HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-2017 Council PacketEXPANDED AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, August 28, 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
COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M.
Community Room (not televised)
1. Review Regular Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.
Roll Call - Council Members Rafferty, Kusterman, Manthey, Maher, and Mayor
Reinert were present
Pledge of Allegiance
Open Mike / Public Comment - none
Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items
The agenda was approved as presented
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Certificate of Recognition - Austin Eisch, for Attaining the Rank of Eagle Scout
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) August 28, 2017 (Check No. 106544 - 106633) in the amt of $237,732.26
B) Consider Approval of August 7, 2017 Work Session Minutes
C) Consider Approval of August 14, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider Approval of August 14, 2017 Special Council Work Session
E) Consider Approval of Resolution No. 17-89, Adopting the General Records
Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities
F) Consider Resolution 17–91, Approving a Peddler License for Keyprime
Roofing and Remodeling
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Consent Agenda Items 1A through 1F, was adopted
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Approval of Resolution No. 17-88, Accepting Bid from Alpha
Video for the Council Chamber and Master Control Room System Upgrade,
Jeff Karlson
Council Agenda -2- August 28, 2017
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Resolution No. 17-88 as presented, was adopted
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 07-17 to Rezone Property from R-
X, Rural Executive to GB, General Business for All Seasons Rental/SS
Properties Addition (7932 Lake Drive), Katie Larsen
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Ordinance No. 07-17 as presented, was adopted: Yeas, 5; Nays none
B) Houle Addition Final Plat, Katie Larsen
i. Consider Resolution No. 17-86 Approving Final Plat
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Resolution No. 17-86 as presented, was adopted
ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-87 Approving Development Agreement
C) Consider Resolution No. 17-85 Approving an Amendment to Resolution No.
15-119 for 6602 Pheasant Run, Katie Larsen
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Resolution No. 17-85 as presented, was adopted
D) Consider Resolution No. 17-90, Accepting Water Storage Siting Study and
Authoring Geotechnical Evaluations, Michael Grochala
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Resolution No. 17-90 as presented, was adopted
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
August 28, 2017 through September 11, 2017
Wednesday, August 30 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board
Tuesday, September 5 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Tuesday, September 5 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board
Monday, September 11 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Monday, September 11 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, August 28, 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
COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M.
Community Room (not televised)
1. Review Regular Agenda
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
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Certificate of Recognition - Austin Eisch, for Attaining the Rank of Eagle Scout
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) August 28, 2017 (Check No. 106544 through 106633) in the
amount of $237,732.26
B) Consider Approval of August 7, 2017 Work Session Minutes
C) Consider Approval of August 14, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider Approval of August 14, 2017 Special Council Work Session
E) Consider Approval of Resolution No. 17-89, Adopting the General Records
Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities
F) Consider Resolution 17–91, Approving a Peddler License for Keyprime
Roofing and Remodeling
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Approval of Resolution No. 17-88, Accepting Bid from Alpha
Video for the Council Chamber and Master Control Room System Upgrade,
Jeff Karlson
Council Agenda -2- August 28, 2017
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 07-17 to Rezone Property from R-
X, Rural Executive to GB, General Business for All Seasons Rental/SS
Properties Addition (7932 Lake Drive), Katie Larsen
*Council may vote to dispense with full reading of ordinance
* Roll call vote is required for adoption of the ordinance
B) Houle Addition Final Plat, Katie Larsen
i. Consider Resolution No. 17-86 Approving Final Plat
ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-87 Approving Development Agreement
C) Consider Resolution No. 17-85 Approving an Amendment to Resolution No.
15-119 for 6602 Pheasant Run, Katie Larsen
D) Consider Resolution No. 17-90, Accepting Water Storage Siting Study and
Authoring Geotechnical Evaluations, Michael Grochala
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
August 28, 2017 through September 11, 2017
Wednesday, August 30 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board
Tuesday, September 5 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Tuesday, September 5 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board
Monday, September 11 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Monday, September 11 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : August 7, 2017 4
TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 10:00 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; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; Public Services Director 12
Rick DeGardner; Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson; City Clerk Julie Bartell. 13
14
1. Arlo Lane and Bald Eagle Boulevard Traffic Review – Chuck Rickert, WSB & 15
Associates, reported on the traffic study that was completed for the area. A speed count 16
was done and the speeds were found to be within the 30 mph threshold. They did a full 17
week of counts. They had a couple of peaks (speeders in the morning rush) that came in 18
over 50 mph. Based on existing conditions and overall study results, they are still 19
recommending no stop sign. He explained that putting in a stop sign where it isn’t 20
warranted actually causes a less safe situation. They recommend that monitoring 21
continue and direct police efforts based on study data. 22
23
Mayor Reinert suggested that it seems that it is a couple a people in the neighborhood that 24
are causing the problems. 25
26
Crystal Lynn, original requester of a stop sign, asked if the study data can be released. 27
She is currently taking down license numbers and watching herself. She is seeing kids on 28
phones driving and it is frightening. 29
30
Mayor Reinert asked Public Safety Director Swenson if those license number reports are 31
followed. Director Swenson said there is a visit if they live in the city or a phone call if 32
they don’t. 33
34
Another resident reported that it’s difficult to determine who was driving (car can be 35
registered to someone other than the drive) or where they are from. Some of the actions 36
that have been taken seem to slow things down. He agrees that a stop sign probably isn’t 37
the best approach but he favors the communication and enforcement recommended. 38
39
Community Development Director Grochala noted the community education element of 40
the staff recommendation; that will get the word out. 41
42
Mayor Reinert noted his neighborhood experience. The best approach to the problem has 43
been direct communications with the neighbors. 44
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
2
45
Staff was directed to proceed with the communication aspect, including a reminder to 46
speak to teenage drivers in the family. 47
48
Bald Eagle Boulevard - Community Development Director Grochala explained the 49
history of traffic issues in the area. 50
51
Chuck Rickert, WSB & Associates, reported on the results of their traffic study. They 52
found traffic speeding on a consistent basis. Their recommendation is installation of 53
driver dynamic signs to inform on speed. The other recommendation is to clear brush to 54
improve the sight line. He admitted that they don’t have a good idea of the pedestrian 55
situation because it wasn’t active during the study period. They are additionally 56
recommending a pedestrian advisory sign. 57
58
Community Development Grochala remarked that staff proposes to follow the 59
recommendations of the study and to return with information on the cost of the signs. 60
The cost is proposed to be funded through the Council contingency account. 61
62
Mayor Reinert suggested that staff inform the neighborhood on the project. 63
2. Comprehensive Plan Update – Kendra Lindahl , Landform, reviewed a 64
PowerPoint presentation, including: 65
- Open house feedback (including a meeting in a box result); receipt of a few requests for 66
specific actions on people’s property; 67
- Community Survey Results – safety came through very strong; top three are more retail, 68
upgraded trails and parks, and preserving public safety; 69
- Review of current comp plan, including future build out; 70
- Potential Land Use Study Areas – working with the Planning & Zoning group now; 71
some areas included are the checkerboard in the northwest corner of the city, sewer 72
staging issues in the south west quadrant where they will work with White Bear Lake, a 73
piece of property on the north edge of town for sewer staging, northern Lake Drive area, 74
the Waldoch area where there is interest in utilities to continue developing the current 75
use, the border on Elmcrest as far as what’s happening with the neighboring city and also 76
if the current mix makes sense, Peltier Lake property land use mix in light of the water 77
plans in the area, and the west side of 20th Avenue. 78
- EDAC has reviewed and that information will be returned to P&Z; 79
- Next Steps – participate at Blue Heron Days to get more engagement, back to Park 80
Board consideration, transportation review at Planning & Zoning Board, 81
environmental/surface water; Environmental Board review. 82
83
The mayor remarked that the difficult work has been done in the past and this round of 84
comp plan updating is really about tweaking. 85
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
3
3. Water Tower No. 3 Siting Report – Community Development Director 86
Grochala recalled that the city has a model predicting future public improvement needs. 87
The last plan identified the need for a third water tower in the city. The City’s 88
consultant, WSB & Associates, has been working on the plan and will present the study 89
results. 90
91
Greg Johnson, WSB & Associates, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation, outlining: 92
- Projections and growth for the city; additional water storage is recommended now; 93
- Existing and future storage needs – basis for evaluation was reviewed and also a chart 94
indicating demand and required storage; 95
- Current storage and recommendation to add more; 96
97
Council Member Kusterman noted that it appears that the usage has been decreasing. 98
Mr. Johnson suggested that less use is the new normal based on more efficiency and 99
conservation efforts; it will probably get to a point where those efforts bottom out 100
however. Mr. Grochala explained that there has been some new development that has 101
increased capacity. 102
103
Mayor Reinert noted that the recommendation pretty much doubles capacity and he 104
received confirmation that it would bring capacity to 35,000. 105
106
- Storage Types (about 75% of new towers being built are composite most likely because 107
of lower long term maintenance needs); 108
- Benefits of added storage (fire protection, water pressure, emergency storage); 109
- Storage Type Cost Comparison; 110
111
When the mayor asked how a project like this would be funded, Mr. Grochala said it 112
would be paid from through the Trunk Water Fund and the city would probably use 113
bonds. Mayor Reinert said that it could be a good situation to utilize the self-bonding that 114
has been discussed. He asked staff to bring that idea to the Finance Director. 115
116
- Site Evaluation – a map was shown with four possible sites. The city would be looking 117
at purchasing the necessary property so should think about ideal site characteristics. Staff 118
will seek more geotechnical information if the council directs moving forward. That will 119
include shadow studying to understand impact on residents; 120
121
Community Development Director Grochala explained that the cost of borings would be 122
in the range of $20,000 and he would bring that forward for council consideration later in 123
August. 124
125
Council Member Manthey remarked that the treatment of the city’s water needs to be 126
geared toward the best result for this community. Community Development Director 127
Grochala said the city’s water quality is very good. 128
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
4
4. Watermark-Lennar Revised Land Use Plan- City Planner Larsen recalled the 129
presentation in June of Lennar’s revised land use plan. There was some discussion of the 130
elimination of 40 foot lots and elimination of larger lots before. (A map of the revised 131
plan was shown on the large screen). The changes from the Mattamy to Lennar proposal 132
are included in the staff report and were reviewed by Ms. Larsen. 133
134
Planner Larsen said the development would like to submit their PUD Amendment plans 135
soon and staff felt the council should have the opportunity for review. Lennar is 136
interested in getting the project moving this fall. She introduced Joe Jablonski 137
representing Lennar Homes who was present to answer questions. A book of Lennar 138
home styles was submitted. 139
140
Mayor Reinert recalled that he had asked which products are anticipated for this 141
development. Mr. Jablonski explained that the color zones on the plan are tied to the 142
products in the booklet. For example, the townhomes would be tied to “colonial manor” 143
home styles. 144
145
When the council discussed the townhouse element, City Planner Larsen explained that 146
the city’s requirements will be in force for all elements. 147
148
Mayor Reinert said he’d like to discuss timing and scope. He feels that there is some 149
loss in no longer having a developer grabbing this as a whole who would start with a 150
community center and nice entrance. He sees this proposal as more of a vision than will 151
be chipped away at and there is some risk that it wouldn’t get finished. Mr. Jablonski 152
explained that Lennar Homes has contractual obligations with Mattamy that require 153
Lennar to purchase property in segments. They’d like to get going on that first segment 154
this year. 155
156
Mayor Reinert remarked that he’d prefer to take a step back and figure out the whole 157
project. He’d like to hear about any challenges that concern Lennar. He wants to go at 158
this all out with everything in place and mutual agreement. 159
160
Mr. Jablonski said he appreciates the comments but this is a big project for Lennar and 161
there’s little change that they can take on the whole thing at once. Knowing that markets 162
and other things can change. They are committed to an HOA amenity. 163
164
Community Development Director Grochala noted that the first purchase is about 130 165
acres, or one third of the site. Mr. Jablonski said the reason they are starting where they 166
are is related to sewer and water; he suspects that in year two there would be more room 167
for discussion about moving ahead to the middle (and the entrance features). 168
169
Mayor Reinert said he doesn’t feel the urgency to move on the development as presented. 170
He added that he doesn’t care for the back to back townhome element. 171
172
Mr. Jablonski explained the idea of embedding those units where they make sense. They 173
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
5
do allow for some diversity. City Planner Larsen reviewed the Mattamy proposal briefly. 174
It was a large first phase but staff understands the mayor’s concern; she added that the 175
build out on the area is and has been estimated at ten years. 176
177
Council Member Maher asked if the park shown in Phase 1 is the plan and Mr. Jablonski 178
said not this year but in Phase one, yes. 179
180
Council Member Kusterman remarked that this is a reputable firm who wants to work 181
with the city. He wonders if the risk is not greater with a smaller piece starting this year 182
than having half of the development done and then walk away. 183
184
Council Member Rafferty noted the example of NorthPointe and the size of the phases 185
that worked there – they were quite small. He is leaning to an understanding that the 186
smaller phases can work. 187
188
Council Member Manthey said he is looking at the investment involved here; he would 189
like to have a whole project as well but isn’t understanding how that can be guaranteed. 190
191
Council Member Maher asked why Lennar hasn’t purchased the entire site and Mr. 192
Jablonski said their business plan doesn’t call for those huge purchases and financially it 193
isn’t feasible. The business’ purchase agreement is for the whole property and they are 194
requesting approval of the plan for the whole thing. He added that Lennar is the biggest 195
homebuilder in the area so he’d wonder if there would be a company that could take on a 196
larger commitment than them. He is being honest about plans. He noted the park and 197
suggested that if it was built first, there would be no one to utilize it not to mention that 198
getting input on what people want in their park is an option if you wait until the people 199
are there. 200
201
City Planner Larsen explained Mattamy’s first phase plan in comparison to the Lennar 202
proposal. 203
204
Staff explained that the purpose of the discussion was to receive council comments on the 205
Lennar plans; they will take the comments received and more information will be 206
forthcoming. 207
5. City Paths and Planning for Them- Council Member Rafferty noted that the 208
council recently received a letter from some citizens who reside along a path in the city. 209
There was concern about plant growth along the path. He thought that it would be 210
appropriate to have an update about that type of vegetation situation from responsible city 211
staff. He’s also suggesting communication to developers who include paths in their work 212
to clarifiy what’s required. 213
214
Public Services Director DeGardner introduced Mike Hoffman, Parks Supervisor. 215
Director DeGardner noted that there are 30 miles of trails in the city and they are 216
inspected at least twice a year. There are some situations inherent to trails where 217
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
6
encroachments can occur; staff takes the position that encroachments are reported to 218
residents with time to rectify and, if not settled, it is done by the city. He noted that there 219
could be some confusion about property lines due to the non-exact nature of 220
encroachments that sometimes occur when the trails go in; that isn’t happening any more 221
with the current planning staff and use of outlot establishment for the trails but it has 222
happened in the past. 223
224
When Mr. DeGardner explained how staff manages the situation, Mr. Hoffman added 225
that staff attempts to educate residents through use of articles in the newsletter. 226
6. Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan- Community Development Director 227
Grochala and Environmental Coordinator Asleson reported. Mr. Grochala explained the 228
process that has brought the city forward to this point of having a revolving fund plan. 229
The plan includes maintenance as well. He reviewed the goal of the plan. 230
231
Mayor Reinert asked if there is a way to see how this ends or reaches the goal. What’s the 232
perspective? 233
234
Director Grochala said the concept has been to get the ball rolling. There is a bank now 235
and next the city will have to decide on an appropriate price. The plan is based on the 236
city’s existing greenway plan. It consists of two banks – Otter Lake and Woolan’s park. 237
He reviewed the site selection objectives and then six potential additional sites. The 238
report also identified options for wetland credit compensation. 239
240
Mayor Reinert asked about the maintenance liability and Director Grochala explained that 241
there is a plan in place (required) for long term maintenance and funding for that work is 242
included in the plan. 243
244
Director Grochala requested council approval to proceed with the plan (to next council 245
agenda). Mayor Reinert asked if the council is giving up any authority by passing the 246
plan and Mr. Grochala said no. 247
248
7. 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Update – Community Development 249
Director Grochala updated the council on the current state of the project (no petition was 250
received). This will be a very involved project (sewer and water, culvert replacement, 251
right of way acquisition) coming forward. Initially data collection will move forward 252
(i.e. well information, data from property owners). On LaMotte, there will be sump 253
pump information gathering connected to the high water level and the possibility of a 254
storm sewer in the project. He then reviewed the WSB & Associates proposal to prepare 255
the plans and specifications for the project. 256
257
Mayor Reinert asked if this is a feasibility study and Director Grochala said no, this 258
would be design (plans and specs) and engineering right up to the bidding. Mayor 259
Reinert recalled discussion with residents about when their input would occur and he 260
understands this is it. Director Grochala said part of the process will be meeting with 261
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
7
the residents, including in the field, and that will help to inform the design process. 262
263
Council Member Rafferty asked about administrative costs. Director Grochala said there 264
will be another contract proposal after the project is bid; that is standard process that 265
allows more understanding of what will be needed as far as administration. 266
267
Director Grochala continued to explain the process for this project that lays ahead. This 268
anticipates a 429 process for sewer and water if that is the way it goes; he feels there is an 269
expectation that sanitary sewer will be included. 270
271
Council Member Maher noted that the staff report includes language indicating that the 272
project design will include culvert replacement and a stormwater lift station on West 273
Shadow. She knows there is resident questions about those elements. Director Grochala 274
explained that the contract includes the cost of designing the lift station but that’s just to 275
ensure the cost is anticipated if it is needed and that hasn’t been decided and actually is an 276
element that staff would like to avoid. Mr. Grochala added that staff is working with the 277
watershed district and the state to explore opportunities for grant funding and also with 278
Anoka County since they own the golf course in the area. 279
280
The council concurred that staff will bring the matter forward for council consideration. 281
8. Centennial Fire District Unemployment Case Update – Administrator Karlson 282
reviewed his written report. The matter of unemployment benefits for a certain former 283
employee of the Centennial Fire District has been litigated and appealed. 284
285
The council discussed the history of the legal consideration of the matter, the financial 286
impact to the taxpayers of all involved, and the request of the Centennial Fire District 287
administration that the City pay a portion of the costs. The council concurred that the 288
City will not elect to pay for any of the unemployment costs. 289
9. Peddler/Solicitor/Transient Merchant Ordinance – City Clerk Bartell reviewed 290
her written report updating the council on the city’s regulations regarding door to door 291
sales. Council Member Maher asked if the city would be able to restrict the number of 292
licenses issued for a certain type of sales and the city clerk pointed out the League of 293
Minnesota Cities memorandum on this type of licensing that seems to guide cities away 294
from that type of restriction. 295
296
The council reviewed the information on license fees and discussed the possibility of 297
charging an investigation fee. Public Safety Director Swenson commented a very large 298
number of backgrounds have been performed by his staff recently, with a lot of staff time 299
involved, so he sees it is appropriate to charge something for that service. The council 300
will discuss the license and possible addition of an investigation fee when the city fee 301
schedule comes forward for consideration in the fall. 302
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017
DRAFT
8
10. Public Works Facility – Mayor Reinert explained that he has met with 303
staff and has received much more information on this subject and will be receiving more. 304
Perhaps that information will includes what he felt was lacking earlier. He feels it could 305
be beneficial for city officials to look at other facilities. 306
307
Council Member Manthey asked about the goal of touring other facilities. Administrator 308
Karlson can work with other city staff to arrange visits. Council Member Kusterman said 309
he’d be happy to share some documents that he has from the City of Shoreview and their 310
