100000 Dept Budgets Continued 2.3.2 Provide all fire departments equipment to contain hazardous materials spills on roadways. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Centerville Emergency Management Fire Dept 15000 250000 Jurisdiction Budgets Continued Goal 3: Improve the citizen’s awareness to disasters. Objective 3.1: Provide hazard awareness, preparedness, and training information to citizens. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Develop/maintain a Centerville City web site for citizen information; such as shelter locations, shelter-in-place and safe room information, citizen training, FEMA course listings, and links to hazard preparedness websites. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Centerville Emergency Management 10000 100000 Dept Budget Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 211 3.1.2 Partner with volunteer and emergency response agencies to post monthly notices of training available to citizens. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Centerville Emergency Management 1500 25000 Dept Budget Continued CIRCLE PINES MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Inform citizens during times of disaster. Objective 1.1: To have adequate barriers and signs to close street during an incident. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Purchase signage that can be used to direct the public during times of emergency. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Circle Pines Public Works 10000 200000 City Budget Grants Continue 1.1.2 Obtain storage space and develop deployment plan for signage. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Circle Pines Public Works 5000 100000 City Budget Grants Continue Goal 2: Improve survivability of critical city facilities. Objective 2.1: Provide continuous electrical power to law enforcement center and EOC. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Purchase and install generator for law enforcement center and EOC. Circle Pines Law Enforcement 40000 500000 DOJ Grant, City Budget Completed Goal 3: Improve preparedness of community partners for disaster response. Objective 3.1: Implement community wide ERT (Emergency Response Team). Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 212 3.1 .1 Develop plans to recruit, train, and implement a community wide ERT to be activated during times of disaster. Currently have 30 CERT Members in the Centennial Lakes PD Program. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Circle Pines Law Enforcement, Fire Dept, Public Works, Parks and Rec., Bldg Inspection, City Council, County EM 100000 1000000 City County State, Federal Continue COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Fire lockbox policy. Objective 1.1: Have lock box access on all commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Write Fire Lock Box policy. Columbia Heights Fire Dept 500 50000 Fire Dept Complete 1.1.2 City Council adopt a lockbox policy Columbia Heights City Administration 0 50000 City Complete 1.1.3 Inspect properties to determine lock boxes that need upgrading and those that do not have a box. Columbia Heights Fire Dept 1000 50000 Fire Dept Complete 1.1.4 Notify properties of lockbox compliance. Columbia Heights Fire Dept. 1000 50000 Fire Dept Complete Goal 2: Public Works migration to 800 MHz. Objective 2.1: Upgrade Public Works to the 800 MHz radio system for interoperability with Police and Fire Departments. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Assess radio needs. Columbia Heights Public Works 0 0 City Budget Complete 2.1.2 Purchase and install radios. Columbia Heights Public Works 75000 500000 City Budget Grants Complete 2.1.3 Maintain radios. Columbia Heights Public Works 4000 500000 City Budget Complete Goal 3: Improve survivability of critical Columbia Heights city facilities. (ORIGINAL GOAL COMPLETED. CONTINUE WITH LIBRARY) Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 213 Objective 3.1: Install electrical generators at Public Works building and at Murzyn Hall. New 3.1 Install electrical generators at Library Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Assess city generator needs. Columbia Heights Public Works, Recreation, Emergency Manager 0 0 City Budget Complete 3.1.2 Purchase and install generators at critical facilities. Columbia Heights Public Works, Recreation, Emergency Manager 110000 1000000 City Budget Grants Complete 3.1.3 Maintain critical facility generators. Columbia Heights Emergency Manager 5000 50000 Columbia Heights Complete 3.1.4 Assess city generator needs. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Library, Emergency Manager 0 0 City Budget New 3.1.5 Purchase and install generator at critical facility. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Library, Emergency Manager 60000 60000 City Budget Grants New 3.1.6 Maintain critical facility generators. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Emergency Manager 5000 50000 Columbia Heights New Goal 4: Upgrade EOC’s equipment. (GOAL COMPLETED BY CONSTRUCTION OF EOC IN NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING) Objective 4.1: Wire the EOC for new 800 MHz radio systems. Plan and install wiring for a back up EOC in Public Works buildin g. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Assess EOC needs Columbia Heights Emergency Manager 500 1000 City Budget Complete Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 214 4.1.2 Purchase and install EOC equipment Columbia Heights Emergency Manager 2000 1000000 City, Grants Complete 4.1.3 Periodic testing of EOC’s Columbia Heights Emergency Manager 500 500000 City Budget Complete Goal 5: Create a database of all commercial properties, to include chemicals stored on site. Objective 5.1: To license and create preplans of all commercial properties. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 5.1.1 Write enabling chemical ordinance. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Fire Dept 500 50000 City Heights Continued 5.1.2 Set up chemical policies and procedures. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Fire Dept 1000 500000 Columbia Heights Continued 5.1.3 Proceed with chemical plan 3-5 years for full implementation. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Fire Dept 5000 500000 Columbia Heights Continued Goal 6: Update Columbia Heights Fire Department with wireless dispatching equipment. (CONTINUE AS PART OF PROPOSED NEW COUNTY RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYST EM) Objective 6.1: Install laptops in fire trucks. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 6.1.1 Assess fire dispatch needs. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Columbia Heights Fire Dept Anoka County RMS Consultant 0 500000 Columbia Heights Continued 6.1.2 Purchase and install laptop computers Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Columbia Heights Fire Dept. 5000 500000 Columbia Heights Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 215 6.1.3 Yearly laptop computer maintenance and connection Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Columbia Heights Fire Dept. 6000 500000 Columbia Heights Continued Objective 6.2: Install County Records Management System (RMS) in Fire Station. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 6.2.1 Assess RMS needs. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Columbia Heights Fire Dept. Anoka County RMS Consultant 0 500000 Columbia Heights Continued 6.2.2 Purchase and install Records Management System. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Columbia Heights Fire Dept. Anoka County RMS Vendor 1000 500000 City, Grants Continued 6.2.3 RMS Yearly maintenance and connection. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Columbia Heights Fire Dept. 5000 500000 Columbia Heights Continued Goal 7: Control flooding and minimize public capital expenditures. Objective 7.1: Continue with the Columbia Heights sump pump inspections. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 7.1.1 Continue inspections of sump pump compliance. Columbia Heights Public Works 10000 100000 Columbia Heights Complete 7.1.2 Continue to provide sump pump financial assistance to those that apply. Columbia Heights Public Works 25000 100000 Columbia Heights Complete Objective 7.2: Continue with the Columbia Heights storm water mitigation planning. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 7.2.1 Continue to assess storm water needs and budget accordingly. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Public Works 5000 50000 Columbia Heights Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 216 7.2.2 Make storm water upgrades as planned. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Columbia Heights Public Works 500000 1000000 Columbia Heights Continued COLUMBUS MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Mitigate affects of Wild land Fires. Objective 1.1: Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Add Fire-wise, burn permits and wild fire fire information to the City Website. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Columbus City Staff 1000 10000 City Budget Continued 1.1.2 Include wild fire information in the Town Address flyer twice per year. News Letter Eliminated from 2012 Budget Columbus City Manager 2000 50000 City Budget Completed Objective 1.2: Create access to residential and commercial properties. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.2.1 Create a home address program (number visibility.) Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Columbus City Administrator 5000 30000 Grant City Budget New 1.2.2 Fire lockbox program for commercial property. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Columbus City Building Official Ongoing 20000 Developer Continued Goal 2: Improve the City of Columbus’ capability to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from disasters. Objective 2.1: Participate in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for hazard events. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 217 2.1.1 Create and participate in an 800 MHz radio exercise and continue exercises annually. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. Columbus City Administrator 5000 100000 City Budget Continued 2.1.2 Participate in the annual severe weather drill. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. Columbus City Administrator 5000 100000 City Budget Continued Objective 2.2: Improve capability of critical Columbus facilities. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.2.1 Complete command center/EOC area including maintain and test emergency backup systems regularly. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Columbus City Administrator 10000 100000 Grant/City Budget New 2.2.1 Purchase generators for Fire Hall and Public Works Department. Columbus Public Works Supervisor 40000 100000 Grant/City Budget Complete Objective 2.3: Provide hazard awareness, preparedness, and training information to citizens. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.3.1 Develop a web site section for citizen information, such as; shelter locations, shelter-in-place and safe room information, citizen training, FEMA course listing, and links to hazard preparedness websites. Columbus City Support Staff 5000 50000 City Budget Complete Goal 3: Improve response to all Emergencies Objective 3.1: Improve multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency response to emergencies and disasters. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 218 3.1.1 Schedule and conduct Incident Command training annually for all fire, EMS, rescue, city staff and law enforcement personnel as needed. Initial Training has been completed, ongoing for new staff. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Columbus Fire Chief / City Administrator 2000 20000 Fire Dept Budget/City Budget Continued Objective 3.2: Improve the Cities warning, evacuation, and information capabilities. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.2.1 Purchase and install outdoor warning sirens. Columbus City Council 160000 500000 City Budget Cancel 3.2.2 Develop evacuation routes and procedures Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Columbus City Council 5000 1000000 City, County Continued 3.2.3 Improve access to main highway at Lake Drive and I 35 Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Columbus County and City 300000 1000000 City, County Continued COON RAPIDS MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Enhance railroad grade crossing safety and provide railroad no-whistle zones. Objective 1.1: Establish or update ordinances, regulations or plans, implement plans. Action Action Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Conduct RR safety analysis. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids BNSF RRFRA 5000 20000 Coon Rapids MSA Completed 1.1.2 Complete safety upgrades for pilot RR grade crossings and implement whistle-free zones. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids BNSF Anoka Co. 100000 1000000 Coon Rapids MSA Completed 1.1.3 Complete design plans for safety improvements at remaining grade RR crossings. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids Co. MNDOT BNSF RR 50000 500000 Coon Rapids MSA Completed 1.1.4 Complete safety improvements at seven (7) remaining RR crossings. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids County MNDOT NSF 500000 100000 Coon Rapids MSA Completed Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 219 1.1.5 Implement and maintain whistle-free zones at all RR grade crossings in the City of Coon Rapids. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids BNSF MNDOT Co. FRA 10000 100000 Coon Rapids MSA Completed Goal 2: Improve storm sewer system – mitigate urban flooding. Objective 2.1: Establish or update ordinances, regulations or plans, implement plans. Action Action Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Initiate planning for storm water utility implementation. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 10000 100000 Water Utility Loan Completed 2.1.2 Complete storm water utility plan. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids WSB consultant 90000 1000000 SAA Completed 2.1.3 Complete storm water management plan. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids WSB Consultant BSWR 500000 500000 Storm water utility fees Completed 2.1.4 Develop storm water ordinance establishing fees CIP. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 50,000 200000 SAA Completed 2.1.5 Enlarging culverts pipes. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 1000000 5000000 SAA Continued 2.1.6 Clean ditches waterways. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 100,000 500000 SAA Continued 2.1.7 Clean holding ponds. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 100000 1000000 SAA Continued 2.1.8 Replace manholes and catch basins. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 50000 500000 SAA Completed 2.1.9 Water quality monitoring. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 50000 500000 SAA Completed 2.1.10 Public education. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 25000 250000 SAA Completed Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 220 2.1.11 Inspect replace storm water control structures. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 125000 1250000 SAA Completed Goal 3: Improve traffic flows, reduce congestion, upgrade critical bridge and infrastructure, improve emergency response times; establis h plans, implement plans. Objective 3.1: Improve transportation system by widening US Highway 10 and replacing Hanson Boulevard interchange. Action Action Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Complete traffic engineering and design work. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids URS consultant 2000000 10000000 Coon Rapids and County Funds Completed 3.1.2 Joint application for traffic control federal funding. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids URS consultant 50000 100000 SAA Completed 3.1.3 Traffic flow Cooperative construction agreements. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids Co. MNDOT 4000000 4000000 SAA Completed 3.1.4 Legislative lobbying efforts for traffic control funds. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 5000 50000 City Budget Completed 3.1.5 Joint powers lobbying for traffic control funds. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids Co. 5000 50000 City Budget Completed 3.1.6 MNDOT Hwy 10 corridor plan for 2030 Vision project. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids 20000 100000 City Budget Grant Fund Completed 3.1.7 Complete construction of Hanson / TH10 interchange. Coon Rapids Fed Govt Coon Rapids Co. MNDOT 19000000 90000000 City-3M, Co- 4M, MNDOT- 6.5M, Fed- 5.5M Completed 3.1.8 Complete Coon Rapids portion of MNDOT’s TH 10 widening. Coon Rapids MNDOT 30000000 90000000 City-4M Co- 5.5M MNDOT- 15M Fed- 5.5M Completed Goal 1: Increase Safety for Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 221 1.1 Increase pedestrian and bicycle trails under or over major surface streets to reduce accidents and increase safety. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids Anoka Co MNDOT 285000 10000000 City Budget State Grants New 1.2 Build Overpass on CSAH 14 over Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Coon Rapids CoonRapids Anoka Co MNDOT 9000000 50000000 City Budget State Grants MNDOT New EAST BETHEL MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: To prevent buried hazardous fuel tanks from leaking into soil. Objective 1.1: To remove old buried housing fuel tanks. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Identify residential land that has buried fuel tanks. East Bethel East Bethel PCA 25000 25000 PCA Canceled 1.1.2 Notify residents of need to clean up fuel tanks. East Bethel East Bethel PCA 4000 4000 PCA Canceled 1.1.3 Establish guidelines and adopt resolution fuel tank clean up procedures. East Bethel East Bethel PCA 10000 1000000 PCA Canceled 1.1.4 Create RFP and go out for bid for removal of tanks. East Bethel East Bethel PCA 10000 10000 PCA Canceled 1.1.5 Review bids and hire contractor for fuel tank clean up. East Bethel East Bethel PCA 50000 50000 PCA Canceled 1.1.6 Contractor removes fuel tanks. East Bethel East Bethel PCA 500000 1000000 PCA Canceled Goal 2: Provide Auxiliary Power Generator to City Hall and Fire Station #2. Objective 2.1: To have automatic emergency power generators in the event of a power failure. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 222 2.1.1 Identify appropriate generator for city facilities. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 1000 1000 City Grant Continued 2.1.2 Purchase generator and equipment for proper installation at city facilities. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 45000 100000 City Grant Continued 2.1.3 Install and test city generators on a monthly basis. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 10000 100000 City Grant Continued Goal 3: To keep residents and visitors safe while in the city parks. Objective 3.1: To provide severe weather shelter space at all city park facilities. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Determine location, size and feasibility of a shelter for every city park. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 5000 5000 City Grant HSEM Continued 3.1.2 Establish guidelines and adopt resolution for shelter procedures. Review existing codes and ordinances to ensure adequacy in restricting development in identified hazard areas. East Bethel East Bethel 2000 2000 City Grant HSEM Continued 3.1.3 Create RFP and go out for bid for building of severe weather shelters. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 2000 2000 City Grant HSEM Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 223 3.1.4 Review bids and hire contractor for shelter construction. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 1000 1000 City Grant HSEM Continued 3.1.5 Contractor builds shelters. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 750000 1000000 City Grant HSEM Continued Goal 4: To Mitigate Flood Prone Properties in the City of east Bethel Objective 4: To create a plan to reduce the risk of flooding to these properties 4.1 Identify Flood Prone Properties in the City of East Bethel Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. East Bethel East Bethel 500 500000 City Staff NEW 4.2 Meet with property owners and review mitigation strategies Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. East Bethel East Bethel 500 50000 City Staff NEW 4.3 Implement agreed upon mitigation strategies Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. East Bethel East Bethel 250000 1000000 City/Cty NEW FRIDLEY MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 2: Improve communications within city departments. – FROM 2006 PLAN Objective 2.1: Communicate with all Fridley departments during emergencies and disasters. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Purchase the necessary equipment for communicating. Fridley City-County 50000 100000 Multi-Gov Complete 2.1.2 Train all department members in the use of the new radio system. Fridley City 2000 20000 City Complete Goal 1: Flood Control Objective 1.1: Reduce seasonal flooding in Riverview Heights neighborhood through installation of stable base for temporary levee extensions Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 224 1.1.1 Soil test and Survey area to construct flood protection base Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 25,000 1000000 Multi-Gov Continued 1.1.2 Design/Engineer a stable flood protection base Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 25,000 1000000 Multi-Gov Continued 1.1.3 Construct flood protection base Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 205,000 2000000 Multi-Gov Continued Objective 1.2: Reduce the impact of neighborhood flash flooding with detention pond upgrade Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources 1.2.1 Survey/design/engineer north detention pond area Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City 10,000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued 1.2.2 Build-up berm or levee Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City 20,000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued 1.2.3 Purchase a pump Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City 10,000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 225 1.2.4 Install gate valve Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City 20,000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued Objective 1.3: Monitoring the flow of creeks and level of river automatically Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources 1.3.1 Review areas for installation of water flow and level gauges for Rice Creek and SpringBrook Creek Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 10,000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued 1.3.2 Purchase/Install equipment Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 50,000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued 1.3.3 Intergrate flow and level data into city scada system Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 50,000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued Objective 1.4: Upgrade water control areas in Fridley Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources 1.4.1 Conduct a water study and consultation Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 80,000 100000 Multi-Gov New 1.4.2 Construction to mitigate flood hazards Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley Private Industry 500,000 1000000 Multi-Gov New Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 226 Goal 2: Improve communications and awareness with and in public facilities during hazardous situations. Objective 2.1: Communicate with all public facilities during emergencies and disasters. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Action 2.1.1 Partner with public facilities to distribute EM information Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City 1000 100000 City New 2.1.2 Review need for additional equipment for communicating Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City 1000 100000 City New 2.1.3 Purchase the necessary equipment for communicating Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City-County 1000 10000 Multi-Gov New 2.1.4 Train members in the use of the equipment Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Fridley City 1000 10000 City New Goal 3: Improve the City of Fridley’s warning and evacuation system. Objective 3.1: Research and improve the city’s warning and information capabilities. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Action 3.1.1 Evaluate current warning and evacuation systems and determine needs. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Fridley City 1000 100000 Multi-Gov Continued 3.1.2 Continue to review warning and information systems. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Fridley City 0 100000 Multi-Gov Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 227 3.1.3 Select and install a system to fit the needs of the community. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Fridley Private industry 150000 500000 Multi-Gov Continued HAM LAKE MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Hire full-time Public Safety Director/Fire Chief. Objective 1.1: Improve the Ham Lake’s fire protection and response; establish public safety programs, evaluate over-all emergency preparedness and establish criteria and plan for improvement. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Gather information from other municipalities regarding job description, qualifications, training, etc. for municipal Public Safety Director/Fire Chiefs. Ham Lake Administration 5000 5000 Ham Lake Complete 1.1.2 Prepare job description and establish criteria for first responder applicant qualifications. Ham Lake Administration 1000 1000 Ham Lake Complete 1.1.3 Accept and process applications; interview and hire qualified first responder individual. Ham Lake Administrator Ham Lake Council 76500 500000 Ham Lake Complete 1.1.4 Public Safety Director/Fire Chief to implement programs regarding public safety, fire suppression systems, fire inspections, etc. Review existing codes and ordinances to ensure adequacy in restricting development in identified hazard areas. Ham Lake Public Safety Director/Fire Chief and Fire Department 250000 1000000 Ham Lake Continued 1.1.5 Public Safety Director/Fire Chief will coordinate training of Ham Lake Council, staff and Fire Department in all aspects of NIMS. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ham Lake Public Safety Director/Fire Chief and Fire Department. 10000 1000000 Local Ongoing as new elected officials or staff are added Goal 2: Update Emergency Management Plan (EMP)/establish Emergency Management Organization (EMO), per Federal, State and Coun ty guidelines. Objective 2.1: Minimize risk of injuries to residents, minimize property loss, prevent chaos and expedite rescue and recovery. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 228 2.1.1 Research Federal, State, and County guidelines for EMO’s. Ham Lake Public Safety Director, Admin 5000 5000 City Complete 2.1.2 Form committee to evaluate, research, prepare draft, and recommend criteria for EMO. Ham Lake Public Safety Director, Admin 10000 10000 City Complete 2.1.3 Review by City Staff and review/adoption by City Council, with appointments to EMO. Ham Lake City Staff City Council 500 500 City Complete. EOP Adoped in 2009 2.1.4 On-going training for EMO, fire department, and City staff based on EMP. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ham Lake Public Safety Director 25000 1000000 City Continued training as needed Goal 3: Require commercial business registration. Objective 3.1: To create a database that would include all commercial businesses, providing information necessary for planning disaster prevention and or mitigation process, for the safety of residents and rescuers. One database that would inform an Emergency Operations Manager what is on a site, including fire suppression equipment available, probable number of people, hazardous materials, etc. Inclusion of requirement of lockboxes for all commercial properties which would allow for safe access, potentially minimizing property damage, and possibly save lives. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Establish criteria and adopt Ordinance for required business registration for disaster planning. Ham Lake Public Safety Directory Admin, EMO 5000 5000 City Canceled 3.1.2 Inform businesses of new disaster requirement Ham Lake Public Safety Director Admin, City Staff 1000 1000 City Canceled 3.1.3 Create and compile disaster response database. Ham Lake City Staff Admin 12500 1000000 City Canceled Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 229 3.1.4 Maintain and update disaster response database on a monthly basis. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Ham Lake City Staff Admin 25000 125000 City HILLTOP MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Severe weather shelter space Objective 1.1: Increase shelter space within the city. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Feasibility study of city-owned shelter. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Hilltop City 5000 5000 FEMA, City Continued 1.1.2 Expand or build a second shelter Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Hilltop Hilltop 25000 50000 FEMA Grant Continued Goal 2: Fire lockbox access at commercial locations. Objective 2.1: Prevent unnecessary property destruction and injury to fire fighters. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Adopt ordinance-requiring Lockbox. Hilltop Hilltop 1000 1000 City Complete 2.1.2 Implement lock box requirement. Hilltop Hilltop 25000 500000 Property owner Complete Goal 3: Provide auxiliary power generator connections for Public Works and Water Tower. Objective 3.1: To have automatic emergency power generator connections in the event of a power failure. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 230 3.1.1 Identify appropriate generator connections Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Hilltop Hilltop 500 500 City Grant Continued 3.1.2 Purchase and install equipment for proper installation. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Hilltop Hilltop 5000 10000 City Grant Continued 3.1.3 Install and test city hall generator on a monthly basis. Hilltop Hilltop 10000 100000 City Grant Complete LEXINGTON MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Secure city water resources. Objective 1.1: Install new and appropriate fencing. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Create documentation for a Water Bid. Lexington Lexington 1000 1000 Lexington Complete 1.1.2 Advertise Water Bid. Lexington Lexington 1000 1000 Lexington Complete 1.1.3 Accept Bid and start water resource construction. Lexington Lexington 1000000 5000000 Lexington Complete Goal 2: Improve Lexington warning system. Objective 2.1: Provide battery backup for outdoor warning sirens. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Purchase battery backup for outdoor warning sirens. Lexington Lexington 5000 500000 Lexington Complete Goal 3: Insure activation of Government assets. Objective 3.1: Purchase generators for Lexington City Hall, Fire Station and 5 lift stations. (COMPETE FOR FIRE STATION) Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Request generator bid specifications for critical facilities. Lexington Lexington 1000 1000 Lexington Complete 3.1.2 Submit for critical facilities generator grant. Lexington Lexington 2000 2000 Grants Complete Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 231 3.1.3 Purchase generator connection for Lexington City Hall. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Lexington Lexington 100 5000 Grants Continued 3.1.4 Purchase generator for Fire Station. Lexington Lexington 5000 250000 Grants Complete 3.1.5 Retrofit Lift Stations with adapters for north metro wide generator use. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Lexington Lexington 500 25000 Grants Continued Goal 4: Provide control for evacuation routes. Objective 4.1: Procure electronic traffic control devices. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Purchase electronic traffic control equipment. Lexington Lexington 20000 250000 Lexington Grant Canceled 4.1.2 Create and implement procedures for traffic control equipment. Lexington Lexington 2000 250000 Lexington Canceled Goal 5: Prepare and train Lexington employees for emergency response. Objective 5.1: Improve multi-agency response to all emergencies and disasters. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 5.1.1 Schedule and conduct Incident Command training annually for all fire, EMS, rescue, and law enforcement personnel. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Lexington Fire Dept Lexington 4000 250000 HSEM Lexington Continued Provide Training as Needed 5.1.2 Schedule and conduct NIMS training annually Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation. Lexington Fire Dept Lexington 4000 250000 HSEM Lexington Continued Provide Training as Needed Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 232 5.1.3 Conduct annual tabletop disaster training exercises involving all emergency response personnel. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events Lexington Fire Dept Lexington 6000 250000 Lexington Continued Objective 5.2: Provide Emergency Response Kits 5.2.1 Purchase emergency material for kits. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Lexington Fire Dept Multi-agency 6000 50000 Lexington Continued 5.2.2 Schedule routine check/ updates to emergency kits. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Lexington Fire Dept Multi-agency 5000 25000 Lexington Continued LINO LAKES MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Start Firewise program. Objective 1.1: Minimize the risk of wild land fire to residents and structures. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Assess parcels to be deemed as hazard areas. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Lino Lakes DNR/Fire Dept 1000 10000 City Budget Continued 1.1.2 Coordinate stated Firewise agencies. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation Lino Lakes DNR/Fire Dept 1000 10000 City Budget Continued 1.1.3 Conduct Firewise clean up efforts. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Lino Lakes Fire Dept Private 15500 150000 State Grant Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 233 1.1.4 Manage Firewise project through completion. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Lino Lakes Fire Dept Private 12000 120000 City Budget Continued Goal 2: Improve the City of Lino Lake’s outdoor warning system. Objective 2.1: Maintenance and replacement of warning siren system for emergency notification. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Evaluate current warning system and determine level of operability. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Lino Lakes Emergency Management 1000 5000 City Budget Continued 2.1.2 Ongoing replacement of warning units. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Lino Lakes Emergency Management 160000 500000 Local Continued 2.1.3 Maintenance of warning units, periodic testing. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Lino Lakes Emergency Management 20000 500000 Local County Continued Goal 3: Create a database of all commercial properties, to include chemicals stored on site. Objective 3.1: Business registration to gather vital business information. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Determine needs and establish chemical ordinance for business registration. Review existing codes and ordinances to ensure adequacy in restricting development in identified hazard areas. Lino Lakes Public Safety 1000 1000 City Budget Continued 3.1.2 Create and compile a business chemical database. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Lino Lakes Public Safety 5000 50000 Local businesses (Private) Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 234 3.1.3 Maintain and update chemical database on annual basis. