HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-13 Council Packet Updated 8 -5 -13
WORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Monday , August 5 , 201 3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
5:30 P.M.
1. Deer Management
2 . Salt Storage Shelter Project with Anoka County to Sept work session
3 . Wireless Communications U pdate to Sept work session
A. Sprint/Nextel Decommission
B. AT&T Lease Amendment Proposal
C. Centennial School District Request
4 . Utility Rate Study Update to Sept work session
5 . 7309 Lake Drive – Code Enforcement
6 . Pavement Management Report
7 . Subsurface Sewer Treatment Systems (Septic System) Code Update
8 . Ordinance – Utility Fees for Vacant Properties
9. Police Staffing
10 . 2014 Budget
1 1 . Monthly Progress Report
12. Charter Amendments by Ordinance
Review Regular Agenda
Adjourn
WS – Item #1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 1
Date: August 5, 2013
To: City Council
From: Chief John Swenson
Re: Deer Management
Background
During the September 24, 2012 City Council Work Session, Council Member Roeser
rais ed the issue of deer management programs and the potential to redu ce deer/vehicle
collision in Li n o Lakes. Staff presented a report on vehicle/deer collision at the
November 5, 2012 work session and has met with Anoka County Parks personnel
regarding thei r hunting program in the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park.
Staff has prepared 2013 Update, which is attached to this staff report. The vehicle/deer
collision incidents have declined over that last decade, ranging from 115 in 2002 to 67 in
2012. The 201 3 Update outlines options that Council may wish to consider.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting Council direction as to whether Council wishes to pursue any deer
population management options. If so, staff requests direction as to what option the
Council wish es to pursue.
Attachments
1. City of Lino Lakes Whitetail Deer Management Review
Lino Lakes Whitetail Deer Management Review
2013 Update
July 31, 2013
Updated Crash Facts - Lino Lakes Police Department
2002 -2012
Throughout the 2012 calendar year , t here were a total of 67 vehicle v. deer crashes
report ed to the Lino Lakes Police Department . This number was up slightly (9 crashes )
from 2011.
Anoka County Parks Department
2012 Hunt Report & 2013 Update
Based on spring 2012 aerial herd counts, Anoka County Park hunt coordinators set a
h arvest objective of 30 – 50 deer for their 2012 park archery season. At the end of the
hunting season, t he Anoka County Parks Department reported that their permitted hunters
harvested a total of 47 deer from the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park throughout the
2012 archery hunting season.
No aerial deer population survey was conducted in the winter/spring, 2013. According to
the hunt coordinator, the expansion of their survey requirements and high costs of flight
time has forced them to switch to conduct ing aerial surveys every two years. T he next
aerial survey is scheduled for February or March of 2014.
In a meeting with an Anoka County Park hunt coordinator on July 23, 2013, the crash
map visual was reviewed and we specifically discussed the problem location from the
7300 to 7500 block of Lake Dr. where the density of vehicle v. deer collisions was
noticeably hig her than most other areas . Because it’s likely that the deer population
along this part of Lake Dr. come from the Anoka County Park herd, t he hunt coordinator
agreed to hold an additional controlled hunt in the area behind the Lino Lakes Civic
Complex in the fall of 2013 in an eff ort to remove more deer from that portion of the
park.
Other areas of county park propert y were reviewed to see how hunting might be used to
impact deer numbers. No other areas of County Park owned lands in Lino Lakes were
identified as potential hunting zones where hunts could be safely conducted. There will
be 100 permits issued to archery hunters in 2013 for t he designated hunting zones within
the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park. The county park archery hunt will run from
October 19 through December 31, 2013.
Considerations for 2013
Amend Ordinance 504.02 to allow archery hunting:
The West Central and South west portion of Lino Lakes is currently closed to any type of
hunting by ordinance #504.02 (2). The closing of this area to all hunting was adopted by
the Lino Lakes City Council in July, 1984. It’s not clear in archived documents why this
restriction wa s added to the ordinance at that time. Lino Lakes City Clerk, Julie Bartell,
was able to locate the meeting notes for the council meetings around the July, 1984
timefr ame but found no explanation for the change.
Ordinance #504.02(2) states:
No person s hall shoot, fire -off, discharge or explode any firearm or non -firearm upon or onto any of the following:
(2) Lands and waters lying southerly of the center line of Lilac Street which are westerly of the center line of
Lake Drive (U.S. Highway No. 8 ) extend ing along Hodgson Road (U.S. Highway No. 49) and North of Ash
Street (County Road J) as the same are now laid out and traveled;
Upon talking with several long -time Lino Lakes residents who live within the closed
area, I found that because of problems they had with firearm hunters in the late 1970’s
and early 1980’s, residents attended several council meetings and requested the ordinance
change which was accepted by the council in 1984.