process of phasing improvements. 311
312
The council agreed on the date of Tuesday, August 22, 5:30 p.m. 313
7. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 314
8. Monthly Progress Report – Administrator Karlson reviewed the progress report. 315
This item included an update on the Laserfiche project by the City Clerk. 316
9. Review Regular Agenda – The agenda for the August 14, 2017 council meeting 317
was reviewed and there were no changes. 318
319
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 320
321
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 322
August 28, 2017. 323
324
325
326
327
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 328
329
COUNCIL MINUTES August 14, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
4
DATE : August 14, 2017 5
TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6
TIME ENDED : 8:05 p.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 (arrived at 6:40 p.m.); Community 12
Development Director Michael Grochala; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; City Engineer 13
Diane Hankee; City Planner Katie Larsen; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; and City Clerk Julie Bartell 14
15
PUBLIC COMMENT 16
17
No one was present to address the council regarding a matter not on the agenda. 18
19
SETTING THE AGENDA 20
21
The agenda was approved as presented. 22
23
SPECIAL PRESENTATION 24
25
Presentation of check to the Lino Lakes Police Department in appreciation for their 26
assistance with the 12th Annual Patriot Ride 27
Jim Woodruff explained how the Patriot Ride occurs and how much it has grown through the years. 28
The organization raises funds for children of the fallen military as well as in conjunction with a group 29
that supports law enforcement families. He presented a check in the amount of $500 to the Lino 30
Lakes Police Department in appreciation for their assistance with the 12th Annual Patriot Ride. He 31
added thanks for the efforts of the police department. 32
33
CONSENT AGENDA 34
35
Council Member Maher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1G, as presented. 36
Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 37
38
ITEM ACTION 39
40
Consideration of Expenditures: 41
42
August 14, 2017 (Check No. 106461 – 43
106543, $442,871.78 Approved 44
COUNCIL MINUTES August 14, 2017
DRAFT
2
45
July 24, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes Approved 46
47
July 24, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved 48
49
Consider Resolution No. 17-78, Authorizing Issuance of 50
a Special Event Permit for Waldoch Farms, Inc., Pumpkin 51
Patch and Corn Maze Approved 52
53
Consider Resolution No. 17-79, Approving a Peddler 54
License for Renewal by Andersen Approved 55
56
July 31, 2017 Special Work Session Minutes Approved 57
58
Consider Resolution No. 17-82, Approving Application 59
For Off-Site Gambling Permit for a raffle conducted by 60
Centennial High School Football Boosters at Chomonix 61
Golf Course Approved 62
63
FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 64
65
There was no report from the Finance Department. 66
67
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 68
69
There was no report from the Administration Department. 70
71
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 72
73
4A) Consider Hiring of Paid On-Call Firefighter – Public Safety Director Swenson 74
recommended that Jonathan Stalker be hired to the position. He reviewed the candidate’s experience 75
and certifications and noted that he would be assigned to Station #2, if hired. 76
77
Council Member Manthey moved to approve the hiring of Jonathan Stalker as recommended. 78
Council Member Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 79
80
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 81
82
There was no report from the Public Services Department. 83
84
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 85
86
6A) All Seasons Rental/SS Properties Addition (7932 Lake Drive) 87
i. Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 07-17, Rezoning from R-X Rural 88
Executive, to GB, General Business; 89
COUNCIL MINUTES August 14, 2017
DRAFT
3
90
City Planner Larsen reviewed a PowerPoint presentation including information on: 91
- Location of proposal for brand new facility; 92
- Request for rezoning and conditional use; 93
- Current location of business; 94
- Site plan including new building location; 95
- Access plans, delivery limitations, fencing plans; 96
- Dumpster location; 97
- Rendering of proposed building; 98
- Review of upper and lower level of building; 99
- Review of exterior plans for building; 100
- Rezoning request; 101
- Conditional Use request (based on business); 102
- Planning and Zoning consideration (received one comment from nearby resident about traffic 103
and parking of trucks) and recommendation for approval. 104
105
Mayor Reinert asked about the requests before the council; how can the ordinance receive second 106
reading in the future while the other actions go ahead before that? City Planner Larsen explained that 107
is how the actions are traditionally considered by the council and also language in the actions that 108
recognize that order. 109
110
Council Member Maher asked about continuing operations and the construction schedule. Ms. 111
Larsen said the business will continue in the current facility while construction is underway; there will 112
be no down time. Council Member Maher added that she has had very good experience with the 113
business. 114
115
Council Member Rafferty discussed with the business owner their plans for use of space and storage 116
of equipment. 117
118
Council Member Manthey moved to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 07-17, as presented. 119
Council Member Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 120
121
ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-80, Approving Preliminary Plat 122
123
Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 17-80, as presented. Council Member 124
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 125
126
iii. Consider Resolution No. 17-81, Approving Conditional Use Permit for 127
Commercial Planned Unit Development and Small Engine Repair 128
129
Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 17-81, as presented. Council Member 130
Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 131
132
6B) Resolution No. 17-83, Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications, 2018 133
Street Reconstruction Project, West Shadow Lake /LaMotte – Community Development Director 134
COUNCIL MINUTES August 14, 2017
DRAFT
4
Grochala reviewed the authorization that would be granted by passage of this resolution. He noted 135
the council’s approval of a street reconstruction plan and preliminary authorization for issuance of 136
general obligation bonds. That plan includes West Shadow/LaMotte and a long term phase (not 137
included in this approval). He noted the required waiting period that has closed without receipt of a 138
petition. The procedure of a street reconstruction project was reviewed. This resolution approves a 139
contract for design and delivery of plans and specifications. The next question that comes to the 140
council for a vote would be authorization for easement land acquisition once that need is understood. 141
The next would be approval of the plans and specification with a call for bids and finally execution of 142
a contract for the project. If sewer and water are included, there could be additional actions. There 143
will be separate actions related to the issuance of bonds. He spoke further on soil and water matters 144
that could have an impact on the project. Mr. Grochala noted that at this time WSB and Associates 145
have submitted their proposal to design the plans and specifications. This would begin the process of 146
designing the improvements that would be included in the project. Regarding the schedule, he 147
reported that the council will be kept aware throughout the process and the public will be welcome at 148
any of those updates. There will be a project website that will include up to date information and 149
plans. The culvert replacement element of the project will be bid separately. Projects would 150
commence in spring of 2018 and wrap up about one year later. 151
152
When Council Member Rafferty asked about roadway access for homeowners on West Shadow Lake 153
Drive during culvert replacement, Director Grochala said there are preliminary discussions underway 154
with Anoka County about a temporary access through the golf course. 155
156
Council Member Manthey asked if the 2007 project study will be useful as a new one is developed 157
and Mr. Grochala explained that it was completed by TKDA and data will be utilized as much as 158
possible. 159
160
Community Director Grochala noted communications received from a resident about phasing and 161
separate council approvals. He explained the elements of the project and that the council doesn’t 162
typically break apart the actions for consideration. The final design process will include opportunity 163
for full review and discussion. If there is a desire for additional public input, that could be added; 164
ultimately the council controls the process. 165
166
Mayor Reinert noted that this project is 28 years in the making; if it becomes obvious that another 167
meeting is necessary, that will happen. He noted that there have been four feasibility studies and they 168
each cost city funding; he wants staff assurance that this $500,000+ contract will result in the required 169
information. Director Grochala concurred. 170
171
Mayor Reinert asked about the sewer and water element. Mr. Grochala explained that there is already 172
sewer in the LaMotte neighborhood and it will be updated as part of the project. For LaMotte, if 173
water is run in, it would include cooperation with Centerville. There would be discussion and 174
decisions made by the property owners and the improvements would be special assessment driven. 175
For West Shadow Lake Drive, there seems to be demand for sanitary sewer and perhaps some interest 176
on water. There will be an evaluation and a project driven by property owners. That may be a late 177
October, early November discussion. 178
179
COUNCIL MINUTES August 14, 2017
DRAFT
5
Council Member Kusterman asked if the dollar amount of the proposed contract is not to be 180
exceeded. That was confirmed by staff. Council Member Kusterman remarked that he doesn’t 181
believe that either staff or the council will lose understanding of need for continuing resident 182
participation. 183
184
City Engineer Hankee added that in addition to the city and WSB, there will be involvement of 185
several other agencies and engineering resources in this project. 186
187
Council Member Maher remarked that this is a project that needs to be done. What makes her 188
uncomfortable is the action of entering this contract with WSB for a final design document; she 189
wonders, what if the design isn’t acceptable? Director Grochala explained that staff will be involved 190
in the design process throughout, the council will be updated each month and can review each phase, 191
and there will be base parameters at the onset. On the matter of purchasing property, there can be no 192
offer without council authorization. 193
194
Mike Trehus, 675 Shadow Court, addressed the council. He asked the city engineer how much of the 195
road length will have storm sewer and Ms. Hankee explained two sections that would remain rural. 196
He asked how deep the storm sewer system would go in the north section or how deep it could go. 197
Ms. Hankee remarked that deeper means more cost and less feasible. Mr. Trehus noted that, with 198
storm sewer, there is a .2% grade needed but he may have heard a different incline planned. Ms. 199
Hankee said typically they design to a minimum of half a percent grade. Mr. Trehus asked what 200
criteria will be used in design – he wonders because there is more than one option going forward; 201
what kind of information do they need to do a design? Ms. Hankee said there are different opinions 202
in the neighborhood about what should be done; a main goal is to protect the environment while 203
hearing the needs of the neighborhood. There will be factors that come up in the design process and 204
they will bring them to the neighborhood. 205
206
Mayor Reinert explained the requested action. He thinks some questions are a little early at this 207
point. If there are questions about the ordering of the design, that would be appropriate. 208
209
Mr. Trehus said his concern is about the way things are structured and that it could reach a point 210
where it is too late to change course. There is no decision making past this until the plans and specs 211
go out for bid. 212
213
Mayor Reinert asked about the process and timeline ahead; what would be the date where design 214
comes forward for council consideration? Staff said it would be March 2018. Mayor Reinert 215
indicated that timeframe allows for a lot of conversation, including with Mr. Trehus and other 216
residents, including for design recommendations that are coming forward. 217
218
Mr. Trehus asked the City Engineer if it would be cumbersome to accommodate a preliminary design 219
approval in the process ahead. Mayor Reinert said the city is actually past preliminary design and is 220
looking at forming a final design plan. He wants to give all residents a chance to speak. But tonight 221
the agenda request is before the council and he’d like to stick to that. 222
223
COUNCIL MINUTES August 14, 2017
DRAFT
6
Council Member Kusterman suggested that the final design recommendations will undoubtedly come 224
forward with appropriate reasoning so that information should come forward for Mr. Trehus. 225
226
Mr. Trehus showed a map from the 2005 feasibility study showing the project area. What the city 227
proposed then is a lift station and pond in someone’s yard. He asked the city engineer about another 228
idea, utilizing catch basins and storm water being moved by gravity. The alternate plans would take 229
away the lift station. Ms. Hankee said staff is looking at all suggestions being offered by residents. 230
231
Mayor Reinert asked how Mr. Trehus’ point affects the action considered by the council tonight. Mr. 232
Trehus asked for no interruption and then left the meeting. Mayor Reinert remarked that the council 233
has to stay on topic based on the agenda, especially when he knows that there will be plenty of time to 234
deal with questions along the way. 235
236
Community Development Director Grochala remarked that the bottom line that will guide decisions 237
will be that which is best for those people who are paying for the project. 238
239
Council Member Manthey remarked that there will be points all through the design process that 240
allows for explanation for the residents and time for comment. He believes that over time, more 241
clarity will be there. 242
243
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-83 as presented. Council Member 244
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Member Rafferty abstained 245
from voting. 246
247
6C) Consider Resolution No. 17-84, Accepting Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan – 248
Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the written report: 249
- Outlining the history of identifying property appropriate for wetland banking; 250
- Review of the benefit to the city of wetland banking; 251
- Previous council consideration to set up a bank; 252
- The planning and certification process for wetland banking; 253
- Environmental Board review and recommendations. 254
255
Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-84 as presented. Council Member 256
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 257
258
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 259
260
There was no Unfinished Business. 261
262
NEW BUSINESS 263
264
There was no New Business. 265
266
COMMUNITY EVENTS 267
COUNCIL MINUTES August 14, 2017
DRAFT
7
BLUE HERON DAYS will be held August 18th, 19th and 20th. Please view the City of Lino Lakes 268
website for the schedule of events. 269
270
COMMUNITY CALENDAR 271
272
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 273
August 14, 2017 through August 28, 2017 274
August 18-20 Blue Heron Days 275
Monday, August 28 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 276
Monday, August 28 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting 277
278
ADJOURN 279
280
There being no further business, Council Member Kusterman moved to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Council 281
Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 282
283
These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, August 28, 2017. 284
285
286
287
288
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 289
290
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION August 14, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : August 14, 2017 4
TIME STARTED : 8:15 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 9:15 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; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; Finance Director Sarah 12
Cotton; Public Services Director Rick DeGardner; City Clerk Julie Bartell. 13
14
1. 2017 Budget – Finance Director Cotton indicated that at the last budget discussion the 15
council requested further discussion of the following budget items: 16
17
- Salary rate adjustment for the Community Development Director; 18
- Retaining police officer position after grant funding ends; 19
- New position in Utility Division. 20
21
Community Development Director Salary - Administrator Karlson explained the review 22
that has occurred that indicates a below market average salary this city’s director; past 23
that he feels that the current director especially deserves this increase. 24
25
Mayor Reinert asked if the administrator intends to request salary increases for other 26
positions. Administrator Karlson suggested that a full compensation study would shed 27
light on where positions stand in the market, up or down. Currently his only request is 28
for the Community Development Director. Mayor Reinert asked if it would make more 29
sense to look at all the positions at once; he’d prefer for the council to consider the 30
subject and then not have to talk about it for a period. 31
32
Council Member Rafferty remarked that cities with larger population are apt to pay more 33
for these positions. He wonders if there a happy medium where the council can focus; a 34
place that would be more in line with this city’s population? Mayor Reinert asked if 35
population is the only indicator. Council Member Kusterman said he understands that 36
looking at similar population cities is a way to start discussion and give some basis; but 37
he is also concerned that the staff cannot be treated as a commodity. 38
39
Council Member Manthey asked for more information on the manager positions in the 40
city; how are their salaries set initially and how do they move up. Administrator Karlson 41
noted that there is a six step salary range and people do reach that ceiling; there is some 42
concern with retaining good employees. In addition to the steps, there are raises based 43
on inflation (COLA). 44
45
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION August 14, 2017
DRAFT
2
Mayor Reinert remarked that there is a raise system inherent. However he feels there can 46
be bumping up occurring at cities that then causes other cities to feel they have to follow. 47
Mayor Reinert also remarked that there can’t be a comparison to the private sector 48
because those salaries have dropped. Again the mayor said he’d like a full review. 49
50
On the police officer position that will no longer be paid by grant funds, Mayor Reinert 51
said he supports the position. The council concurred. Council Member Kusterman 52
commented that the safety of the city is highly important. 53
54
On the utility maintenance position requested in Public Works, Mayor Reinert noted that 55
he understands it is enterprise funded. Ms. Cotton explained that there is no impact to 56
the General Fund but the water and sewer enterprise funds would be impacted and they 57
are driven by rates. Director DeGardner noted that the responsibilities within that 58
division have grown and the utility system has expanded. He has held off on requesting 59
the position for several years but now he feels it is prudent to act. Council Member 60
Rafferty asked how this fits into the future retirement of the Utility Supervisor. Mr. 61
DeGardner said this position is intended for current needs; the retirement will be another 62
strong need in the future. The budget impact is noted on Page 91, with impacts to the 63
water and sewer fund individually. Mayor Reinert said he supports the new position. 64
The council concurred. 65
66
On the matter of the 3rd Community Service Officer position for the Police Department 67
that is on hold based on ACE Program participation, Mayor Reinert asked why the 68
vehicle for that positon isn’t a vehicle moved down from within the fleet. Director 69
Swenson explained the individual demands of that position (including animal control) 70
and the need for a truck. Mayor Reinert asked the Public Works Director if there are 71
trucks that could be passed down to the CSO function, and Director DeGardner said all 72
vehicles are being fully used. 73
74
The council moved on to review of the tax levy. Finance Director Cotton pointed out that 75
while the city will be seeing a reduction in debt service it will soon be impacted by 76
payments coming on line for the street reconstruction project. The mayor pointed out that 77
there will be unused funds from 2017 that will lower the 2018 figures. Ms. Cotton said 78
there are two buckets of money the council has traditional looked at: utilizing the city’s 79
surplus down to a 50% level; and seeking funding through revenue or expenditure 80
changes. Mayor Reinert asked if staff would like to perform that last exercise and Ms. 81
Cotton said yes, and she added that it’s usually occurred after the council adopts the 82
preliminary levy. Administrator Karlson remarked that the management team has worked 83
very hard this year to bring in numbers that are very close to the bone. Mayor Reinert 84
suggested that would be 2018 numbers though, not 2017; Mr. Karlson said it was a 85
combination of both. 86
87
Ms. Cotton explained how close the city’s projections for this year are matching with 88
actual current revenue and expenditures. Mayor Reinert suggested that he believes 89
there’s interest in taking the 54 down to 50, utilizing that 325, and guestimate savings in 90
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION August 14, 2017
DRAFT
3
the range of $200,000 to $250,000 in 2017 funds. The mayor confirmed that the council 91
has enough information to move forward for the next council review; he added that he’d 92
also like to see percentages included. 93
94
Council Member Kusterman asked if this is the time to discuss the subject of parks and 95
trails capital projects. The council should be thinking right now about biting the bullet to 96
keep those amenities updated and in the plans; the residents need the facilities. Mayor 97
Reinert said he’d support annual funding to the Park Board at some level to ensure a 98
steady flow of funding for necessary improvements. Council Member Kusterman asked 99
about the Century Farm park and trail area; he is concerned that the situation be rectified. 100
Mayor Reinert asked about the cost of the trail connection that was discussed and staff 101
said the numbers are under consideration. Council Member Manthey suggested that it 102
would be helpful to have a plan to guide funding decisions. Director DeGardner pointed 103
out information in the budget about the highest priorities for park improvements and 104
development. The council discussed the general cost of replacing park equipment. 105
106
Director DeGardner explained that staff has an opinion about where there is the most 107
replacement/upgrade need and also information on retrofitting. Council Member 108
Rafferty noted that he has done a site visit to the city parks and has seen much equipment 109
in good shape and some that needs replacement; all the playground structures seem to be 110
in good shape. Director DeGardner also noted that there are fifteen playground structures 111
that are at least fifteen years old. The council discussed the concept of retrofitting. 112
113
Council Member Kusterman expressed his concern that the equipment needs to be 114
upgraded to keep up with the times. 115
116
Mayor Reinert said he’s hearing $100,000 funding for 2018 with council direction on 117
some of the funding and the Park Board making a recommendation on some. 118
119
The budget will be discussed again at the work session on August 28 and the next regular 120
work session. 121
122
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 123
124
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 125
August 28, 2017. 126
127
128
129
130
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 131
132
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM IE
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2017
TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-89, Adopting the General Records Retention
Schedule for Minnesota Cities
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Minnesota Statutes, Section 138.17, relates to government records and authorizes cities to plan
for the management and disposal of city data by adoption of a retention schedule. The City of
Lino Lakes has adopted the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities (MN
Retention Schedule).