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Lino Lakes Public Safety 5000 5000 Local businesses (Private) Continued LINWOOD MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Establish Firewise Program Objective 1.1: Reduce the risk of loss of homes to wildfires Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Evaluate Firewise areas of risk. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Linwood DNR Fire Dept 2000 40000 DNR Fire Dept. Continued 1.1.2 Educate homeowners of Firewise risk. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Linwood DNR Fire Dept. 2500 40000 DNR Fire Dept. Continued 1.1.3 Firewise Mitigation of hazards. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Linwood Homeowner DNR Fire Dept 20000 800000 DNR Fire Dept. Continued 1.1.4 Complete Firewise project. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Linwood Fire Dept. 4000 1000000 Fire Dept Continued Goal 2: Fire lockbox access to commercial properties. Objective 2.1: Provide fast entry to property in case of fire. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Establish fire lockbox Guidelines. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Linwood Fire Dept. 1000 10000 Township Continued 2.1.2 Obtain lockbox Equipment. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Linwood Fire Dept. 2000 1000000 Grants Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 235 2.1.3 Implement lockbox Program. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Linwood Fire Dept. 1000 10000 Township Continued 2.1.4 Maintain lockbox Records. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Linwood Fire Dept. 1000 10000 Township Continued Goal 3: Improve the townships warning and notification. Objective 3.1: Purchase outdoor warning sirens. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Purchase and Install six strategically placed warning sirens. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Linwood Township 108000 1000000 Local, HSEM Grants, Continued 3.1.2 Educate residents on the protocol of the sirens sounding. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Linwood Township 1000 10000 Local Continued City of Nowthen Mitigation Goals/Objectives/Actions/Strategy Goal 1: Fire Services Objective 1.1: To provide fire services within City of Nowthen by means of City of Nowthen fire station. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Create and implement a fire plan. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. City of Nowthen Town Board 2000000 10000000 Local Levy Continued Goal 2: Multiple Access Routes in Single Access Development Objective 2.1: Establish multiple access routes for emergency response in single access developments. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 236 2.1.1 Establish and prioritize criteria for access routes. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. City of Nowthen Engineering/ Town Board 5000 100000 Town Budget Grants Continued 2.1.2 Acquire access routes easements. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. City of Nowthen Engineering/ Town Board 5000000 10000000 Town Budget Grants Continued 2.1.3 Construct access roads. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. City of Nowthen Engineering/ Town Board 10000000 50000000 Town Budget Grants Continued Goal 3: General Hazard Mitigation Objective 3.1: Establish or update ordinances, regulations or plans. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Review current ordinances. Review existing codes and ordinances to ensure adequacy in restricting development in identified hazard areas. City of Nowthen Burns 1000 100000 Town Budget Continued 3.1.2 Update ordinances. Review existing codes and ordinances to ensure adequacy in restricting development in identified hazard areas. City of Nowthen Burns 5000 100000 Town Budget Continued Goal 4: Improve City of Nowthens warning and notification. Objective 4.1: Install additional outdoor warning sirens. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Purchase and install outdoor warning sirens. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. City of Nowthen Burns 128000 1000000 Town Budget Grant Continued OAK GROVE MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Multiple access routes in single access developments. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 237 Objective 1.1: Establish multiple access routes for emergency response in single access developments. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Establish and prioritize criteria for feasible access routes. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Planning and Consulting Engineer 20000 80000 City Budget Continued 1.1.2 Acquire access route easements. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove City 500000 2000000 City Budget Continued 1.1.3 Construction of access roads. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Consulting Engineer 1000000 2000000 City Budget Continued 1.1.4 Ongoing maintenance of access routes. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Public Works 500000 200000 City Budget Continued Goal 2: Improve the City of Oak Grove’s outdoor warning and notification. Objective 2.1: Maintenance and replacement of outdoor warning siren system for emergency notifications Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Evaluate current warning system, determine level of operability and establish replacement schedule. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Oak Grove Public Works 4000 4000 City Budget Continued 2.1.2 Purchase four more outdoor warning sirens. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Oak Grove City 72000 2000000 City, HSEM Grant Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 238 2.1.3 Maintenance of warning units, periodic testing. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Oak Grove Emergency Management 10000 10000 City/ County Continued Goal 3: To keep residents and visitors safe while in the city parks. Objective 3.1: To provide severe weather shelter space at all city park facilities. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Determine location, size and feasibility of a shelter for every city park. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Oak Grove 20000 1000000 City Grant HSEM Continue 3.1.2 Establish guidelines and adopt resolution for shelter procedures. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Oak Grove 2000 1000000 City Grant HSEM Continue 3.1.3 Create RFP and go out for bid for building of severe weather shelters. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Oak Grove 2000 1000000 City Grant HSEM Continue 3.1.4 Review shelter bids and hire contractor Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters.. Oak Grove Oak Grove 750000 1000000 City Grant HSEM Continue 3.1.5 Contractor builds shelters. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Oak Grove 750000 1000000 City Grant HSEM Continue Goal 4: Fire lockbox access on commercial properties. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 239 Objective 4.1: Prevent injuries to firefighters, allow for safe access to properties, and minimize property damage by expediently gaining access to properties. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Establish criteria for lockbox program/data base Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Fire Dept. 2000 2000 City Budget Continued 4.1.2 Acquire and distribute lockbox equipment Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Fire Dept. 15000 500000 City Budget Continued 4.1.3 Implementation of lockbox program/equipment maintenance Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Oak Grove Fire Dept. 25000 500000 City Budget Continued 4.1.4 Maintain lockbox database Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Oak Grove Fire Dept. 5000 5000 City Budget Continued CITY OF RAMSEY MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: East West Corridor: Provide additional access on east west transportation corridor. Objective 1.1: Develop more lanes, overpasses, etc. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Update existing development plan (CIP). Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey City/State 5000 5000 Multi – government Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 240 1.1.2 Acquisition of access easements along corridor. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey City/State 10000000 50000000 Multi – government Continued 1.1.3 Construction of access roadways. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey City/State 30000000 90000000 Multi – government Continued 1.1.4 On-going access corridor maintenance. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey City/State 500000 500000 Multi – government Continued Goal 2: Fire lockbox access on commercial properties. Objective 2.1: Prevent injury to firefighters, allow for safe access to properties, and minimize property damage by expediently gaining access to properties. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Establish criteria for lockbox program/data base. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey Fire Department 1000 10000 City Continued 2.1.2 Acquire and distribute lockbox equipment. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey Fire Department 17000 100000 FEMA private Continued 2.1.3 Implementation of lockbox program/equipment maintenance. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey Fire Department 10000 100000 Private Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 241 2.1.4 Maintain lockbox database. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Ramsey Fire Department 5000 5000 City Budget Continued Goal 3: Start Firewise Program. Objective 3.1: Minimize the risk of wild land fire to residents and structures. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Assess parcels to be deemed as Firewise hazard areas. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Ramsey DNR 5000 50000 City Budget Continued 3.1.2 Coordinate stated Firewise agencies. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Ramsey DNR/Fire Department 5000 5000 City Budget Continued 3.1.3 Conduct Firewise clean up efforts. Continue aggressive fire prevention education. Ramsey City/Private 15500 150000 State Grant Continued 3.1.4 Manage Firewise project through completion. Ramsey City/Private 12000 120000 City Budget Completed Goal 4: Multiple access routes in single access developments. Objective 4.1: Establish multiple access routes for emergency response in single access developments. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 4.1.1 Establish and prioritize criteria for feasible access routes. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey Engineering/ Planning 2000 2000 City Budget Continued 4.1.2 Acquire access routes easements. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey City 5000000 20000000 Local Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 242 4.1.3 Construction of access roads. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey Engineering 20000000 50000000 Local Continued 4.1.4 Ongoing access route maintenance. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. Ramsey Public Works 500000 2000000 Local Continued Goal 5: Establish fire sprinkler ordinance. Objective 5.1: Minimize property loss by establishing fire suppression requirements. Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 5.1.1 Adoption of Local fire sprinkler Ordinance per MN Bldg Code 13.06. Ramsey City 1000 20000 City Budget Canceled 5.1.2 Establish fire sprinkler requirements and enforce ordinance. Ramsey Bldg Inspection Fire Dept 2000 20000 City Budget Canceled 5.1.3 Monitor fire sprinkler systems and conduct inspections. Ramsey Bldg Inspection Fire Dept 5000 20000 City Budget Canceled Goal 6: Improve the City of Ramsey’s outdoor warning and notification. Objective 6.1: Maintenance and replacement of outdoor warning siren system for emergency notifications. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 6.1.1 Evaluate current system, determine level of operability. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Ramsey Emergency Management 2000 1000000 Local Continue 6.1.2 Establish replacement schedule. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Ramsey Emergency Management 0 1000000 Local Continue 6.1.3 Ongoing replacement of units. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Ramsey Emergency Management 150000 1000000 Local Continue Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 243 6.1.4 Maintenance of units, periodic testing. Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education. Ramsey Emergency Management 15000 1000000 Local/ County Continue Goal 7: Business Registration Objective 7.1: Business registration to gather vital business information. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 7.1.1 Determine needs and establish ordinance for business registration. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Ramsey Public Safety 2000 500000 Local Continue 7.1.2 Create and compile business database. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Ramsey Public Safety 5000 500000 Local businesses Continue 7.1.3 Maintain and update business database on annual basis . Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Ramsey Public Safety 2000 500000 Local Business Continue SPRING LAKE PARK MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Provide adequate audible outdoor warning to Spring Lake Park residents in case of severe weather. Objective 1.1: Evaluate adequate number of audible sirens needed to cover City of Spring Lake Park geographical area. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 1.1.1 Perform testing to determine the adequate number of audible warning devices necessary to alert citizens in the area of Spring Lake Park. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Spring Lake Park Emergency Management, City Government 12000 120000 City Bonds Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 244 1.1.2 Establish geographical locations for audible warning sirens and install. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Spring Lake Park Emergency Management, City Government 30000 200000 City Continued 1.1.3 Establish adequate testing and maintenance procedures for audible warning devices. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Spring Lake Park Emergency Management/ City Government 22422 1000000 City Bonds Continued 1.1.4 Provide notification to community about “Audible Warning Devices” and preparedness for severe weather. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Spring Lake Park Emergency Management/ City Government 5000 20000 City Continued Goal 2: Develop citywide evacuation procedure for catastrophic event(s). Objective 2.1: Identify and establish evacuation routes/procedures/check point locations. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Determine major arteries of vehicle traffic that may be accessible for population evacuation by means of vehicular, manual and pedestrian traffic. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Spring Lake Park Spring Lake Park 250 1000000 City, County, State and Federal Continued 2.1.2 Establish procedures for evacuation routes/check points. Post as evacuation routes and check points Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation. Spring Lake Park Spring Lake Park 25000 1000000 City, County, State and Federal Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 245 2.1.3 Educate the community of procedures and routes for evacuation in the event of a catastrophic event occurring. (Pamphlets, cable TV, mailings etc.) Improve citizen awareness and preparedness education Spring Lake Park Spring Lake Park 25000 1000000 City, County, State and Federal Continued Goal 3: Determine location for mass casualties/medical relief/inoculation for injuries/illnesses as a result of natural or ma n made catastrophic events. Objective 3.1: Identify treatment location(s). Identify agencies for assistance (law enforcement, medical, fire dept., military, communications, transportation, etc.) Develop protocol, develop strategic course of action/implementation and community notification. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Evaluate and determine geographical location(s) for treatment of mass casualties, medical relief, inoculation for injuries and illnesses. Improve technological tools to provide development of databases relating to hazard mitigation Spring Lake Park City, County State and Federal 20000 3000000 City, County, State, Federal Continued 3.1.2 Identify and coordinate assistance of all agencies for mass casualty assistance. Including but not limited to police, fire, medical, military, communication and transportation. Support and participate in cooperative jurisdictional planning to improve hazard mitigation Spring Lake Park City, County, State and Federal 50000 3000000 City, County, State and Federal Continued 3.1.3 Develop and institute protocol, strategic course of action and community notification for mass casualty. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters Spring Lake Park City, County, State and Federal 50000 3000000 City, County, State and Federal Continued ST. FRANCIS MITIGATION GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTIONS/STRATEGY Goal 1: Improve sewer/water system. Objective 1.1: Expand and enhance the current trunk sewer/water system. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 246 1.1.1 Expand the sewer / water trunk lines north and east of existing area. St. Francis Emergency Management Public Works 5000000 20000000 Dept Budget/ Grants Continued 1.1.2 Enhance the current water treatment system allowing for better emergency / regulatory water flow. St. Francis Emergency Management Public Works 2000000 20000000 Dept Budget Continued 1.1.3 Develop a plan to keep the current and future sewer mains clear of debris to avoid flooding, by routing cleaning/maintenance. St. Francis Emergency Management Public Works 500000 2000000 Dept Budget Continued Goal 2: Improve first responder capabilities. Objective 2.1: Improve hazardous materials education/response and awareness for first responders. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 2.1.1 Provide funds for hazardous materials awareness training for all fire, EMS, rescue, and law enforcement emergency responders. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. St. Francis Emergency Management, EMS, Fire Department, Law Enforcement 50000 150000 Dept Budgets Continued 2.1.2 Plan and conduct annual hazardous materials exercises and drills involving all mutual aid response agencies. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. St. Francis Emergency Management, Fire Department 5000 20000 Dept Budget Continued 2.1.3 Work with adjoining fire departments to develop hazardous materials response SOGs. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis Emergency Management, St. Francis Fire Department 2500 7500 Dept Budget Continued 2.1.4 Participate in DOE drills and exercises. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. St. Francis Emergency Management, DOE 10000 25000 DOE Grant Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 247 2.1.5 Fund training for all firefighters in containing transportation hazardous spills. Continue participation in drills and exercises to improve response capabilities for all hazards events. St. Francis Emergency Management, Fire Department 2000 5000 Dept Budgets Continued Goal 3: Increase citizen awareness to disasters. Objective 3.1: Educate and create public awareness and policies about hazards. Action Action/Project Description Jurisdiction Responsibility Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit Funding Sources Status 3.1.1 Partner with volunteer agencies, schools, and churches to provide more shelter facilities in the communities. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis Emergency Management, Boards of Education 10000 25000 Agency Budgets Continued 3.1.2 Assist in finding funding sources to equip rural shelter facilities. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis Emergency Management, Volunteer Agencies 1000 10000 Agency Budgets Continued 3.1.3 Review annually and after each disaster revise the St. Francis Emergency Operations Plan. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis Emergency Management 2500 10000 Dept Budget Continued 3.1.4 Install warning sirens in cities and unincorporated areas of dense population. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis Emergency Management 100000 200000 Grants/ Dept. Budgets Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 248 3.1.5 Continue to activate the EAS as necessary. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis Emergency Management 0 50000 N/A Continued 3.1.6 Develop evacuation routes and procedures. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis St. Francis Fire Dept. 5000 20000 Fire Dept Budgets Continued 3.1.7 Partner with jurisdictional schools to implement and maintain a dedicated phone system for parent information on school evacuations. Continue to improve jurisdictional capabilities to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural and technological disasters. St. Francis Boards of Education 100000 115000 School Budgets Continued Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 249 5.2.6 Mitigation Actions Prioritization The cohesive collection of actions listed in each jurisdiction’s MAP also can serve as an easily understood menu of mitigation policies and projects for local decision-makers who want to quickly review their jurisdiction’s respective element of the countywide Plan. In preparing the individual Mitigation Actions Plans, each jurisdiction considered their overall hazard risk and capability to mitigate identified hazards as recorded through the risk and capability assessment process and to meet the countywide mitigation goals and the unique needs of their community. Prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction was based on the “STAPLEE” process. “STAPLEE” uses multiple factors under the categories of Social, Technical, Administration, Legal, Economic and Environment. For each goal that is new or continued, the respective jurisdiction reviewed the “STAPLEE” rating and adjusted for any changes that have occurred in the community since the previous plan was reviewed. SOCIAL Community Acceptance – L=1 1 – Potential objection from public and/or very expensive. 2 – Unknown if objectionable, or costs may be significant. 3 – Not objectionable and low/no costs. Effect On Population – L=3 Per FEMA criteria, this is based on potential adverse effect on a segment of the community population. 3 – Minimal or no adverse impact on any population segment. 2 – Moderate adverse impact on some population segment. 1 – Serious adverse impact on some population segment. TECHNICAL Technical Feasibility – L=1 1 – Technology not currently existing. 2 – Emerging or untested technology or unknown. 3 – Technology readily available. Long-Term Solution – L=1 1 – No, is not effective in helping reduce losses in the long term. 2 – Potentially or unknown. 3 – Yes, is effective in helping reduce losses in the long term. Secondary Impacts – L=3 3 – No, unlikely to create secondary problems. 2 – Potentially or unknown. 1 – Yes, likely to create secondary problems. ADMINISTRATIVE Staffing – L=3 3 – Do not have to hire. 2 – Potentially need to hire a temporary employee(s) or unknown. 1 – Need to hire a permanent employee(s). Funding Potential – L=1 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 250 1 – No obvious source of funding available and action has significant cost impact. 2 – Limited or unknown funding available. 3 – Little or no funding required or funding can be readily obtained. Maintenance/Operations L=3 3 – Action requires limited or no ongoing maintenance. Jurisdiction has demonstrated ability to perform this action. 2 – Unknown or action has the potential for moderate ongoing maintenance. 1 – The action is likely to require high level of ongoing maintenance. POLITICAL Political Support – L=1 1 – Local Elected Official likely to be contentious 2 – Local Elected Official may be controversial 3 – Local Elected Official likely to be supportive Local Champion – L=1 1 – Unlikely there is a Local Elected Official to support 2 – Uncertain if there is a Local Elected Official to champion 3 – A Local Elected Official is likely to support and champion Public Support – L=1 1 – Public Political support is unlikely 2 – Public Political support is uncertain 3 – Public Political support is likely LEGAL State Authority Exists – L=1 1 – No legal state authority exists 2 – Legal state authority is unclear, uncertain or adoption is in progress 3 – Legal state authority exists Local Authority Exists – L=1 1 – No legal authority exists 2 – Legal authority is unclear, uncertain or adoption is in progress 3 – Legal authority exists Potential Legal Challenge L=3 3 – Low (likelihood of legal challenge by stakeholders.) 2 – Moderate (likelihood of legal challenge by stakeholders.) 1 – High (likelihood of legal challenge by stakeholders.) ECONOMIC (Multiple actions that are contingent upon each other will receive the same ranking.) Action Benefit L=1 1 – Low (benefit to the jurisdiction from the action.) 2 – Moderate (benefit to the jurisdiction from the action.) 3 – High (benefit to the jurisdiction from the action.) Action Cost L=3 3 – Low cost to implement action. 2 – Moderate cost to implement action. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 251 1 – High cost to implement action. Economic Goal Contribution L=1 1 – Low contribution to other community economic goals. 2 – Moderate contribution to other community economic goals. 3 – High contribution to other community economic goals Outside Funding Required L=3 3 – Unlikely for action to be delayed pending outside sources of funding. 2 – Possible for action to be delayed pending outside sources of funding. 1 – Likely for action to be delayed pending outside sources of funding. ENVIRONMENTAL Land/Water Effect L=3 3 – Low likelihood of potential negative consequences to land and water resources. 2 – Moderate likelihood of potential negative consequences to land and water resources. 1 – High likelihood of potential negative consequences to land and water resources. Endangered Species Effect L = 3 3 – Low likelihood of potential negative consequences to endangered species. 2 – Moderate likelihood of potential negative consequences to endangered species. 1 – High likelihood of potential negative consequences to endangered species. Hazmat Waste Site Effective L=3 3 – Low likelihood of potential affect on hazardous materials and waste sites. 2 – Moderate likelihood of potential affect on hazardous materials and waste sites. 1 – High likelihood of potential affect on hazardous materials and waste sites. Environmental Effect L=3 3 – Yes, project is consistent with jurisdiction environmental goals. 2 – Possibly, project is consistent with jurisdiction environmental goals. 1 – No, project is not consistent with jurisdiction environmental goals. Federal Law Compliant L=3 3 – Yes. 2 – Uncertain. 1 – No. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 253 The Table below represents a composite of all jurisdiction rankings. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS Staplee Criteria Social Technical Administrative Political Legal Economic Environmental Action Evaluation Criteria> Rate 1,2,3 L=low Jurisdiction Community Acceptance L=1 Effect on Population L=3 Technical Feasibility L=1 Long-Term Solution L=1 Secondary Impacts L=3 Staffing L=3 Funding Potential L=1 Maintenance/Operations L=3 Political Support L=1 Local Champion L=1 Public Support L=1 State Authority L=1 Local Authority Exists L=1 Potential Legal Challenge L=3 Action Benefit L=1 Action Cost L=3 Economic Goal Contribution L=1 Outside Funding Required L=3 Land/Water Effect L=3 Endangered Species Effect L=3 HAZMAT Waste Site Effect L=3 Environmental Effect L=3 Federal law Compliant L=3 Total Priority Score 1.1.1 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.1.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 1.1.3 Anoka County 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.2.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.2.4 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 1.3.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.1 Anoka County 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 58 3.1.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 60 3.1.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 59 3.1.4 Anoka County 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 57 3.1.5 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 59 3.2.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.2.2 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 52 3.2.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 57 3.3.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.3.2 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 58 4.1.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 4.1.4 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 4.2.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 61 7.1.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 9.2.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 9.3.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 10.1.1 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 58 10.1.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 10.1.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 254 10.1.4 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 10.1.5 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 64 10.3.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 58 11.1.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 11.1.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 11.1.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 11.3.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 11.3.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 12.1.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 12.1.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 12.1.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 12.1.4 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 12.1.5 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 12.2.1 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 12.2.2 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 12.2.3 Anoka County 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 12.3.1 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 58 12.3.2 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 59 12.3.3 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 58 12.3.4 Anoka County 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 58 3.1.1 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 66 3.1.2 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 65 4.1.2 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 5.1.4 Andover 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 5.1.5 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 5.1.6 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 5.2.1 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 5.2.2 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69 5.2.3 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 5.3.1 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 5.3.2 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 5.4.1 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 65 5.4.2 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 67 5.4.3 Andover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 1.1.1 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.1.2 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 1.1.3 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.1.4 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 2.1.1 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 51 2.1.2 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 51 2.1.3 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 59 3.1.1 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 3.1.2 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 3.1.3 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 3.1.4 Anoka 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 255 1.1.3 Bethel 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.1.1 Bethel 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 2.1.2 Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.3 Bethel 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 2.1.4 Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 67 3.1.1 Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.2 Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.1.5 Blaine 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 1.1.6 Blaine 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 1.1.7 Blaine 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 59 1.1.8 Blaine 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 2.1.5 Blaine 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 2.1.6 Blaine 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 2.1.7 Blaine 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 59 2.1.8 Blaine 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 4.1.3 Blaine 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 59 4.1.4 Blaine 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 4.1.5 Blaine 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 1.1.1 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 1.1.2 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.2.1 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 1.2.2 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 2.1.1 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 2.1.2 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 2.2.1 Centerville 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.2.2 Centerville 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 60 2.2.3 Centerville 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 60 2.3.1 Centerville 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.3.2 Centerville 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 60 3.1.1 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 3.1.2 Centerville 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 1.1.1 Circle Pines 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 1.1.2 Circle Pines 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.1 1 Circle Pines 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 55 3.1.4 Columbia Heights 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 3.1.5 Columbia Heights 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 58 3.1.6 Columbia Heights 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 5.1.1 Columbia Heights 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 5.1.2 Columbia Heights 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 5.1.3 Columbia Heights 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 6.1.1 Columbia Heights 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 6.1.2 Columbia Heights 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 6.1.3 Columbia Heights 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 6.2.1 Columbia Heights 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 6.2.2 Columbia Heights 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 256 6.2.3 Columbia Heights 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 7.2.1 Columbia Heights 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 7.2.2 Columbia Heights 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 59 1.1.1 Columbus 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69 1.2.1 Columbus 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.2.2 Columbus 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.1 Columbus 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69 2.1.2 Columbus 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 2.2.1 Columbus 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.1.1 Columbus 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 3.2.2 Columbus 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.2.3 Columbus 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 54 1.1.1 Coon Rapids 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.1.2 Coon Rapids 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.5 Coon Rapids 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 55 2.1.6 Coon Rapids 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 