Currently, t here are some privately owned propert ies in that “closed” a rea which could be
archery hunted at the property owner’s discretion if the City chose to amend the current
ordi nance to allow archery hunting in compliance with other the archery ordinance
restrictions. However, this is not a recommendation to change the firearm restriction to
this part of the ordinance.
MBRB – 2013 Controlled Hunt Option s
In speaking with a hunt coordinator with the Metro Bow hunters Resource Base (MBRB),
I learned that they would likely be able to conduct hunts in Lino Lakes during th e fall of
2013 if they were requested to do so. Upon r eviewing the map of property owned by the
City of Lino Lakes, three parcels of land were identified as being large enough to safely
and productively hold controlled archery deer hunts through the MBRB .
The f irst property is north of the 81 00 block of Diane St. and west of the 8200 block of
Lake Dr. This parcel is 17.6 acres in size and would allow MBRB hunters access from
Diane St. We don’t have an estimated number of deer in this area. This area is
somewhat restrictive to hunters because of the distance requirement in our archery
ordinance. However, MBRB hunters would be able to hunt the northwestern portion of
this parcel and still be in compliance with the ordinance.
The second parcel is o n the southeast corner of the Birch St . /Centerville Rd. intersection.
This property is approximately 62 acres in size and has a few places where MBRB
hunters could safely and productively archery hunt within the ordinance. There are
several access point s to this property.
The third property is located in the West Oaks Edition. This property is approx imately
58 acres in size. Although the crash data doesn’t necessarily identify this as a problem
deer area , this area is believed to hold a relativel y large deer herd . In 2011, Ramsey
County estimated a herd of 56 deer in their “open space ” property less than one mile
south of this Lino Lakes property. There are some limitations to this property. First,
parking and access to the property for MBRB hu nters would be very limited. Second, the
distance requirement in the archery ordinance would limit hunters to one small wooded
area on the north side of the city property.
If the City chooses to approve a controlled hunt through the MBRB, the MBR B hunt
coordinator asked that we notify their group as soon as possible so they could get their
planning process started. If requested, the MBRB would likely hold their Lino Lakes
hunts in November and/or December, 2013.
WS – Item # 5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 5
Date: August 5 , 2013
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: 7309 Lake Drive Code Enforcement – Exterior Storage
Background
The City Council discussed this issue at the May 5, 2013 and June 3, 2013 work session s .
The council requested that the property owner evaluate the business plan for the site and
determine if any changes could be made to bring the site into compliance with the zoning
code.
As discussed at the June mee ting staff received a letter from Mobile Mini, Inc., dated
May 29, 2013. Mobile Mini is the lessee of the site. The letter did not include any
proposed change to the site operations but rather contended that they should be allowed
to remain as a legal no nconforming use.
Staff reviewed the letter and their stated position with the City Attorney. A response
letter was sent on July 16, 2013 from Joe Langel, City Attorney reiterating that the use of
the property for outside storage is not grandfathered in. The letter provided 14 days to
provide us with information on how they intend to modify the use to bring it into
compliance with the zoning ordinance .
Staff has not received any additional information from the lessee or the property owner.
Requested Cou ncil Direction
Staff is requesting council directio n to either continue enforcement to abate the use or
proceed with an ordinance amendment to allow outdoor storage as a permitted principal
use on the property.
Attachments
1. Mobile Mini Letter dated May 2 9, 2013
2. Joe Langel letter dated July 16, 2013
3. May 5, 2013 WS Report
4. General Vicinity Map
5. LI Zoning District Use s
WS – Item # 3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 3
Date: May 6, 2013
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Exterior Storage – 7309 Lake Drive
Background
On February 22, 2013 , following receipt of resident complaints , city staff issued a Cease
and Desist Order to Pinnacle Point, LLC, owner of property located at 7309 Lake Drive .
T he order required the discontinuance of t he use of property for the outdoor storage of
shipping containers. Upon further review , the property is also being used for the outdoor
storage of construction trailers. The containers and trailer s are being stacked three to four
high approximately 30 feet in height across the 5 acre parcel. Outdoor Storage is not
allowed a s the principal use of prope rty in the LI, Light Industrial District.