BACKGROUND
In 2017, the general schedule was updated by the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers
Association (MCFOA) and the State now recommends that cities adopt the new document.
The City is not required to adopt the general schedule in its entirety and staff has been informed
by the Public Safety Department of the appropriateness of adopting a separate schedule for
their police and fire records. The separate schedule is called for because the City of Lino
Lakes Public Safety Department houses its records with other Anoka County law enforcement
agencies and they have developed a countywide records retention schedule.
The attached resolution approves the adoption of the general schedule for all city records
except police and fire for which a separate schedule is adopted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 17-89, Adopting the General Records Retention
Schedule for Minnesota Cities.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-89
ADOPTING THE GENERAL RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR
MINNESOTA CITIES.
WHEREAS, the purpose of a records retention schedule is to provide a plan for
managing government records by giving continuing authority to dispose of records under
Minnesota Statutes section 138.17; and
WHEREAS, the General Records Retention Schedule establishes minimum retention
periods for city records based on their administrative, fiscal, legal and historical value; and
WHEREAS, this schedule was originally developed by the Minnesota State
Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division and the Minnesota
Historical Society, Division of Archives and Manuscripts and was funded in part by a grant
from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission; and
WHEREAS, from time to time the retention schedule is updated by city clerks and
officials representing the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association (MCFOA); and
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department participates with other Anoka
County fire and police agencies in the Anoka County Public Safety Data System (PSDS) for
creation and maintenance of all fire and police records. To ensure efficient management of the
PSDS a countywide records retention schedule as it relates to fire and police records has been
created; thus the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department will continue to maintain a separate
retention schedule consistent with PSDS retention schedule; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of utilizing the most current records retention schedule,
staff is asking Council to adopt the latest General Records Retention Schedule, dated May
2017, and the future schedules as amended from time to time. Therefore, future revisions
may be automatically implemented, without further formal Council action.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes:
That the City Council hereby adopts the General Records Retention Schedule, as
amended from time to time, with the exception of the sections entitled Police and Fire; and
That the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department will adhere the PSDS countywide records
retention schedule as it relates to fire and police records, a separate retention schedule as created
by the Joint Law Enforcement Council Public Safety Data System.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this ___ day of _______, 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 1F
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy Clerk
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2017
TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-91, Approving a Peddler License for
Keyprime Roofing and Remodeling
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
BACKGROUND
Keyp rime Roofing and Remodeling, 6960 Madison Avenue W, Suite 8, Golfen Valley,
Minnesota has submitted a peddler’s license application to the city clerk's office. The
company representative who will be working in Lino Lakes is Belynda Brown. She plans
to travel through the Lino Lakes’ neighborhoods setting up appointments for free
estimates.
The City has received all the necessary forms required to issue this company a license.
The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department has performed background checks and
indicated no reason to deny the application.
The application and all other required information is on file in the city clerk's office for
review.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution No. 17-91, Approving the issuance of a peddler license for Keyprime
Roofing and Remodeling.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
RESOLUTION NO. 17-91
APPROVING A PEDDLER LICENSE FOR KEYPRIME ROOFING AND
REMODELING
WHEREAS, Keyprime Roofing and Remodeling, has submitted a peddlers license application
to the city clerk's office; and
WHEREAS, Keyprime Roofing and Remodeling, has complied with all of the provisions of
Chapter 613 of the Lino Lakes City Code for obtaining the necessary license for a for-profit
business; and
WHEREAS, a background check on the company representative who will be working in Lino
Lakes have been completed by the Public Safety Department;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes,
Minnesota:
Belynda Brown of Keyprime Roofing and Remodeling, is hereby authorized to vend for a period
of six-months beginning August 28, 2017 and ending February 28, 2017.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 28th day of August, 2018.
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 3A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2017
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-88, Awarding Bid to Alpha Video &
Audio, Inc. for HD Visual System Upgrade
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting Council authorization to accept bids and to award a contract to the lowest
bidder, Alpha Video, for the Council Chamber and Master Control Room Audio-Visual System
Upgrade.
BACKGROUND
The audio-visual system upgrade includes installation of an HD video system, as designed by Z
Systems, to replace the existing standard definition system. This new system will be composed
of the following subsystems:
1. Four remote-controlled HD video cameras;
2. Two audience and nine dais video monitors;
3. Nine dais microphones;
4. A podium system, which includes a document camera;
5. One handheld wireless mic system for use throughout the chambers;
6. A touchscreen-controlled video switching system with integrated graphics capabilities;
7. A digital audio mixer, which will control all the audio input;
8. One hard-disk based video recording system (an existing DVD recorder will also be
integrated into the system;
9. Video and audio monitoring for the control room;
10. One network switch for data networking of all the equipment detailed above;
11. All necessary ancillary equipment, cabling and parts detailed in Z Systems’ design;
12. One workstation console and associated equipment rack detailed in Z Systems’ design;
13. One HD video/audio encoder to transport the content form the chamber HD video
system to the North Metro Television master control system in Blaine.
The City received the following bids: (1) Alpha Video--$96,220.19; and (2) Z Systems--
$111,631.47. The bids were checked for accuracy.
Staff estimated the cost of equipment replacement to be around $150,000. There are a couple
of reasons for the lower bid amounts. First, we felt a Crestron control system and full-blown
Xpression for motion graphics was an unnecessary expense, which brought the cost way down.
Secondly, Z Systems put forth a serious effort to get our business, which may have resulted in
more competitive pricing. The biggest difference between the two bids was labor and
materials.
Alpha Video included an optional one-year service agreement in the amount of $4,210, which
is not included in the bid price. Staff recommends accepting the one-year service agreement to
ensure the City receives immediate service in the event any equipment acts up or breaks down.
The cost for this project will be paid from the Cable TV Special Revenue Fund, in which the
current reserve is $189,000. The cost of replacing the dais and podium countertops, which will
be an additional $15,000, will also come out of this fund reserve.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-88, as follows: (1) accepting the low bid of
$96,220.19 from Alpha Video & Audio, Inc. for the Council Chamber and Master Control
Room audio-visual system upgrade; and (2) approving optional one-year service agreement in
the amount of $4,210.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution 17-88
Alpha Video Proposal
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-88
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT
TO ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO, INC. FOR AUDIO-VISUAL SYSTEM UPGRADE
WHEREAS, a request for proposal for the Council Chamber and Master Control Room Audio-
Visual System Upgrade was mailed to various audio-visual companies and was posted on the
City’s website; and
WHEREAS, following bids were received and checked for accuracy:
Alpha Video & Audio, Inc.: $96,220.19
Z Systems, Inc. : $111,631.47
WHEREAS, the lowest bidder was Alpha Video & Audio, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to proceed with the
replacement of audio-visual equipment in the Council Chamber and Master Control Room.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lino Lakes City Council does
hereby accept the low bid submitted by Alpha Video in the amount of $96,220.19.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the optional one-year service
maintenance agreement proposed by Alpha Video in the amount of $4,210.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 28th day of August 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
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIG INATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2017
TOPIC: Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 07-17 to Rezone
Property from R-X, Rural Executive to GB, General Business for
All Seasons Rental/SS Properties Addition (7932 Lake Drive)
*Council may vote to dispense with full reading of ordinance
* Roll call vote is required for adoption of the ordinance
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration of the second reading of the Ordinance No. 07-
17 to rezone property from R-X, Rural Executive to GB, General Business for All Seasons
Rental/SS Properties Addition.
Complete Application Date: June 13, 2017
60-Day Review Deadline: August 12, 2017
120-Day Review Deadline: October 11,2017
Environmental Board Meeting: July 26,2017
Park Board Meeting: N/A
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: July 12, 2017
City Council Work Session: August 7, 2017
City Council Meeting: August 14, 2017
Tentative City Council Meeting (2nd Reading): August 28, 2017
BACKGROUND
The applicants, Scott and Shelly Carlson submitted a land use application for Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit. They own and operate All Seasons Rental,
currently located at 7392 Lake Drive. They have purchased the vacant 1.3-acre commercial
parcel directly to the south with the intent to construct a new 7,740 s.f. commercial facility and
demolish the current facility.
The City Council Staff Report dated August 14, 2017 details the proposed project.
2
Rezoning
The west half of the existing parcel is zoned GB, General Business. The east half is zoned R-
X, Rural Executive. The vacant commercial and remnant parcel are zoned GB, General
Business. The R-X, Rural Executive portion shall be rezoned to GB, General Business to be
consistent with the other parcels.
The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on July 12, 2017. The Board found the
proposal meets the criteria for rezoning as detailed in Ordinance No. 07-17.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board and staff recommend approval of Ordinance No. 07-17. The first
reading of the ordinance was approved by Council on August 14, 2017.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Ordinance No. 07-17
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
§¨¦I-35WLAKE DRLAKE DRMAIN STMAIN ST
79TH ST79TH ST
OAK LNOAK LNJANE AVEJANE AVEWAYNE CTWAYNE CTMMAARRIILLYYNNDD RR
VICKY LNVICKY LN
81ST ST81ST ST
JAMES STJAMES ST
SHEILA AVESHEILA AVEDANUBE STDANUBE STDDIIAANNEESSTTBARBARA LNBARBARA LN
LOIS LNLOIS LN
OOAAKKCCTTHIGHLAND TRLHIGHLAND TRL
HENRY LNHENRY LN
CCOOUUNNTTRRYYLLNNWOODDUCK TRLWOODDUCK TRLMMYYRRTTLLEE LL NN
HIGHLAND DRHIGHLAND DR
ARLO LNARLO LN EELLBBEESSTTBBLLUUEEBBIILLLLLLNNCCAARROOLLEEDDRRKKEELLLLYYSSTT
KNOLL DRKNOLL DRAAEENNOONNPPLLNNAANNCC
YY
DDRR
NOTTINGHAM LNNOTTINGHAM LNMEADOW VIEW TRLMEADOW VIEW TRLSite Location Map µ
All Seasons Rental7932 Lake Drive
Date: 7 /6/2017
0 200 400100
FeetLAKE DRLAKE DR79TH ST79TH ST SHEILA AVESHEILA AVEVICKY LN
VICKY LN
KELLY STKELLY ST
JAMES STJAMES ST
895895
79167916
892892
R-1X
R-1X
R-X
R-1XR-1 GB
GB
R-1X
R-1X
R-X
R-1
R-1
GB R-X
GB RR-1
R
R-X
793793
761761 767767
79847984
79117911
752752 774774
78917891
79897989
840840 880880820820
79207920
79287928
79367936
826826
884884
848848 854854
823823
835835
79397939
79437943
859859
79357935 79327932
847847 853853
757757 763763751751
790790762762
775775 789789785785
875875
79327932
79607960 860860
829829 871871
820820 878878
888888
79407940
86086079477947
865865
855855
799799
841841
79107910
7799TTHH SSTT SHEILA AVESHEILA AVEVVIICCKKYY
LL
NNKKEELLLLYYSSTTJAMES STJAMES ST
Zoning Map µ
LinoLakesMN.DBO.Zonin gDistrictZoning Description
Rura lRural ExecutiveSingle Family ResidentialSingle Family ExecutiveTwo Family Reside ntia lMedium Density Residen tialHigh Density ResidentialManufactured Home ParkLimited BusinessGeneral BusinessNeighborhood BusinessGeneral In dustrialLight IndustrialRural/Business ReservePublic Semi-PublicPUD
Date: 7 /6/2017
1
1st Reading: Publication:
2nd Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 07-17
ORDINANCE TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-X, RURAL EXECUTIVE TO
GB, GENERAL BUSINESS FOR ALL SEASONS RENTAL/SS PROPERTIES
ADDITION (7932 LAKE DRIVE)
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains:
Section 1: Findings of Fact
1. The City received a Land Use Application to rezone certain property from R-X,
Rural Executive to GB, General Business.
2. The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on July 12, 2017.
3. Per Section 1007.015 (5), the Planning and Zoning Board shall consider possible
adverse effects of the proposed rezoning and its judgement shall be based upon,
but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies
and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
All Seasons Rental is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The parcels
are guided commercial and the retail rental business is consistent with that land use. The
development is also consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in
regards to resource management, transportation, utilities and local water management
plan.
(b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of
the area.
All Seasons Rental is compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Land
uses surrounding the subject site are guided for commercial development, mixed use and
residential.
(c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein.
All Seasons Rental conforms with all performance standards with some minor revisions
as detailed in the July 12, 2017 Planning & Zoning staff report.
2
(d) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will
not overburden the City’s service capacity.
All Seasons Rental can be accommodated with existing public services. The new facility
will be served by an 8” PVC sanitary sewer and a 12” DIP watermain located along
Kelly Street. The proposed commercial building will not overburden the City’s service
capacity for either water or sanitary sewer.
(e) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving
the property.
Traffic generated by All Seasons Rental is within capabilities of the streets serving the
property. CSAH 23/Lake Drive is a minor arterial reliever street. Kelly Street is a local
street.
Section 2: Amendment
The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Lino Lakes is hereby amended to zone the
following described property to GB, General Business.
Section 3: Legal Description
The parcel is depicted on Exhibit A attached herein and legally described as follows:
PARCEL A:
That part of the North 135.00 feet of the west 248.50 ·feet of the South Half of the
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 31, Range
22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 8, except
that part taken for road, according to the United States Government Survey thereof,
Anoka County, Minnesota.
AND
PARCEL B:
The North 135.00 feet of the east 80 feet of the west 328.50 feet of the South Half of the
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 9, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka
County, Minnesota.
AND
Lot 1, Block 1, PINE GLEN, Anoka County, Minnesota.
AND
All that part of Lot 5 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 100, Anoka County, Minnesota,
described as follows:
3
Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Lot 5; thence Southerly on the East line of
said Lot 5, 88.62 feet; thence Westerly at right angles, 46.34 feet, more or less, to the
Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 (being the Southeasterly right of way line of old
Highway 8, now County State Aid Highway No. 23); thence Northeasterly along said
Northwesterly line to the point of beginning, except Parcel 39, Anoka County Highway
Right-of-Way Plat No. 17, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Section 4: Development Regulations
The development shall conform to the plans, requirements, and conditions of approval as
listed in Council Resolution No. 17-80 and No. 17-81.
Section 5: Effect
This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication
according to the Lino Lakes City Charter.
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
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2017
TOPIC: Houle Addition
i. Consider Resolution No. 17-86 Approving Final Plat
ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-87 Approving Development
Agreement
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration of the Final Plat and Development Agreement for
Houle Addition.
Complete Application Date: July 21, 2017
60-Day Review Deadline: September 19, 2017
120-Day Review Deadline: November 10, 2017
Environmental Board Meeting: N/A
Park Board Meeting: N/A
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: August 9, 2017
Tentative City Council Work Session: August 28, 2017
Tentative City Council Meeting: August 28, 2017
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Guy Houle, GRH Contracting, submitted a land use application for final plat. The
preliminary plat was approved for 1 lot, 1 outlot. Mr. Houle has decided to final plat the entire
parcel as just 1 lot and no outlot to avoid Wetland Conservation Act requirements of wetland
buffers, monument staking and conservation easements. In the future, Mr. Houle may final plat
the outlot as approved with the preliminary plat.