57 2.1.7 Coon Rapids 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 57 2.1.1 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.2 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.1.3 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 3.1.1 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.1.2 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.3 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.4 East Bethel 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 58 3.1.5 East Bethel 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 56 4.1.1 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69 4.1.2 East Bethel 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69 4.1.3 East Bethel 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 1.1.1 Fridley 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.1.2 Fridley 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 59 1.1.3 Fridley 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 57 1.2.1 Fridley 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.2.2 Fridley 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.2.3 Fridley 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 62 1.2.4 Fridley 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.3.1 Fridley 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.3.2 Fridley 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.3.3 Fridley 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.4.1 Fridley 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.4.2 Fridley 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.1.1 Fridley 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 64 2.1.2 Fridley 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 66 2.1.3 Fridley 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 64 2.1.4 Fridley 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 66 3.1.1 Fridley 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 257 3.1.2 Fridley 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69 3.1.3 Fridley 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 64 1.1.4 Ham Lake 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.1.5 Ham Lake 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 2.1.4 Ham Lake 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.1.4 Ham Lake 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 1.1.1 Hilltop 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 1.1.2 Hilltop 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 59 3.1.1 Hilltop 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 3.1.2 Hilltop 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 3.1.3 Lexington 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 3.1.5 Lexington 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 5.1.1 Lexington 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 5.1.2 Lexington 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 64 5.1.3 Lexington 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 5.2.1 Lexington 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 5.2.2 Lexington 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 1.1.1 Lino Lakes 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 1.1.2 Lino Lakes 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 1.1.3 Lino Lakes 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.1.4 Lino Lakes 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 2.1.1 Lino Lakes 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 2.1.2 Lino Lakes 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 2.1.3 Lino Lakes 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.1 Lino Lakes 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.2 Lino Lakes 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.1.3 Lino Lakes 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 1.1.1 Linwood 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 1.1.2 Linwood 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 1.1.3 Linwood 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.1.4 Linwood 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.1.1 Linwood 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.2 Linwood 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 2.1.3 Linwood 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.4 Linwood 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.1 Linwood 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 59 3.1.2 Linwood 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 1.1.1 City of Nowthen 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 51 2.1.1 City of Nowthen 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 63 2.1.2 City of Nowthen 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 49 2.1.3 City of Nowthen 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 47 3.1.1 City of Nowthen 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.2 City of Nowthen 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 4.1.1 City of Nowthen 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 58 1.1.1 Oak Grove 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 258 1.1.2 Oak Grove 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 55 1.1.3 Oak Grove 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 53 1.1.4 Oak Grove 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 56 2.1.1 Oak Grove 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 2.1.2 Oak Grove 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 59 2.1.3 Oak Grove 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.1 Oak Grove 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.2 Oak Grove 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.3 Oak Grove 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.4 Oak Grove 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 58 3.1.5 Oak Grove 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 57 4.1.1 Oak Grove 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 4.1.2 Oak Grove 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 4.1.3 Oak Grove 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 4.1.4 Oak Grove 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 1.1.1 Ramsey 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 60 1.1.2 Ramsey 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 49 1.1.3 Ramsey 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 48 1.1.4 Ramsey 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 53 2.1.1 Ramsey 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 2.1.2 Ramsey 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.1.3 Ramsey 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 61 2.1.4 Ramsey 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.1.1 Ramsey 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.2 Ramsey 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.3 Ramsey 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 59 4.1.1 Ramsey 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 4.1.2 Ramsey 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 52 4.1.3 Ramsey 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 51 4.1.4 Ramsey 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 57 6.1.1 Ramsey 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 6.1.2 Ramsey 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 6.1.3 Ramsey 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 6.1.4 Ramsey 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 7.1.1 Ramsey 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 7.1.2 Ramsey 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 62 7.1.3 Ramsey 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 1.1.1 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.1.2 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.1.3 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 1.1.4 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 67 2.1.1 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 63 2.1.2 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 62 2.1.3 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 63 3.1.1 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 62 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 259 3.1.2 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 61 3.1.3 Spring Lake Park 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 61 1.1.1 St. Francis 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 51 1.1.2 St. Francis 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 53 1.1.3 St. Francis 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 54 2.1.1 St. Francis 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 60 2.1.2 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 62 2.1.3 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 2.1.4 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 62 2.1.5 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.1 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 3.1.2 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.3 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 65 3.1.4 St. Francis 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 59 3.1.5 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 66 3.1.6 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69 3.1.7 St. Francis 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 64 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 261 5.2.7 Mitigation Actions Implementation Despite the diligence of the Mitigation Committee in completing the STAPLEE Criteria form, scores for many goal actions were identical, and provided little help in assigning priority. This form did allow the committee a thorough dissection of each goal action, and prompted the elimination of some goals. After long discussion, the Committee assigned planned implementation dates based on the following rationale: The STAPLEE Rating will help guide the process for implementing each goal. Many of the goals have been continued from the previous Hazard Mitigation Plan and will continue to be addressed during the next plans lifespan. Citizen education is an important goal for our Multi- Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan and education is represented in several goals throughout each Jurisdiction. Action Priority Anoka County Action Project Comment 12.2.3 1 Partner with fire departments to distribute fire prevention literature at community events. 12.2.2 2 Continue aggressive school fire prevention programs. 12.2.1 3 Collaborate with City and County organizations to evaluate the feasibility of expanding ditch depth and width along roadways to mitigate road flooding. 12.1.1 4 Continue and expand participation in the Severe Weather and Winter Hazard Awareness Week 11.3.1 5 After each disaster review Anoka County Emergency Operations Plan. Review and revise annually the Anoka County Emergency Operations Plan. 11.1.2 6 Encourage jurisdictions to partner in developing comprehensive, economic development and continuity of operations plans. 1.2.4 7 Continue and expand participation in the Severe Weather Awareness Week campaign. 12.1.3 8 Participate in Public Information Campaigns to include Multimedia, community newspapers, and flyers on Emergency Management topics such as “Shelter In Place” and “See Something Say Something” 12.1.2 9 Partner with volunteer agencies and NWS to distribute severe weather awareness and preparedness literature including Spotter Training Material at community events. 11.1.3 10 Maintain the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and schedule periodic meetings to review plan updates. 1.1.2 11 Continue to review EAS capabilities and system requirements. Implement IPAWS Warning System 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(iii): The mitigation strategy shall include an action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 262 12.1.5 12 Develop/maintain a web site for citizen information: on shelter- in-place, safe room information, citizen training opportunities, FEMA course listing and links to hazard preparedness sites. 12.1.4 13 Publish news articles to promote wildfire awareness. 9.3.1 14 Continue to participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. 1.3.1 15 Maintain and update annually, contact information for suppliers of drugs, food, water and fuel. 1.2.1 16 Partner with volunteer agencies to distribute severe weather awareness and preparedness literature at community events. 1.1.3 17 Update NAWAS warning system at Anoka County E-911 Communications Center. 11.3.2 18 Develop, maintain and revise annually a countywide comprehensive NIMS-type resource inventory. 10.1.5 19 Partner with local medical community to educate public on healthcare and pandemics to include; isolation, quarantine, triage and hospital care. 4.1.2 20 Collaborate with local fire departments and volunteer agencies to present fire prevention programs to service clubs, senior citizens, and special needs populations. 2.1.1 21 Support the activities of volunteer and County Human Services agencies in identifying and assisting vulnerable populations during severe weather. 11.1.1 22 Provide GIS Director FEMA training to ensure incorporation of HAZUS-MS in GIS databases. 10.1.4 23 Encourage all businesses to develop continuity of operations plans and evaluate what impact a public health incident would have on their business. 10.1.3 24 Participate in local, regional, and state drills and exercises, testing unified responses to a large-scale disease event. 10.1.2 25 Exercise all hazards public health response activities 3.3.1 26 Collaborate with City, County, and State Public Works / Highway to place signage indicating water depth at flooding points. 3.2.1 27 Collaborate with City and County organizations to identify roadways repetitively damaged by flooding. 9.2.3 28 Collaborate with local law enforcement, Sheriff’s Office and schools to improve security and lock down procedures. 7.1.1 29 Create a GIS Map database of identified sites to display ERG established zones and evacuation perimeters. 4.1.4 30 Assist fire departments in obtaining grants to purchase materials and equipment to enhance fire prevention programs. 4.2.2 31 Collaborate with local fire departments and business, industry, and education facilities to develop emergency pre-plans for all public buildings, schools, businesses and churches. 1.1.1 32 Encourage expansion of outdoor warning sirens to areas that currently do not have coverage and maintain existing outdoor warning sirens. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 263 3.1.2 33 Expand flood plain map data to include residential, commercial, occupied and unoccupied properties on a case by case basis based on construction. 12.3.2 34 Provides funds and assist in schedule and conduct Incident Command training for all emergency response personnel. 3.1.5 35 Collaborate with City and County organizations to use mapping and databases to restrict development in defined flood hazard areas. 3.1.3 36 Identify repetitive loss areas and structures. 12.3.4 37 Provide funds and assistance to emergency response agencies to acquire and maintain capability to respond for all hazards events. 12.3.3 38 Plan and conduct periodic tabletop exercises and drills involving all emergency response agencies. 12.3.1 39 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to permit training for all fire, EMS, rescue and law enforcement emergency responders. 10.3.3 40 Identify locations or housing for populations at risk. 10.1.1 41 Develop, recruit and train a Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), other agency staff and community volunteers to support interventions to prevent and control large-scale infectious disease events. 3.3.2 42 Collaborate with City, County, and State Public Works / Highway to install gates to block roadways and bridges during flooding. 3.1.1 43 Use HAZUS-MH to map 100/500-year flood plains. 3.2.3 44 Collaborate with City and County organizations to evaluate the feasibility of expanding ditch depth and width along roadways to mitigate road flooding. 3.1.4 45 Collaborate with City and County organizations to evaluate the need to relocate or acquire structures in flood hazard areas. 3.2.2 46 Collaborate with City and County organizations to raise grade level of identified roadways. Action Priority Andover Action Project Comment 5.2.2 1 Partner with volunteers and emergency response agencies to post monthly notices of training available to citizens, 5.4.3 2 Conduct annual disaster training exercises involving all emergency response agencies. 5.2.3 3 Publish monthly in area newspapers notice of upcoming training and availability of citizen’s awareness web site. 5.1.5 4 Provide comprehensive training annual refresher to all Fire and Public Works staff on ICS. 5.4.2 5 Schedule and conduct NIMS training as need for certifications. 5.3.1 6 Partner with volunteer agencies, schools and churches to provide more shelter facilities. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 264 5.2.1 7 Develop/maintain a web site for citizen information such as shelter locations shelter in-place and safe room information citizen training FEMA course listing and links to hazard preparedness web sites. 4.1.2 8 Maintain and update business database on an annual basis. 3.1.1 9 Identify Neighborhoods that have only a single point of access 5.4.1 10 Schedule and conduct Incident Command training annually for all Fire, Public Works, and EMS as a pre-requisite for NIMS training. 5.3.2 11 Assist in finding funding sources to equip shelter facility needs. 5.1.4 12 Train Public Works, Fire, and Law Enforcement in mitigation principles to make ongoing assessments. 3.1.2 13 Identify alternative access points for emergency personnel to inaccessible /blocked neighborhoods. 5.1.6 14 Recruit and develop teams of volunteers to assist in emergencies. Action Priority Anoka Action Project Comment 3.1.1 1 Evaluate current warning system and determine level of operability. 3.1.4 2 Establish warning unit replacement schedule as needed. 3.1.3 3 Ongoing maintenance of warning units. 3.1.2 4 Regularly schedule testing of warning units. 1.1.4 5 Maintain the Anoka Emergency Operations Plan. 1.1.2 6 Continue participation in hazard response and recovery planning with Anoka County and evaluate fire methods and funding sources. 1.1.1 7 Train all City personnel, Public Works, Police and Fire personnel in NIMS IS-700 and IS-800. 1.1.3 8 Purchase fire equipment to enhance the sharing of information during EOC activation. 2.1.3 9 Clean debris from city owned culverts and catch basins annually. 2.1.2 10 Install larger storm sewer lines while roadway is open for other repairs in flood prone areas. 2.1.1 11 New storm sewer installation during Anoka’s annual street renewal project. To prevent on street localized flooding. Action Priority Bethel Action Project Comment 2.1.3 1 Purchase fire equipment to enhance the sharing of information during disasters. 3.1.2 2 Continue and expand participation in the Severe Weather and Winter Hazard Awareness Week campaigns. 2.1.2 3 Continue participation in hazard response and recovery planning with Anoka County in fire evaluating methods and funding sources. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 265 3.1.1 4 Support the activities of volunteer and county agencies in identifying and assisting vulnerable populations during times of extreme weather. 2.1.1 5 Train all Fire personnel in NIMS IS-700. 1.1.3 6 Upgrade Bethel City Hall computer, intranet, and Internet access to improve sharing information and communications in the event of an emergency. 2.1.3 7 Purchase fire equipment to enhance the sharing of information during disasters. Action Priority Blaine Action Project Comment 2.1.6 1 Create a fire sprinkler “Matching Grant” incentive to defray costs to homeowner. 1.1.6 2 Create and provide “Safe Room” information to local builders and distribute during permitting process. 2.1.8 3 Establish an ordinance requiring builders to provide fire sprinkler information 1.1.8 4 Establish an ordinance requiring builders to provide safe room information 4.1.5 5 Identify Users, create a training time table and set up user guidelines 4.1.4 6 Add Resources and Infrastructure into Knowledge Center 2.1.5 7 Create and provide residential fire sprinkler system information to local builders. 1.1.5 8 Create and provide “Safe Room” information to local builders and distribute during permitting process. 4.1.3 9 Implement incident management software and train users. 2.1.7 10 Provide proper fire sprinkler training for Building Department Inspectors. 1.1.7 11 Provide proper safe room training for Building Department Inspectors. Action Priority Centerville Action Project Comment 3.1.2 1 Partner with volunteer and emergency response agencies to post monthly notices of training available to citizens. 3.1.1 2 Develop/maintain a Centerville City web site for citizen information; such as shelter locations, shelter-in-place and safe room information, citizen training, FEMA course listings, and links to hazard preparedness websites. 2.1.2 3 Partner with LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) to distribute citizen awareness and preparedness literature at community events. 2.1.1 4 Publish articles in area newspapers to instruct citizens on shelter-in-place. 1.1.1 5 Establish quarterly meetings of Centerville departments to identify problems and develop mitigation strategies. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 266 1.1.2 6 Develop redundancy strategies to prevent loss of public records in the event of damage to critical facilities. 1.2.1 7 Develop evacuation routes and procedures. 1.2.2 8 Partner with schools to implement and maintain a dedicated phone system for parent information on school evacuations. 2.3.1 9 Fund training for all firefighters in containing transportation hazardous spills. 2.2.1 10 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to permit hazardous materials awareness training for all fire, EMS, rescue, and law enforcement emergency responders. 2.3.2 11 Provide all fire departments equipment to contain hazardous materials spills on roadways. 2.2.3 12 Plan and conduct annual hazardous materials exercises and drills involving all emergency response agencies. 2.2.2 13 Provide funds for overtime and backfill to allow for hazardous materials operations level HMTO and CBRNE training. Action Priority Circle Pines Action Project Comment 1.1.2 1 Obtain storage space and develop deployment plan for signage. 1.1.1 2 Purchase signage that can be used to direct the public during times of emergency. 3.1.1 3 Develop plans to recruit, train, and implement a community wide ERT to be activated during times of disaster. Action Priority Columbia Heights Action Project Comment 6.2.1 1 Assess RMS needs. 6.1.1 2 Assess fire dispatch needs. 7.2.1 3 Continue to assess storm water needs and budget accordingly. 6.2.3 4 Review annually and after each disaster revise the St. Francis Emergency Operations Plan. 5.1.3 5 Proceed with chemical plan 3-5 years for full implementation. 5.1.1 6 Write enabling chemical ordinance. 3.1.4 7 Assess city generator needs. 6.2.2 8 Purchase and install Records Management System. 6.1.3 9 Yearly laptop computer maintenance and connection 5.1.2 10 Set up chemical policies and procedures. 6.1.2 11 Purchase and install laptop computers 3.1.6 12 Maintain critical facility generators. 7.2.2 13 Make storm water upgrades as planned. 3.1.5 14 Conduct annual tabletop disaster training exercises involving all emergency response agencies. Action Priority Columbus Action Project Comment Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 267 2.1.1 1 Create and participate in an 800 MHz radio exercise and continue exercises annually. 1.2.2 2 Add Fire-wise, burn permits and wild fire fire information to the City Website. 3.1.1 3 Schedule and conduct Incident Command training annually for all fire, EMS, rescue, city staff and law enforcement personnel as needed. 2.1.2 4 Participate in the annual severe weather drill. 1.2.2 5 Fire lockbox program for commercial property. 1.2.1 6 Create a home address program (number visibility.) 3.2.2 7 Develop evacuation routes and procedures 2.2.1 8 Complete command center/EOC area including maintain and test emergency backup systems regularly. 3.2.3 9 Improve access to main highway at Lake Drive and I 35 Action Priority Coon Rapids Action Project Comment 1.1.2 1 Build Overpass on CSAH 14 over 1.1.1 2 Increase pedestrian and bicycle trails under or over major surface streets to reduce accidents and increase safety. 2.1.7 3 Clean holding ponds. 2.1.6 4 Clean ditches waterways. 2.1.5 5 Enlarging culverts pipes. Action Priority East Bethel Action Project Comment 4.1.2 1 Meet with property owners and review mitigation strategies 4.1.1 2 Identify Flood Prone Properties in the City of East Bethel 4.1.3 3 Implement agreed upon mitigation strategies 3.1.3 4 Create RFP and go out for bid for building of severe weather shelters. 3.1.2 5 Establish guidelines and adopt resolution for shelter procedures. 2.1.1 6 Identify appropriate generator for city facilities. 3.1.1 7 Determine location, size and feasibility of a shelter for every city park. 2.1.3 8 Install and test city generators on a monthly basis. 2.1.2 9 Purchase generator and equipment for proper installation at city facilities. 3.1.4 10 Review bids and hire contractor for shelter construction. 3.1.5 11 Contractor builds shelters. Action Priority Fridley Action Project Comment 3.1.2 1 Continue to review warning and information systems. 3.1.1 2 Evaluate current warning and evacuation systems and determine needs. 2.1.4 3 Train members in the use of the equipment Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 268 2.1.2 4 Review need for additional equipment for communicating 3.1.3 5 Select and install a system to fit the needs of the community. 2.1.3 6 Exercise large-scale infectious disease standard operating procedures. 2.1.1 7 Partner with public facilities to distribute EM information 1.2.3 8 Purchase a pump 1.4.2 9 Construction to mitigate flood hazards 1.4.1 10 Conduct a water study and consultation 1.3.3 11 Intergrate flow and level data into city scada system 1.3.2 12 Purchase/Install equipment 1.3.1 13 Review areas for installation of water flow and level gauges for Rice Creek and SpringBrook Creek 1.2.4 14 Install gate valve 1.2.2 15 Build-up berm or levee 1.2.1 16 Survey/design/engineer north detention pond area 1.1.1 17 Soil test and Survey area to construct flood protection base 1.1.2 18 Design/Engineer a stable flood protection base 1.1.3 19 Construct flood protection base Action Priority Ham Lake Action Project Comment 2.1.4 1 On-going training for EMO, fire department, and City staff based on EMP. 3.1.4 2 Maintain and update disaster response database on a monthly basis. 1.1.5 3 Public Safety Director/Fire Chief will coordinate training of Ham Lake Council, staff and Fire Department in all aspects of NIMS. 1.1.4 4 Public Safety Director/Fire Chief to implement programs regarding public safety, fire suppression systems, fire inspections, etc. Action Priority Hiltop Action Project Comment 3.1.1 1 Identify appropriate generator connections 1.1.1 2 Feasibility study of city-owned shelter. 3.1.2 3 Purchase and install equipment for proper installation. 1.1.2 4 Expand or build a second shelter Action Priority Lexington Action Project Comment 5.1.3 1 Conduct annual tabletop disaster training exercises involving all emergency response personnel. 5.1.2 2 Schedule and conduct NIMS training annually 5.2.2 3 Schedule routine check/ updates to emergency kits. 5.2.1 4 Purchase emergency material for kits. 5.1.1 5 Schedule and conduct Incident Command training annually for all fire, EMS, rescue, and law enforcement personnel. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 269 3.1.5 6 Retrofit Lift Stations with adapters for North Metro-wide generator use. 3.1.3 7 Purchase generator connection for Lexington City Hall. Action Priority Lino Lakes Action Project Comment 2.1.1 1 Evaluate current warning system and determine level of operability. 3.1.1 2 Determine needs and establish chemical ordinance for business registration. 2.1.3 3 Maintenance of warning units, periodic testing. 1.1.2 4 Coordinate stated Firewise agencies. 1.1.1 5 Assess parcels to be deemed as hazard areas. 3.1.3 6 Maintain and update chemical database on annual basis. 3.1.2 7 Create and compile a business chemical database. 1.1.4 8 Manage Firewise project through completion. 2.1.2 9 Ongoing replacement of warning units. 1.1.3 10 Conduct Firewise clean up efforts. Action Priority Linwood Action Project Comment 3.1.2 1 Educate residents on the protocol of the sirens sounding. 2.1.3 2 Implement lockbox Program. 2.1.1 3 Establish fire lockbox Guidelines. 2.1.4 4 Maintain lockbox Records. 2.1.2 5 Obtain lockbox Equipment. 1.1.2 6 Educate homeowners of Firewise risk. 1.1.1 7 Evaluate Firewise areas of risk. 1.1.4 8 Complete Firewise project. 1.1.3 9 Firewise Mitigation of hazards. 3.1.1 10 Purchase and Install six strategically placed warning sirens. Action Priority Nowthen Action Project Comment 3.1.2 1 Update ordinances. 3.1.1 2 Review current ordinances. 2.1.1 3 Establish and prioritize criteria for access routes. 4.1.1 4 Purchase and install outdoor warning sirens. 1.1.1 5 Create and implement a fire plan. 2.1.2 6 Acquire access routes easements. 2.1.3 7 Construct access roads. Action Priority Oak Grove Action Project Comment 2.1.1 1 Evaluate current warning system, determine level of operability and establish replacement schedule. 4.1.1 2 Establish criteria for lockbox program/data base Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 270 4.1.4 3 Maintain lockbox database 3.1.3 4 Create RFP and go out for bid for building of severe weather shelters. 3.1.2 5 Establish guidelines and adopt resolution for shelter procedures. 3.1.1 6 Determine location, size and feasibility of a shelter for every city park. 2.1.3 7 Maintenance of warning units, periodic testing. 4.1.3 8 Implementation of lockbox program/equipment maintenance 4.1.2 9 Acquire and distribute lockbox equipment 1.1.1 10 Establish and prioritize criteria for feasible access routes. 2.1.2 11 Purchase four more outdoor warning sirens. 3.1.4 12 Review shelter bids and hire contractor 3.1.5 13 Contractor builds shelters. 1.1.4 14 Ongoing maintenance of access routes. 1.1.2 15 Acquire access route easements. 1.1.3 16 Maintain lockbox database Action Priority Ramsey Action Project Comment 6.1.2 1 Establish replacement schedule. 6.1.1 2 Evaluate current system, determine level of operability. 7.1.1 3 Determine needs and establish ordinance for business registration. 3.1.1 4 Assess parcels to be deemed as Firewise hazard areas. 2.1.1 5 Establish criteria for lockbox program/data base. 3.1.2 6 Coordinate stated Firewise agencies. 7.1.3 7 Maintain and update business database on annual basis 6.1.4 8 Maintenance of units, periodic testing. 4.1.1 9 Establish and prioritize criteria for feasible access routes. 2.1.4 10 Maintain lockbox database. 7.1.2 11 Create and compile business database. 2.1.3 12 Implementation of lockbox program/equipment maintenance. 2.1.2 13 Acquire and distribute lockbox equipment. 6.1.3 14 Ongoing replacement of units. 1.1.1 15 Update existing development plan (CIP). 3.1.3 16 Conduct Firewise clean up efforts. 4.1.4 17 Ongoing access route maintenance. 1.1.4 18 On-going access corridor maintenance. 4.1.2 19 Acquire access routes easements. 4.1.3 20 Construction of access roads. 1.1.2 21 Acquisition of access easements along corridor. 1.1.3 22 Construction of access roadways. Action Priority Spring Lake Park Action Project Comment Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 271 1.1.4 1 Provide notification to community about “Audible Warning Devices” and preparedness for severe weather. 1.1.3 2 Establish geographical locations for audible warning sirens and install. 1.1.2 3 Establish adequate testing and maintenance procedures for audible warning devices. 1.1.1 4 Perform testing to determine the adequate number of audible warning devices necessary to alert citizens in the area of Spring Lake Park. 2.1.3 5 Educate the community of procedures and routes for evacuation in the event of a catastrophic event occurring. (Pamphlets, cable TV, mailings etc.) 2.1.1 6 Determine major arteries of vehicle traffic that may be accessible for population evacuation by means of vehicular, manual and pedestrian traffic. 3.1.1 7 Evaluate and determine geographical location(s) for treatment of mass casualties, medical relief, inoculation for injuries and illnesses. 2.1.2 8 Establish procedures for evacuation routes/check points. Post as evacuation routes and check points 3.1.3 9 Identify and coordinate assistance of all agencies for mass casualty assistance. Including but not limited to police, fire, medical, military, communication and transportation. 3.1.2 10 Identify and coordinate assistance of all agencies for mass casualty assistance. Including but not limited to police, fire, medical, military, communication and transportation. Action Priority St. Francis Action Project Comment 3.1.6 1 Develop evacuation routes and procedures. 3.1.5 2 Continue to activate the EAS as necessary. 3.1.3 3 Review annually and after each disaster revise the St. Francis Emergency Operations Plan. 3.1.2 4 Assist in finding funding sources to equip rural shelter facilities. 2.1.5 5 Fund training for all firefighters in containing transportation hazardous spills. 3.1.7 6 Partner with jurisdictional schools to implement and maintain a dedicated phone system for parent information on school evacuations. 3.1.1 7 Partner with volunteer agencies, schools, and churches to provide more shelter facilities in the communities. 2.1.3 8 Work with adjoining fire departments to develop hazardous materials response SOGs. 2.1.4 9 Participate in DOE drills and exercises. 2.1.2 10 Plan and conduct annual hazardous materials exercises and drills involving all mutual aid response agencies. 2.1.1 11 Provide funds for hazardous materials awareness training for all fire, EMS, rescue, and law enforcement emergency responders. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 272 3.1.4 12 Install warning sirens in cities and unincorporated areas of dense population. 1.1.3 13 Develop a plan to keep the current and future sewer mains clear of debris to avoid flooding, by routing cleaning/maintenance. 1.1.2 14 Enhance the current water treatment system allowing for better emergency / regulatory water flow. 1.1.1 15 Expand the sewer / water trunk lines north and east of existing area. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 273 5.3 Mitigation Implementation and Plan Maintenance This section discusses how the Mitigation Strategy will be implemented by Anoka County’s participating jurisdictions and how the overall Hazard Mitigation Plan will be evaluated and enhanced over time. This section also discusses how the public will continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation planning process. It consists of the following four subsections: Implementation Incorporating Mitigation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Monitoring, Evaluation and Enhancement Continued Public Involvement 5.3.1 Implementation Each jurisdiction participating in this Plan is responsible for implementing specific mitigation actions as prescribed in the adopted Mitigation Actions. In each Mitigation Action Plan, every proposed action is assigned to a specific local department or agency in order to assign responsibility and accountability and increase the likelihood of subsequent implementation. This approach enables individual jurisdictions to update their unique mitigation strategy as needed without altering the broader focus of the countywide Plan. The separate adoption of locally specific actions also ensures that each jurisdiction is not held responsible for monitoring and implementing the actions of other jurisdictions involved in the planning process. In addition to the assignment of a local lead department or agency, an implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been assigned in order to assess whether actions are being implemented in a timely fashion. As necessary, Anoka County and its participating jurisdictions will seek outside funding sources to implement mitigation projects in both the pre- disaster and post-disaster environments. When applicable, potential funding sources have been identified for proposed actions listed in the Mitigation Action Plans. 