Following a brief discussi on with the property owner at the March 25, 2013 council work
session , the city council directed that the Cease and Desist Order b e stayed until further
discussion could be held on the issue .
Policy Review
The property in question is guided for industrial u se in the City ’s Comprehensive Plan.
The plan establishe s the goal to a ttract and encourage new light industrial, high tech,
business and professional services in the City. The plan also establishes a policy to
protect designated industrial areas from residential encroachment and marginal land uses
that will preclude the hig hest economic use of land available for commercial and light
industrial development.
T he City ’s Zoning Ordi n ance is the primary tool for implementing the comprehensive
plan. The City has two industrial zoning districts – LI, Light Industrial Di strict and the
GI, General Industrial District. As noted above , the parcel in question is located in the
LI, Light Industrial Distric t. The purpose of the LI District, as defined in the Zoning
Ordina nce , is as follows:
Purpose. These areas are intended to attract and encour age new light industrial,
high -tech business and professional services. These areas have the prerequisites
for industrial development, but because of proximity to residential areas or the
need to protect certain areas or uses from adverse influences, high development
standards will be necessary. LI uses include service industries and industries
which manufacture, fabricate, assemble or store, where the process is not likely to
create offensive noise, vibrations, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other
obje ctionable influences. Generally, these include wholesale, service and light
industries which are dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere. No new
land shall be zoned LI, Light Industrial unless the site or area lies within the
City’s MUSA and sanitar y sewer and municipal water is available.
The existing container and trailer storage business represents an extreme departure from
this purpose . Outdoor storage as a principal use is common ly seen as the lowest form of
industrial use. I t is a low value use . S torage areas have little to no improvements and
therefore generate minimal tax value when compared to a typical industrial facility with
building improvements. They also have the effect of making surrounding areas less
valuable for development purposes. Once legally established , they are also extremely
difficult to eliminate. Staff does acknowledge that land allowed for outdoor storage is in
high demand. This is because most cities have eliminated or sev erely restricted the
allowance for outdoor storage in their ordi n ances for the reasons listed above. It is fairly
common for these types of uses to move to outer ring suburban and rural areas because of
lower land values and less restrictive requiremen ts.
In 2011 , the City Council initiated a review of our industrial district requirements
specifically related to outdoor storage. This review resulted in the amendment of the
zoning ordinance to allow additional flexibility for outdoo r storage as an accessory use
but stopped short of allowing it as a principal use.
T here was some discu ssion at the council work session that the property in question
would have little to no other alternative uses if the current container business is
disallowed. Staff disagrees with t his statement. The property can be used for any of the
uses permitted or allowed by conditional use in the LI, Light Industrial Districts (see
attachment). Public sanitary sewer and water utilities are available to service the site. In
this case , the property is in no different position than any ot her property located in the
City ’s industrial areas. The property may require additional investment , such as
connection to municip al servi c es, in order to be sold, but that should not be used as a
reason to relax zoning standards for the property.
Continued use of the property for outdoor container and trailer storage would require an
amendment to the Ci ty Zoning Ordinance. This type of use is not appropriate for the LI,
Light Industrial District and staff would not recommend consideration of such a proposal.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting council directio n regarding ab atement of the nonconforming use of
property located at 7309 Lake Drive.
Attachments
1. General Vicinity Map
2. LI Zoning District Use s
1
LI, Light Industrial Zoning District.
Permitted Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are permitted
uses in the LI District.
1. Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities and gift shops
containing merchandise directly related to the facility.
2. Building material sales.
3. Carpet and rug cleaning.
4. Community gardens operated by the city.
5. Construction -related businesses, including shops and offices for plumbing, heating, glazi ng,
painting, paper hanging, roofing, ventilating, electrical,
carpentry, welding, landscaping, excavating, general contracting and similar uses, including
contractor storage of equipment and building materials if enclosed within a building, but not
stora ge yards.
6. Feed and seed sales.
7. Greenhouses, nurseries.
8. Laundry, dry cleaning or dying plant.
9. Manufacturing or assembly of a wide variety of products that produces no exterior noise,
glare, fumes, noxious products, by -products, or wastes , or creates other objectionable impact on
the environment, including the generation of large volumes of traffic.
10. Mass transit terminals.
11. Office business —clinic and general.
12. Radio and television stations.
13. Recreational business conta ined entirely within the principal building.
14. Research laboratories
15. Trade or Business schools.
16. Warehousing and distribution facilities, but not including truck freight trucking terminal or
mini self -storage facilities per Section 1, Subd. 2.B of this Ordinance.