The proposed development is a 1 lot single family residential subdivision located at the north end
of Ruffed Grouse Road. The development contains one 30.72 gross acre parcel and is called
Houle Addition.
2
The following staff report is based on the following information:
• Revised Civil Plans and Preliminary Plat prepared by Kaskaskia Engineering Group,
LLC dated August 15, 2017
• Final Plat prepared by Kaskaskia Engineering Group, LLC received July 21, 2017
Previous Council Actions:
• July 10, 2017: Resolution No. 17-63 approving Preliminary Plat
ANALYSIS
Subdivision Ordinance
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
The parcel is guided low density residential and zoned R-1X, Single Family Executive. The final
plat is compliant with the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance. The 1 lot final
plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat.
Blocks and Lots
The approved preliminary plat is for 1 lot and 1 outlot. The final plat is for 1 lot, 0 outlots. The
parcel requires a final plat because the underlying legal description is Outlot D, Pheasant Hills
Preserve and outlots are not buildable lots. The final plat contains Lot 1, Block 1, Houle
Addition. The preliminary plat has been revised and the contiguous buildable land area better
defined.
Required per
R-1X Lot 1
Min. Lot Size
(contiguous buildable land) 12,825 s.f.
26,526 s.f.
(0.61 acres)
Gross Lot Size NA
1,338,460 s.f.
(30.72 acres)
Min. Lot Width 90 feet (interior lot) 915 feet
Min. Lot Depth 135 feet 220 feet
For practical purposes, the lot width and lot depth are being measured off of the preliminary plat
Lot 1 where the house is being constructed.
3
Streets and Alleys
Lot 1 (future single family house) has frontage along Ruffed Grouse Road that has 60 feet of
platted right-of-way. Lot 1 also has frontage along CSAH 34/Birch Street. No street
improvements are required.
Easements
Standard drainage and utility easements at least 10 feet wide have been provided along all lot
lines. The wetland has been protected by a drainage and utility easement that includes a 10 foot
buffer extending outward from the delineated wetland boundary.
The requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act regulations as administered by Rice Creek
Watershed District (RCWD) requiring a conservation easement and wetland buffer over the
wetlands are not applicable since the parcel is technically not being subdivided.
Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control
Per the submitted Grading and Utilities Plan Sheet 5, land disturbance is 9,632 square feet which
is under the 10,000 square foot threshold for erosion control. A rock construction entrance and
silt fences are proposed on site. No stormwater management facilities are proposed and drainage
appears to occur on site.
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
An 8” PVC sanitary sewer main along Ruffed Grouse Road will serve Lot 1. There is an 8”
sanitary plug at the end of the main.
Watermain
A 6” DIP watermain along Ruffed Grouse Road will serve Lots 1. There is a 6” watermain plug
at the end of the main.
Public Land Dedication
The Park, Natural Open Space, Greenways and Trail System Plan do not indicate a future
neighborhood park within the area. Since the parcel is not being subdivided, park dedication
fees will not be required.
Tree Preservation
The goal of tree preservation is to minimize unnecessary loss of habitat, biodiversity and forest
resource and to replace removed trees in areas where tree cover is most critical. Several trees
have been removed from the entire site prior to submittal of the land use application. The
4
Grading and Utility Plan, Sheet 05 identifies 2 trees on Lot 1 of the preliminary plat and that
these trees are not being impacted. A tree inventory is not required for Outlot A of the
preliminary plat since no development is proposed.
Landscaping
Plan sheet 05 indicates one (1) boulevard tree (maple tree). This satisfies the boulevard tree
requirement.
Building Requirements
A building permit is required for the construction of the single family home. City staff will be
review the permit and structure for compliance regarding setbacks, floor area, garage and design
and construction standards.
Comprehensive Plan
Houle Addition is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in regards to
resource management, land use, housing, transportation and utilities.
Density and Land Area Calculations
The following chart implements Met Council’s formula for calculating net density.
Gross Area (acres) 30.72
Wetlands & Water Bodies 22.12
Public Parks & Open Space NA
Arterial ROW NA
Other (Wetland Buffer) 1.11
Net Area (acres) 7.49
# of Units 1
Gross Density (units/acre) 30.72
Net Density (units/acre) 7.49
The subject site is guided low density residential development and allows for 1.6 to 3.9 units per
net acre. The upland area of Lot 1 per the preliminary plat is 0.93 acres. Houle Addition meets
the land use goals of low density residential development by constructing a single family home
on 0.93 upland acres.
5
Wetlands
A Wetland Delineation Report was completed by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC on May 23,
2017. Since no future development is to occur on the potential future Outlot A, delineation is
only required on Lot 1 near the single family house. A WCA Notice of Decision was received on
August 10, 2017.
The requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act regulations as administered by Rice Creek
Watershed District (RCWD) requiring a conservation easement and wetland buffer over the
wetlands are not applicable since the parcel is not being subdivided. Any future subdivision of
the parcel will be subject to WCA, RCWD and City requirements.
Floodplain
The 2015 DFIRM indicates Zone A floodplain on both Lot 1 and Outlot A. The plan sheets have
been revised to indicate a RCWD floodplain base flood elevation (BFE) of 886.87. Grading and
house construction do not appear to impact the floodplain.
Shoreland Management Overlay
The site is located in a Shoreland Management Overlay district of Wards Lake. This lake is a
classified as a Natural Environment Lake and has an 883.7 OHWL elevation. A setback of 150
feet from the OHWL is required for all primary and accessory structures. Section 1102.07(2)(a)
does however, allow for the following exception:
“Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and
facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on
both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to
conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed
building site is not located in a shore impact zone.”
The plans show the 883.7 OHWL and staff understands this elevation has now been field
surveyed. The OHWL setback of 6697 Ruffed Grouse Road is 56.3’ and the OHWL setback of
6690 Ruffed Grouse Road is 92.1’. The average setback is 74.2’. The 75’ shore impact zone is
the more restrictive and shall be the applicable setback.
The Grading Plan indicates 2.31% impervious surface coverage which meets the allowed 30%
impervious surface coverage of the shoreland ordinance.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement has been drafted by the City and shall be executed by the City and
the developer and recorded by the developer.
6
Title Commitment
The title commitment shall be updated within 3 months of recording the final plat.
Stormwater Maintenance Agreement
Since there are no stormwater management facilities being constructed with this development, a
stormwater maintenance agreement is not required.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the Houle Addition final
plat on August 9, 2017. The vote was 6-0. Staff is recommending approval of the following
items with conditions as listed:
1. Resolution No. 17-86 Approving Final Plat
2. Resolution No. 17-87 Approving Development Agreement
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Location Map
2. Resolution 17-86
3. Final Plat
4. Resolution 17-87
5. Development Agreement
0 2,000 4,0001,000
Feet
AMELIA LAKEOHWL 908.1FIRM BFE 910FIS BFE 910.2
WARDS LAKE
SHERMANLAKERESHANAU LAKEOHWL 883.5FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
CENTERVILLE LAKEOHWL 885.0FIRM BFE 888FIS BFE 887.9
MARSHAN LAKEOHWL 883.3FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
GEOR GEWATCHLAKE
CEDAR LAKEOHWL892.9
Lino Lakes
Centerville
Site Location Map µ
Houle Addition
CSAH 34/Birch Street
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-86
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT
FOR HOULE ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for Final Plat approval for Houle
Addition hereafter referred to as “Development”; and
WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the proposed “Development” based on
the following plans and information:
• Revised Civil Plans and Preliminary Plat prepared by Kaskaskia Engineering
Group, LLC dated August 15, 2017
• Final Plat prepared by Kaskaskia Engineering Group, LLC received July 21,
2017; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on June 14,
2017 and the Board recommended approval of the Houle Addition Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council the Preliminary Plat with Resolution No. 17-63; and
WHEREAS, Planning & Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the
Houle Addition final plat at the August 9, 2017 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is not considered premature and meets the
performance standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino
Lakes hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The final plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat subject to the
conditions listed below.
2. The City Attorney shall approve the status of title/property ownership related to the
final plat subject to the conditions listed below.
3. A Development Agreement has been completed.
4. Conditions attached to approval of the preliminary plat have been fulfilled or
secured by the Development Agreement.
5. All fees, charges and escrow related to the preliminary or final plat have been paid
in full.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby
approves the final plat Houle Addition, subject to the following conditions:
2
1. All comments from City Engineer letter dated August 3, 2017 shall be addressed.
2. All comments from Environmental Coordinator letter dated August 2, 2017 shall
be addressed.
3. A Development Agreement has been drafted by the City and shall be executed by
the City and the developer and recorded by the developer.
4. General Comments:
a. All plan sheets shall note the correct revision date.
5. Wetlands:
a. All plans and final plat shall be revised to reflect the WCA approved
delineated boundary.
6. Sheet 03, Preliminary Plat:
a. Under Notes, #2 shall be revised from 30’ to 10’.
7. Sheet 04, Preliminary Plat:
a. Density chart shall be revised to include under “Other” the area of the
wetland buffer.
b. The legend indicates a shaded area for “Contiguous Buildable Area” but
the plans do not show the same shading. Please revise.
8. Final Plat
a. An updated title commitment (within 3 months) shall be provided.
b. The City Attorney shall review the title commitment and final plat prior to
release of the final play mylars.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 28th day of August, 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 OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-87
RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR HOULE ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final plat for Houle Addition with Resolution No.
17-86 on August 28, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City’s subdivision ordinance and conditions of approval require the execution
of a development agreement between the Developer and the City of Lino Lakes.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
hereby approves the Development Agreement between Guy R Houle, Jennifer L Houle and
Joseph L Houle and the City of Lino Lakes for Houle Addition and authorizes the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute such agreement on behalf of the City.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 28th day of August, 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
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
HOULE ADDITION
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of ____________, 2017, by and between the City
of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and Guy R. Houle, Jennifer L. Houle, Joseph L.
Houle “Developer”.
1. Subdivision. Developer received preliminary plat approval from the City by Resolution No.
17-63 for a plat known as Houle Addition “Subdivision”. Unless otherwise stated, all terms
and conditions of this Agreement relate to work within the Subdivision.
2. Final Plat Approval. The City’s approval of the final plat of Houle Addition, as legally
described on Exhibit A attached hereto, is contingent upon execution and delivery of this
agreement and all required petitions, bonds, security, and documents, and satisfaction
of all conditions of approval required by Resolution No. 17-86. The Final Plat is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
3. Phased Development. Not Applicable.
4. Developer Plans.
a. The Subdivision shall be developed in accordance with the following Developer
Plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Engineer. The Developer
Plans may be prepared and revised after entering into this Agreement but must
be approved by the City before commencement of any work. If the plans vary
from the written terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall control.
b. The Developer Plans as of the date of this Agreement are:
i. Houle Addition plans containing 7 plan sheets, prepared by Kaskaskia
Engineering Group, dated August 15, 2017.
ii. Houle Addition Final Plat, prepared by Kaskaskia Engineering Group,
submitted on July 21, 2017.
5. Permits. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all site grading and
development approvals and permits from all appropriate Federal, State, Regional and
Local jurisdictions prior to the commencement of site grading or construction.
6. Developer Improvements.
The Developer shall construct and install at the Developer's expense the following:
a. Site Grading
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 2
i. Not Applicable.
ii. All site grading shall be conducted in accordance with the grading plan as
approved by the City.
b. Grading and Erosion Control
i. The Developer shall grade the site to within 0.2 foot of the grades shown
on the approved grading plan. No deviations will be allowed unless a
revised plan is submitted and approved by the City and all other
regulatory agencies.
ii. The Developer shall promptly clear dirt and debris within public right-of-
ways and drainage and utility easements resulting from construction by
the Developer, its purchasers, builders and contractors within five (5)
days after notification by the City. The Developer shall be responsible for
all necessary street and storm sewer maintenance, including street
sweeping, until all home construction is completed, unless otherwise
released by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards
develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on them, including
detour signs if necessary. If and when the streets become impassable,
such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain
a smooth, hard driving surface and adequate drainage on all temporary
streets.
c. The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all
other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be placed after all
street and lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the lot markers
for future property owners. Lot corner irons on the back property line shall be
installed so that the top of the iron corresponds to the finished ground elevation
in accordance with the approved grading plan. Guard stakes shall be
appropriately installed to mark these irons.
d. The Developer shall arrange for all gas, telephone, cable TV and electric utility
services to the Subdivision in accordance with City Code and State law. The
Developer is solely responsible for the cost of utility installation.
7. Time of Performance. Not Applicable.
8. City Improvements. Not Applicable.
9. Record Drawings. A record plan of the final grading shall be submitted in accordance
with City Code section 1007.049 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Security. Not Applicable.
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 3
11. Warranty. Not Applicable.
12. Dedication. The Developer shall dedicate to the City, at no cost to the City, any
permanent or temporary easements that may be necessary for the construction and
installation of the Developer Improvements. All such easements required by the City
shall be in writing, in recordable form, containing such terms and conditions as the City
shall determine.
13. Ownership of Improvements. Not Applicable.
14. Recording and Release. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Development
Agreement shall be a covenant on any and all property included in the Subdivision. The
Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Development
Agreement with the Anoka County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and
owners. This shall be recorded against the Subdivision described on Page 1.
15. Escrow for City’s Costs. Not Applicable.
16. Developer Fees. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall pay
the following fees related to the development of the Subdivision (See Exhibit C for
breakdown of costs):
a. Park Dedication – Not Applicable.
b. Aerial Photo Fees– Not Applicable.
c. Trunk Sewer Unit Charges
The City established trunk unit charges to uniformly distribute the costs of public
trunk sanitary sewer infrastructure. Each individual connection to the sanitary
sewer system shall be charged a unit charge per SAC unit (currently at $3,073 per
SAC unit). The calculation of the SAC units shall be based on the procedure
outlined in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Availability
Charge Procedure Manual. Trunk sewer unit charges addressed under this
paragraph are in addition to any SAC charges imposed by Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services.
Each individual connection shall be charged a lateral service fee of $40.00 per
front foot for 90 feet.
An estimate of the total trunk charge and lateral fees are specified in Exhibit C.
d. Trunk Water Unit Charges
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 4
The City established trunk unit charges to uniformly distribute the costs of public
trunk water infrastructure. Each individual connection to the water system shall
be charged a unit charge per SAC unit (currently at $4,069 per SAC unit). The
calculation of the SAC units shall be based on the procedure outlined in the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Availability Charge
Procedure Manual.
Each individual connection shall be charged a lateral service fee of $37.50 per
front foot for 90 feet.
An estimate of the total trunk charge and lateral fees are specified in Exhibit C.
e. Surface Water Management Area Charges
The City established a trunk area charge to uniformly distribute the costs of
public trunk surface water infrastructure and water quality improvements. The
Surface Water Management Charge shall be based on developable acreage. The
developable acreage is the amount specified in Exhibit C.
17. Assessment of Charges and Waiver of Rights.
a. In consideration of the construction of City Improvements listed in Paragraph 8
and /or provision of sewer, water and storm water services, the Developer
agrees that the costs of City Improvements together with Trunk Sewer Unit
Charge, Trunk Water Unit Charge and the Surface Water Management Area
Charge (collectively, “the Charges”) may be assessed against the Subdivision
parcels. The Developer hereby waives any and all procedural and substantive
objections to the special assessments, including notice and hearing
requirements, any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the
properties, and any right to appeal.
18. Building Permits. A building permit is required for the construction of a single family
house and related accessory structures.
19. Special Provisions. Not Applicable.
20. Hours of Construction Activity.
All construction activity shall be limited to the hours 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
21. Insurance. Not Applicable.
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 5
22. Developer’s Default. Not Applicable.
23. 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 Subdivision and
shall be deemed covenants running with the land, unless otherwise released
pursuant to section 14 of this Agreement.
b. 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 Development Agreement.
c. 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 mailed by United
States mail to the addresses below by certified mail (return receipt requested).
Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally
or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of
the parties are as set forth until changed by notice given as above.