5.3.2 Incorporating Mitigation Into Existing Planning Mechanisms It will be the responsibility of each participating jurisdiction to determine additional implementation procedures when appropriate. This includes integrating the requirements of the Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan into other local planning documents, processes, or mechanisms such as: Comprehensive Plans Strategic Plans Capital Improvement Plans Growth Management Plans Ordinances, Resolutions, Regulations Continuity of Operations Plans 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(i): The plan shall include a plan maintenance process that includes a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan maintenance process shall include a process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 274 Opportunities to integrate the requirements of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms will continue to be identified through future meetings of the Mitigation Steering Committee and through the five-year review process described herein. The primary means for integrating mitigation strategies into other local planning mechanisms will be through the revision, update and implementation of each jurisdiction’s individual plans that require specific planning and administrative tasks (e.g. plan amendments, ordinance revisions, capital improvement projects, etc.). The members of the Mitigation Steering Committee will remain charged with ensuring that the goals and strategies of new and updated local planning documents for their jurisdictions or agencies are consistent with the goals and actions of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, and will not contribute to increased hazard vulnerability in Anoka County or its participating municipalities During the planning process for new and updated local planning documents, such as a comprehensive plan, capital improvements plan, or emergency management plan, Anoka County will provide a copy of the Hazard Mitigation Plan to the appropriate parties and recommend that all goals and strategies of new and updated local planning documents are consistent with and support the goals of the Hazard Mitigation Plan and will not cont ribute to increased hazards in the affected jurisdiction(s). Although it is recognized that there are many possible benefits to integrating components of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms, the development and maintenance of this stand- alone Hazard Mitigation Plan is deemed by the Anoka County Mitigation Steering Committee to be the most effective and appropriate method to ensure implementation of local hazard mitigation actions at this time. 5.3.3 Monitoring, Evaluation and Enhancement A comprehensive review of the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan is required every 5 years to ensure that the goals of the Plan are kept current, taking into account potential changes in hazard vulnerability and mitigation priorities. The required revisions ensure that the Plan is in full compliance with applicable federal and state regulations. Once each year the Anoka County Emergency Management Group will meet to review and monitor the progress of the Plan. During this annual meeting mitigation actions will be reviewed to insure they are being carried out according to each jurisdiction’s individual Mitigation Action Plan. If determined appropriate, or as requested, an annual report on the Plan will be developed and presented to local governing bodies of participating jurisdictions in order to report progress on the actions identified in the Plan and to provide information on the latest legislative requirements and/or changes to those requirements. 5.3.3.1 Five (5) Year Plan Review The Plan will be reviewed by the Mitigation Steering Committee every five years to determine whether there have been any significant changes in Anoka County that may, in turn, necessitate changes in the types of mitigation actions proposed. New development in identified hazard areas, an increased exposure to hazards, the increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation are examples of factors that may affect the necessary content of the Plan. The Plan review provides community officials with an opportunity to evaluate those actions that have been successful and to explore the possibility of documenting potential losses avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 275 measures. The Plan review also provides the opportunity to address mitigation actions that may not have been successfully implemented as assigned. The Anoka County Emergency Management Agency will be responsible for reconvening the Mitigation Steering Committee and conducting the five-year review. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee with consist of the Anoka County Emergency Manager and Anoka County Emergency Management Specialists who will provide overall guidance and supporting the process of reviewing and updating the plan. During the five-year plan review process, the following questions will be considered as criteria for assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Plan: Do the goals address current and expected conditions? Has the nature or magnitude of risks changed? Are the current resources appropriate for implementing the Plan? Are there implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal, or coordination issues with other agencies? Have the outcomes occurred as expected? Did the jurisdictions, agencies, and other partners participate in the Plan implementation process as proposed? Following the five-year review, any necessary revisions will be implemented according to the reporting procedures and plan amendment process outlined herein. Upon completion of the review and update/amendment process, the Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer for final review and approval in coordination with FEMA. During the previous five years of the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan the results are represented in the Hazard Mitigation Goals that have been completed by each of the jurisdictions. The accomplished goals are marked in Green in section 5.2.7. The accomplishments preparedness actions that have been completed by the participating Jurisdictions. 5.3.3.2 Disaster Declaration Following a disaster declaration, the Mitigation Steering Committee will reconvene and the Plan will be revised as necessary to reflect lessons learned, or to address specific circumstances arising from the event. It will be the responsibility of the Anoka County Emergency Management Agency to reconvene the Mitigation Steering Committee and ensure the appropriate stakeholders are invited to participate in reviewing the mitigation goals following the declared disaster events. 5.3.3.3 Reporting Procedures The results of the five-year review will be summarized by the Mitigation Steering Committee in a report that will include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan and any required or recommended changes or amendments. The report will also include an evaluation of implementation progress for each of the proposed mitigation actions, identifying reasons for delays or obstacles to their completion, along with recommended strategies to overcome them. Any necessary revisions to the countywide Plan elements must follow the comprehensive review process. For changes and updates to the individual jurisdiction Mitigation Action Plans, appropriate local designees will assign responsibility for the completion of the task. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 276 5.3.4 Continued Public Involvement Public participation is an integral component of the mitigation planning process and will continue to be essential as this Plan evolves over time. As described above, significant changes or amendments to the Plan require a public hearing prior to any adoption procedures. Other efforts to involve the public in the maintenance, evaluation, and revision process will be made as necessary. These efforts may include: Advertising meetings of the Mitigation Steering Committee in the local newspaper, City and County Website, public bulletin boards, and/or city and county office buildings; Designating willing and voluntary citizens and private sector representatives as official members of the Mitigation Steering Committee; Utilizing local media to update the public of any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place; Utilizing city and county web sites to advertise any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place; and Keeping copies of the Plan in public libraries. 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(iii): The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 277 References and Acknowledgements The resources were consulted during plan development and in many cases provided specific content, maps and images. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Anoka County Chamber of Commerce Anoka County Newspapers Anoka County Emergency Management Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) City of Andover web site City of Andover Chamber of Commerce City of Ramsey web site Coast Guard, National Response Center Colorado State University Durham County, North Carolina Hazard Mitigation Plan E-Podunk.com Environmental Protection Agency Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Computer Incident Response Center Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Storm Event Database National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Nuclear Security Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency National Performance of Dams Program-Dam Incident Notification Database National Response Team (NRT) National Weather Service Natural Hazards Center North Carolina Emergency Management Agency Office of Domestic Preparedness Office of Emergency Preparedness Rootsweb.com State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan State of North Carolina Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 278 Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minnesota Department of Justice Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Emergency Management Agency Red Cross USACE. National Inventory of Dams U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Fire Administration U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earthquakes Hazard Program U.S. Health and Human Services Wikipedia.org Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 279 Mitigation Meetings, Notices and Minutes All public meeting notices are scanned into this section. Meeting minutes are scanned or copied into this section ANOKA COUNTY MITIGATION PLAN PUBLIC MEETINGS Date Number of Attendees Comments 11-8-2012 21 Anoka Co Sheriff’s Dept Community Meeting Room Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 280 Planning Meeting Attendance Sheets Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 281 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 282 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 283 Notice of Public Meeting Published on the Anoka County Website Events Calendar Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 284 Anoka County Community Meeting Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 285 Resolutions and Adoption This section of the plan includes Plan certification and copies of local resolutions passed by each of Anoka County’s local jurisdictions The notarized certification and the adoption resolutions are scanned into this section 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(5): The plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the local governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan. For multi- jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 286 Resolutions for The Intent to Join the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 287 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 288 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 289 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 290 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 291 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 292 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 293 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 294 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 295 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 296 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 297 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 298 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 299 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 300 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 301 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 302 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 303 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 304 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 305 Resolutions to Adopt the Anoka Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 306 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 307 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 308 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 309 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 310 FEMA Acceptance Documentation Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 311 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 312 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 313 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 314 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 315 MMUULLTTII--JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONN AALL AALLLL HH AAZZ AARRDDSS MMIITTIIGG AATTIIOONN PPLLAANN AAPPPPEENNDDIICCEESS ANOKA COUNTY MMIINNNNEESSOOTT AA 22001133 Blank Page Inserted Version 2.0 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Detailed Hazard Event Data .............................................................................. 3 Anoka County Fire Calls 2006 to 2011 .................................................................................3 Anoka County National Flood Insurance Status .................................................................10 Anoka County Meth Lab Seizure ........................................................................................11 Anoka County Shelter Information .....................................................................................13 Anoka County Flood Vulnerability Report ...........................................................................14 Appendix C Mitigation Community Survey Results .......................................................... 75 Appendix D Capabilities Detailed Survey .......................................................................... 79 Appendix E Key Federal Hazard mitigation Funding programs ..................................... 119 Appendix F Minnesota Mitigation Planning Review Aid ................................................. 121 Section 1 Regulation Checklist......................................................................................... 122 Section 2 Multi-Jurisdictional Summary Sheet ................................................................. 129 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 3 Appendix A Detailed Hazard Event Data Anoka County Fire Calls 2006 to 2011 Basic: Incident Type From 01/01/2006 to 10/25/2011 CODE Description FREQ FREQ % EXPs CIV DT HS CIV DTHS % CIV INJ S CIV INJS % FF DTH S FF DTHS % FF INJS FF INJS % PROP LOSS PROP LOSS % CONT LOSS CONT LOSS % TOTAL LOSS TOT LOSS % 100 Fire, other 105 0.15 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 18,600 0.07 % 4,051 0.04 % 22,651 0.06 % 110 Structure fire, other (conversion only) 11 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0.00 % 706,500 2.64 % 0 0.00 % 706,500 1.96 % 111 Building fires 849 1.19 % 25 8 61.54 % 44 65.67 % 0 0.00 % 17 44.74 % 22,448,528 83.87 % 7,857,569 84.84 % 30,306,097 84.12 % 112 Fires in structures other than in a building 45 0.06 % 3 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 1,574,450 5.88 % 6,050 0.07 % 1,580,500 4.39 % 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 413 0.58 % 0 0 0.00 % 7 10.45 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 17,700 0.07 % 12,111 0.13 % 29,811 0.08 % 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 60 0.08 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 19,000 0.07 % 1,000 0.01 % 20,000 0.06 % 115 Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire confined 7 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 15 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1,200 0.01 % 1,200 0.00 % 117 Commercial Compactor fire, confined to rubbish 4 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 95 0.13 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 2,575 0.01 % 250 0.00 % 2,825 0.01 % 120 Fire in mobile prop. used as a fixed struc., other 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1,000 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1,000 0.00 % 121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence 28 0.04 % 0 1 7.69 % 2 2.99 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 280,700 1.05 % 147,800 1.60 % 428,500 1.19 % 122 Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 123 Fire in portable building, fixed location 32 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 14,950 0.06 % 0 0.00 % 14,950 0.04 % 130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, other 50 0.07 % 0 0 0.00 % 1 1.49 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 27,300 0.10 % 88,650 0.96 % 115,950 0.32 % 131 Passenger vehicle fire 643 0.90 % 15 0 0.00 % 2 2.99 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 807,050 3.02 % 456,625 4.93 % 1,263,675 3.51 % 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 31 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 1 1.49 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 105,000 0.39 % 466,200 5.03 % 571,200 1.59 % 133 Rail vehicle fire 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 15,000 0.06 % 32,000 0.35 % 47,000 0.13 % 134 Water vehicle fire 10 0.01 % 1 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 11,800 0.04 % 2,800 0.03 % 14,600 0.04 % Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 4 135 Aircraft fire 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 136 Self-propelled motor home or recreational vehicle 4 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 1 1.49 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 500 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 500 0.00 % 137 Camper or recreational vehicle (RV) fire 8 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 8,950 0.03 % 1,000 0.01 % 9,950 0.03 % 138 Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 29 0.04 % 1 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 19,000 0.07 % 49,300 0.53 % 68,300 0.19 % 140 Natural vegetation fire, other 120 0.17 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 635 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 635 0.00 % 141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 61 0.09 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 5,000 0.02 % 0 0.00 % 5,000 0.01 % 142 Brush, or brush and grass mixture fire 179 0.25 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 3,410 0.01 % 610 0.01 % 4,020 0.01 % 143 Grass fire 421 0.59 % 1 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1,800 0.01 % 0 0.00 % 1,800 0.00 % 150 Outside rubbish fire, other 84 0.12 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 550 0.00 % 50 0.00 % 600 0.00 % 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 118 0.17 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 999 0.00 % 2,650 0.03 % 3,649 0.01 % 152 Garbage dump or sanitary landfill fire 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 153 Construction or demolition landfill fire 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 175 0.25 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 24,600 0.09 % 950 0.01 % 25,550 0.07 % 155 Outside stationary compactor/compacted trash fire 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 160 Special outside fire, other 100 0.14 % 3 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 7,950 0.03 % 250 0.00 % 8,200 0.02 % 161 Outside storage fire 18 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 22,000 0.08 % 34,300 0.37 % 56,300 0.16 % 162 Outside equipment fire 52 0.07 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 328,582 1.23 % 2,800 0.03 % 331,382 0.92 % 163 Outside gas or vapor combustion explosion 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 164 Outside mailbox fire 12 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 25 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 25 0.00 % 170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, other 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1,500 0.01 % 0 0.00 % 1,500 0.00 % 171 Cultivated grain or crop fire 4 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 200 Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat other 26 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 210 Overpressure rupture from steam, other 6 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 211 Overpressure rupture of steam pipe or pipeline 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 212 Overpressure rupture of steam boiler 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 213 Steam rupture of pressure or process vessel 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 220 Overpressure rupture from air or gas, other 7 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 5 221 Overpressure rupture of air or gas pipe/pipeline 17 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 223 Air or gas rupture of pressure or process vessel 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 231 Chemical reaction rupture of process vessel 5 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 3 4.48 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 240 Explosion (no fire), other 5 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 241 Munitions or bomb explosion (no fire) 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 243 Fireworks explosion (no fire) 8 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 112 0.16 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 500 0.01 % 500 0.00 % 300 Rescue, emergency medical call (EMS) call, other 3,900 5.47 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 2,000 0.02 % 2,000 0.01 % 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 8,095 11.34 % 0 1 7.69 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 5 13.16 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 320 Emergency medical service, other (conversion only) 489 0.69 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 24,77 4 34.72 % 0 1 7.69 % 2 2.99 % 0 0.00 % 3 7.89 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 322 Vehicle accident with injuries 2,532 3.55 % 0 1 7.69 % 2 2.99 % 0 0.00 % 2 5.26 % 148,000 0.55 % 40,750 0.44 % 188,750 0.52 % 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 214 0.30 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 618 0.87 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 13,500 0.15 % 13,500 0.04 % 331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 5 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 340 Search, other 4 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 341 Search for person on land 27 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 342 Search for person in water 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 350 Extrication, rescue, other 59 0.08 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 23,000 0.25 % 23,000 0.06 % 351 Extrication of victim(s) from building/structure 5 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 210 0.29 % 0 1 7.69 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 0 0.00 % 12,500 0.13 % 12,500 0.03 % 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 65 0.09 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 354 Trench/below grade rescue 4 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 355 Confined space rescue 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 356 High angle rescue 6 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 357 Extrication of victim(s) from machinery 9 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 360 Water & ice related rescue, other 13 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 6 361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 4 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 362 Ice rescue 8 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 363 Swift water rescue 6 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 365 Watercraft rescue 22 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 370 Electrical rescue, other 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 371 Electrocution or potential electrocution 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 372 Trapped by power lines 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 381 Rescue or EMS standby 79 0.11 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 400 Hazardous condition, other 90 0.13 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 410 Flammable gas or liquid condition, other 59 0.08 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 275 0.39 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 1,559 2.18 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 53 0.07 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 420 Toxic condition, other 19 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 23 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 422 Chemical spill or leak 54 0.08 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 423 Refrigeration leak 6 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 424 Carbon monoxide incident 586 0.82 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 195 0.27 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 35 0.05 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 500 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 500 0.00 % 442 Overheated motor 51 0.07 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 100 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 100 0.00 % 443 Light ballast breakdown 30 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 444 Power line down 826 1.16 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 5 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 5 0.00 % 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 444 0.62 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 2,009 0.01 % 130 0.00 % 2,139 0.01 % 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 460 Accident, potential accident, other 21 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 5 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 10,000 0.04 % 0 0.00 % 10,000 0.03 % 462 Aircraft standby 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 373 0.52 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 18,000 0.07 % 0 0.00 % 18,000 0.05 % Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 7 471 Explosive, bomb removal (for bomb scare, use 721) 7 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 480 Attempted burning, illegal action, other 11 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 481 Attempt to burn 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 500 Service Call, other 296 0.41 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 510 Person in distress, other 45 0.06 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 511 Lock-out 19 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 512 Ring or jewelry removal 21 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 520 Water problem, other 114 0.16 % 0 0 0.00 % 2 2.99 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 521 Water evacuation 7 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 522 Water or steam leak 108 0.15 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 531 Smoke or odor removal 580 0.81 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 23,000 0.09 % 1,060 0.01 % 24,060 0.07 % 540 Animal problem, other 2 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 541 Animal problem 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 542 Animal rescue 14 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 550 Public service assistance, other 67 0.09 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 615 0.86 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 552 Police matter 216 0.30 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 553 Public service 284 0.40 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 554 Assist invalid 1,056 1.48 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 555 Defective elevator, no occupants 8 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 561 Unauthorized burning 1,672 2.34 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 34 0.05 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 600 Good intent call, other 1,074 1.51 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 500 0.00 % 250 0.00 % 750 0.00 % 611 Dispatched & canceled en route 4,719 6.61 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 621 Wrong location 35 0.05 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 622 No incident found at dispatch address 497 0.70 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 631 Authorized controlled burning 446 0.63 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 632 Prescribed fire 30 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location) 15 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 650 Steam, other gas mistaken for smoke, other 70 0.10 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 651 Smoke scare, odor of 906 1.27 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 8 smoke 652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 106 0.15 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 653 Barbecue, tar kettle 16 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 661 EMS call, party transported by non-fire agency 3 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 671 Hazmat release investigation w/ no hazmat 173 0.24 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 672 Biological hazard, none found 1 0.00 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 700 False alarm or false call, other 723 1.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 710 Malicious, mischievous false call, other 253 0.35 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 19 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 5 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 714 Central station, malicious false alarm 49 0.07 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 72 0.10 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 721 Bomb scare - no bomb 16 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 730 System malfunction, other 276 0.39 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 114 0.16 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 732 Extinguishing system activation due to malfunction 16 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 691 0.97 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 29 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 1,094 1.53 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 20,000 0.07 % 0 0.00 % 20,000 0.06 % 736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 395 0.55 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 433 0.61 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 142 0.20 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 2.63 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 742 Extinguishing system activation 12 0.02 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 878 1.23 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 406 0.57 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 9 745 Alarm system sounded, no fire - unintentional 1,400 1.96 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 779 1.09 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 751 Biological hazard, malicious false report 5 0.01 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 800 Severe weather or natural disaster, other 19 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 813 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 23 0.03 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 814 Lightning strike (no fire) 76 0.11 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 67,500 0.25 % 0 0.00 % 67,500 0.19 % 815 Severe weather or natural disaster standby 27 0.04 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 900 Special type of incident, other 47 0.07 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 911 Citizen complaint 225 0.32 % 0 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % Totals 71,35 6 100 % 49 13 100 % 67 100 % 0 0 % 38 100 % 26,765,268 100 % 9,261,906 100 % 36,027,174 100 % Mutual Aid Given Incidents 1,259 Total Incidents 72,61 5 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 10 Anoka County National Flood Insurance Status Anoka County National Flood Insurance Status CID Community Name County Init FHBM Init FIRM Curr Eff Reg-Emer Tribal 270689# ANDOVER, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 12/17/76 09/30/80 07/18/83 09/30/80 No 270005# ANOKA COUNTY * ANOKA COUNTY 01/16/80 01/16/80 01/16/80 No 275227 ANOKA, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 11/30/73 02/27/76 11/30/73 No 270008# CENTERVILLE, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 05/03/74 12/04/79 06/02/99 12/04/79 No 270009# CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 05/03/74 09/15/78 09/15/78 09/15/78 No 270010# COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 05/10/74 09/29/78 09/29/78 09/29/78 No 270144# COLUMBUS, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 01/16/80 01/16/80 02/06/09 No 270011# COON RAPIDS,CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 06/01/73 03/15/77 03/15/77 03/15/77 No 270012# EAST BETHEL, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 07/25/75 05/15/80 05/15/80 05/15/80 No 270013# FRIDLEY, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 05/17/74 03/02/81 03/02/81 03/02/81 No 270674# HAM LAKE, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 08/15/75 07/16/80 07/16/80 07/16/80 No 270014 LEXINGTON, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 03/29/74 (NSFHA) 02/12/79 No 270015# LINO LAKES, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 12/13/74 05/17/82 05/17/82 05/17/82 No 270007# Blaine, City Of ANOKA COUNTY 06/28/74 11/15/79 06/17/02 11/15/79 NO 270031# OAK GROVE, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 01/16/80 01/16/80 09/05/08 No 270681# RAMSEY, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 04/21/78 11/01/79 11/01/79 11/01/79 No 270016 SPRING LAKE PARK, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 05/10/74 (NSFHA) 08/24/81 No 270017# ST. FRANCIS, CITY OF ANOKA COUNTY 06/28/74 03/02/81 03/02/81 03/02/81 No Note City of Nowthen Applying to the National Flood Insurance Program Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 11 Anoka County Meth Lab Seizure Anoka County Meth Lab Seizure 2006 - 2011 Date City Type Comments 1/31/2006 Coon Rapids Abandoned Box Lab Storage Facility 2/8/2006 Ramsey House 2/27/2006 Coon Rapids Abandoned 3/19/2006 St. Francis Vehicle Traffic stop 4/10/2006 Oak Grove Abandoned 8/15/2006 East Bethel House 1/31/2007 Ham Lake House Garage 3/25/2007 Ramsey Abandoned City of Ramsey picked up 7/31/2007 Coon Rapids Apartment 8/7/2007 Blaine House Trailer Park 8/9/2007 Andover House 10/4/2007 Coon Rapids Garage House was found clean 10/29/2007 Andover Abandoned 12/3/2007 Coon Rapids Vehicle 1/5/2008 Coon Rapids Vehicle 2/20/2008 Blaine House 4/8/2008 Ham Lake Abandoned 5/20/2008 Blaine Vehicle 5/27/2008 Blaine House 6/10/2008 Fridley Vehicle Travel Trailer Trailer destroyed by Fridley Police 7/10/2008 Columbus Garage 9/9/2008 Andover Vehicle 9/30/2008 East Bethel Abandoned 2/5/2009 Fridley Garage House 2/13/2009 Blaine Shed Park manager called 3/10/2011 - shed was removed in 2010. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 12 5/25/2009 Coon Rapids Vehicle 10/30/2009 Linwood Vehicle 12/7/2009 Coon Rapids Townhouse 3/27/2010 Coon Rapids Vehicle Not deemed a meth lab 3/9/2011 East Bethel House 3/31/2011 Linwood Outside Side of house, under tarp No cooking inside the house 6/17/2011 Vehicle Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 13 Anoka County Shelter Information Address City Zip Code County Max Feed Max Sleep # of Showers Ratio Sleep / Shower Last Survey Crosstown Blvd NW Andover 55304 Anoka 0 1858 2 929 5/4/2010 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover 55304 Anoka 349 625 22 28 1/26/2010 Hanson Blvd. Andover 55304 Anoka 360 365 10 37 1/26/2010 North Seventh Ave. Anoka 55303 Anoka 600 725 92 8 1/26/2010 5th Ave. South Anoka 55303 Anoka 509 488 44 11 1/26/2010 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE Blaine 55449 Anoka 250 105 6 18 5/10/2010 University Ave. Blaine 55434 Anoka 560 725 58 13 1/26/2010 Main Street NE Blaine 55434 Anoka 374 300 26 11 1/26/2010 101st St. Ln. NE Circle Pines 55014 Anoka 450 1250 51 24 10/13/2009 North Road Circle Pines 55014 Anoka 350 1177 56 21 9/23/2009 49th Ave. NE Columbia Heights 55421 Anoka 200 135 32 5 7/10/2009 49th Ave. NE Columbia Heights 55421 Anoka 300 135 48 3 7/10/2009 Mississippi Blvd. NW Coon Rapids 55433 Anoka 390 1512 56 27 3/11/2010 Northdale Blvd Coon Rapids 55433 Anoka 624 925 90 23 1/26/2010 Raven Street NW Coon Rapids 55433 Anoka 500 350 49 8 1/26/2010 Spring Brook Dr. Coon Rapids 55433 Anoka 200 924 36 25 6/2/2009 Dogwood Street Coon Rapids 55433 Anoka 429 375 71 6 1/26/2010 West Moore Lake Drive Fridley 55432 Anoka 460 1282 26 49 6/29/2009 Moore Lake Drive W Fridley 55432 Anoka 220 950 48 20 6/25/2009 Highway 65 NE Fridley 55432 Anoka 150 213 2 107 2/9/2011 Bridge Street St. Francis 55070 Anoka 500 405 34 12 3/29/2010 Ambassador Blvd St. Francis 55070 Anoka 150 480 52 9 3/29/2010 University Avenue NE Spring Lake Park 55432 Anoka 675 3125 2 1563 5/13/2010 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 14 Anoka County Flood Vulnerability Report Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 15 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 16 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 17 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 18 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 19 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 20 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 21 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 22 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 23 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 24 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 25 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 26 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 27 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 28 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 29 Appendix B Jurisdiction and Hazard Maps COUNTY INFORMATION MAPS X County Geographic Map X County Geology Map X County Housing Cost Map X County Housing Cost Quadrant Maps X County Housing Density Map X County Population Density Map X County Topographical Map X County Transportation Map – includes Highways, Railroads, Airport, Water, Bridges COUNTY HAZARD MAPS X Critical Facilities Map X Critical Facilities Quadrant Maps X Floodplain Map (100/500 year) X Floodplain Quadrant Maps (100/500 year with facilities in hazard) X Floodplain City Maps (100/500 year with facilities in hazard) X Terrorist Target with structures within 1 square block Map X Tier II Facility Hazard location Map X Tier II Facility Hazard Map (largest with Structures within a 3 mile Radius) X Tornado Hazard with structures Map X Railroad Siding Location area with facilities within hazard Map These Geospatial maps used though out the County Wide Hazard Mitigation Plan were created in ArcGis using a variety of sources including; Anoka County Property Tax Records United States Census Data SARA Title III Data for Anoka County Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Maps United States Geological Survey Topography Maps (Double Click on Anoka County, Minnesota Graphic Map to open map series in Adobe Reader) Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 30 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 31 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 32 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 33 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 34 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 35 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 36 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 37 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 38 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 39 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 40 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 41 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 42 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 43 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 44 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 45 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 46 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 47 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 48 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 49 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 50 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 51 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 52 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 53 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 54 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 55 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 56 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 57 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 58 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 59 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 60 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 61 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 62 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 63 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 64 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 65 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 66 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 67 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 68 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 69 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 70 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 71 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 72 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 73 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 74 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 75 Appendix C Mitigation Community Survey Results Results from Current survey will be included here. Public Participation Survey Results In addition to community meetings an electronic survey was made available to Anoka County residents soliciting their input concerning the Anoka County Hazardous Mitigation Planning Process and their experiences with hazardous and critical emergency situations. A total of 61 surveys were returned. The results from select questions are located below. For fu ll results, please click on the PDF document of the survey. Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 76 Our Hazard Mitigation Plan has identified the hazards listed below as being most likely to impact Anoka County. Please select the three hazards that are the greatest concern for your home or work Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Urban Fire (House, Apartment or Business Fire) 38.5% 25 Thunderstorms (Wind and Hail Damage) 64.6% 42 Flooding 9.2% 6 Tornados 76.9% 50 Wild Fires (Large grass fire in a wild land setting) 13.8% 9 Pandemics / Vectors (Diseases / Viruses) 20.0% 13 Winter Storms 29.2% 19 Terrorism 6.2% 4 Hazardous Materials 13.8% 9 Illegal Meth Labs (Chemical Hazard) 16.9% 11 answered question 65 What are you doing on your property or inside your home or work to reduce the vulnerability to the above listed hazards? (Please select all that apply) Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Maintain smoke alarms 92.1% 58 Maintain NOAA Weather Radio 61.9% 39 Install backflow preventer on sewer line 7.9% 5 Defensible space landscaping (clear vegetation around house to reduce wildfire risk) 12.7% 8 Installed or will install fire sprinklers 3.2% 2 Strengthened openings (Doors, windows, and/or garage door to reduce high-hazard wind risk) 19.0% 12 Install or will install safe room in home or work 6.3% 4 Other (please specify) 11.1% 7 answered question 63 If a severe hazard event occurred today (large earthquake or dam failure) such that all services were cut off from your home (power, gas, water, and sewer) and you were unable to leave or access a store for 72 hours, which of these items do you have readily available? (Please select all that apply) Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Potable Water (3 gallons per person) 38.5% 25 Extra Clothes and Shoes 90.8% 59 Cooking and eating utensils 92.3% 60 Blanket(s)/ Sleeping Bag(s) 96.9% 63 Can Opener 96.9% 63 Cash 52.3% 34 Canned / Non-perishable Foods (ready to eat) 86.2% 56 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 77 Flashlight (with batteries) 95.4% 62 Gas grill / Camping stove 80.0% 52 Gasoline stored approved container 46.2% 30 Extra Medications 58.5% 38 Telephone (with batteries) 66.2% 43 First Aid Kit/Supplies 92.3% 60 Pet Supplies 56.9% 37 Portable AM/FM Radio (solar powered, hand crank, or batteries) 52.3% 34 Handheld "Walkie-Talkie" Radios (with batteries) 40.0% 26 Important Family Photos/Documentation in a water and fire proof container 38.5% 25 Additional Preparedness Steps 12.3% 8 answered question 65 What are the most important things local government can do to help communities be more prepared for a disaster Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Disseminate effective emergency notifications and communication 81.0% 51 Training and education to residents and business owners on how to reduce future damage 54.0% 34 Community outreach regarding emergency preparedness 63.5% 40 Being aware of special needs and vulnerable populations 50.8% 32 Make a plan to use volunteer residents to help in a disaster 69.8% 44 Additional Preparedness Steps 7.9% 5 answered question 63 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 79 Appendix D Capabilities Detailed Survey ANOKA COUNTY LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2003 Building NA NA N Y Y Capital Improvements Plan Adequate Facilities Tax 2005-190 06/14/05 Y N N Comprehensive Plan 2006 Y N N COOP/COG Plan In Development NA NA Economic Development Plan Y N Y EMAP Certified N Y Y Emergency Response Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan 2004-38 3/9/04 Y Y N Flood Management Plan Ordinance in Townships only 90/91-2, 92-3 1990 Y Y N Growth Control Ordinance Met Council NA NA N Y Y Hazard Setback Regulations NA NA Hillside Ordinance NA NA Historic Ordinance NA NA Post-disaster Ordinance NA NA Post-disaster Recovery Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan 2004-38 3/9/04 Y Y N Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements NA NA Subdivision Regulations NA NA Wildfire Ordinance NA NA Zoning Ordinances NA NA ANDOVER LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Bldg. Code IBC/IRC 2006 2006 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan City Code City Budget 2012 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan 2011 Plan 2011 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan N/a -------------- ---------- - - - Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan -------------- 2011 Y N Y EMAP Certified N/a -------------- ---------- - - - Emergency Response Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan 2006 Y N Y Flood Management Plan City Code (Title 14) Title 14 2012 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance Sewer Staging Map 2011 Plan 2011 Y N N Hazard Setback Regulations N/a ------------- ---------- - - - Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 80 Hillside Ordinance N/a ------------- ---------- - - - Historic Ordinance N/a ------------- ---------- - - - Post-disaster Ordinance N/a ------------- ---------- - - - Post-disaster Recovery Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan 2012 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission ------------- ---------- Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance City Code (Title 12-12) Title 12-12 10/21/70 Y N N Site Plan Requirements City Code Sec. 12-15-2 10/4/05 Y N N Subdivision Regulations City Code Title 11 1970 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance N/a -------------- --------- - - - Zoning Ordinances 1970/2005 City Code Title 12 2005 Y N N ANOKA LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Bldg Code MN BC 2003 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Capital Improvement Plan 2003 Plan 2003 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan 2003 Plan 2003 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan N/A Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan Comp Plan 2003 Y N Y EMAP Certified N/A Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plans EOP 11/26/02 Y N N Flood Management Plan City Code Chapter 74 2005 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance N/A Hazard Setback Regulations N/A Hillside Ordinance N/A Historic Ordinance City Code Chapter 20 2005 Y N N Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan EOP 11/26/02 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements City Code Chapter 74 2005 Y N N Subdivision Regulations City Code Chapter 54 2005 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance N/A Zoning Ordinances City Code Chapter 74 2005 Y N N BETHEL LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2003 Building 01-04-42 2004 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Capital Improvement Plan 12/2011 N N N Comprehensive Plan 2030 Comprehensive Plan 2008-005 2008 Y N N Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 81 COOP/COG Plan N N N Economic Development Plan Y N Y EMAP Certified N N N Emergency Response Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan 2012 N N N Flood Management Plan Building Codes Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance Comprehensive Plan 2008-005 2008 Y N N Hazard Setback Regulations Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan N N N Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance 2007-14 2007 Y N N Site Plan Requirements Building Codes N N N Subdivision Regulations Building Codes N N N Wildfire Ordinance Y N N Zoning Ordinances BLAINE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2000 Building 2003 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Adequate Facilities Tax Y N N Comprehensive Plan Y N Y COOP/COG Plan 2009 Y N Y Economic Development Plan Y N Y EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Flood Management Plan Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance Ordinance 4/26/00 Y N N Hazard Setback Regulations Y N Y Hillside Ordinance Y N Y Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Y N Y Subdivision Regulations Y N Y Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances Y N Y CENTERVILLE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 82 Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2000 Building 01-04-42 2004 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Adequate Facilities Tax 99-031 1/19/99 Y N N Comprehensive Plan COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Y N Y EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Flood Management Plan 1989 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance Ordinance 4/26/00 Y N N Hazard Setback Regulations Building + Fire Codes Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Subdivision Regulations Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances CIRCLE PINES LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2003 Building 2004 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Adequate Facilities 12/18/08 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan 2008 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan N/A - - Economic Development Plan N/A - - - EMAP Certified N/A - - - Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan Y N N Flood Management Plan Flood Management Plan 2004 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance N/A Hazard Setback Regulations N/A Hillside Ordinance N/A Historic Ordinance N/A Post-disaster Ordinance N/A Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 83 Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Ordinance 1989 Y N N Subdivision Regulations Ordinance 1970 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance N/A Zoning Ordinances Ordinance 1989 Y N N COLUMBIA HEIGHTS LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes Ordinance 2007 X N Y Capital Improvements Plan Plan None 1999 X N N Comprehensive Plan Plan None 2010 X N Y COOP/COG Plan N/A Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan X N Y EMAP Certified N/A Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2007 X N Y Flood Management Plan Zoning Code Chapter 9 X N Y Growth Control Ordinance N/A Hazard Setback Regulations N/A Hillside Ordinance N/A Historic Ordinance N/A Post-disaster Ordinance None Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2007 X N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Ordinance Chapter 9 X N X Site Plan Requirements Ordinance 9.104(m) 2005 X N N Subdivision Regulations Ordinance Chapter 9 2005 X N N Wildfire Ordinance N/A Zoning Ordinances Ordinance Chapter 9 2005 X N N COLUMBUS LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2003 Building 2004 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Yearly Budget Update Y N N Comprehensive Plan Plan 11/09 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Economic Development Plan EDA 2010 Y N N Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 84 EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan Y N N Flood Management Plan Columbus Ordinance Chapter 7F Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance Hazard Setback Regulations Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure Mn Real Estate Commission State Law Y N N Shoreline Ordinance Columbus Ordinance Chapter 7E Y N N Site Plan Requirements Ordinance Chpt 7 2011 Y N N Subdivision Regulations Ordinance Chpt 8 2011 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances Ordinance Chpt 7 2011 Y N N COON RAPIDS LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes Adopted MN Bldg. Code MS 16B.60 3/21/03 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan n/a 8/2/00 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Economic Development Plan Y N Y EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Emerg. Operations Plan n/a 6/25/98 Y N N Flood Management Plan Growth Control Ordinance Hazard Setback Regulations Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan Y N N Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements City Ordinance Chapter 11 1982 Y N N Subdivision Regulations City Ordinance Chapter 11 1982 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances City Ordinance Chapter 11 1982 Y N N EAST BETHEL LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 85 Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Bldg Codes IRC/IBC 2000 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Comprehensive Plan 10/13/00 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan 10/13/00 Y N N EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan Y N Y Flood Management Plan Ordinance 168 01/05/04 Y Y Y Growth Control Ordinance Met Comprehensive Plan 10/13/00 N Y Y Hazard Setback Regulations Ordinance, City Code, 168 01/05/04 Y N Y Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Shoreland Zoning Ordinance 01/05/04 Y N N Site Plan Requirements City Code 168 01/05/04 Y N Y Subdivision Regulations City Code 168 01/05/04 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances City Code 168 01/05/04 Y N N FRIDLEY LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes 2006 IBC 01-04-42 2007 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Facilities Privilege Tax 99-031 1/19/99 Y N N Comprehensive Plan 2020 Comp. Plan 11/09 Y Y Y COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Y N Y EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2011 Y N Y Flood Management Plan Flood Insurance Rate Map 700130001-4 1989 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance Ordinance 4/26/00 Y N N Hazard Setback Regulations Creek & River Preservation 01-02 1982 Y Y Y Hillside Ordinance Creek & River Preservation 01-02 1982 Y Y Y Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 86 Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2011 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Shorevlie Zoning Ord 05/09/11 Y Y Y Site Plan Requirements City Code 13-7-101/401 2012 Y N N Subdivision Regulations TCA 13-3-303/403 12/19/85 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances City Code 13-7-101/401 12/19/85 Y N N HAM LAKE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Bldg code IRC/IBC 2007 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Comprehensive Plan Res. 08-82 12/08 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Res. 08-82 12/08 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan N/A Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan Res. 08-82 12/08 Y N Y EMAP Certified N/A Emergency Response Plan Emergency Mgmt. Plan 1/2011 Y N Y Flood Management Plan SWPPP/LSWMP Ordinance 2/2003 5/2003 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance N/A Hazard Setback Regulations Ordinance City Code Ord. 99-1 1/1999 Y N Y Hillside Ordinance N/A Historic Ordinance N/A Post-disaster Ordinance N/A Post-disaster Recovery Plan Co. Emergency Ops Plan Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Shoreline Zoning Ordinance Ord. 99-1 1/1999 Y N Y Site Plan Requirements City Code 6/1990 Art. 9 6/2002 Y N Y Subdivision Regulations City Code 6/1990 Article 10 5/2001 Y N Y Wildfire Ordinance N/A Zoning Ordinances City Code –6/1990 Article 9 6/2002 Y N Y HILLTOP LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Building Code IBC 2000 2002 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Updated 2010 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 87 EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan County Emergency Ops Plan 2004 Y N Y Flood Management Plan Growth Control Ordinance Hazard Setback Regulations Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan County Emergency Ops Plan 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Development Guidelines 2000 Y N N Subdivision Regulations Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances City Code 10 2000 Y N N LEXINGTON LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2007 Building Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Current Yr Budget 12/11 Y N N Comprehensive Plan 2000 Y N N COOP/COG Plan N/A Economic Development Plan N/A EMAP Certified N/A Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 11/05 Y N N Flood Management Plan City water mgt plan 2000 Y N N Growth Control Ordinance N/A Hazard Setback Regulations N/A Hillside Ordinance N/A Historic Ordinance N/A Post-disaster Ordinance N/A Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 11/05 Y N N Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements City code Ongoing Y N N Subdivision Regulations City code Ongoing Y N N Wildfire Ordinance N/A Zoning Ordinances City code Ongoing Y N N LINO LAKES LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 88 Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Bldg Code IBC2000 2002 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan City Code City Budget 2005 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan 2010 Comp Plan 2010 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan N/A Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan 2010 Plan 2010 Y N Y EMAP Certified N/A Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N N Flood Management Plan City Code 12.95 1995 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance City Code 24.04 2004 Y N N Hazard Setback Regulations n/a Hillside Ordinance n/a Historic Ordinance n/a Post-disaster Ordinance 2004 Y N Y Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Zoning Code 08-03 2003 Y N N Subdivision Regulations City Code 04-03 2003 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance State Fire Code Y N N Zoning Ordinances City Code 08-03 2003 Y N N LINWOOD LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools /Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes 2007 State Bldg Code 2007 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Town Code Town Budget 2005 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Town Comprehensive Plan Town Plan 2003 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan N/A Economic Development Plan N/A EMAP Certified N/A Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan Linwood EP 1997 Y N Y Flood Management Plan N/A Growth Control Ordinance N/A Hazard Setback Regulations N/A Hillside Ordinance N/A Historic Ordinance N/A Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 89 Post-disaster Ordinance Emergency Operation Plan Linwood EP 2004 Y N Y Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan Linwood EP 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Linwood Town Code 801.02 2004 Y N N Subdivision Regulations Linwood Town Code 201.07 2004 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance N/A Zoning Ordinances Linwood Town Code 201.08 2004 Y N N NOWTHEN LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Building Code 12A 2007 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Budget Plan Budget 2004 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan 2030 Comp 2009 Y N N COOP/COG Plan N/A Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan 2030 Comp 2009 Y N Y EMAP Certified N/A Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan Co. Plan 2012 Y N Y Flood Management Plan Storm Water Mg’nt Ord. 16 2004 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance N/A Hazard Setback Regulations N/A Hillside Ordinance N/A Historic Ordinance N/A Post-disaster Ordinance Y N Y Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan Co. Plan 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Shoreline Mgmt Ord 25 2008 Site Plan Requirements Ordinance Article VI 1982 Y N N Subdivision Regulations Ordinance 2 1982 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance N/A Zoning Ordinances Ordinance 3 1982 Y N N OAK GROVE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Building Codes Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan Plan 2007 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Plan 2010 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan n/a Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 90 Economic Development Plan By-Laws/Resolutions 2000/01 Y N N EMAP Certified n/a Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 4/14/97 Y N N Flood Management Plan n/a Growth Control Ordinance n/a Hazard Setback Regulations Ordinance Subd1, Title 1600/1108 1994 Y N N Hillside Ordinance N N N Historic Ordinance n/a Post-disaster Ordinance 4/14/97 Y N N Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 4/14/97 Y N N Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Ordinance, Subd1 Chapter 1320 1993/04 Y N N Subdivision Regulations Ordinance Title 1400 1960/04 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance Open Burning Permits Chapter 1012 3/29/04 Y N N Zoning Ordinances Ordinance Title 1300 1960/04 Y N N RAMSEY LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Building Code IBC2007 2007 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan City Code City Budget 2005 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan 2001 Plan 2002 Y N Y COOP/COG Plan n/a Economic Development Plan Comprehensive Plan 2001 Plan 2002 Y N Y EMAP Certified n/a Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 3.53 2004 Y N N Flood Management Plan Zoning Code 9.22 1992 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance n/a Hazard Setback Regulations n/a Hillside Ordinance Zoning Code 9.21 1979 Y N Y Historic Ordinance n/a Post-disaster Ordinance 3.53 2004 Y N Y Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 3.53 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission 3.53 Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements City Code 9.03.08 1987 Y N N Subdivision Regulations City Code 9.50 2003 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance n/a Y N N Zoning Ordinances City Code Chap 9 2003 Y N N SPRING LAKE PARK LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 91 Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes International 2000 Building 339 7/7/03 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan CIP 05-03 2/7/05 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan 00-16 3/6/00 Y N N COOP/COG Plan n/a Economic Development Plan n/a Y N Y EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Flood Management Plan Flood Insurance Plan 357/358 7/7/75 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance n/a Hazard Setback Regulations n/a Hillside Ordinance n/a Historic Ordinance n/a Post-disaster Ordinance Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission NA NA N N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements City Code 36.10 1985 Y N N Subdivision Regulations City Code Chap 19-26 1988 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance n/a Zoning Ordinances City Code Chap 27-36 1985 Y N N ST FRANCIS LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Regulatory Tools/Plans Type: Ordinances Codes Plans etc. Reference number Date Adopted Local Authority State Prohibited Higher Authority Building Codes MN State Building Code 2007 Y N Y Capital Improvements Plan RES 2005-22 1/19/99 Y N N Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan 5/2000 Y N N COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Y N Y EMAP Certified Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Flood Management Plan Chapter 12 1989 Y N Y Growth Control Ordinance Hazard Setback Regulations Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post-disaster Ordinance Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 92 Post-disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Operations Plan 2004 Y N Y Real Estate Disclosure MN Real Estate Commission Y N Y Shoreline Ordinance Site Plan Requirements Chapter 10 1990 Y N N Subdivision Regulations Chapter 11 1990 Y N N Wildfire Ordinance Zoning Ordinances Chapter 10 1990 Y N N ANOKA COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service 5 5 5 Construction Practices Professional Public Works 2 2 2 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 4 4 4 EMT Professional(s) EMS 65 65 65 EMS First Responder Professional(s) No County Fire Dept 0 0 0 Fire Personnel Professional(s) No County Fire Dept 0 0 0 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor 4 4 4 Government Administration Employees Anoka County 1200 1200 1200 Government Elected Elected Officials County Commissioners 7 7 7 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management 1 1 1 Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management 1 1 1 Hazmat Team Professional(s) N Metro Chemical Team S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 2 2 2 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Anoka County Sheriff 174 174 174 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 1843 1843 1843 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications 34 34 34 Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 15 15 15 Surveyor Certified Professional Surveyor 10 10 10 ANDOVER ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Engineering 2 2 2 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Fire Dept. 