17. Wholesale businesses/showrooms.
2
Conditional Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are
conditional uses in the LI District. These uses require a conditional use permit based on criteria
and pr ocedures outlined in Section 2, Subd. 2. of this Ordinance.
1. Automobile and truck repair provided that:
a. All painting must be conducted in an approved paint booth per Section 3, Subd. H.
b. All flammable materials, including liquids and rags, shal l conform with the applicable
provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code.
c. All outside storage shall be prohibited except the storage of customer vehicles waiting for
repair.
2. Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmitting Antennas, and Public Utility
Microwave Antennas greater than forty -five (45) feet in height and less than two hundred (200)
feet in height as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 14 of this Ordinance.
3. Commercial Kennels, provided that:
a. The applicable provisions of C hapter 503 are determined to be satisfied.
b. Cages, enclosures and housing facilities shall be at least five hundred (500) feet from
any residential property line.
c. An enclosed indoor or exterior exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the
per iodic exercising of animals boarded at the kennel. Exterior exercise areas shall be
enclosed by an eight (8) foot high solid fence.
d. All animals shall be housed indoors for overnight boarding.
4. Mini self -storage facilities provided that:
a. No si ngle building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length.
b. If an “on -premises” caretaker dwelling unit is provided on site, construction of said
dwelling unit shall conform to all design standard regulations for multiple family
dwelli ng units of the Minnesota State Building Code.
c. No retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, repair, or other such activity other than
storage is to occur within the mini self -storage facility.
5. Open and outdoor storage (not outdoor sales lots) as an accessory use provided that:
3
a. The designated storage area shall comply with all building setback requirements for the
district. Outside storage is prohibited between the principal structure and any public
right -of -way.
b. The storage area is landscap ed and screened from view of adjacent uses and public
rights -of -way via a fence and greenbelt planting strip, in accordance with Section 3,
Subd. 4.Q.6 of this Ordinance.
c. The entire storage area is fenced and secured in an appropriate manner.
d. The storage area is blacktopped or concrete surfaced, unless an alternative wear -
resistant material is determined by the City Engineer to be suitable to control dust and
drainage and is specifically approved by the City Council.
e. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for
conformity to this Ordinance and is not located in the front yard.
f. The property shall not abut I -35W or I -35E.
g. The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed 2.5:1.
h. All parking, loading and truck staging activities shall occur on site. On -street parking
and loading associated with the use is prohibited.
i. Storage shall not include material considered hazardous under Federal or State
Environmental Law.
6. Veterinary Hospitals provided that:
a. All areas in which animals are confined are located indoors and are properly
soundproofed from adjacent properties.
b. Animal carcasses are properly disposed of in a manner not utilizing on -site garbage
facilities or incineration and the carcasses are properly refrigerated during periods
prior to disposal.
c. An indoor animal kennel is permitted as a use accessory to the veterinary hospital
provided that:
1) The number of animals boarded shall not exceed forty (40).
2) An enclosed indoor or exterior exercise area shall be provided to accommodate
the periodic exercising of animals boarded at the kennel. Exterior exercise areas
shall be limited to a maximum of twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area
of the principal use.
4
3) A ventilation system shall be designed so that no odors or organisms will
spread between wards or to the outside air and will be capable of completely
exchanging internal air at a rate of at least twice per hour. Air temperature must
be maintained between 6 0 and 75 degrees Fah renheit.
4 ) A room separate from the kennel area shall be provided of sufficient size to
adequately separate animals that are sick or injured from healthy animals.
5) Indoor animal kennel floors and walls shall be made of non -porous m aterials or
sealed concrete to make it non -porous.
6) Animal wastes shall be flushed down an existing sanitary sewer system or
enclosed in a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and
organisms and shall be properly disposed of at least once a day.
d. The appropriate license is obtained from the City and the conditions of Chapter 503
relating to the keeping of animals are satisfactorily met.
e. All State Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for
such facil ities are met
WS – Item # 6
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 6
Date: August 5, 2013
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Pavement Management Plan Update
Background
In 2004 , the City’s Engineer TKDA prepared a Pavement Management Rep ort to provide
the City Council with data regarding the condition of streets within the City of Lino
Lakes. The report has been used to guide preparation of the City’s annual Pavement
Management Program and budgeting de cisions. Since 200 4 the city has co ntinued to
increase efforts for preventative maintenance (sealc oating) and preservation (overlays).