Developer
Attn: Guy R. Houle, Jennifer L. Houle, Joseph L. Houle
4417 Channel Lane NE
East Bethel, MN 55092
Community Development Director
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 6
DEVELOPER CITY OF LINO LAKES
By __________________ _ By _________________________
Mayor
Its ______________________ ATTEST
By _________________________
DEVELOPER City Clerk
By __________________ _
Its ______________________
DEVELOPER
By __________________ _
Its ______________________
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
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 7
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
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF __________ )
On this _______ day of _______________, 2017, before me, a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared ____________, __________________ of
___________________. Developer, who executed the foregoing instrument.
______________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF __________ )
On this _______ day of _______________, 2017, before me, a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared ____________, __________________ of
___________________. Developer, who executed the foregoing instrument.
______________________________
Notary Public
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 8
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF __________ )
On this _______ day of _______________, 2017, before me, a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared ____________, __________________ of
___________________. 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
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 9
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
OUTLOT D PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE, EX N 1100 FT THEREOF ALSO EX S 400 FT OF N
1500 FT OF E 600 FT OF SD OUTLOT, ALSO EX THAT PRT OF SD OUTLOT DESC AS FOL:
COM AT SE COR OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF SEC 27 TWP 3 1 RGE 22, TH N 01 DEG 00 MIN 55
SEC W ALG E LINE OF SD W1/2 57.73 FT TO SE COR OF SD OUTLOT & POB, TH CONT N 01
DEG 00 MIN 55 SEC W ALG SD E LINE 910.02 FT TH S 89 DEG 22 MIN 49 SEC W 580.47
FT, TH S 01 DEG 00 MIN 55 SEC E PRLL/W SD E LINE 548.90 FT, TH N 89 DEG 22 MIN 49
SEC E PRLL/W S LINE OF SD 1/4 416 FT, TH S 01 DEG 00 MIN 55 SEC E PRLL/W SD E LINE
370.14 FT TO NLY R/W LINE OF CSAH NO 10, TH N 85 DEG 24 MIN 36 SEC E ALG SD R/W
LINE 28.66 FT, TH CONT ALG SD R/W LINE ALG A CUR CONC TO N (WHICH HAS A RAD OF
3879.72 FT A DELTA ANG OF 02 DEG 00 MIN 31 SEC & ARC LENGTH OF 136.02 FT) A
CHORDBRG OF N 86 DEG 24 MIN 53 SEC E 136.01 FT TO POB, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
Houle Addition
Development Agreement
August 28, 2017
page 10
EXHIBIT B
Final Plat
8/18/2017
EXHIBIT C
Securities, Escrows & Fees
PROJECT: HOULE ADDITION NUMBER OF REU's:1
APPLICANT: Guy R. Houle, Jennifer L. Houle, Joseph L. Houle
IMPROVEMENTS COST
DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT COSTS (Public)
SITE GRADING $0
EROSION CONTROL $0
LANDSCAPING $0
TRAIL $0
STREETS $0
STORM SEWER CONST.$0
SANITARY SEWER CONST.$0
WATERMAIN CONST.$0
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING $0
Total $0
Letter of Credit Amount X 150%$0
ESCROW for CITY'S COSTS
ADMINISTRATION $0
ENGINEER PLAN REVIEW $0
ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $0
PROJECT FINAL DOCUMENTS & CITY ENGINEER $0
STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION $0
STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE $0
BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING $0
Total $0
DEVELOPMENT FEES
PARK DEDICATION $0
PARK DEDICATION CREDIT $0
Subtotal Park Dedication Fee $0
SEAL COATING FEE $0
AERIAL PHOTO FEE $0
STREET LIGHTING OPERATION $0
Total $0
TRUNK SANITARY SEWER $3,073
SANITARY SEWER LATERAL $40/FT $3,600
TRUNK WATERMAIN $4,069
WATERMAIN LATERAL $37.50/FT $3,375
TOTAL TRUNK SEWER & WATER FEES $14,117
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT $1,823
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CREDIT
TOTAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES $1,823
Total $15,940
SUMMARY OF SECURITIES, ESCROW & FEE
SECURITY DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT COSTS $0
ESCROW FOR CITY'S COSTS $0
DEVELOPMENT FEES
CASH $0
CASH OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT $15,940
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2017
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-85 Approving an Amendment to
Resolution No. 15-119 for 6602 Pheasant Run
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council’s consideration to approve an amendment to Resolution No.
15-119 in regards to a variance for an attached garage and detached accessory structure at 6602
Pheasant Run.
BACKGROUND
On October 14, 2015, the Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval of a 10 foot
variance to allow the property owner, Dylan Lindman, to construct an attached garage 30 feet
from the lot line along CSAH 34/Birch Street. The required setback is 40 feet.
On October 26, 2015, the City Council passed Resolution No. 15-119 approving a 12 foot
variance to allow for the construction of an attached garage 28 feet from the lot line. The
property owner requested the additional 2 feet.
Per Resolution No. 15-119:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
hereby approves of a 12 foot variance to reduce the required setback from 40 feet to 28 feet
along Birch Street to allow for the construction of an attached double garage at 6602 Pheasant
Run, subject to the following conditions:
1. The detached shed in the northeast corner of the lot, found in violation of city
ordinances, shall be relocated onto the applicant’s property.
2. The accessory structure shall meet the requirements of §1007.043 General Building and
Use Provisions.
3. The accessory structure shall meet all other city code and state building code
requirements.
4. A building permit shall be submitted for by the applicant and approved by the City of
Lino Lakes prior to construction.
The property owner thought the variance applied to both the attached double garage and
detached shed. He relocated the detached shed onto the property 26.8 feet from the south lot
2
line (1.2 feet closer to the lot line than the approved attached double garage). Technically, the
resolution only allowed for a setback variance for the attached double garage, not the detached
shed. The detached shed should be 40 feet from the south lot line and 5 feet from the rear lot
line.
The property owner does not want to relocate the detached shed again and is requesting the
variance to include the detached shed at 26.8 feet.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the location of the detached shed and does not see any issues with its current
location. It appears to be located 5 feet from the rear property line and 26.8 feet from the lot
line along CSAH 34/Birch Street. The structure does encroach into the rear 10 foot drainage &
utility easement and an Easement Encroachment Agreement is required.
The detached shed is approximately 18’ x 18’ (324 s.f.) and the attached garage is
approximately 22’ x 36’ (792 s.f.). The combined total of accessory structures is 1,116 s.f.
which is under the allowed 1,200 s.f. threshold.
At the August 9, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board recommend 6-0 to
approve the variance amendment to allow the detached shed be located 26.8 feet from the lot
line along CSAH 34/Birch Street.
Resolution No. 17-85 details the Findings of Fact.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board and staff recommend approval of Resolution No. 17-85 for a
variance amendment to Resolution No. 15-119 to allow the detached shed be located 26.8 feet
from the lot line along CSAH 34/Birch Street for 6602 Pheasant Run subject to conditions
listed in the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2015 Aerial Map
2. 2017 Aerial Map
3. Certificate of Survey
4. Resolution No. 15-119
5. Resolution No. 17-85
6. Easement Encroachment Agreement
0 50 10025
Feet
66106610
6602660266016601
66096609
PHEASANT RUN SPHEASANT RUN SPHEASANT RUNPHEASANT RUN2017 Aerial Map6602 Pheasant Run µ
Relocate d Detached Shed
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 15-119
RESOLUTION APPROVING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 6602 PHEASANT RUN
WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City for the approval of a variance at 6602
Pheasant Run, said property legally described to -wit:
Lot 32, Block 5, Lakes Addition No. 2; and
WHEREAS, review and approvals of variances are governed by state statutes and City
ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council makes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.
The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is to establish performance standards intended
to assure compatibility of uses, prevent blight and to enhance the health, safety and general
welfare of the residents of the community.
Approving this variance request for an attached accessory structure doesn't pose a threat to the
health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood. In fact, since no attached accessory
structure is present on the applicant's property (6602 Pheasant Run) approving this variance
request will enhance the atmosphere in the neighborhood as Lino Lakes requires all dwellings to
have, at minimum, a double garage.
2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant's property is
intended for a Single Family dwelling as such, current zoning ordinances require dwellings to
have, at minimum, a double garage.
3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as
used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are
not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, as the construction of
a double garage is considered a reasonable use of the property. The practical difficulty in
complying with the 40' setback from Birch Street's right-of-way creates a situation where the
applicant cannot construct a double garage unless the variance is approved.
4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and was not created
by the landowner. The current landowner recently purchased the property and did not construct
the house without a garage.
5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality by maintaining the 30 foot —
40 foot setbacks found along other Birch Street corner properties. Accessory structures such as
garages are common features found throughout Lino Lakes residential districts.
6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for
property in the zoning district where the subject site is located.
Accessory structures are permitted as Accessory Uses in the R-1, Single Family Residential
District.
7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered
construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning
ordinance.
Not applicable.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
hereby approves of a 12 foot variance to reduce the required setback from 40 feet to 28 feet
along Birch Street to allow for the construction of an attached double garage at 6602 Pheasant
Run, subject to the following conditions:
1. The detached shed in the northeast corner of the lot, found in violation of city ordinances,
shall be relocated onto the applicant's property.
2. The accessory structure shall meet the requirements of § 1007.043 General Building and
Use Provisions.
3. The accessory structure shall meet all other city code and state building code
requirements.
4. A building permit shall be submitted for by the applicant and approved by the City of
Lino Lakes prior to construction.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 26th day of October, 2015.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
Rafferty and was duly seconded by Council Member Roeser and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof:
Rafferty, Roeser, Stoesz, Reinert
The following voted against same:
None (Absent — Kusterman)
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-85
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
RESOLUTION NO. 15-119 FOR 6602 PHEASANT RUN
WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City to amend Resolution No. 15-119 regarding
a variance for an attached garage and detached accessory structure at 6602 Pheasant Run, said
property legally described to-wit:
Lot 32, Block 5, Lakes Addition No. 2; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2015, the City Council passed Resolution No. 15-119 approving a
12 foot variance to allow for the construction of an attached garage 28 feet from the lot line
along CSAH 34/Birch Street, and
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 15-119, the detached shed in the northeast corner of the lot
shall be relocated onto the applicant’s property, and
WHEREAS, the property owner thought the variance applied to both the attached double garage
and detached shed and relocated the detached shed onto the property 26.8 feet from the south lot
line along CSAH 34/Birch Street, and
WHEREAS, the property owner requested the variance Resolution No. 15-119 include both the
attached double garage and detached shed, and
WHEREAS, review and approvals of variances are governed by state statutes and City
ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council makes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.
The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is to establish performance standards intended
to assure compatibility of uses, prevent blight and to enhance the health, safety and general
welfare of the residents of the community.
Approving this variance request for an attached accessory structure and detached shed does not
pose a threat to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood. In fact, since no
attached accessory structure is present on the applicant’s property (6602 Pheasant Run)
approving this variance request will enhance the atmosphere in the neighborhood as Lino Lakes
requires all dwellings to have, at minimum, a double garage.
2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2
The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant’s property is
intended for a Single Family dwelling as such, current zoning ordinances require dwellings to
have, at minimum, a double garage. Detached accessory structures (sheds) are also consistent
with single family dwellings.
3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as
used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are
not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, as the construction of
a double garage and relocation of a detached shed are considered a reasonable use of the
property. The practical difficulty in complying with the 40’ setback from Birch Street’s right-of-
way creates a situation where the applicant cannot construct a double garage unless the
variance is approved.
4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and was not created
by the landowner. The current landowner recently purchased the property and did not construct
the house without a garage.
5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality by maintaining a 26-28 foot
setback similar to the 30 foot setbacks found along other Birch Street corner properties.
Accessory structures such as garages and detached sheds are common features found throughout
Lino Lakes residential districts.
6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for
property in the zoning district where the subject site is located.
Accessory structures (attached and detached) are permitted as Accessory Uses in the R-1, Single
Family Residential District.
7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered
construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning
ordinance.
Not applicable.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
hereby passed Resolution No. 15-119 to approve of a 12 foot variance to reduce the required
3
setback from 40 feet to 28 feet along the south lot line (CSAH 34/Birch Street) to allow for the
construction of an attached double garage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby amends
Resolution No. 15-119 to include approval of a 13.2 foot variance to reduce the required setback
from 40 feet to 26.8 feet along the south lot line (CSAH 34/Birch Street) to relocate an existing
detached shed at 6602 Pheasant Run with the following conditions:
1. The property owner shall enter into an Easement Encroachment Agreement with the City
and pay for the recording of the document.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 28th day of August, 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
Revised 01/01/2017
CITY OF LINO LAKES
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
PLEASE CHECK WHICH STRUCTURE APPLIES:
We/I, _____________________________________and _________________________________,
(single person(s) or husband and wife) property owner(s) of a parcel of property legally
described as:
and known as (address): __________________________________hereby acknowledge on this
_____ day of ___________________, in the year of __________ that ( I or we) are aware of the
following described requirements of the City of Lino Lakes in regard to structures and other
encroachments:
A. Structural encroachment shall not be allowed on any drainage and utility easement unless
the following criteria apply to said property:
1. The encroachment is not located within the 100-year high water elevation of an
existing lake, storm water pond, or wetland.
2. The drainage will not be affected by the approved structure or other encroachment
on the easement.
B. The encroachment construction is done at the property owners own risk. If drainage
and/or utility improvements on this easement become a problem in the future, the
property owner(s) may be required by the City to remove the easement structure and
regrade the easement, at the property owner(s) expense.
C. All other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are enforced. This agreement shall
become a part of the property record and apply to all present and future property owners.
The placement of the approved structure or other encroachment shall be located in
accordance with the Site Plan, attached here to as Exhibit A
OWNER ________________________________________
___________________________________
Revised 01/01/2017
State of Minnesota )
) ss.
County of Anoka )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________________, by
(month/day/year)
______________________________________________________________________________
(insert name and marital status of each Grantor)
______________________________________________________________________________
(notary stamp) ______________________________
Notary Public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF LINO LAKES
By__________________________ Attest: _________________________________
Mayor 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
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
The City of Lino Lakes Building Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
651-982-2420
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2017
TOPIC: Consideration of Resolution No. 17-90, Accepting Water Storage
Siting Study and Authorizing Geotechnical Evaluation
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting council authorization to accept the Water Storage Siting Study and Authorize
Geotechnical Evaluation (soil borings) on four identified sites.
BACKGROUND
The City’s water system is designed to meet The American Water Works Association standards
for system pressure and supply. The water system consists of water storage, water supply and a
network of pipes. The City is responsible to continually review the system and complete
improvements as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The City has two existing water storage tanks 1 million gallons each. The Comprehensive Plan
outlines the need for additional water storage. Thus the water system was further evaluated using
hydrant flow tests and water system modeling. The evaluation confirmed the need for additional
water storage within the next two years.
The City Council authorized WSB & Associates to preparation a water storage feasibility study
in December of 2016. The Water Storage Siting Study evaluated the size and type of storage,
potential sites, impact to City water distribution system, and cost. Multiple sites throughout the
City were considered based on elevation, ownership, proximity to trunk water lines and site
access. The recommendations from the study are attached, and summarized as follows:
• Four preferred sites were identified along the Birch Street corridor. Geotechnical
Evaluations should be performed on the sites to determine suitability.
• The recommended storage size is 1.5 million gallons
• The recommended tower type is a Composite Elevated Water Storage Tank
The City Council discussed the draft study at the August 7, 2017 work session and had questions
regarding how long composite have been in use and the cost difference for a smaller 1.0 million
gallon tank.
Regarding the track record for composite water towers, the first one in the United States was
constructed in Southlake, Texas in 1985. Some composite water towers in Canada have been
around since the last 1970’s.
WSB prepared a comparison of estimated costs for a 1 MG hydropillar and composite water
tower and a 1.5 MG hydropillar and composite water tower. The estimated cost for a 1 MG
composite water tower is about $850,000 less than a 1.5 MG composite water tower. However,
as shown in the table below, the unit cost per gallon for a 1 MG composite water tower is 18.4
percent more expensive than a 1.5 MG composite water tower.
Additionally, a 1 MG water tower would only provide enough storage until about Year 2030
based on WSB’s projections. The 1.5 MG water tower would provide enough storage until Year
2040. The additional 0.5 MG of storage capacity would provide ten additional years of storage
until a fourth water tower is required in the future (beyond Year 2040).
Style 1.5 MG Water Tower Cost Per Gallon
Hydropillar $4,301,250 $2.87
Composite $4,069,350 $2.72
Style 1 MG Water Tower Cost Per Gallon
Hydropillar $3,273,000 $3.28
Composite $3,218,000 $3.22
Based on the report recommendations staff is requesting council authorization to complete a
geotechnical evaluation of the identified sites. This process would include performing
subsurface soil borings, classifying and analyzing the soil samples, discuss groundwater issues,
discuss frost susceptibility and prepare recommendations for foundation support. The completed
analysis will aid in determining a preferred site for the project. WSB has submitted a proposal to
complete borings at each of the four sites for a lump sum fee of $15,800. Funding for the
evaluation is from the Trunk Utility Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending adoption of Resolution No. 17-90, Accepting the Water Storage Siting
Study and Authorizing Geotechnical Evaluation on the preferred sites.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 17-90
2. Water Tower Siting Study
3. Proposal for Water Storage Geotechnical Evaluation
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-90
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WATER STORAGE SITING STUDY AND
AUTHORIZING GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
WHEREAS, the City’s water system is in need of additional water storage to maintain American
Water Works Association standards for system pressure and supply, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on December 12, 2016 authorized a Water Storage Siting Study
to evaluate the location and type of storage necessary to provide system improvements in the
most cost-effective manner; and
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates, the City Engineer, has completed said report
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
that the Water Storage Siting Study, dated August 7, 2017 is hereby accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that staff is authorized to execute a proposal with WSB and
Associates, for Geotechnical Evaluation on the potential tower sites in the amount of $15,800.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 28th day of August, 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
SITING STUDY
WATER STORAGE SITING STUDY
ANOKA COUNTY | LINO LAKES | MINNESOTA
August 7, 2017
Prepared for:
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-44
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44
WATER STORAGE SITING STUDY
FOR THE
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
August 7, 2017
Prepared By:
477 Temperance Street | St. Paul, MN 55101 | (651) 286-8450
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
August 7, 2017
Michael Grochala
Community Development Director
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44
Dear Mr. Grochala:
The City of Lino Lakes is evaluating the construction of additional water storage to meet its current and
future water demands. WSB prepared this study report to compare storage options and potential
locations for a new water storage facility and provide recommendations.
We are available at your convenience to discuss this report. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Greg F. Johnson, PE
Project Manager
Attachment
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Greg F. Johnson, PE
Date: August 7, 2017 Lic. No. 26430
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 2
2.PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.EXISTING AND FUTURE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 4
3.1 Determining Needed Storage ............................................................................................. 4
3.2 Lino Lakes Existing Storage ............................................................................................... 4
4.STORAGE TYPE ............................................................................................................................. 8
4.1 Elevated Tank (Water Tower) .................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Ground Storage Reservoir ......................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Life Cycle Cost Comparison ...................................................................................................... 9
4.4 Comparison of Life Costs ......................................................................................................... 11
5.IDENTIFICATION AND ANAL YSIS OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS ............................................ 12
5.1 Site Identification ...................................................................................................................... 12
5.2 Site Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12
5.3 Analysis Results ....................................................................................................................... 12
6.RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Existing Water System
Figure 2 – Tower 3 Study Locations
APPENDIX A: WATER SYSTEM MODELING RESULTS
Existing System
Figure A-1 – Site 1 Modeling Results
Figure A-2 – Site 2 Modeling Results
Figure A-3 – Site 3 Modeling Results
Figure A-4 – Site 4 Modeling Results
APPENDIX B: 2007 WATER STORAGE STUDY
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 2
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Lino Lakes requested that WSB perform a water storage siting study based on
recommendations that the City construct additional water storage capacity to meet water demands and
fire fighting requirements. For the study, tank size, type, location, and the hydraulic impact on the
distribution system were evaluated. To determine tank size, the following parameters were considered:
• Population projections
• Water use data
• Existing storage and production capacity
• Fire fighting needs
Based on the analysis, WSB recommends the City construct a 1.5 million gallon reservoir to serve the
existing and future development. After determining the recommended volume, three types of storage
tanks were evaluated: 1) fluted column elevated tower; 2) composite elevated tower; and 3) ground
storage reservoir. The capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, and 50-year life-cycle costs were
calculated and the results are shown below. The cost analysis shows that over time, a composite style
water tower will be the most cost effective option.