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin City of Andover 7 7 7 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 93 EMT Professional(s) Allina/Fire Dept 22 22 22 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire Dept. 28 28 28 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 52 52 52 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Engineering 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) GIS – Contract 1 1 1 Government Administration Employees City of Andover 7 7 7 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Fire Dept./Planning 2 2 2 Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Fire/Inspection/PW 4 4 4 Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire Dept./Sheriffs 52 52 52 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 4 4 4 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Sheriff’s Department C C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Riverway/Andover Park 100 100 100 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 6 6 6 Surveyor Certified Professional Anoka County C C C ANOKA ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 2 2 2 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management C C C Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management C C C EMT Professional(s) EMS 45 45 45 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 68 68 68 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 42 42 42 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor 2 2 2 Government Administration Employees Anoka City 10 10 10 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management 0 0 0 Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management 2 2 2 Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept 42 42 42 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 4 4 4 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 27 27 27 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 118 118 118 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 3 3 3 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 BETHEL ADMINISTRAT IVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 94 Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents County Extension Svc. C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 3 3 3 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 10 10 10 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 4 4 8 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works C C C GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City Employees 2 2 2 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning C C C Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Sheriff’s Department C C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers E-911 C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 1 1 1 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted C C C BLAINE ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Public Works 1 1 1 Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) EMS 25 25 25 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Police 122 122 122 Fire Personnel Professional(s) SBM Fire 70 70 75 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Public Works 0 0 0 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) GIS 2 2 2 Government Administration Employees City of Blaine 180 180 180 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 7 7 7 Grant writer Professional(s) Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 95 Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) MN CAT Team 15 15 15 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 10 10 10 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Blaine Police Department 52 52 52 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 150 150 150 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 50 50 50 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 CENTERVILLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) EMS 25 25 25 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 50 50 50 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 56 56 56 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Public Works 0 0 0 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor 2 3 3 Government Administration Employees City Employees 5 5 5 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor / City Council 6 6 6 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept 9 9 9 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning S S S Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police department 20 20 20 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 1 1 1 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 CIRCLE PINES ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 96 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) EMS 25 25 25 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 60 60 60 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 60 60 60 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Contracted 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City Administration 6 6 6 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 1 1 1 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 17 17 17 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 1 1 1 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 10 10 10 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 0 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 2 2 EMT Professional(s) Fire Dept. 32 32 32 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 0 0 0 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 32 32 32 Floodplain manager Planner Community Development 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Contract 1 1 1 Government Administration Employees City Administration 18 18 18 Government Elected Elected Off icials Mayor/Commissioners 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire Dept. 32 32 32 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners Community Development 1 1 1 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 36 36 36 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 100 100 100 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 18 18 18 Surveyor Certified Professional Public Works 2 2 2 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 97 COLUMBUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents County Extension Svc. C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 2 2 2 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 2 2 2 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 4 4 4 EMT Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 3 3 3 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 34 34 34 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 37 37 37 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) County Extension Service C C C GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City Staff 6 6 6 Government Elected Elected Officials City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 2 2 2 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Co. Sheriff’s Department C C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers E-911 C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 3 3 3 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted C C C COON RAPIDS ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Public Works 1 1 1 Construction Practices Professional Inspections 6 6 6 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 2 2 2 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 2 2 2 EMT Professional(s) 25 25 25 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire Dept & Police Dept 117 117 117 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. FT/POC 52 52 52 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Engineering 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) IT Dept. 1 1 1 Government Administration Employees City of Coon Rapids 235 235 235 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 7 7 7 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 98 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management 1 1 1 Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management 1 1 1 Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire Dept. + NoSurb CAT 8 14 14 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners Engineering Dept. 5 5 5 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Coon Rapids Police Dept 65 65 65 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc 500 500 500 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers Anoka Co. Central Comm C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 2 2 2 Surveyor Certified Professional Engineering Dept. 1 1 1 EAST BETHEL ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents County Extension Svc. C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management C C C Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management C C C EMT Professional(s) EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 35 35 35 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 35 35 35 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Public Works 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City of East Bethel 10 10 10 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Fire Department 1 1 1 Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) State HazMat Team S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning S S S Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Sheriff’s Department C C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers E-911 C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 2 2 2 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted C C C FRIDLEY ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents County Extension Svc. C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 0 0 0 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 99 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 2 2 2 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 32 32 32 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 32 32 32 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 36 36 36 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Public Works 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor 1 1 1 Government Administration Employees City of Fridley 7 7 7 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept 12 12 12 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 2 3 3 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 38 38 38 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 800 800 800 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers E-911 C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 1 1 1 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 HAM LAKE ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Building Inspectors 3 3 3 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Fire Department 0 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Fire Department 4 4 4 EMT Professional(s) EMS 3 3 3 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 37 37 37 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 37 37 37 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Public Works/Engineer 4 4 4 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City of Ham Lake 3 3 3 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Fire Chief, Deputy Chief 2 2 2 Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept 3 3 3 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners Building Zoning Official 2 2 2 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Sheriff’s Department C `C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 3 3 3 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 100 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 HILLTOP ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management C C C Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management C C C EMT Professional(s) EMS 0 0 0 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 0 0 0 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 0 0 0 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Public Works 0 0 0 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees Hilltop City 1 1 1 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning S S S Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 1 1 1 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 1 1 1 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 LEXINGTON ADMINISTRAT IVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management C C C EMT Professional(s) Fire Dept 20 20 20 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire Dept 20 20 20 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 20 20 20 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Public Works C C C GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City 20 20 20 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 101 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire Dept 20 20 20 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning S S S Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Dept 17 17 17 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 1 1 1 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 LINO LAKES ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 3 3 3 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 2 2 2 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 4 4 4 EMT Professional(s) EMS 39 39 39 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 16 16 16 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 60 60 60 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works 0 0 0 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City of Lino Lakes 64 64 64 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept 81 81 81 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 3 3 3 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 25 25 25 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 31 31 31 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 12 12 12 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 LINWOOD ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 102 Construction Practices Professional Public Works 0 0 0 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) EMS 12 12 12 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 15 15 15 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 27 27 27 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works 0 0 0 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees Linwood Township 2 2 2 Government Elected Elected Officials Town Supervisors 6 6 6 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept 25 25 25 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning S S S Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Sheriff’s Department C C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 2 2 2 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 NOWTHEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Building Department 1 0 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management C C C Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management C C C EMT Professional(s) EMS 0 0 0 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire Department 10 10 10 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Department 10 10 10 Floodplain manager Engineer(s) Contracted 2 0 2 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees City employees 4 4 4 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor and City Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) N Metro Chemical Team S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners Local Planning S S S Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Anoka County Sheriff C C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department C C C Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 103 Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 2 2 2 Surveyor Certified Professional Surveyor C C C OAK GROVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Building Dept. 2 2 2 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management C C C Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management C C C EMT Allina C C C EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue/County 35 35 35 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 40 40 40 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works/Consultant 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Co. Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees Oak Grove City Hall 3.5 3.5 3.5 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/Council/Comm. 17 17 17 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) State S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 1 1 1 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Sheriff’s Department C C C Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers E-911 C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 4 4 4 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted C C C RAMSEY ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 2 2 2 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 4 4 4 EMT Professional(s) EMS 15 15 15 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 50 50 50 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 50 50 50 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor 2 2 2 Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 104 Government Administration Employees Ramsey City 6 6 6 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/Council 7 7 7 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Police Dept 60 60 60 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 2 2 2 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 25 25 25 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 27 27 27 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 3 3 3 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 SPRING LAKE PARK ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents Extension Service C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) Allina 25 25 25 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Police 10 10 10 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 8 8 8 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Public Works 0 0 0 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees Spring Lake Park 9 9 9 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/Council 5 5 5 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire Dept. 8 8 8 Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners Local Planning 1 1 1 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police Department 14 14 14 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 0 0 0 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers County Communications C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 7 7 7 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 ST FRANCIS ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Position Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency Number Fully Trained Number Fully Equipped Total Personnel Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 105 Agriculture Risk Assessor Agents County Extension Svc. C C C Construction Practices Professional Public Works 1 1 1 Emergency Manager Certified Professional Emergency Management 1 1 1 Emergency Mgnt Staff Technicians/Admin Emergency Management 1 1 1 EMT Professional(s) 5 5 5 EMS First Responder Professional(s) Fire/Rescue 25 25 25 Fire Personnel Professional(s) Fire Dept. 32 32 32 Floodplain Manager Engineer(s) Planning 1 1 1 GIS and/or HAZUS Professional(s) Property Assessor C C C Government Administration Employees St. Francis 5 5 5 Government Elected Elected Officials Mayor/Co. Commission 6 6 6 Grant writer Professional(s) Emergency Management 1 0 1 Hazard Risk Assessor Professional(s) Emergency Management C C C Hazmat Team Professional(s) Fire/Sheriff Dept S S S Land Use/Management Engineer(s)/Planners State/Local Planning 2 2 2 Law Enforcement Sheriff, Police, Trooper Police 9 9 9 Medical Personnel Doctors/Nurses/etc Health Department 3 3 3 Public Communication 911 Dispatchers E-911 C C C Public Works Directors/Engineers Public Works 1 1 1 Surveyor Certified Professional Contracted 1 1 1 ANOKA COUNTY FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X Y PDM for disaster resistant universities X X PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X Y Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X Y Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X Y Fire department grants X N Private f oundation grants X Y Private business/industry grants X N Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Y Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X N Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X Y Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X N Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 106 ANDOVER FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance g rants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X Y Private business/industry grants X Y Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y ANOKA FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X Y PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X N Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Y Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 107 Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y BETHEL FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X X Private foundation grants X Private business/industry grants X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X BLAINE FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X X Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X X Department of Agriculture Grants X X Department of Energy Grants X Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X X Private foundation grants X X Private business/industry grants X X Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 108 Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X CENTERVILLE FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X X Private foundation grants X Private business/industry grants X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/re venue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X CIRCLE PINES FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 109 Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X Private foundation grants X Private business/industry grants X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X X Department of Justice Grants X X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X x Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X X Private foundation grants X X Private business/industry grants X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X x Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X COLUMBUS FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 110 Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X Y Private business/industry grants X Y Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X Y Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y COON RAPIDS FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X X Department of Justice Grants X X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X X Private foundation grants X Private business/industry grants X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X EAST BETHEL FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 111 Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X N Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X N Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X N Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y FRIDLEY FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X X Department of Education Grants X X Fire department grants X X Private foundation grants X X Private business/industry grants X X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 112 HAM LAKE FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X N Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants Y N Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X Y Private business/industry grants X N Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X N Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X N HILLTOP FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants X N Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X N Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X N Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X N Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 113 Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y LEXINGTON FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants X N Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X N Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X N Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X N Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y LINO LAKES FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X Y Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X N Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X N Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 114 Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y LINWOOD FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X Y Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X N NOWTHEN FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 115 Department of Education Grants X Fire department grants X Private foundation grants X Private business/industry grants X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X OAK GROVE FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X N Department of Justice Grants X N Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X N Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X N Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X N Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y RAMSEY FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 116 PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X Y Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X Y Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y SPRING LAKE PARK FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X Y Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X N PDM for disaster resistant universities X N PDM Grants for communities X N Department of Health Grants X Y Department of Justice Grants X Y Department of Agriculture Grants X N Department of Energy Grants X N Department of Education Grants X N Fire department grants X Y Private foundation grants X N Private business/industry grants X Y Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X Y Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X N Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Y Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X Y Project Funding Capital improvement X Y Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Y Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X N Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X Y ST FRANCIS FISCAL CAPABILITIES Financial Resources Description Eligible Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan `` 117 Yes No TBD Used Community Grants Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X Emergency management performance grants (EMPG) X X PDM for disaster resistant universities X PDM Grants for communities X Department of Health Grants X Department of Justice Grants X X Department of Agriculture Grants X Department of Energy Grants X Department of Education Grants X X Fire department grants X X Private foundation grants X Private business/industry grants X Debt Procurement Incur debt through special tax/revenue bonds X X Dept Procurement Incur debt through private activity bonds X Impact Fees Developer fees for new developments X Jurisdiction Bonds Incur debt through general obligation bonds X X Project Funding Capital improvement X Special Taxes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes X Spending Restrictions Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas X X Utility Fees Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service X X 119 Appendix E Key Federal Hazard mitigation Funding programs This section of the Plan includes a listing of some of the key, well-established federal hazard mitigation funding programs available to implement future mitigation projects. Additional sources of mitigation funding are routinely made available through a variety state and federal agencies, though the program names, funding amounts and eligibility criteria will vary over time. Key Federal Hazard mitigation Funding programs Grant Name Agency Purpose Contact Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency To provide funding for States and communities for cost - effective hazard mitigation activities, which complements comprehensive hazard mitigation, program and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency To encourage the development of comprehensive emergency management at the State and local level and to improve emergency management planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency To prevent future losses of lives and property due to disasters; to implement State or local hazard mitigation plans; to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during immediate recovery from a disaster; and to provide funding for previously identified mitigation measures to benefit the disaster area. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency To help States and communities plan and carry out activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures insurable under the NFIP. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Community Development Grant Program (CDBG) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development To develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment. Principally for low to moderate-income individuals. HUD 451 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20410 Phone: (202) 708-3587 Public Assistance Program (PA) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency To provide supplemental assistance to States, local governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations to alleviate suffering and hardship resulting from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. Under Section 406, Public Assistance funds may be used to mitigate the impact of future disasters. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Flood Control Works / Emergency Rehabilitation U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers To assist in the repair and restoration of public works damaged by flood, extraordinary wind, wave, or water action. USACE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20314 Phone: (202) 761-0001 Emergency Watershed Protection U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Svc To provide emergency technical and financial assistance to install or repair structures to reduce runoff and prevent soil erosion to safeguard life and property. NRCS PO Box 2890 Washington, DC 20013 Phone: (202) 720-3527 120 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Svc To provide technical and financial assistance in planning and executing works of improvement to protect, develop, and use land and water resources in small watersheds. NRCS PO Box 2890 Washington, DC 20013 Phone: (202) 720-3527 Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service To acquire and develop outdoor recreation areas and facilities for the general public, to meet current and future needs. NPS PO Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013 Phone: (202) 565-1200 Disaster Mitigation and Technical Assistance Grants U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration To help States and localities to develop and/or implement a variety of disaster mitigation strategies. EDA Herbert C. Hoover Bldg. Washington DC, 20230 Phone: (800) 345-1222 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Loan Program U.S. Small Business Administration To make low-interest; fixed-rate loans to eligible small businesses for the purpose of implementing mitigation measures to protect business property from damage that may be caused by future disasters. SBA 1110 Vermont Avenue, N.W., 9th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 606-4000 Watershed Surveys and Planning U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Svc To provide planning assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies for the development of coordinated water and related land resources programs in watersheds and river basins. NRCS PO Box 2890 Washington, DC 20013 Phone: (202) 720-3527 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency To mitigate earthquake losses that can occur in many parts of the nation providing earth science data and assessments essential for warning of imminent damaging earthquakes, land - use planning, engineering design, and emergency preparedness decisions. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Assistance to Firefighters Grant U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency Competitively awarded project grants to provide direct assistance, on a competitive basis, to fire departments for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public and Fire fighting personnel against fire and fire -related hazards. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Fire Management Assistance Grants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency To provide project grants and the provision of specialized services for the mitigation, management, and control of fires that threatens such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. FEMA 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone: (202) 646-4621 Emergency Stream bank and Shoreline Protection U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers To prevent erosion damages to public facilities by the emergency construction or repair of stream bank and shoreline protection works. USACE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20314 Phone: (202) 761-0001 Small Flood Control Projects U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers To reduce flood damages through small flood control projects not specifically authorized by Congress. USACE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20314 Phone: (202) 761-0001 Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To implement non-point source programs, including support for non-structural watershed resource restoration activities. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Phone: (202) 272-0167 121 Appendix F Minnesota Mitigation Planning Review Aid The requirements crosswalk used in previous guidance to evaluate plan is replaced with the Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool found in FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide, October 2011. This review aid is provided to planners to assist with the development of local multi-jurisdiction mitigation plans. FEMA’s Mitigation Plan Review Tool lists all of the elements but not the requirements as in the previous crosswalk. Section 1: Planning Checklist of this aid lists the requirements under each elem ent for easy reference. The planner should indicate the location of the plan to indicate where the requirement is met. All jurisdictions participating in the mitigation planning process must show evidence of participation in Elements A thru E of the Regulation Checklist. The Multi-Jurisdictional Summary Sheet from FEMA guidance was edited for use by planners. The summary sheet is a way to track participation by jurisdiction. HSEM asks that a Minnesota Mitigation Planning Review Aid is completed when the plan is sent to HSEM for review. A completed aid will facilitate the state review by illustrating how requirements were met. Jurisdiction: Anoka County, MN Title of Plan: Anoka County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: May 14, 2012 Local Point of Contact: Ryan Kelzenberg Address: Title: Emergency Management Specialist Agency: Anoka County Emergency Management Phone Number: 763.323.5264 E-Mail: Ryan.kelzenberg@co.anoka.mn.us State Reviewer: Jim McClosky Title: Mitigation Planner Date: 5/22/12 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 122 Section 1 Regulation Checklist ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1 REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. Documentation of how the plan was prepared must include the schedule or timeframe and activities that made up the plan’s development as well as who was involved. Documentation typically is met with a narrative description, but may also include, for example, other documentation such as copies of meeting minutes, sign‐in sheets, or newspaper articles. MET: Section 2.4 The table on page 14 lists the meetings Action Completed: P 16 - 22 Updated with current meeting dates and summary for 2011 / 2012 b. The plan must list the jurisdiction(s) participating in the plan that seek approval. Met: Section 2.7 – The county and cities are listed who are seeking approval. c. The plan must identify who represented each jurisdiction. The Plan must provide, at a minimum, the jurisdiction represented and the person’s position or title and agency within the jurisdiction. Met: Section 2.3 – The representatives are listed starting on page 12. d. For each jurisdiction seeking plan approval, the plan must document how they were involved in the planning process. For example, the plan may document meetings attended, data provided, or stakeholder and public involvement activities offered. Jurisdictions that adopt the plan without documenting how they participated in the planning process will not be approved. Met: Anoka County Jurisdiction tracking sheet added to page 9 e. Plan updates must include documentation of the current planning process undertaken to update the plan. Met: Section 2.4 outlines our update process (Page 16 – 22) Included steps needed for updating initial plan to this review A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must identify all stakeholders involved or given an opportunity to be involved in the planning process. At a minimum, stakeholders must include: 1) Local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities; 2) Agencies that have the authority to regulate development; and 3) Neighboring communities. Met: Section 2.6 – a general description is given Public notices and meeting attendance sheets are included in pages 279 – 284 b. The Plan must provide the agency or organization represented and the person’s position or title within the agency. Met: List of participants in the preview and planning process. Pages 14 – 16 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 123 A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the planning process during the drafting stage? 44 CFR 201.6(b)(1) and 201.6(c)(1) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must document how the public was given the opportunity to be involved in the planning process and how their feedback was incorporated into the plan. Examples include, but are not limited to, sign‐in sheets from open meetings, interactive websites with drafts for public review and comment, questionnaires or surveys, or booths at popular community events. Met: Section 2.5.1 – is a good overview. Public notices and meeting attendance sheets are included in pages 279 – 284 (Main Plan) Community Survey information and results covered in pages 175 – 180 (Main Plan) and results included in Appendix C (Annex) b. The opportunity for participation must occur during the plan development, which is prior to the comment period on the final plan and prior to the plan approval / adoption. Met: Section 2.5.2, has been updated to meet standards A4. Does the Plan document the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? 44 CFR 201.6(b)(3) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must document what existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information were reviewed. Examples of the types of existing sources reviewed include, but are not limited to, the state hazard mitigation plan, local comprehensive plans, hazard specific reports, and flood insurance studies. Met: Section 2.8 – this section meets the requirement. b. The plan must document how relevant information was incorporated into the mitigation plan. Met: Section 2.8: Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans Reviewed and updated on page 26. A5. Is there discussion on how the community(ies) will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)(iii) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe how the jurisdiction(s) will continue to seek public participation after the plan has been approved and during the plan’s implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Met: Section 5.3.4 – The varied methods stated in this section meets the requirement. A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5‐year cycle)? 