Option Estimated Capital
Cost Including
Engineering, Bidding,
and Construction
Services
Estimated 50 Year
Operation and
Maintenance Cost
Total Capital and
O&M Cost
Concrete Ground Storage
Reservoir and Booster
Station
$6,059,248 $902,000 $6,961,248
Fluted Column Style Water
Tower
$4,301,250 $3,600,000 $7,901,250
Composite Style Water
Tower
$4,069,350 $2,112,000 $6,181,350
Five potential water tower sites were discussed with City staff and selected for further consideration. Each
site was modeled using Bentley WaterCAD software to analyze how multiple elevated tanks in various
locations of the City would balance with each other and impact the water distribution system. Because the
five locations were all centrally located within the water distribution system and were located near the well
field, modeling results did not vary significantly between the various locations. The phasing of future
development, as well as property ownership, will have a greater impact on location feasibility. It is
recommended that the sites deemed most feasible undergo a geotechnical evaluation with soil borings
prior to site acquisition and preliminary design to determine if any above-and-beyond structural
requirements (ex. structural pilings) would be necessary and would therefore impact the overall cost of
the project.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 3
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Water storage is provided in municipal water systems to create and maintain water pressure and to
provide reserve capacity in case of emergency events such as power outages or mechanical failure. It is
important for daily water system operations as well as emergency responses and source backup. It is
recommended that a city’s water storage be equal to its maximum day demand plus additional volume for
fire fighting capabilities and water pressure equalization.
A 2007 TKDA report identified a need in the City of Lino Lakes (City) for additional water storage based
on consumption trends and population projections. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, approved in
2011, estimated that additional storage would be required by the year 2015. Because growth slowed
during the economic recession, development had not occurred at the rate initially projected in the
Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the construction of additional storage was delayed as a result.
Based on current development and water usage data, it is recommended that additional storage be
constructed as soon as possible. W ater storage projects usually require about two years to site, design,
bid, and construct. As a result, the City requested this siting study be conducted to make specific
recommendations for future water storage improvements.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 4
3. EXISTING AND FUTURE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Determining Needed Storage
It is recommended that water systems that require fire protection provide enough storage to meet the
maximum day demand as well as additional volume for fire protection and pressure equalization. This
storage requirement is reduced when the system has excess production capacity in its water wells. The
overall equation to determine recommended storage capacity is as follows:
Equation 1. Determining Recommended Water Storage
𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑵𝑵𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵 = 𝑨𝑨𝑵𝑵𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 + 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑭𝑭𝑬𝑬𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑬𝑬 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺
Where
𝑨𝑨𝑵𝑵𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = (𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑴𝑴𝑭𝑭𝑴𝑴𝑨𝑨𝑴𝑴 𝑫𝑫𝑻𝑻𝑫𝑫 𝑼𝑼𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺+𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑹𝑹𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑨𝑨𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑴𝑴𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑻𝑻−𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑴𝑴 𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝒄𝒄𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑫𝑫) X 𝑫𝑫𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑫𝑫𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑬𝑬 (𝑯𝑯𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨)
Maximum day demands are evaluated by comparing the City’s average day demands to its peak
demands over the past several years. From these values, a peaking factor can be developed that
represents the multiplier to compare average and peak day demands. Based on this peaking factor as
well as per capita water use and population projections, estimates for the future maximum day demand
can be obtained.
Fire fighting volume requirements vary based on land uses and specific commercial, industrial, and
institutional uses. Fire requirements are based on guiding documents, including Ten States Standards
and the Insurance Services Office (ISO), but the overall fire flow requirements are usually at the discretion
of each community.
Equalization storage is the volume required to satisfy water demands that exceed the well pumping
capacity throughout the day. During the maximum day water demand, hourly demands vary as a diurnal
demand pattern with the maximum hour demand designated as the peak hour demand. Equalization
storage is determined by calculating the volume necessary to meet the peak hour demands beyond what
the well firm capacity can provide. In the absence of a city-specific diurnal curve, AWWA recommends
the required equalization volume to equal 70 to 100% of the average day water demand, or 20 to 25% of
the maximum day water demand. Firm pumping capacity is the total capacity of the wells with the largest
well out of service. Using these factors, the storage capacity needed for Lino Lakes through year 2040
was calculated.
3.2 Lino Lakes Existing Storage
Existing System Demands and Peaking Factor
The City’s existing water system supplies approximately 16,110 individuals. From 2010 to 2015, the
average daily water demand was 1.38 million gallons per day, with an average per capita demand of 90
gallons per day over the same time. The maximum day demand from 2010 to 2015 was, on average, 4.92
million gallons. The peaking factor (the ratio between maximum day and average day demands) is 3.57
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 5
for Lino Lakes. This factor can be used in conjunction with population projections and per capita usage to
estimate future water demands. Table 1 below summarizes the City’s water usage data.
Table 1. Lino Lakes Water Usage
Year Average Daily
Demand (MGD)
Max Day
Demand (MGD) Peaking Factor Per Capita
Demand (gpd)
2010 1.36 5.56 4.09 91
2011 1.35 5.37 3.98 90
2012 1.67 6.73 4.03 110
2013 1.47 4.35 2.96 97
2014 1.22 3.89 3.19 79
2015 1.23 3.55 2.89 80
Average 1.38 4.92 3.57 90
Available Storage
The City currently has two (2) one-million gallon elevated storage tanks, Tower One and Tower Two.
Tower One is located in the northwest area of the City near 4th Avenue and Apollo Drive. Tower Two is
located on the east side of the City on Otter Lake Road south of Main Street. Figure 1 shows the location
of the existing water towers. Due to its proximity to the City’s production well field, Tower Two fills more
quickly than Tower One and operates with an altitude valve that forces water to fill Tower One once the
level in Tower Two reaches its overflow elevation.
Fire Protection
The Insurance Service Office (ISO) publishes fire storage guidelines, in which they recommend that a fire
system capacities based on the type of city being served. Because the exact requirements of Lino Lakes’
system are not known, the standard ISO required available fire flow was used: 3,500 gpm for three hours.
Therefore, the total required fire fighting storage volume is 630,000 gallons.
Production Wells
Lino Lakes has six production wells, four of which are centrally located on or near Birch Street, as shown
on Figure 1. The highest capacity well is Well No. 3, which is capable of producing 1,200 gpm. One to
three additional wells are expected to be needed prior to 2040. The number of wells required depends on
the City’s ability to meet its peak factor reduction goals. For planning purposes, it is assumed that Well
Nos. 7 (and 8 and 9, if necessary) will have a capacity of 1,000 gpm. Table 2 summarizes the City’s
production capabilities with all wells in service and at firm capacity (with the largest well, Well No. 3, out of
service).
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 6
Table 2. Lino Lakes Well Production
Well No. Capacity
(gpm) Aquifer Year Installed
1 675 Jordan 1971
2 675 Jordan 1986
3 1,200 Jordan 1995
4 750 Jordan 1996
5 1,100 Jordan 2005
6 1,200 Jordan 2015
Total 5,550 N/A N/A
Firm Capacity 4,350 N/A N/A
The City’s firm capacity should be equal to or greater than the maximum day demand. At this time, the
maximum day demand is 4.92 MGD and the firm capacity is 6.26 MGD; therefore, the production capacity
is sufficient for the City’s current population.
Future Storage Needs
The Metropolitan Council designates Lino Lakes as an “Emerging Suburban Edge” community, which are
defined as follows:
Emerging Suburban Edge communities… are in the early stages of transitioning
into urbanized levels of development. Emerging Suburban Edge communities are
expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average
densities of at least 3-5 units per acre for new development and redevelopment.
In addition, Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to target
opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments.
Due to its location and designation, it is anticipated that Lino Lakes’ population will grow by fifty percent
over the next 25 years. Any new developments will be required to connect to the municipal water
distribution system and demand an estimated 100 gallons per capita per day. The projected population
served, average day demand, and maximum day demand are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Lino Lakes Population and Water Demand Projections
Year Total
Population Population Served Average Day
Demand (MGD)
Maximum Day
Demand (MGD)
2016* 21,687 15,800 1.2 3.4
2020 22,800 18,250 1.8 6.5
2030 26,900 24,900 2.5 8.9
2040 31,100 29,900 3.0 10.7
*Actual data
Using Equation 1, Table 4 outlines the needed water storage from 2020 to 2040.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 7
Table 4. Recommended Water Storage Volume
2020 2030 2040
Maximum Day
Demand 5,430 gpm 7,410 gpm 8,900 gpm
+ + + +
Fire
Requirements 3,500 gpm 3,500 gpm 3,500 gpm
- - - -
Firm Capacity 4,345 gpm 6,345 gpm 8,345 gpm
=
Required Draft
from Storage
During Fire
4,585 gpm 4,565 gpm 4,055
Adjusted Fire
Storage
(3 Hour Fire)
0.82 MG 0.82 MG 0.73 MG
+ + + +
Equalization
Storage 1.63 MG 2.22 MG 2.67 MG
Recommended
Total Storage 2.45 MG 3.0 MG 3.4 MG
Recommended
Additional
Storage
454,000 gal 1,044,000 gal 1,399,000 gal
Based on the results of this analysis, it is recommended that Lino Lakes constructs 1.5 million additional
gallons of water storage. Providing this volume of storage will allow the City to meet its needs through
2040. While further storage may be needed prior to full build-out, using estimates to 2040 allows the City
to have adequate storage for nearly two decades, at which time population growth and projections can be
re-evaluated. In addition, constructing storage tanks at incremental times prevents water stagnation and
freezing that can be problematic with oversized tanks.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 8
4. STORAGE TYPE
There are two primary types of storage: elevated tanks and ground storage reservoirs. Elevated tanks
(water towers) are bowls supported by a column. The elevation of the tower provides water pressure, and
no pumping systems are required. Ground storage reservoirs are placed directly on the ground and are
either at grade, partially buried, or fully buried. A pumping system is used to deliver water and pressure to
the distribution system. The characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and operations of each type of
tank are described below.
4.1 Elevated Tank (Water Tower)
Overview
Elevated tanks, or water towers, consist of a tank or bowl and supporting structure. The elevation of the
water tower determines the static water pressure in the distribution system. Ten-States Standards
recommends that working distribution pressures be 60 to 80 psi, and not lower than 35 psi. Therefore,
elevated tanks are a good option when constructing storage in relatively flat areas, so pressures are
consistent throughout the system. Within the water distribution system, locations with high ground
elevations are preferred to minimize tank height and, therefore, construction costs.
Types and Materials
Either a fluted or composite water tower is recommended with this option whenever the recommended
storage capacity exceeds 0.5 MG. Below this capacity, others types of water storage tanks become more
feasible. The life span of a fluted column or composite water tower is estimated to be 100 years with
proper operations and maintenance. A fluted column tank is constructed entirely of steel above the
concrete foundation. The entire steel structure of a fluted column tank requires painting.
For a composite style water tower, the pedestal is constructed of concrete and the tank bowl is
constructed of steel. The concrete pedestal is usually left unpainted, which can reduce the long-term
maintenance costs when compared to a fluted column tank that is entirely painted. More than 75 percent
of all elevated water storage tanks throughout North America are now composite tanks. Photographs of
both types of tanks are shown below.
Composite type (left) and fluted column type (right) water towers.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 9
Advantages and Disadvantages
Because water towers use elevation to create pressure, no pumping systems are required other than the
wells that pump water into the distribution system. Therefore, a water tower can be less expense to
construct and operate compared to a combined ground storage reservoir and booster station. However,
water towers can be more expensive to maintain because the coating systems for the steel surfaces need
to be replaced approximately every 15 to 20 years. Composite towers alleviate refurbishment costs
somewhat because the concrete stems, where the majority of the surface area exists, do not require
initial painting and repainting over time.
4.2 Ground Storage Reservoir
Overview
Ground storage reservoirs are built at or below grade and use pumps to create pressure in the distribution
system. The pumps can be set to maintain a designated pressure or can operate based on water tower
levels elsewhere in the City. A ground storage reservoir requires a booster pump station be constructed
adjacent to the ground storage reservoir. In the 2007 study, ground storage was initially recommended
because the reservoir was planned to be constructed in conjunction with a water treatment plant.
Types and Materials
Ground storage reservoirs are usually constructed out of concrete and are sealed using concrete surface
sealants and curing compounds or plasticizers.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Ground storage reservoirs usually do not require repainting like water towers. However, because their
operations rely on high service pumps to deliver the water to the distribution system, there are significant
power, operation, and replacement costs associated with ground storage reservoirs. Lino Lakes is
planning to add a water treatment plant to its distribution system. If a ground storage reservoir and a
gravity filtration water treatment plant are selected, additional pumps may be required within the water
treatment plant to deliver water to the ground storage reservoir. It is therefore possible that the City staff
would need to operate one set of pumps to pump water into the ground storage reservoir and a second
set of pumps to pump water from the ground storage reservoir to the distribution system if a buried
reservoir is not feasible. Ground storage reservoirs are also limited by pump capacity and their ability to
supply the distribution system. Towers, on the other hand, can empty as rapidly as the water distribution
system will allow for meeting maximum day demands and fire demands. The maximum flow rate of water
supplied from ground storage reservoirs is dependent on the capacity of the high service pumps that
pump water from the reservoir to the distribution system.
4.3 Life Cycle Cost Comparison
The 50-year life cycle costs for estimated and compared for the following water storage options:
1) Concrete ground storage reservoir (AWWA Type 3) with a booster station
2) Fluted column water tower
3) Composite water tower
Life cycle costs included the capital cost to design, bid, and construct the reservoir and the estimated
maintenance costs over a 50-year period to determine which tank design would provide the greatest long
term financial benefit to the City.
4.3.1 Concrete Ground Storage Reservoir (AWWA Type 3) with Water Booster Station
The estimated 50-year operation and maintenance cost for a 1.5 MG ground storage reservoir is
presented in Table 5. This estimate assumes that the booster pumps and major electrical components
would be replaced once every 25 years and the emergency generator would be replaced once over the
50-year period.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 10
Table 5 – Concrete Ground Storage Reservoir and Booster Station Estimated 50-Year Life Cycle Cost
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1.5 MG Concrete Ground Storage
Reservoir and Booster Station 1 EA $5,393,600 $5,393,600
Land Purchase Cost for Ground
Storage Reservoir and Booster
Station
1.5 Acre $100,000 $150,000
Replace Booster Station Pumps
Every 25 Years 2 EA $211,000 $422,000
Replace Booster Pump Station
VFDs and Switchgear Every 25
Years
2 EA $80,000 $160,000
Heating and Cooling of Booster
Station 50 EA $2,400 $120,000
General Booster Station Building
Maintenance 40 EA $5,000 $200,000
Subtotal $6,445,600
Engineering, Bidding, and
Construction Services (8%) $515,648
Total Estimated 50-Year Cost $6,961,248
4.3.2 1.5 MG Fluted Column Water Tower
The estimated 50-year life cycle cost for a 1.5 MG Fluted Column Water Tower is presented in Table 6. It
was assumed that the steel surfaces on the fluted column style water tower and the composite water
tower would be blasted and recoated once every 15 years.
Table 6 – 1.5 MG Fluted Column Water Tower Estimated 50-Year Life Cycle Cost
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1.5 MG Composite Water Tower 1 EA $3,475,000 $3,475,000
Associated Site Work 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Land Purchase for Water Tower
Site 1.5 ACRE $100,000 $150,000
Sandblast and recoat interior and
exterior of steel bowl every 15
years 3 EA $1,200,000 $3,600,000
Subtotal $7,525,000
Engineering, Bidding, and
Construction Services (5%) $376,250
Total Estimated 50-Year Cost $7,901,250
4.3.3 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower
The estimated 50-year life cycle cost for a 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower is presented in Table 7. It was
assumed that the steel surfaces on the composite style water tower and the composite water tower would
be blasted and recoated once every 15 years.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 11
Table 7 – 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower Estimated 50-Year Life Cycle Cost
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1.5 MG Composite Water Tower 1 EA $3,325,000 $3,325,000
Associated Site Work 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Land Purchase for Water Tower
Site 1.5 ACRE $100,000 $150,000
Sandblast and recoat interior and
exterior of steel bowl every 15
years 3 EA $704,000 $2,112,000
Subtotal $5,887,000
Engineering, Bidding, and
Construction Services (5%) $294,350
Total Estimated 50-Year Cost $6,181,350
4.4 Comparison of Life Costs
The opinion of probable capital and operation and maintenance costs are summarized in Table 8. The
estimated costs are present day costs. A composite water tower has the lowest estimated capital cost
and the lowest estimated total cost although the 50-year operation and maintenance costs are higher
than the costs for a concrete ground storage reservoir and booster station. The elevated tower costs
assume that suitable soils are available on-site. The estimated electricity costs for the booster station
pumps for the ground storage reservoir option are not included since there would be an equal reduction in
electricity costs for the well pumps (the well pumps would be pumping to a lower elevation at the ground
storage reservoir). Based on this evaluation and the fact that the City is not considering a water
treatment plant at this time, we recommend the City construct a 1.5 MG composite water tower.
Table 8: Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs for All Options
Option Estimated Capital
Cost Including
Engineering, Bidding,
and Construction
Services
Estimated 50 Year
Operation and
Maintenance Cost
Total Capital and
O&M Cost
Concrete Ground Storage
Reservoir and Booster
Station
$6,059,248 $902,000 $6,961,248
Fluted Column Style Water
Tower
$4,301,250 $3,600,000 $7,901,250
Composite Style Water
Tower
$4,069,350 $2,112,000 $6,181,350
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 12
5. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS
5.1 Site Identification
Potential sites for constructing a 1.5 MG composite water tower were identified for further analysis based
on location in the distribution system, ground elevations, and potential for ownership. A range of
geographical locations were selected and modeled to gain a more complete understanding of the
implications on the distribution system.