44 CFR 201.6I(4)(i) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be monitored. Met: Steering committee members and contact information on pages 14-16 b. The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be evaluated. Met: 5.3. Mitigation Implementation and Plan Maintenance (plan will be monitored and reviewed, pages 273 – 276) c. The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be updated. Met: Sections 5.3.3 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Enhancement (Page 274-275) Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 124 d. The plan must include the title of the individual or name of the department/ agency responsible for leading each of these efforts. Met: Assigned responsibility to Anoka County Emergency Management Director and staff, pages 275 ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i) and 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(iii) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must include a description of the natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning area. Met: Section 4.3– the natural hazards are described. Why are hazards being described that were not selected? b. The plan must provide the rationale for the omission of any natural hazards that are commonly recognized to affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning area. Met: Section 4.3 – Page 69 has a good summary. c. The description, or profile, must include information on location, extent, previous occurrences, and future probability for each hazard. Previous occurrences and future probability are addressed in sub‐element B2. met: Future probability is listed on page 113-115 of the main plan. For our plan we used Very Likely, Likely, or Possible for the chance an event occurring in a particular Jurisdiction during any single year. d. For participating jurisdictions in a multi-jurisdictional plan, the plan must describe any hazards that are unique and/or v aried from those affecting the overall planning area. Met: In our plan for section 4.4.3- Page 115. The differences were identified in the risk between the jurisdictions. We did an analysis of four Hazards to represent the possible affects and loss that they could have on any of the Jurisdictions. B2. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan mu st include the history of previous hazard events for each of the identified hazards. Met: Previous History of Events - are located section 4.3 with each of the natural and manmade hazards that were identified as risks in Anoka County (Main Plan pages 90 - 109) To help identify hazard trends we used the Anoka County Fire calls from 2006 to 2011 to review trends (Annex pages 3 - 9) Meth lab seizures are summarized in (Annex pages 11 - 12) b. The plan must include the probability of future events for each identified hazard. Met: Probability of future events : This is included in our Hazard Vulnerability section 4.4 (Pages 111- 121) c. Plan updates must include hazard events that have occurred since the last plan was developed. Met: Additional history of events is included in 4.4.4 (Main plan pages 111 - 121 ratings for the hazards and impact in each jurisdiction are slightly different due to the makeup of each jurisdiction. (Main Plan page 115 and Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 125 116) B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s impact on the community as well as an overall summary of the community’s vulnerability for each jurisdiction? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. For each participating jurisdiction, the plan must describe the potential impacts of each of the identified hazards on the community. Met: Hazard Vulnerability updated and reviewed for each jurisdiction – Pages 110 – 132 b. The plan must provide an overall summary of each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the identified hazards. The overall summary of vulnerability identifies structures, systems, populations or other community assets as defined by the community that are susceptible to damage and loss from hazard events. A plan will meet this sub‐element by addressing the requirements described in §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A‐C). Met: Hazard Vulnerability updated and reviewed for each jurisdiction – Pages 110 – 132 B4. Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within each jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe the types (residential, commercial, institutional, etc.) and estimate the numbers of repetitive loss properties located in identified flood hazard areas. Met: Section 4.4.2.1 –repetitive Flooding Structures. Page 119 ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources available to accomplish hazard mitigation. Met: Section 5.1 does a very in depth profile of the each jurisdictions capabilities. Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 126 C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and describe their floodplain management program for continued compliance. Simply stating “The community will continue to comply with NFIP,” will not meet this requirement. The description could include, but is not limited to: Adoption and enforcement of floodplain management requirements, including regulating new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs); Floodplain identification and mapping, including any local requests for map updates; or Description of community assistance and monitoring activities. Met: Flood Management Plan (Description – Page 161) Information on NFIP- Page 161-162 A table is given with the jurisdictions that are participating in NFIP. Defines what their Community Rating System(CRS) Anoka County GIS was used extensively to create and update the maps though out the plan. We also used the maps and information provided from the Anoka County Vulnerability report assists in identification of at risk properties from floods. Anoka County Vulnerability Report (Appendix page 14 - 28) Anoka County 100 / 500 year flood map (Main Plan page 92) Anoka County Flood Maps (Appendix pages 48 - 69) C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long‐term vu lnerabilities to the identified hazards? 44 CFR 201.6I(3)(i) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must include general hazard mitigation goals that represent what the jurisdiction(s) seeks to accomplish through mitigation plan implementation. Goals are broad policy statements that explain what is to be achieved. Met: 5.2.2 Mitigation Goals Page 173 (Community Goals) b. The goals must be consistent with the hazards identified in the plan. Met: 5.2.1 Overview Page 172 r Goals reflect hazard they are attempting to mitigate Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 127 C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? 44 CFR 201.6©(3)(ii) and 44 CFR 201.6©(3)(iv) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must include a mitigation strategy that 1) analyzes actions and/or projects that the jurisdiction considered to reduce the impacts of hazards identified in the risk assessment, and 2) identifies the actions and/or projects that the jurisdiction intends to implement. Met: The list of the Mitigation Actions listed by priority is in section 5.2.5 (Page 182 - 248 of the main plan) b. Each jurisdiction participating in the plan must have mitigation actions specific to that jurisdiction that are based on the community’s risk and vulnerabilities, as well as community priorities. Met: The list of the Mitigation Actions listed by priority is in section 5.2.7 (Page 261 - 272 of the main plan) c. The action plan must reduce risk to existing buildings and infrastructure as well as limit any risk to new development and redevelopment. With emphasis on new and existing building and infrastructure means that the action plan includes a consideration of actions that address the built environment. Met: With goal 3.1 and specifically 3.1.4 Anoka County GIS provides the information and coordination with the Jurisdictions in Anoka County. C5. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? 44 CFR 201.6©(3)(iii) and 44 CFR ©(3)(iv) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe the criteria used for prioritizing implementation of the actions. MET: STAPLEE was used to evaluate mitigation actions and prioritize mitigation actions within each Jurisdiction. (STAPLEE Process and rating system is listed on pages 249 – 259) The final priority list for Mitigation actions by each Jurisdiction are listed in the main plan on pages 261-272 b. The plan must demonstrate when prioritizing hazard mitigation actions that the local jurisdictions considered the benefits that would result from the hazard mitigation actions versus the cost of those actions. The requirement is met as long as the economic considerations are summarized in the plan as part of the community’s analysis. A complete benefic‐cost analysis is not required. Qualitative benefits (for example, quality of life, natural and beneficial values, or other “benefits”) can also be included in how actions will be prioritized. Met: Pages 198 – 232: The estimated cost and the estimated benefit are listed in two separate columns for each mitigation actions. c. The plan must identify the position, office, department, or agency responsible for implementing and administering the action (for each jurisdiction), and identify potential funding sources and expected timeframes for completion. Met: Pages 198 – 232: A column listing responsibility meets this requirement. Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 128 C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)(ii) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe the community’s process to integrate the data, information, and hazard mitigation goals and actions into other planning mechanisms. Met: 5.2.7( Mitigation Actions Implementation) Section 5.3.1 (Implementation) Pg 261-273 b. The plan must identify the local planning mechanisms where hazard mitigation information and/or actions may be incorporated. Met: Section 5.2.7 – Mitigation Actions Implementation Updated tables to reflect mitigation actions of each jurisdiction. Page 261 - 272 c. A multi‐jurisdictional plan must describe each participating jurisdiction’s individual process for integrating hazard mitigation actions applicable to their community into other planning mechanisms. Met: 5.3.1: Implementation- shows each Jurisdiction is responsible for implementing their goals into their specific plans. Page 273 d. The updated plan must explain how the jurisdiction(s) incorporated the mitigation plan, when appropriate, into other planning mechanisms as a demonstration of progress in local hazard mitigation efforts Met: Added section pointing readers to completed mitigation goals (section 5.2.7) Preview Mitigation measures also listed on page 169 e. The updated plan must continue to describe how the mitigation strategy, including the goals and hazard mitigation actions will be incorporated into other planning mechanisms. Met: Updated tables (Mitigation Actions Prioritization) reflect mitigation actions of each jurisdiction. Page 261 - 272 Note: ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLMENTATION D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? 44 CFR 201.6(d)(3) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe changes in development that have occurred in hazard prone areas and increased or decreased the vulnerability of each jurisdiction since the last plan was approved. If no changes in development impacted the jurisdiction’s overall vulnerability, plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan. Met: Section 4.4.7 describes land use development meets part of the requirement. Each jurisdiction are included in their jurisdiction Descriptions Section 3.1, D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts? 44 CFR 201.6(d)(3) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe the status of hazard mitigation actions in the previous plan by identifying those that have been completed or not completed. For actions that have not been completed, the plan must either describe whether the action is no longer relevant or be included as part of the updated action plan. Met: Section 5.1.6 does a nice job of listing completed mitigation actions. D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? 44 CFR 201.6(d)(3) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must describe if and how any priorities changed since the plan was previously approved. If no changes in priorities are necessary, plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan. Met: Goals are outlined as new, ongoing, completed or canceled in section5.2.5(Process listed on page 183) ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 129 E1. Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. The plan must include documentation of plan adoption, usually a resolution by the governing body or other authority. In Minnesota, the county passes a formal resolution to adopt the plan. This should takes place immediately after FEMA review to allow the cities time to adopt the plan. To be completed after FEMA review E2. For multi‐jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption? 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5) REQUIREMENT LOCATION a. Each jurisdiction that is included in the plan must have its governing body adopt the plan prior to FEMA approval, even when a regional agency has the authority to prepare such plans. HSEM recommends that cities adopt the within six months of the county adopting the plan to ensure all adoption requirements are met. . To be completed after FEMA review Section 2 Multi-Jurisdictional Summary Sheet INSTRUCTIONS: Complete the Multi-jurisdiction Summary Spreadsheet by listing each participating jurisdiction which required Elements for each jurisdiction were ‘Met’ or ‘Not Met’. Adoption resolutions may be tracked after the plan was reviewed by FEMA ‘pending local adoption’. This Summary Sheet does not imply that a mini-plan be developed for each jurisdiction; it should be used as an optional worksheet to ensure that each jurisdiction participating in the Plan has been documented and has met the requirements for those Elements (A through E). # Jurisdiction Name Jurisdiction Type (county/city) Requirements Met (Y/N) A. Planning Process B. Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment C. Mitigation Strategy D. Plan Review, Evaluation & Implementation E. Plan Adoption 1 Anoka County County 2 Andover City 3 Anoka City 4 Bethel City 5 Blaine City 6 Nowthen City 7 Centerville City 8 Circle Pines City 9 Lexington City Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 130 10 Columbia Heights City 11 Columbus City 12 Coon Rapids City 13 East Bethel City 14 Fridley City 15 Ham Lake City 16 Hill Top City # Jurisdiction Name Jurisdiction Type (county/city) Requirements Met (Y/N) A. Planning Process B. Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment C. Mitigation Strategy D. Plan Review, Evaluation & Implementation E. Plan Adoption 17 Linwood City 18 Oak Grove City 19 Ramsey City 20 St. Francis City 21 Spring Lake Park City A. Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement This section provides a discussion of the strengths of the plan document and identifies areas where these could be improved beyond minimum requirements. Element A: Planning Process How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the planning process with respect to: Involvement of stakeholders (elected officials/decision makers, plan implementers, business owners, academic institutions, utility companies, wa ter/sanitation districts, etc.); Involvement of Planning, Emergency Management, Public Works Departments or other planning agencies (i.e., regional planning councils); Diverse methods of participation (meetings, surveys, online, etc.); and Reflective of an open and inclusive public involvement process. Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 131 In addition to the requirements listed in the Regulation Checklist, 44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans identifies additional elements that should be in cluded as part of a plan’s risk assessment. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of: 1) A general description of land uses and future development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisio ns; 2) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; and 3) A description of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment with respect to: Use of best available data (flood maps, HAZUS, flood studies) to describe significant hazards; Communication of risk on people, property, and infrastructure to the public (through tables, charts, maps, photos, etc.); Incorporation of techniques and methodologies to estimate dollar losses to vulnerable structures; Incorporation of Risk MAP products (i.e ., depth grids, Flood Risk Report, Changes Since Last FIRM, Areas of Mitigation Interest, etc.); and Identification of any data gaps that can be filled as new data became available. Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 132 Element C: Mitigation Strategy How does the Plan go above and beyond min imum requirements to document the Mitigation Strategy with respect to: Key problems identified in, and linkages to, the vulnerability assessment; Serving as a blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; Plan content flow from the risk assessment (problem identification) to goal setting to mitigation action development; An understanding of mitigation principles (diversity of actions that include structural projects, preventative measures, outreach activities, property protection measures, post-disaster actions, etc); Specific mitigation actions for each participating jurisdictions that reflects their unique risks and capabilities; Integration of mitigation actions with existing local authorities, polic ies, programs, and resources; and Discussion of existing programs (including the NFIP), plans, and policies that could be used to implement mitigation, as well as document past projects. Element D: Plan Update, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only) How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the 5 -year Evaluation and Implementation measures with respect to: Status of previously recommended mitigation actions; Identification of barriers or obstacles to su ccessful implementation or completion of mitigation actions, along with possible solutions for overcoming risk; Documentation of annual reviews and committee involvement; Identification of a lead person to take ownership of, and champion the Plan; Reducing risks from natural hazards and serving as a guide for decisions makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards; An approach to evaluating future conditions (i.e. socio -economic, environmental, demographic, change in built environment etc.); Discussion of how changing conditions and opportunities could impact community resilience in the long term ; and Discussion of how the mitigation goals and actions support the long -term community vision for increased resilience. Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 133 B. Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan Ideas may be offered on moving the mitigation plan forward and continuing the relationship with key mitigation stakeholders such as the following: What FEMA assistance (funding) programs are available (for example, Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA)) to the jurisdiction(s) to assist with implementing the mitigation actions? What other Federal programs (National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Community Rating System (CRS), Risk MAP, etc.) may provide assistance for mitigation activities? What publications, technical guidance or other resources are available to the jurisdiction(s) relevant to the identified mitigation actions? Are there upcoming trainings/workshops (Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA), HMA, etc.) to assist the jurisdictions(s)? What mitigation actions can be funded by other Federal agencies (for example, U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Smart Growth, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities, etc.) and/or state and local agencies? CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4B STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Donate Seized Property to Bikes for Kids VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes Ordinance 213.07 authorizes the Public Safety Department to dispose of unclaimed property in a manner authorized by a majority vote of the City Council. BACKGROUND As part of the continued management of police division property and evidence room, staff identified the below listed bicycles for disposal: 1. RA16260347 – Bicycle serial number MOS0470479 2. RA16244792 – Bicycle serial number R8901153 3. RA16246557 – Bicycle serial number TATD78738148 4. RA17051854 – Bicycle serial number WTUOKA67IT 5. RA17051854 – Bicycle serial number 90500131 6. RA17051854 – Bicycle serial number C95HK987 7. RA17051854 – Bicycle serial number 08TD02788 All related court and investigative matters has been completed. Staff has complied with all statuary obligations to notify all concerned parties and received no communications related to any of these cases or the related property. To eliminate the expense of destroying any of the bicycles, staff is requesting they be donated to the non-profit organization Bikes for Kids based in Ham Lake, MN. This non-profit organization refurbishes donated bicycles and provides them to kids in need in Anoka County and throughout the world. Click here to visit their website. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Public Safety Department to donate the listed bicycles to the non-profit Bikes for Kids. ATTACHMENTS None CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 17-54, Approving Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan and Preliminary Approval of the Issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds, Michael Grochala VOTE REQUIRED: Unanimous INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council approval of the 2017-2021 Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan and preliminary approval regarding the issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds. BACKGROUND The City Council initiated a Street Reconstruction program in 2014 using Street Reconstruction Bonds as the primary funding source. The initial phase of street reconstruction was undertaken in 2015 with the improvement of streets in the Shenandoah neighborhood. In January of 2017 the City Council authorized a report on improvements to obtain cost estimates for the next phase of the reconstruction program. The City Council accepted the West Shadow Lake Drive and LaMotte Neighborhood report at the May 8, 2017 regular council meeting. This project is being considered for 2018. The estimated cost of the proposed project is $5,124,000. This estimate does not include any costs for new extensions of sanitary sewer and/or water main to service the neighborhoods. Any proposed sanitary sewer or water extensions, if requested, will be funded separately through special assessments or connection charges. At this time staff is proposing consideration of a street reconstruction plan schedule that includes completing the next two program phases over the next five years as follows: Phase Streets Estimated Cost 2018 West Shadow Lake Drive, Shadow Ct, Sandpiper Drive, LaMotte Dr., LaMotte Circle $5,124,000 2021 4th Avenue, Diane Street, 81st St, Elbe St. and Danube St. $2,524,000 Funding is only being considered for the 2018 project at this time. A 15 year payment schedule would result in annual debt service of approximately $450,000 based on a $5,124,000 project. Staff has worked with the City’s bond counsel Kennedy and Graven, to refine the plan to meet the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 475 relating to street reconstruction and bituminous overlays. City Charter requirements are not applicable, provided no special assessments are proposed for the street reconstruction improvements under the street reconstruction project. However, the plan is subject to a reverse referendum. Under State law street reconstruction bonds can be issued without election provided the following requirements are met: a) The City must prepare a 5 year street reconstruction plan b) The City must hold a public hearing c) The City Council must approve the plan by unanimous vote. d) A 30 day period must elapse during which time a petition may be submitted requesting an election. The petition must be signed by voters equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last municipal general election. e) If no petition is received the city may issue bonds without election. The draft 2017-2021 Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan has been prepared. The public hearing has been set for the June 12, 2017 City Council meeting. This will allow for the reverse petition process and possible ballot question submittal to Anoka County. If a petition is received a ballot question will be prepared for consideration by the voters in the 2017 municipal election. If no petition is received the council may authorize preparation of plans as specifications for the project. City Council consideration at the public hearing will be to approve the 5 year Street Reconstruction Plan and authorize the issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds for the 2018 improvements. Staff would like to emphasis the following points: • The 2021 project will be subject to future council consideration and action. • Approval of the plan and bond authorization does not obligate the City to construct a project or issue bonds. • The amount of bonds authorized under the plan represents a maximum amount. • The actual amount of bonds issued will be subject to council approval once a final project cost is determined following plan design and bidding process. • The plan allows for the bonding for the West Shadow and LaMotte Improvements to occur anytime during the 2017 – 2021 Five-Year Street Reconstruction Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 17-54. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-54 2. 2017 – 2021 Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan 500782v2 JAE LN140-118 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-54 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF STREET RECONSTRUCTION BONDS THEREUNDER BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, subdivision 3b (the “Act”), to prepare a plan for street reconstruction in the City over the next five years that will be financed under the Act, including a description of the proposed work and estimated costs, and to issue general obligation bonds to finance the cost of street reconstruction activities described in the plan. 1.02. Before the issuance of any bonds under the Act, the City is required to hold a public hearing on the plan and issuance of the bonds. 1.03. Pursuant to the Act, the City, in consultation with its City engineer, has caused preparation of the “2017 through 2021 Five-Year Street Reconstruction Plan for the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota” (the “Plan”), which describes certain street reconstruction activities in the City for the years 2017 through 2021. The reconstruction activities described in the Plan include, but are not limited to, the 2018 Street Reconstruction Project in the City, which consists of the reconstruction of West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive, Shadow Court, LaMotte Drive, and LaMotte Circle (collectively, the “Project”). Construction of the Project may take place at any time between 2017 and 2021. 1.04. The City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to authorize the issuance and sale of general obligation street reconstruction bonds pursuant to the Act in the maximum principal amount of $5,124,000 (the “Bonds”). The purpose of the Bonds is to finance the costs of the Project as described in the Plan. 1.05. On this date, the City Council held a public hearing on the Plan and the issuance of the Bonds, after publication in the City’s official newspaper of a notice of public hearing at least ten (10) days but no more than twenty-eight (28) days before the date of the hearing. Section 2. Plan Approved. 2.01. The City Council finds that the Plan will improve the City’s street and utility systems, which serves the interests of the City as a whole. 2.02. The Plan is approved in the form on file in City Hall. Section 3. Bonds Issued under Plan. 3.01. The City hereby provides its preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds in a maximum principal amount of $5,124,000 in order to finance the Project described in the Plan. The Bonds may not be issued without further action by the City Council. Furthermore, the issuance of such Bonds is subject to the terms of Section 3.02 hereof. 500782v2 JAE LN140-118 2 3.02. If a petition requesting a vote on the issuance of the Bonds signed by voters equal to five percent (5%) of the votes cast in the last municipal general election is filed with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the date of the public hearing, the City may issue the Bonds only after obtaining approval of a majority of voters voting on the question at an election. The authorization to issue the Bonds is subject to expiration of the thirty (30) day period without the City’s receipt of a qualified petition under the Act, or if a qualified petition is filed, upon the approving vote of a majority of the voters voting on the question of issuance of the Bonds. 3.03. City staff are authorized and directed to take all other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota this 12th day of June, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk draft lino lakes 2017-2021 street reconstruction plan 2017v3 5/24/2017 2017 through 2021 Five-Year Street Reconstruction Plan for the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota June, 2017 draft lino lakes 2017-2021 street reconstruction plan 2017v3 5/24/2017 City of Lino Lakes Five-Year Street Reconstruction Plan 2017 through 2021 I. PURPOSE Street reconstruction is a major expenditure of city funds for the reconstruction of streets. Street reconstruction may include bituminous overlays, utility replacement and relocation, public safety street modifications, and other incidental activities, turn lanes and other improvements having a substantial public safety function, realignments, other modifications to intersect with state and county roads, and the local share of state and county road projects. Except in the case of turn lanes, safety improvements, realignments, intersection modifications, and local share of state and county road projects, street reconstruction does not include the portion of project costs allocable to widening a street or adding curbs and gutters where none previously existed. A Street Reconstruction Plan (“SRP”) is a document designed to anticipate street reconstruction expenditures and schedule them over a five-year period so that they may be purchased in the most efficient and cost effective method possible. An SRP helps enable the matching of expenditures with anticipated income. As potential expenditures are reviewed, the city considers the benefits, costs, alternatives and impact on operating expenditures. The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the “City”) believes the street reconstruction process is an important element of responsible fiscal management. Major capital expenditures can be anticipated and coordinated so as to minimize potentially adverse financial impacts caused by the timing and magnitude of capital outlays. This coordination of capital expenditures is important to the City in achieving its goals of adequate physical public assets, preservation of public assets and sound fiscal management. Good planning is essential for the wise and prudent use of limited financial resources. The SRP is designed to be updated periodically. The Street Reconstruction Plan is a part of the City’s capital improvement plan. In this manner, it becomes an ongoing fiscal planning tool that continually anticipates future capital expenditures and funding sources. II. THE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLANNING PROCESS For the City to use its authority to finance expenditures under Chapter 475.58, Subdivision 3b, it must meet the requirements provided therein. The street reconstruction planning process is as follows: The City staff prepares an SRP reflecting the street reconstruction projects anticipated to be undertaken within the next five years (based on their priority, fiscal impact, and available funding) and the estimated costs thereof. If general obligation bonding is deemed necessary, the City works with its financial advisor to prepare a bond sale and repayment schedule. A public hearing is held to solicit input from citizens on the SRP and draft lino lakes 2017-2021 street reconstruction plan 2017v3 5/24/2017 the issuance of bonds. Notice of such hearing must be published in the official newspaper of the City at least 10, but not more than 28 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The City Council must approve the SRP and the sale of street reconstruction bonds by a unanimous vote of those members present at the meeting following the public hearing. Voters may petition for a reverse referendum on the issuance of street reconstruction bonds. If a petition bearing the signatures of voters equal to at least 5% of the votes cast in the last general election requesting a vote on the issuance of street reconstruction bonds is received by the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing, the City may only issue general obligation street reconstruction bonds after approval by voters at an election. If no petition is submitted, general obligation street reconstruction bonds may be issued without an election. In subsequent years, the process is repeated annually or as expenditures are completed and new needs arise. III. PROJECT SUMMARY AND FINANCING Street reconstruction projects anticipated to be undertaken within the next five years and the estimated costs thereof are set forth in Appendix A. A map of the proposed project streets is included in Appendix B. Those for which street reconstruction bonds are anticipated to be issued are marked with an asterisk in Appendix A and are currently anticipated to include the following: 2018 Street Reconstruction Bond Financed Expenditures – The 2018 Street Reconstruction Project includes the reconstruction of the following streets; West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive, Shadow Court, LaMotte Drive, and LaMotte Circle, by replacement of curb and gutter as needed, required upgrades of the existing stormwater management system and bituminous surfacing. General obligation street reconstruction bonds are proposed to be issued in 2018 in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $5,124,000.00 for the costs of the West Shadow Lake Drive Improvements, including Sandpiper and Shadow Court, and the LaMotte Drive Improvements, and the costs of issuing the bonds. Such bonds may be combined with other financing tools, including general obligation improvement bonds, to finance other capital improvements in the City. The bonding for the West Shadow Lake Drive Improvements and the LaMotte Drive Improvements is expected to occur in 2018 but could happen at any time during the 2017 through 2021 Five-Year Street Reconstruction Plan. West Shadow Lake Drive Improvements The pavement on West Shadow Lake Drive Sandpiper and Shadow Court is in very poor condition. The roadway is located in a high water table and poorly draining soils are located under and adjacent draft lino lakes 2017-2021 street reconstruction plan 2017v3 5/24/2017 to the roadway. Many of the ditches adjacent to the roadway have been filled in or are landlocked with no drainage. One portion of the road winds through wetlands and crosses over a culvert with surface water one foot below the roadway. The roadway is below the flood elevation in this area and large ptoholes have occurred in many areas of the roadway. This roadway is the only entrance to the adjacent neighborhood, and therefore, needs to be reconstructed. In order to reconstruct the road, the drainage issues must be resolved. The road reconstruction project will include reconstructing the street to meet the City’s standard road requirements, creation of a drainage system to keep stormwater from compromising the new roadway, and meeting the Rice Creek Watershed District’s rate control and water quality treatment requirements related to the construction of the new roadway. The road reconstruction project will also include investigating the conditions of the culvert under the roadway and reconstructing the culvert if necessary. LaMotte Drive Improvements The pavement on LaMotte Drive is also in very poor condition. The road reconstruction project will include reconstructing the street to meet the City’s standard road requirements, replacement of curb and gutter where it currently exists, and the addition of storm water filtration areas to meet storm water rate and water quality requirements. Street reconstruction bonds are included in the amount of indebtedness of the City which cannot, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.53, exceed 3% of the assessor’s taxable market value for the City (“TMV”). The proposed bonds will not exceed statutory limits. All other foreseeable capital expenditures are expected to be financed through other revenue or financing sources. 