Five initial sites were considered and discussed with City staff. Three of the sites on the west side of the
City were eliminated due to hydraulic balancing concerns and their proximity to Tower One. Two
additional sites, both located centrally in the water distribution system, were selected for further analysis
as properties that the City could potentially acquire. The final sites that were analyzed are shown in
Figure 2 and summarized below in Table 9.
Table 9. Water Storage Sites Analyzed
Site Location
Approximate
Ground
Elevation
Nearest
Watermain
Diameter
Ownership
Site 1 Birch St. and
Timberwolf Tr. 905 ft. 16 in. School District
Site 2 Birch St. and 20th
Ave. South 910 ft. 16 in. City
Site 3 Birch St. and 12th
Ave. South 900 ft. 16 in. Private –
Agnes Lamotte
Site 4 Birch St. and West
Shadow Lake Dr. 900 ft. 16 in. School District
5.2 Site Analysis
Each of the four identified sites was modeled with the City’s water distribution system using WaterCAD
V8i. Extended period simulation scenarios were run in which the water demands were changed
continuously over a duration of 24 hours as they would on a maximum demand day. The model attempts
to provide a snapshot into how the water distribution system would respond on a high-demand day; it
includes water tower levels, pump controls, and demand fluctuations. By adding a water tower to different
locations, the model will provide critical information on how the towers will balance with each other when
filling and draining. The model also assists in determining if an altitude valve will be required to allow each
of the water towers to be filled to its maximum capacity. Model scenarios were run both with and without
altitude valves at each tower.
5.3 Analysis Results
Because of their relative proximity to each other and the well field, the modeling results did not show
significant differences between the sites that were analyzed. The model showed larger fluctuations in
water elevations for Tower One, and minimal fluctuations for Tower Two and future Tower Three. These
results were anticipated as Tower One is located furthest from the well field, and Tower Two currently
requires an altitude valve to allow Tower One to be filled to its maximum capacity. Fluctuations were
minimized somewhat for Tower Three at Site 4, the site furthest to the west. It is anticipated that Tower
Three, regardless of the site selected, will require an altitude valve to balance the system . The expected
tower levels that would occur over the maximum day with Tower Three located at each of the four
analyzed sites are included in Appendix A.
Water Storage Siting Study
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 13
6. RECOMMENDATION
A composite water tower has the lowest estimated capital and 50-year life cycle cost, and modeling
results have indicated that more than one potential site exists to construct a new water tower. Therefore,
we recommend designing, bidding, and constructing a 1.5 MG composite water tower on one of the sites
analyzed and recommended in this report. Prior to negotiating or acquiring one of the potential sites for
proposed Water Tower Three, we recommend completing a geotechnical analysis and obtaining soil
borings from at least two of the sites to verify that the existing soils are suitable to construct a water tower.
Water Storage Siting Study APPENDIX
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44
FIGURES
RICE CREEKCHAIN OF LAKESREGIONAL TRAIL
County Hwy 10 County Hwy 14County Hwy 21County Hwy 23County Hwy 14
Hodgson RdCounty Hwy 23Frenchman Rd
County Hwy 21%&d(%&c(
)s
!®
!®
!<
!<!<
!<
!<
!<
Document Path: K:\02988-440\GIS\Maps\Figure1_DistributionSystem.mxd Date Saved: 7/18/2017 4:40:08 PM
!<Municipal Well
!®Existing Water Tower
All Other Watermain Sizes
6" Diameter
8" Diameter
10" Diameter
12" Diameter
14" Diameter
16" Diameter
Figure 1 - Existing Water SystemWater Storage Siting StudyCity of Lino Lakes
0 2,0 00Feet¯
RICE CREEKCHAIN OF LAKESREGIONAL TRAIL
County Hwy 10 County Hwy 14County Hwy 21County Hwy 23County Hwy 14
Hodgson RdCounty Hwy 23Frenchman Rd
County Hwy 21%&d(%&c(
)s
!®
!®
!®!®
!®!®!<
!<!<
!<
!<
!<BlaineLinoLakesCirclePinesLexingtonCirclePinesLinoLakesCircle PinesShoreview
ColumbusLinoLakes
HugoLinoLakesHugoWhiteBearTwp.
Lino LakesNorthOaksLinoLakesShoreview Lino LakesWhiteBearTwp.
Lino LakesCenterville
Site 1 - SchoolDistrict 905ft Site 2 -City Owned910ftSite 4 - SchoolDistrict 900ft Site 3 -PrivatelyOwned 900ft
Document Path: K:\02988-440\GIS\Maps\Figure2_PotentialTowerLocations.m xd Date Saved: 4/4/2017 3:15:58 PM
!<Municipal Well
!®To wer 3 Study Lo ca tion
!®Existing Water Tower
All Other Watermain Sizes
12" Diameter
16" Diameter
City Boundary
Figure 2 - Tower 3 Study LocationsWater Storage Siting StudyCity of Lino Lakes
0 2,0 00Feet¯
Water Storage Siting Study APPENDIX
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44
APPENDIX A
Water Distribution Modeling Results
Existing System - Tower Levels on Max Demand DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Firm Capacity - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Firm Capacity - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,060.001,055.001,050.001,045.001,040.001,035.001,030.001,025.001,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00
Property 1 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayProp1-T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site1 - Hydraulic GradeT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site1 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site1 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,060.001,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00
Property 2 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 2 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 2 - Hydraulic GradeProp2 - T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 2 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00
Property 3 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 3 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 3 - Hydraulic GradeProp3-T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 3 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00
Property 4 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 4 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 4 - Hydraulic GradeProp4-T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 4 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00
Water Storage Siting Study APPENDIX
City of Lino Lakes
WSB Project No. 2988-44
APPENDIX B
2007 Water Storage Study
540 Gateway Boulevard | Suite 100 | Burnsville, MN 55337 | (952) 737-4660
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\Personal\Darin Hyatt\2017 Proposals\GEO\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes.docx
August 16, 2017
Michael Grochala
Community Development Director
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55419
Re: Proposal for:
Geotechnical Evaluations
Potential Water Tower Sites
Four Locations within Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Grochala:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services for geotechnical evaluations for
the above referenced projects. This proposal will outline our understanding of the project, the
scope of work we are to provide, and a fee schedule for our services.
It is our understanding that this project consists of evaluating four sites for construction of a 1.5
million gallon composite water tower. It is desired to support the tower on spread footings. We
were provided with a sketch indicating the general location of the four potential sites, enclosed.
The City of Lino Lakes requested our services to determine the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions.
A. Project Objectives
Based upon our experience with similar projects the objective of our geotechnical services
include preforming subsurface borings, classify and analyze the soil samples, discuss
groundwater issues, discuss frost susceptibility, and prepare recommendations for foundation
support.
B. Scope of Basic Services
Based on our understanding of the project we proposed the following scope of services:
1. Site Access
For this proposal, we have assumed that the sites can be accessed with our CME-55
truck mounted auger drill. It should be noted that if the borings are located off the
pavement in a landscaped area, our drill rig will likely cause rutting and tearing of the
lawn and may damage any shallow utilities or irrigation lines. Sidewalks too can be
damaged by the drilling rig. We will take reasonable precautions, however, WSB will not
City of Lino Lakes
August 16, 2017
Page 2
K:\Personal\Darin Hyatt\2017 Proposals\GEO\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes.docx
assume liability for repairs for damage caused by our rig to access borings requested in
landscaped areas.
If a site access requires the use of our ATV track-mounted drilling rig, we will work with
City staff to revise the scope. The additional cost to utilize an ATV drilling rig is noted
below the table in Section 6. Lump Sum Fee.
2. Bore Hole Locating and Gopher State One Call
We understand the proposed bore hole locations will be staked prior to our arrival.
Prior to sending a drill rig to the site WSB will contact Gopher State One Call (GSOC)
and have them request public underground utility owners mark and clear our proposed
bore hole locations of their utilities. If there are private underground utilities that are not
located by GSOC, please notify WSB immediately. WSB can set up a private utility
locator to mark the site for an additional fee. WSB will take reasonable precautions to
avoid underground facilities.
3. Subsurface Test Borings
We propose to complete 2 standard penetration test borings to a depth of about 25 feet
below existing grade and 1 standard penetration test boring to a depth of about 50 feet
at each of the 4 proposed locations. In the standard penetration test borings, we will
sample and record blow counts at 2 1/2 foot intervals to the 20-foot depth and then at 5
foot intervals to the boreholes termination depth.
If unsuitable soils (soft soils, organic soils, etc…) are encountered at the proposed
boring termination depth(s), it will be necessary to extend the borings into more
competent materials. This will allow us to better evaluate potential construction issues.
An additional charge of $25 per lineal foot will be assessed for borings extended beyond
their proposed termination depths. If the added work requires an additional mobilization
to the site it will be charged at a rate of $350.
In Minnesota, a boring that is 15 feet or deeper must be sealed per Minnesota Well
Code. If the boreholes have a depth variation of 25 feet or greater than an additional
notification of sealing fee and sealing record will be required. Based on our proposed
scope of services, we anticipate the boring depths will be within 25 feet of each other.
We will prepare and submit a separate Well Sealing Notification Fee and Well and
Boring Sealing Record for each of these projects.
4. Schedule, Bore Hole Samples and Laboratory Testing
Based on our current drilling backlog, we anticipate that we can mobilize our truck
mounted auger drill to the first site in about 1 to 2 weeks. Laboratory work and report
preparation will take about 2 weeks following completion of the field work. It should be
noted that this schedule may change based on timing of authorization, site conditions
and other factors. Should our anticipated schedule change we will let you know. This
estimate is based on work being completed during normal business hours (7am to 6pm),
Monday through Friday. Additional charges will apply to night or weekend drilling.
City of Lino Lakes
August 16, 2017
Page 3
K:\Personal\Darin Hyatt\2017 Proposals\GEO\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes.docx
Samples retrieved during drilling will be returned to our laboratory where they will be
reviewed, classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and logged
under the direction of a geotechnical engineer. Select samples may be set aside for
laboratory testing. We may perform routine laboratory tests on selected soil samples
obtained from the exploration. This may include determinations of natural moisture
content and gradations on select sand samples from the borings.
Such tests will aid in determining soil classification and properties and potential behavior
characteristics to help guide our recommendations.
5. Geotechnical Engineering Report
Information gathered for this project will be used to prepare four geotechnical reports.
The reports will summarize our findings and provide a discussion of subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions encountered in our borings and how they may affect the
proposed construction of foundations. The report will also provide recommendations for
subgrade preparation, estimates of ground water depths/elevations, site grading, and a
discussion of soils frost susceptibility and use as structural fill and site fill.
We will provide you and any identified members of your design/project team with a PDF
copy of our geotechnical reports. If requested, we will also provide you with an original
hard copy.
This geotechnical proposal is presented for engineering services to determine the
geotechnical properties of the soil at the specified site. It does not cover an
environmental assessment of the site, or environmental testing of the soil or
groundwater.
6. Lump Sum Fee
Services Site Estimated Cost*
Drilling Services:
Mob/demob of drilling rig, 2 standard
penetration borings to 25 feet each and 1
standard penetration boring to 50 feet,
Environmental W ell and Boring Sealing
Records fee/filing and backfilling and
grouting boreholes per MDH requirements,
Gopher State One Call utility clearance.
Laboratory/Office Work:
Project Management, Project
Administration, Soil Classification, Boring
Logs, Well and Boring Sealing Record,
Laboratory Testing, Boring Location
Sketch, Geotechnical Report Preparation.
W Shadow Lake $3,950
12th Avenue $3,950
Birch/Joyner $3,950
Rec Complex $3,950
Total Lump Sum Fee $15,800
* - if it is determined the site is not accessible to a truck-mounted rig and an ATV
track-mounted rig is need to complete the work add $750/site to the above costs.
City of Lino Lakes
August 16, 2017
Page 4
K:\Personal\Darin Hyatt\2017 Proposals\GEO\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes\Water Tower Siting - Lino Lakes.docx
If additional borings or deeper borings are needed, or if engineering and testing are
requested beyond that necessary for preparation of our report (post-report consultation,
report revision due to changes in building design or location, specification review, or pre-
construction meetings), the increase in our fees will be in accordance with the rates
previously indicated or at the unit prices shown on the enclosed Rate Schedule for
hourly services.
If have any questions regarding our scope of services or how they may be modified to
meet your project needs please feel free to give us a call to discuss.
This letter represents our understanding of the proposed scope of services. If you are in
agreement with the scope of services, proposed fee and attached General Contract Provisions
please have an authorized representative sign in the appropriate space below and return one
copy to WSB. If you have any questions about this proposal, please feel free to call me at 952-
737-4662 or email at dhyatt@wsbeng.com. This fee proposal is valid for ninety (90) days from
the creation date noted in the header.
WSB & Associates, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to work on this project and we look forward
to providing our professional services to you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Darin E. Hyatt, PE Mark Osborn, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Project Geotechnical Engineer
Attachments:
Site Location Map
WSB & Associates, Inc. 2017 Rate Schedule
WSB & Associates, Inc. Exhibit A General Contract Provisions 11.01.16
ACCEPTED BY:
Name (print) _______________________
Signature _______________________________
Title
Date
Site EvaluationEvaluation of four sites:– Two (2) owned by School District– One (1) City-owned– One (1) privately owned
2017 Rate Schedule
Billing Rate/Hour
Principal $160-$180
Associate / Sr. Project Manager / Sr. Project Engineer $143-$180
Project Manager $125-$137
Project Engineer $109-$138
Graduate Engineer $82-$102
Sr. Landscape Architect / Sr. Planner / Sr. GIS Specialist $113-$142
Landscape Architect / Planner / GIS Specialist $67-$107
Engineering Specialist / Sr. Environmental Scientist $94-$135
Engineering Technician / Environmental Scientist $55-$89
Construction Observer $89-$113
Pavement Coring
One-Person Crew $165
Two-Person Crew $245
Survey
One-Person Crew $135
Two-Person Crew $172
Three-Person Crew $189
Underwater Inspection Dive Team $470
Office Technician $45-$88
Costs associated with word processing, cell phones, reproduction of common correspondence, and mailing are
included in the above hourly rates. Vehicle mileage is included in our billing rates [excluding geotechnical and
construction materials testing (CMT) service rates]. Mileage can be charged separately, if specifically outlined
by contract.
Reimbursable expenses include costs associated with plan, specification, and report reproduction; permit fees;
delivery costs; etc.
Multiple rates illustrate the varying levels of experience within each category.
Rate Schedule is adjusted annually.
Exhibit A – General Contract Provisions 11.01.16 Page 1
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 1 – PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK
Consultant shall perform the services under this
Agreement in accordance with the care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of Consultant’s
profession practicing under similar
circumstances at the same time and in the same
locality. Consultant makes no warranties,
express or implied, under this Agreement or
otherwise, in connection with its services.
ARTICLE 2 – ADDITIONAL SERVICES
If the Client requests that the Consultant perform
any services which are beyond the scope as set
forth in the Agreement, or if changed or
unforeseen conditions require the Consultant to
perform services outside of the original scope,
then, Consultant shall promptly notify the Client
of cause and nature of the additional services
required. Upon notification, Consultant shall be
entitled to an equitable adjustment in both
compensation and time to perform.
ARTICLE 3 – SCHEDULE
Unless specific periods of time or dates for
providing services are specified in a separate
Exhibit, Consultant’s obligation to render
services hereunder will be for a period which
may reasonably be required for the completion
of said services. The Client agrees that
Consultant is not responsible for damages
arising directly or indirectly from any delays for
causes beyond Consultant’s control. For
purposes of this Agreement, such causes
include, but are not limited to, strikes or other
labor disputes; severe weather disruptions, or
other natural disasters or acts of God; fires,
riots, war or other emergencies; any action or
failure to act in a timely manner by any
government agency; actions or failure to act by
the Client or the Client’s contractor or
consultants; or discovery of any hazardous
substance or differing site conditions. If the
delays outside of Consultant’s control increase
the cost or the time required by Consultant to
perform its services in accordance with
professional skill and care, then Consultant shall
be entitled to a reasonable adjustment in
schedule and compensation.
ARTICLE 4 – CONSTRUCTION
OBSERVATION
If requested by Client, Consultant shall visit the
project during construction to become familiar
with the progress and quality of the contractors’
work and to determine if the work is proceeding,
in general, in accordance with plans,
specifications or other contract documents
prepared by Consultant for the Client. The
Client has not retained the Consultant to make
detailed inspections or to provide exhaustive or
continuous project review and observation
services.
Consultant neither guarantees the performance
of any Contractor retained by Client nor
assumes responsibility for any Contractor’s
failure to furnish and perform the work in
accordance with the construction documents.
Client acknowledges Consultant will not direct,
supervise or control the work of contractors or
their subcontractors, nor shall Consultant have
authority over or responsibility for the
contractors’ means, methods, or procedures of
construction. Consultant’s services do not
include review or evaluation of the Client’s,
contractor’s or subcontractor’s safety measures,
or job site safety. Job Site Safety shall be the
sole responsibility of the contractor who is
performing the work.
For Client-observed projects, the Consultant
shall be entitled to rely upon and accept
representations of the Client’s observer. If the
Client desires more extensive project
observation or full-time project representation,
the Client shall request such services be
provided by the Consultant as an Additional
Service. Consultant and Client shall then enter
into a Supplemental Agreement detailing the
terms and conditions of the requested project
observation.
ARTICLE 5 – OPINIONS OF PROBABLE
COST
Opinions, if any, of probable cost, construction
cost, financial evaluations, feasibility studies,
economic analyses of alternate solutions and
utilitarian considerations of operations and
maintenance costs, collectively referred to as
“Cost Estimates,” provided for are made or to be
made on the basis of the Consultant's
experience and qualifications and represent the
Consultant's best judgment as an experienced
and qualified professional design firm. The
parties acknowledge, however, that the
Consultant does not have control over the cost
Exhibit A – General Contract Provisions 11.01.16 Page 2
of labor, material, equipment or services
furnished by others or over market conditions or
contractor's methods of determining their prices,
and any evaluation of any facility to be
constructed or acquired, or work to be
performed must, of necessity, be viewed as
simply preliminary. Accordingly, the Consultant
and Client agree that the proposals, bids or
actual costs may vary from opinions, evaluations
or studies submitted by the Consultant and that
Consultant assumes no responsibility for the
accuracy of opinions of Cost Estimates and
Client expressly waives any claims related to the
accuracy of opinions of Cost Estimates. If Client
wishes greater assurance as to Cost Estimates,
Client shall employ an independent cost
estimator as part of its Project responsibilities.
ARTICLE 6 – REUSE AND DISPOSITION OF
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
All documents, including reports, drawings,
calculations, specifications, CADD materials,
computers software or hardware or other work
product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this
Agreement are Consultant’s Instruments of
Service and Consultant retains all ownership
interests in Instruments of Service, including
copyrights. The Instruments of Service are not
intended or represented to be suitable for reuse
by the Client or others on extensions of the
Project or on any other project. Copies of
documents that may be relied upon by Client are
limited to the printed copies (also known as hard
copies) that are signed or sealed by Consultant.
Files in electronic format furnished to Client are
only for convenience of Client. Any conclusion or
information obtained or derived from such
electronic files will be at the user’s sole risk.
Consultant makes no representations as to long
term compatibility, usability or readability of
electronic files.
If requested, at the time of completion or
termination of the work, the Consultant may
make available to the Client the Instruments of
Service upon (i) payment of amounts due and
owing for work performed and expenses
incurred to the date and time of termination, and
(ii) fulfillment of the Client’s obligations under
this Agreement. Any use or re-use of such
Instruments of Service by the Client or others
without written consent, verification or
adaptation by the Consultant except for the
specific purpose intended will be at the Client’s
risk and full legal responsibility and Client
expressly releases all claims against Consultant
arising from re-use of the Instruments of Service
without Consultant’s written consent, verification
or adaptation.
The Client will, to the fullest extent permitted by
law, indemnify and hold the Consultant harmless
from any claim, liability or cost (including
reasonable attorneys' fees, and defense costs)
arising or allegedly arising out of any
unauthorized reuse or modification of these
Instruments of Service by the Client or any
person or entity that acquires or obtains the
reports, plans and specifications from or through
the Client without the written authorization of the
Consultant. Under no circumstances shall
transfer of Instruments of Service be deemed a
sale by Consultant, and Consultant makes no
warranties, either expressed or implied, of
merchantability and fitness for any particular
purpose. Consultant shall be entitled to
compensation for any consent, verification or
adaption of the Instruments of Service for
extensions of the Project or any other project.
ARTICLE 7 – PAYMENTS
Payment to Consultant shall be on a lump sum
or hourly basis as set out in the Agreement.
Consultant is entitled to payment of amounts
due plus reimbursable expenses. Client will pay
the balance stated on the invoice unless Client
notifies Consultant in writing of any disputed
items within fifteen (15) days from the date of
invoice. In the event of any dispute, Client will
pay all undisputed amounts in the ordinary
course, and the Parties will endeavor to resolve
all disputed items. All accounts unpaid after
thirty (30) days from the date of original invoice
shall be subject to a service charge of 1-1/2%
per month, or the maximum amount authorized
by law, whichever is less. Consultant reserves
the right to retain instruments of service until all
invoices are paid in full. Consultant will not be
liable for any claims of loss, delay, or damage by
Client for reason of withholding services or
instruments of service until all invoices are paid
in full. Consultant shall be entitled to recover all
reasonable costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection
with collecting amounts owed by Client. In
addition, Consultant may, after giving seven (7)
days’ written notice to Client, suspend services
under this Agreement until it receives full
payment for all amounts then due for services,
expenses and charges. Payment methods,
expenses and rates may be more fully described
in Exhibit C and Exhibit E.
Exhibit A – General Contract Provisions 11.01.16 Page 3
ARTICLE 8 – SUBMITTALS AND PAY
APPLICATIONS
If the Scope of Work includes the Consultant
reviewing and certifying the amounts due the
Contractor, the Consultant’s certification for
payment shall constitute a representation to the
Client, that to the best of the Consultant’s
knowledge, information and belief, the Work has
progressed to the point indicated and that the
quality of the Work is in general accordance with
the Documents issued by the Consultant. The
issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not
be a representation that the Consultant has (1)
made exhaustive or continuous on-site
inspections to check the quality or quantity of the
Work, (2) reviewed construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures,
(3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from
Subcontractors and material suppliers and other
data requested by the Client to substantiate the
Contractor’s right to payment, or (4) ascertained
how or for what purpose the Contractor has
used money previously paid on account of the
Contract Sum. Contractor shall remain
exclusively responsible for its Work.
If the Scope of Work includes Consultant’s
review and approval of submittals from the
Contractor, such review shall be for the limited
purpose of checking for conformance with the
information given and the design concept. The
review of submittals is not intended to determine
the accuracy of all components, the accuracy of
the quantities or dimensions, or the safety
procedures, means or methods to be used in
construction, and those responsibilities remain
exclusively with the Client’s contractor.
ARTICLE 9 – HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Notwithstanding the Scope of Services to be
provided pursuant to this Agreement, it is
understood and agreed that Consultant is not a
user, handler, generator, operator, treater,
arranger, storer, transporter, or disposer of
hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants or
contaminants as any of the foregoing items are
defined by Federal, State and/or local law, rules
or regulations, now existing or hereafter
amended, and which may be found or identified
on any Project which is undertaken by
Consultant.
The Client agrees to indemnify Consultant and
its officers, subconsultant(s), employees and
agents from and against any and all claims,
losses, damages, liability and costs, including
but not limited to costs of defense, arising out of
or in any way connected with, the presence,
discharge, release, or escape of hazardous or
toxic substances, pollutants or contaminants of
any kind, except that this clause shall not apply
to such liability as may arise out of Consultant’s
sole negligence in the performance of services
under this Agreement arising from or relating to
hazardous or toxic substances, pollutants, or
contaminants specifically identified by the Client
and included within Consultant’s services to be
provided under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 10 – INSURANCE
Consultant has procured general and
professional liability insurance. On request,
Consultant will furnish client with a certificate of
insurance detailing the precise nature and type
of insurance, along with applicable policy limits.
Additional Insurance requirements are listed in
Exhibit D.
ARTICLE 11 – TERMINATION OR
SUSPENSION
If Consultant’s services are delayed or
suspended in whole or in part by Client, or if
Consultant’s services are delayed by actions or
inactions of others for more than sixty (60) days
through no fault of Consultant, Consultant shall
be entitled to either terminate its agreement
upon seven (7) days written notice or, at its
option, accept an equitable adjustment of rates
and amounts of compensation provided for
elsewhere in this Agreement to reflect
reasonable costs incurred by Consultant in
connection with, among other things, such delay
or suspension and reactivation and the fact that
the time for performance under this Agreement
has been revised.
This Agreement may be terminated by either
party upon seven (7) days written notice should
the other party fail substantially to perform in
accordance with its terms through no fault of the
party initiating the termination. In the event of
termination Consultant shall be compensated for
services performed prior to termination date,
including charges for expenses and equipment
costs then due and all termination expenses.
This Agreement may be terminated by either
party upon thirty (30) days’ written notice without
cause. Consultant shall upon termination only be
entitled to payment for the work performed up to
the Date of termination. In the event of
termination, copies of plans, reports,
specifications, electronic drawing/data files
(CADD), field data, notes, and other documents
whether written, printed or recorded on any
medium whatsoever, finished or unfinished,
Exhibit A – General Contract Provisions 11.01.16 Page 4
prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this
Agreement and pertaining to the work or to the
Project, (hereinafter "Instruments of Service"),
shall be made available to the Client upon
payment of all amounts due as of the date of
termination. All provisions of this Agreement
allocating responsibility or liability between the
Client and Consultant shall survive the
completion of the services hereunder and/or the
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 12 – INDEMNIFICATION
The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold the
Client harmless from any damage, liability or
cost to the extent caused by the Consultant’s
negligence or willful misconduct.
The Client agrees to indemnify and hold the
Consultant harmless from any damage, liability
or cost to the extent caused by the Client’s
negligence or willful misconduct.
ARTICLE 13 – WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES
The Consultant and Client waive claims against
each other for consequential damages arising
out of or relating to this contract. This mutual
waiver includes damages incurred by the Client
for rental expenses, for loss of use, loss of
income, lost profit, project delays, financing,
business and reputation and for loss of
management or employee productivity or of the
services of such persons; and (2) Damages
incurred by the Consultant for principal office
expenses including the compensation for
personnel stationed there, for losses of
financing, business and reputation and for loss
of profit except anticipated profit arising directly
from the Work. The Consultant and Client
further agree to obtain a similar waiver from
each of their contractors, subcontractors or
suppliers.
ARTICLE 14 – WAIVER OF CLAIMS FOR
PERSONAL LIABILITY
It is intended by the parties to this Agreement
that Consultant’s services shall not subject
Consultant’s employees, officers or directors to
any personal legal exposure for the risks
associated with this Agreement. Therefore, and
notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained herein, the Client agrees that as the
Client’s sole and exclusive remedy, an y claim,
demand or suit shall be directed and/or asserted
only against Consultant, and not against any of
Consultant’s individual employees, officers or
directors.
ARTICLE 15 – ASSIGNMENT
Neither Party to this Agreement shall assign its
interest in this agreement, any proceeds due
under the Agreement nor any claims that may
arise from services or payments due under the
Agreement without the written consent of the
other Party. Any assignment in violation of this
provision shall be null and void. Nothing
contained in this Agreement shall create a
contractual relationship with or a cause of action
in favor of a third party against either the
Consultant or Client. This Agreement is for the
exclusive benefit of Consultant and Client and
there are no other intended beneficiaries of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 16 – CONFLICT RESOLUTION
In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise
during the design or construction of the project
or following the completion of the project, the
Client and Consultant agree that all disputes
between them arising out of or relating to this
Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding
mediation as a precondition to any formal legal
proceedings.
ARTICLE 17 – CONFIDENTIALITY
The Consultant agrees to keep confidential and
not to disclose to any person or entity, other
than the Consultant’s employees,
subconsultants and the general contractor and
subcontractors, if appropriate, any data and
information furnished to the Consultant and
marked CONFIDENTIAL by the Client. These
provisions shall not apply to information in
whatever form that comes into the public
domain, nor shall it restrict the Consultant from
giving notices required by law or complying with
an order to provide information or data when
such order is issued by a court, administrative
agency or other authority with proper jurisdiction,
or if it is reasonably necessary for the
Consultant to complete services under the
Agreement or defend itself from any suit or
claim.
Exhibit A – General Contract Provisions 11.01.16 Page 5
ARTICLE 18 – AVAILABLE INSURANCE
PROCEEDS AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Consultant maintains professional liability
insurance with a liability limit of not less than
$2,000,000 per claim. The Consultant’s total
liability to Client shall not exceed the total
available insurance policy limits per claim
available to Consultant under its professional
liability insurance policy. Client hereby agrees
that to the fullest extent permitted by law, the
Consultant’s total liability to Client for any and all
injuries, claims, losses, expenses or damages
whatsoever arising out of or in any way related
to or arising from this Agreement from any
cause or causes including, but not limited to,
Consultant’s negligence, errors, omissions, strict
liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty
(Client’s Claims) shall not exceed the total policy
limits available to Consultant under its
professional liability insurance policy for
settlement or satisfaction of Client’s Claims
under the terms and conditions of the
Consultant’s professional liability insurance
policy applicable hereto.
Notwithstanding the language above, Client
agrees that with regard to any claim arising from
or relating to
Consultant’s provision of geotechnical
engineering services, construction materials
testing, special inspections, and/or
environmental engineering services, including
but not limited to environmental site
assessments, that Consultant’s liability for any
claims asserted by or through Client shall be
limited to $50,000.
Client and Consultant each further agree that
neither will be responsible for any incidental,
indirect, or consequential damages (including
loss of use or loss of profits) sustained by the
other, its successors or assigns. This mutual
waiver shall apply even if the damages were
foreseeable and regardless of the theory of
recovery plead or asserted.
ARTICLE 19 – CONTROLLING LAW
This Agreement is to be governed by the laws of
the State of Minnesota. Any controversy or
claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement,
or the breach thereof, including but not limited to
claims for negligence or breach of warranty, that
is not settled by nonbinding mediation shall be
settled by the law of the state of Minnesota.
ARTICLE 20 – LOCATION OF
UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS
Where requested by Client, Consultant will
perform customary research to assist Client in
locating and identifying subterranean structures
or utilities. However, Consultant may reasonably
rely on information from the Client and
information provided by local utilities related to
structures or utilities and will not be liable for
damages incurred where Consultant has
complied with the standard of care and acted in
reliance on that information. The Client agrees to
waive all claims and causes of action against the
Consultant for claims by Client or its contractors
relating to the identification, removal, relocation,
or restoration of utilities, or damages to
underground improvements resulting from
subsurface penetration locations established by
the Consultant.
Water
Storage
Siting Study
Lino Lakes City Council Meeting
August 28, 2017
The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan identified a need for additional storage in 2013 to 2015
Due to slower than expected growth, conservation efforts, and lower water use, the proposed storage project was delayed
Based on current population growth and water demand trends, it is pertinent that the City consider water storage at this time
Background
Needed storage is
calculated by
evaluating:
–Fire requirements
–Maximum day water use
–Well pumping capacity
–Existing storage capacity
Current storage:
–Two 1 -million gallon towers
Recommendation:
–Construct 1.5 MG storage
Existing and Future
Storage Needs
Elevated tank (water
tower)
–Fluted (hydropillar)
–Composite:
More than 75% of all water
towers in North America are
now composite tanks
Ground storage
reservoir
Storage Types
Composite type (left) and fluted column type (right)
Meet water demands
–Fire protection
–System Supply
–System Pressures
Benefits of Added Storage
*Estimated capital costs include engineering, bidding, and construction services
Option Estimated
Cost*
50-Year
Operation and
Maintenance
Total Capital
and O&M
Ground Storage Reservoir and
Booster Station
$6,059,248 $902,000 $6,961,248
Fluted Column Style Water
Tower
$4,301,250 $3,600,000 $7,901,250
Composite Style Water Tower $4,069,350 $2,122,000 $6,181,350
Storage Type
Cost Comparison
Analysis of Smaller 1.0 MG Water Tower
Additional 1.0
MG storage = is
approx. 10 yrs
= is approx. 20
yrs
For an additional 15-20% in cost serve the City’s needs for an additional 10 yrs.
1.0 MG and 1.5 MG Water Tower
Cost Comparison
Style 1 MG Water Tower Cost Per Gallon
Hydropillar $3,273,000 $3.28
Composite $3,218,000 $3.22
Style 1.5 MG Water Tower Cost Per Gallon
Hydropillar $4,301,250 $2.87
Composite $4,069,350 $2.72
Site Evaluation
Ideal site characteristics:
–Located near large watermain
–Centrally located within distribution system
–Relatively high elevation
–Ability to balance with existing water
towers when filling and draining
–Suitable soil characteristics (soil bearing
capacity greater than 5,000 lbs/sq.ft.)
Site Evaluation
Evaluation of four
sites:
–Two (2) owned by School
District
–One (1) City-owned
–One (1) privately owned
Site Evaluation
Evaluation of four
sites:
–Two (2) owned by School
District
–One (1) City-owned
–One (1) privately owned
Site Evaluation: Results
Modeling results did
not differ significantly
site-to-site
Recommended site
depends on
ownership and site
characteristics
Geotechnical
evaluation needed
Recommendation
Start site selection
process and acquire
property if needed
Construct 1.5 MG
elevated water tower
Composite style water
tower
Timeline
Geotechnical Evaluation of Preferred Sites August –October 2017
Property Acquisition (as needed)November 2017 -March 2018
Design and Bidding April –July 2018
Construction August 2018 –November 2019
Questions?
Lino Lakes City Council Workshop
August 8, 2017
Lino Lakes, MN Water Storage Analysis
Water Use Projections & Storage Requirement
Calculation
----|-
Design Year 2020 2030 2040 |Equation
With 3 Hour Fire With 3 Hour Fire With 3 Hour Fire
----|-
|
Estimated Population 18,250 24,900 29,900 |A
Per Capita Water Use (gpd/capita)100 100 100 |B
Average Day Water Use (gpd)1,825,000 2,490,000 2,990,000 |C= A*B
|
Max/Avg Day Ratio 3.57 3.57 3.57 |D
Maximum Day Water Use (gpd)6,515,000 8,889,000 10,674,000 |E= C*D
Maximum Day Water Use (gpm)5430 7410 8900 |F= E»time
|
Firm Pumping Firm Capacity (gpm) -Pumps to System 4345 6345 8345 |G
5214000 7614000 10014000 |
Design Fire Fighting Rate (gpm)3500 3500 3500 |H
Fire Fighting Duration (hour)3 3 3 |I
Design Fire Fighting Volume (gal)630,000 630,000 630,000 |= H*I*60
|
TOTAL Coincident Demand (gpm)8,930 10,910 12,400 |J= F+H
Required Draft From Storage (gpm)4,585 4,565 4,055 |K= J-G
|
Adjusted Fire Fighting Storage (gallons)825,000 822,000 730,000 |L= K*I*60
Equalization Storage (gallons)1,628,750 2,222,250 2,668,500 |M= E*equl
TOTAL Storage Need (gallons)2,453,750 3,044,250 3,398,500 |N= L+M
|
Existing Elevated Storage (gallons)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 |P
|
Additional Storage Need (gallons)453,750 1,044,250 1,398,500 |Q= N-P
|
----|
|
|
Assumptions:|
-|
Time to Supply Max Day |
20 |time
Equalization Storage |
25%|equal