2021 Street Reconstruction Project The 2021 Street Reconstruction Project includes the reconstruction of the following streets; 4th Avenue, from Main Street to Pine Street, Diane Street, 81st Street, Elbe Street and Danube Street by replacement of curb and gutter as needed, required upgrades of the existing stormwater management system and bituminous surfacing. No bonds are being contemplated for this project at the present time. draft lino lakes 2017-2021 street reconstruction plan 2017v3 5/24/2017 APPENDIX A PROJECT COSTS 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 West Shadow Lake Drive, Shadow Ct, Sandpiper Drive*, $4,329,000 LaMotte Dr. and LaMotte Circle* $795,000 4th Avenue, Diane Street, 81st St, Elbe St. and Danube St. $2,524,000 Totals by year $5,124,000 0 0 $2,524,000 *Expenditures proposed to be financed by Street Reconstruction Bonds to be issued in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $5,124,000 in 2018. draft lino lakes 2017-2021 street reconstruction plan 2017v3 5/24/2017 APPENDIX B PROJECT LOCATION MAP Rondeau Lake Peltier Lake Marshan Lake Centerville Lake George Watch Lake Sherman LakeWardsLake Reshanau Lake Rice Lake Golden Lake BaldwinLake Bald Eagle Lake AmeliaLake Otter Lake Cedar Lake Rice Creek Marsh 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( )sBlaineLinoLakesCirclePinesLinoLakes Circle PinesShoreview ColumbusLinoLakes HugoLinoLakesHugoWhiteBearTwp.Lino LakesNorthOaksLinoLakesShoreview Lino LakesWhiteBearTwp. Lino LakesCenterville Arrowhead Dr Lam otte D rL a m o t t e C i r 1 inch = 3,200 feet Street Reconstruction Plan Document Path: K:\02029-230\GIS\Maps\2018StreetReconPlanNew.mxd Date Saved: 5/24/2017 9:14:38 AM Street Reconstruction Plan 2018 2021 City of Lino Lakes MN ± 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: June 12, 2017 TOPIC: Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation i. Consider Resolution No. 16-151 Approving Site Improvement Performance Agreement ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-53 Approving Maintenance Agreement Stormwater Management Facilities VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a Site Improvement Performance Agreement and Maintenance Agreement Stormwater Management Facilities for the Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation. BACKGROUND On November 14, 2016, Council approved Resolution No. 16-136 for a conditional use permit and site plan review for a renovation at Lino Lakes Elementary School located at 725 Main Street. The proposed renovation will create 4 additional classrooms, a large gathering space at the front/south side of the building and an outdoor classroom to the west side of the building. One condition of approval as noted in the City Engineer’s letter dated October 4, 2016 was the need for more information regarding the pedestrian crosswalk across Main Street. Currently, there is a sidewalk extending from the school parking lot south to a striped and signed crosswalk across Main Street. Per the revised Site Plan dated May 15, 2017, the sidewalk and crosswalk are being removed. Staff has concerns regarding these removals and pedestrian safety but ultimately, it is the decision of the school and Anoka County. Attached are letters from both agencies. The Site Improvement Performance Agreement satisfies Section 1007.20(5)(d) that requires the applicant submit to the City an agreement that they will cause all improvements called for in the site and building plan review to be completed within the time specified by the City. The Maintenance Agreement Stormwater Management Facilities satisfies Section 1011.011(8)(l) that requires a long term maintenance plans and schedule for all permanent stormwater practices. 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 16-151 and Resolution No. 17-53. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 16-151 2. Site Improvement Performance Agreement 3. Resolution No. 17-53 4. Maintenance Agreement Stormwater Management Facilities 5. Aerial Map 6. Revised Sheet C1-3, Demolition Plan 7. Revised Sheet C2-2, Site Plan CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-151 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH FOREST LAKE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #831 (LINO LAKES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RENOVATION) WHEREAS, the City has completed the review of the conditional use permit amendment and site plan review for the Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation located at 725 Main Street; and WHEREAS, Section 1007.020(5)(d) of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires the execution of a site improvement performance agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Site Improvement Performance Agreement between the City of Lino Lakes and Forest Lake Independent School District #831 is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute such agreements on behalf of the City. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 12th day of June, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member_______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 1 of 9 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this _______ day of _______________, 2017, is by and between the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and Forest Lake School District #831 (Developer). WHEREAS, the Developer has received approval of Site Development Plans, hereinafter called the "Plans", by the City of Lino Lakes on the 14th day of November, 2016, and in accordance with the Plans all of which are made a part hereof by reference. In consideration of such approval, the Developer, its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree to perform the work as set forth in the Plans, in the aforesaid approval, and as hereinafter set forth upon the real estate (hereinafter referred to as "Property") described as follows: 05-31-22-44-0001 (Parcel 2) & 05-31-22-44-0002 (Parcel 1) Parcel 1: That certain part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of SE 1/4), Section 5, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows, to- wit: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter, 650 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line, for 660 feet to the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter; thence North 1 degree 18 minutes East, along the West line of said Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter, for 660 feet; thence East, parallel to described first course, for 660 feet; thence South, parallel to described second course, for 660 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4 of SE1/4) of Section 5, Township 31 North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5; thence West, along the South line of the SE1/4 of the SE1/4, a distance of 650 feet; thence Northerly, parallel with the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 660 feet to the point of beginning; thence West, parallel with the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 660 feet, to the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence Northerly, along said West line, a distance of 659.96 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5; thence Easterly, along the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 660.29 feet to the point of intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning and parallel with the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence Southerly, along said line, a distance of 658.75 feet to the point of beginning. Anoka County, Minnesota 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 2 of 9 Abstract Property NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties made herein, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO: I. DESIGNATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. A. Improvements on the project site to be installed at the Developer’s expense by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred to as “On-site Work”. B. Improvements off the project site to be installed at the Developer’s expense, if any, by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred to as “Off-Site Work”. C. Developer shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facilities Agreement. II. ON-SITE WORK. A. On-Site Work. The On-site Work shall consist of the improvements described in the approved Plans, to include any approved subsequent amendments, and shall be in compliance with all applicable statutes, codes and ordinances of the City. The Work includes all on-site exterior amenities as shown on the approved Plans and as required by the plan approval, such as, but not limited to: landscaping, private driveways, parking areas, sanitary sewer extension, water system extension, storm drainage systems, curbing, lighting, fencing, fire lanes, sidewalks, exterior building architectural design and building elements, site grading and erosion control measures. Such improvements shall be completed in accordance with Section IV herein. B. Cost Estimates. The Developer shall provide the City with a written estimate of all applicable costs of the On-Site Work, itemized by type; the estimates shall be based upon the actual estimates provided by the contractors who are to do the Work. Said cost estimates shall be reviewed by the City, and the City shall establish the actual amount of the financial guarantee. The description and estimated cost of Developer's On-site Work are as follows: 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 3 of 9 Description of Improvements Estimated Costs 1. Site Clearing and Earthwork $559,423 4. Pavement $102,900 7. Irrigation & Landscaping $316,800 Total Estimated Cost of Developer Improvements $979,123 Security Requirement (Total * 35%) $342,693 III. Record Drawings A record drawing that includes an as-built survey of all storm water BMP’s (ponds, rain gardens, trenches, swales, etc.) is to be submitted to the City for verification of compliance with the approved plans. A hard copy and an electronic copy of the record drawing must be submitted. IV. COMPLETION DATE. If the activities authorized by site and building plan approval are not initiated within twelve (12) months from the final execution of this agreement, then Developer will need to start the site and building plan approval process from the beginning. V. GUARANTEE. A. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms and conditions of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer. Concurrently with the execution hereof by the Developer, the Developer will furnish to, and at all times thereafter maintain with the City, a cash deposit, certified check, or Irrevocable Letter of Credit, based on thirty- five (35%) percent of the total estimated cost of Developer's On-site Work. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of the City of Lino Lakes and shall state thereon that the same is issued to guarantee and assure performance by the Developer of all the terms and conditions of this Development Contract, construction of all required improvements in accordance with the ordinances and specifications of the City and guarantees the workmanship and materials for the landscape improvements for a period of one year following the City’s acceptance of the landscape improvements. The City reserves the right to draw, in whole or in part, on any portion of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the purpose of guaranteeing the terms and conditions of this contract, if Developer has been found to be in default of this agreement and only after providing Developer with written notice and opportunity to cure any default. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended for additional periods of one year from present or future 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 4 of 9 expiration dates unless sixty (60) days prior to such the City Clerk or Administrator is notified in writing by certified mail or overnight mail that the Letter of Credit will not be renewed. B. Upon written request, The City will grant a reduction of the Letter of Credit, or cash deposit based on prepayment or the value of the completed improvements at the time of the requested reduction. The Developer may make such requests three times throughout the life of this agreement, with the third and/or final request being at the completion of the project. The City will respond to such request within 30 days time. Prior to the final acceptance of the Developer’s Improvements the City shall require a Letter of Credit or Cash Escrow to cover the warranty provisions of the agreement. The amount shall be agreed to by the City Engineer and Developer and Developer may use the Letter of Credit discussed in Section V.A above. VI. REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS. A. The Developer agrees to establish a non-interest bearing escrow account with the City in an amount established by the City Engineer or his designee for the payment of all City fees and costs incurred by the City related to the On-site Work, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Site Plan Review Fee $1,500 2. Administration (Legal, Engineering, Planning, and Contract administration) $8,500 3. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Unit Fee (0 units @ $3,073 per unit) $0 4. Water Trunk Unit Fee (0 units @ $4,069 per unit) $0 5. Surface Water Management Fee (Connected to System) $0 Total Estimated (Budget) Costs for Escrow Account $10,000 B. If it appears that the actual costs incurred will exceed the estimate or that the actual costs incurred will be less than the estimate, then Developer and City shall review the costs required to complete the project. In such case, if the actual costs exceed the estimate, then Developer shall promptly pay the additional sums to the City to pay for the agreed upon increase. However, in such case where the actual costs are less than the estimate, the City shall promptly reimburse to Developer any amounts overpaid by the Developer. The Developer may request a statement of the account each month for review. C. Intentionally Deleted. 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 5 of 9 VII. REMEDIES FOR BREACH A. The City shall give prior written notice to the Developer of any default hereunder before proceeding to enforce such financial guarantee or before the City undertakes any work for which the City will be reimbursed through the financial guarantee. If within twenty (20) days after receipt of such written notice to it, the Developer has not notified the City by stating in writing the manner in which the default will be cured and the time within which such default will be cured, the City will proceed with the remedy it deems reasonably appropriate. B. At any time after the completion date and any extensions thereof, if any of the work is deemed incomplete, the City may proceed in any one or more of the following ways to enforce the undertakings herein set forth, and to collect any and all expenses reasonably incurred by the City in connection therewith, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal, planning and litigation costs and expense. The enumeration of the remedies hereunder shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the City. 1. Specific Performance. The City may in writing direct the surety or the Developer to cause the Work to be undertaken and completed within a specified reasonable time. If the Developer fails to cause the Work to be done and completed in a manner and time reasonably acceptable to the City, the City may proceed to bring an action for specific performance to require work to be undertaken. 2. Completion by the City. The City, after written notice, may enter the premises and proceed to have the Work done either by contract, by day labor or by regular City forces. The Developer may not question the manner of doing such work or the letting of any such contracts for the doing of any such work; provided that all such work is performed in a reasonable manner, the costs are reasonable and the work is completed in a good and workman-like manner and in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Upon completion of such work, the Developer shall promptly pay the City the full cost thereof as aforesaid. 3. Deposit of Financial Guarantee. In the event the financial guarantee has been submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit, the City may draw on the Letter of Credit the sum equal to the reasonably estimated cost of completing the Work, plus the City's reasonably estimated expenses as defined herein, including any other reasonable costs, expenses, and damages for which the surety may be liable hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth on the Letter of Credit. The money shall be deemed to be held by the City for the purpose of reimbursing the City for any reasonable 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 6 of 9 costs incurred in completing the Work as hereinafter specified. Any funds remaining after completion of the project shall be promptly returned to the Developer. VIII. OCCUPATION OF PREMISES The Developer agrees that it will not cause to be occupied any portion of the building or improvements to be constructed upon the premises until completion of the building and site improvements as more fully described in the approved plans and following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. IX. INSURANCE Developer or its general contractor shall take out and maintain until one year after the City accepted the Developer Improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's or general contractor’s work, as the case may be, or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for one person and One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less then Two Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($200,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars or more. The City, its employees, its agents and assigns shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer or its general contractor shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. X. REIMBURSEMENT FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES The City and Developer agree that the prevailing party in any litigation pertaining to the enforcement of this Agreement shall be entitled to reimbursement from the non-prevailing party for all reasonable costs incurred by said prevailing party including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees. XI. VALIDITY If a portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Site Improvement Performance Agreement. 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 7 of 9 XII. GENERAL A. Binding Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Property and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. D. Notices. Whenever in this Agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this Agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or (i) mailed by United States mail by certified mail (return receipt requested)or (ii) sent by nationally recognized overnight carrier to the addresses hereinbefore set forth on Page 1 . Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail or the overnight carrier in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto are as set forth on Page 1 until changed by notices given as above. E. Incorporation by Reference. All plans, special provisions, proposals, specifications and contracts for the improvements furnished and let pursuant to this Agreement shall be and hereby are made a part of this Agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full. F. Hours of Construction Activity. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours set out as follows: Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday and Holidays No working hours allowed XIII. VIOLATIONS/BUILDING PERMITS In the event that Developer violates any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Site Improvement Performance Agreement and to be performed by the Developer, the City, at its option, and after providing written notice and opportunity to cure to Developer in addition to the rights and remedies as set out hereunder may refuse to issue building permits to any property within the development and/or stop building construction within the development until such time as such default has been corrected to the satisfaction of the City. 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 8 of 9 DEVELOPER CITY OF LINO LAKES _________________________ By _________________________ Developer Mayor ATTEST: By _________________________ City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on ________ day of ____________, 2017, by Jeff Reinert as Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes on behalf of said City. _______________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on ________ day of ____________, 2017 by Julianne Bartell as City Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes on behalf of said City. _______________________________ Notary Public 20161102 Lino Lakes Elementary Site Performance Agreement page 9 of 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) On this _______ day of _______________, 2017, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared (Developer), who executed the foregoing instrument. ______________________________ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-53 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES BETWEEN RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, FOREST LAKE AREA SCHOOLS AND CITY OF LINO LAKES WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes Elementary School project includes the construction of stormwater management facilities; and WHEREAS, such stormwater facilities are subject to the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City of Lino Lakes; and WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers conditionally approved Permit No. 16-084 for the project subject to the execution a maintenance agreement between the City and the Rice Creek Watershed District; and WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes approved Resolution No. 16-136 with conditions for the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes executes the Maintenance Agreement Stormwater Management Facilities between the Rice Creek Watershed District, Forest Lake Area Schools and City of Lino Lakes. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 12th day of June, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk 1 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Stormwater Management Facilities Between the Rice Creek Watershed District, Forest Lake Area Schools and the City of Lino Lakes This Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the Rice Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D and a drainage authority pursuant to chapter 103E of the laws of the State of Minnesota, (RCWD), and Forest Lake Area Schools (“Permittee”), and the City of Lino Lakes, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 103D.345, the RCWD has adopted and implements Rule C, Stormwater Management Plans; WHEREAS Rule C imposes certain requirements, which the Permittee will meet in this case by constructing and maintaining stormwater management facilities as identified on the site plan incorporated into this Agreement as Exhibit A; WHEREAS in accordance with Rule C and as a condition of Permit 16-084, the Permittee’s obligation to maintain these stormwater facilities must be memorialized by a recorded maintenance declaration or, alternatively, a maintenance agreement establishing the Permittee’s perpetual maintenance obligation; WHEREAS the Permittee and the RCWD execute this Agreement to fulfill the condition of Permit 16-084, and concur that it is binding and rests on mutual valuable consideration; THEREFORE: 1. The Permittee, at its cost, will inspect and maintain the stormwater management facilities delineated and labeled on Exhibit A as follows: Storm sewer inlet and manhole structures, storm sewer piping, storm sewer outlet structures, and infiltration basin. The Permittee will: 2 a. Obtain certified as-built contours for all ponds and inspect the ponds, and associated outlet structures, culverts and outfall structures one year and two years after the completion of as-builts, including measuring sediment accumulation by a method accurate to within one vertical foot. Thereafter, the Permittee will perform inspections in the fifth year after pond completion and every five years thereafter. If inspections show that sediment may accumulate to 50 percent of wet storage volume, or 25 percent of dry detention volume, within less than five years, the Permittee will inspect more frequently. Pond function will be considered inadequate if sediment accumulation has decreased the wet storage volume by 50 percent or dry detention volume by 25 percent, and the Permittee will restore the basin to its original design elevations and dimensions and restore vegetation in disturbed areas within one year of the inspection date. b. Inspect stormwater infiltration and filtration basins, including rain gardens, annually, to preserve live storage capacity at or above the design volume. Remove vegetation, maintain healthy plant growth and remove excess sediment and debris to ensure that the facilities continue to perform per design. c. Inspect grit chambers, sump catch basins and sump manholes annually. Accumulated sediment and debris will be removed so that the each facility continues to operate as designed and erosion or structural problems are corrected. d. Inspect conveyances and other structures annually. Ensure preservation of designed hydraulic capacity. 2. If the Permittee conveys into private ownership a fee interest in all or any portion of the public property that is subject to this Agreement, it must require as a condition of sale, and enforce: (a) that the purchaser record a declaration on the property incorporating the stormwater management facility maintenance requirements of this Agreement; and (b) that recordation occur either before any encumbrance is recorded on the property or, if after, only as accompanied by a subordination and consent executed by the encumbrance holder ensuring that the declaration will run with the land in perpetuity. If the Permittee conveys into 3 public ownership a fee interest in all or any portion of the property that is subject to this Agreement, it must require as a condition of the purchase and sale agreement that the purchaser accept an assignment of all obligations vested under this Agreement. 3. This Agreement is in force for five years from the date on which it is fully executed and will renew automatically for five-year terms unless terminated by the parties. This Agreement may be amended only in a writing signed by the parties. 4. The recitals are incorporated as a part of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By _______________________________ Date: RCWD Administrator, Phil Belfiori CITY OF LINO LAKES By: _______________________________ Date: Its ________________________ FOREST LAKE AREA SCHOOLS By: _______________________________ Date: Its ________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM and EXECUTION By: ________________________________ Date: Its Attorney 4 Exhibit A [Sheet C4-1 Utility Plan] CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: ZHW NMM 15328B 02/24/17 NUMBER DATE License No. Date 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. Nicholas M. Mannnel - PE 45861 09/12/16 LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL RENOVATION AND ADDITIONSLINO LAKES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - FOREST LAKE AREA SCHOOL725 MAIN STREETLINO LAKES, MN 55014RCWD Submittal 08/19/16 CUP City Submittal 09/12/16 RCWD Resubmittal 09/23/16 Bid Set 12/19/16 Addendum 3 01/23/17 RCWD Resubmittal 02/24/17 RCWD Resubmittal 03/01/17 City Resubmittal 05/15/17 WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION. 2.ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4.ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7.PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: WATERMAIN DIP 6" TO 8" DIAMETER STORM SEWER RCP/DUAL WALL HDPE/PVC 8" TO 24" DIAMETER STORM SEWER ARCH RCP 24" ROUND DIAMETER EQUIVALENT 8.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 1109.0 9.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 719.6). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 301.2). 10.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4714.0540: a.PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b.PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c.ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212 (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 301.2). d.WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. e.INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D2321. 11.PVC STORM WATER PIPE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3034. ASTM F679 PVC EXTERIOR STORM WATER PIPING MAY BE INSTALLED (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 301.2). 12.HAND EXCAVATE ENTIRE LENGTH OF FIBER OPTIC LINE TO ENSURE NO DISRUPTION OF SERVICE OR DAMAGE TO CABLE OCCURS. 13.DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) WATER SERVICES OR BUILDING SUPPLY LINES MUST MEET AWWA C151 (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714, TABLE 604.1). 14.REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (RCP) STORM SEWERS COMPLYING WITH ASTM C76 MAY BE INSTALLED (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 301.2). CEMENT MORTAR JOINTS ARE PERMITTED ONLY FOR REPAIRS OR CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING LINES HAVING SUCH JOINTS. CB 10 48" PRECAST STMH 20 CB 30 CBMH 40 STMH 50 STMH 60 R-3067 STMH 80 STMH 90 STMH 70 48" PRECASTR-1642 60" PRECASTR-1642 R-1642 60" PRECAST R-1642 60" PRECAST R-1642 48" PRECAST 60" PRECAST 48" PRECASTR-3067 R-1642 CB 9 STMH 8 STMH 5 CB 4 CBMH 3 CBMH 6 48" PRECASTR-1642 SEE DETAIL R-3067 48" PRECASTR-1642 48" PRECAST CB 11 24" STORM SEWER SCHEDULE STRUCTURE NO.CASTING MANHOLE SIZE CB 1 24"NYLOPLAST STMH 2 STMH 22 R-2534 STMH 21 48" PRECASTR-1642 STMH 23 48" PRECASTR-1642 SEE DETAIL CB 91 24" CBMH 19 CB 83 CB 82 CB 81 24" 24" 24"UTILITY PLANC4-1W:\2015\15328A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C4-1 Utility PlanPlotted: 05 /16 / 2017 8:20 AMN STMH 7 R-2534 60" PRECAST NYLOPLAST NYLOPLAST NYLOPLAST NYLOPLAST NYLOPLAST 48" PRECASTR-1642 R-3067 24"NYLOPLAST 24"NYLOPLAST 24"NYLOPLAST STMH 12 48" PRECASTR-1642 48" PRECASTR-3067 STMH 24 48" PRECASTR-1642 0 50 10025 FeetNANCY DRNANCY DRAerial MapLino Lakes Elementary School µDate: 6/2/2017 Sidewalk and Crosswalk Removal CSAH 14/Main Street CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: ZHW NMM 15328B 02/24/17 NUMBER DATE License No. Date 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. Nicholas M. Mannnel - PE 45861 09/12/16 LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL RENOVATION AND ADDITIONSLINO LAKES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - FOREST LAKE AREA SCHOOL725 MAIN STREETLINO LAKES, MN 55014RCWD Submittal 08/19/16 CUP City Submittal 09/12/16 RCWD Resubmittal 09/23/16 Bid Set 12/19/16 Addendum 3 01/23/17 RCWD Resubmittal 02/24/17 RCWD Resubmittal 03/01/17 City Resubmittal 05/15/17 WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 N 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND/OR RELOCATE EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITIES AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL. 3. CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, STRIP TOP SOIL, AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE. REFER TO GRADING PLAN AND SWPPP FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 4.CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. SEE THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP). 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SITE SURFACE FEATURES WITHIN REMOVAL LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 11.HAND EXCAVATE ENTIRE LENGTH OF FIBER OPTIC LINE TO ENSURE NO DISRUPTION OF SERVICE OR DAMAGE TO CABLE OCCURS. SITE DEMOLITION NOTES DEMOLITION PLANC1-3W:\2015\15328A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C1-2 Demolition PlanPlotted: 05 /16 / 2017 8:15 AM CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: ZHW NMM 15328B 02/24/17 NUMBER DATE License No. Date 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. Nicholas M. Mannnel - PE 45861 09/12/16 LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL RENOVATION AND ADDITIONSLINO LAKES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - FOREST LAKE AREA SCHOOL725 MAIN STREETLINO LAKES, MN 55014RCWD Submittal 08/19/16 CUP City Submittal 09/12/16 RCWD Resubmittal 09/23/16 Bid Set 12/19/16 Addendum 3 01/23/17 RCWD Resubmittal 02/24/17 RCWD Resubmittal 03/01/17 City Resubmittal 05/15/17 WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 N SITE PLAN LEGEND CONCRETE PAVEMENT/SIDEWALK HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT SAW CUT LINE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ONE (1) SPACE FOR EACH CLASSROOM PLUS ONE (1) ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR EACH THREE HUNDRED (300) STUDENT CAPACITY, PLUS ONE (1) SPACE FOR EACH EMPLOYEE, PLUS ONE (1) SPACE FOR EACH FOUR (4) SEATS IN AUDITORIUM. 33 CLASSROOMS (1 STALL PER CLASSROOM = 33 STALLS) 550 STUDENTS (1 STALL PER EACH 300 STUDENT CAPACITY = 2 STALLS) 50 EMPLOYEES (1 STALL PER EMPLOYEE = 50 STALLS) NO AUDITORIUM (0 STALLS) TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 85 STALLS EXISTING PARKING = 145 STALLS PARKING REMOVED = -116 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING = 119 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 148 STALLS OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS SITE NOTES 1.ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2.ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3.ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4.ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 18' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 3.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7.BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. 8.SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING. 9.SEE THE CITY'S 2016 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAILS PLATES FOR STREET AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOGOS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT, 4" IN WIDTH. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE PAINT. 4.ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. 5.ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL. 6.ANY/ALL STOP SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 24" WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7.ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED 18" BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ZONING:PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC (PSP) PROPERTY AREA:19.99 AC DISTURBED AREA:7.41 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:2.77 AC (40.5%) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:3.74 AC (56.5%) SITE DATA SITE PLANC2-2W:\2015\15328A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 Site PlanPlotted: 05 /16 / 2017 8:16 AM