Street reconstruction is the only element of the program that has not advanced.
Referendums for reconstruction projects have failed twice since the 2004 r eport as well
as two elections to amend the City Charter.
In March of 2013 the Council authorized WSB and Associates to prepare an update of the
plan. The updated report provides a snapshot of the curren t road conditions in the City.
The City inspects a nd rates 25% of the street mileage annuall y. This information is input
into Cartegraph pavement management software, which allows us to determine the
Overall Condition Index (OCI) of our street network. The index is based on a scale of 0 -
100 with 100 rep resenting new pavement. Additionally, we are then able to forecast
future conditions based on specified funding scenarios.
Jason Wedel, City Engineer , will distribute the report at the work session and provide a
summary of the significant findings.
R equested Council Direction
Staff is seeking City Council direction to hold a Street Reconstruction financing
workshop in September. The goal would be to have the City’s consultant team provide
an informative overview of the options for financing improvem ents including state law
and charter provisions. This meeting would be followed by a policy discussion to
determine a preferred method for financing street reconstruction projects.
1
Pavement Management Report
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
What is a Pavement Management Program?
Why have a Pavement Management Program?
What is Pavement Forensics?
III. Pavement Condition Report
Pavement Life Cycle
Roadway Pavement Condition Evaluation
Existing Roadway Pavement Conditions
Roadway Pavement Condition Projections
Maintenance Costs Increase as Pavement Gets Older
Extending Pavement Life Cycle By Special Maintenance Actions
IV. Pavement Management Recommendation
Pavement Man agement Recommendations
Establish Pavement Management Policies
Establish Pavement Management Plan
V. Appendices
A. Pavement Ratings City Map
B. OCI Ratings Numerical List
C. Cartegraph (PAVEMENTview PLUS) Criteria
D. Total Maintenance Costs at Current Conditions
E. Annual Maintenance Costs
2
I. Executive Summary
This report presents updates to the Pavement Management Report previously completed in 2004. This
report is intended to be used as part of the pavement management program in Lino Lakes. This report
includes upda tes to the data after completion of the 2012 pavement inspections which included 25% of
the road segments within the city . This report is not intended to be a final document on public policy or
planning and is subject to change upon review by the City Co uncil.
The City recognizes the continued degradation of the city roadways and the need for a plan on
maintain ing and reconstructing the roadways which includes the current policy of preventative
maintenance (treating the good roads) in addition to reactive maintenance (rebuilding the bad roads).
The components of the Pavement Management Program include:
1. Pavement Conditions Report
2. Pavement Management Policies
3. Pavement Management Plan
As the first step in the establishment of the Pavement Management Program, this Pavement Conditions
Report was prepared. The significant findings of this report are as follows:
There are currently 95.6 miles of City roadways (improved streets, not including gravel roads).
The current average OCI is 66.95 .
The average city standard roadway (built to current City specifications) is 20 years old.
The average non -standard roadway is 30 years old.
7 2.5 %AofAroadwaysAareAinA“adequate”AcategoryArequiringApreventativeAmaintenance:
1 4.4 %AofAroadwaysAareAinAaA“marginal”A category requiring preservation.
13 .2 %AofAroadwaysAareAinAtheA“problem”Acategory,ArequiringAcompleteAreconstruction:
The City currently has an annual reclamation and seal coating budget of $4 9 0,000. There is no
budget in place for road reconstruction proj ects.
Continuing current maintenance practices with the $4 9 0,000 annual budget for reclamation and
seal coating, the next 10 years will result in the network average OCI dropping from 66.95 to
60.69 leaving 1 8.5 % of the roadways requiring complete reconstr uction at a cost of $4 5.7 million
in 20 23 (Plan Year 10).
This report shows that the continuation of the current level of maintenance will result in the continued
loweringAofAtheAoverallAconditionAofAtheACity’sAroadwaysAandAwillAcostAsignificantlyAmoreAtoArestoreAoverA
the long term than if increased funding was provided for roadways to be maintained a nd reconstructed
at a more optimum time.
The next steps in this process would be to establish pavement management policies, continue to
develop an understanding of the current roadways via pavement inspections and pavement forensics
and continue to estab li sh a pavement management plan.
3
I I. INTRODUCTION
What is a Pavement Management Program?
A pavement management program is a systematic method of inspecting and rating the pavement
condition for a network of roads. The system performs cost effective analysis of various maintenance
and rehabilitation strategies, which assists decision makers in making the best decision on the use of
available resources. The pavement management ideology, if implemented, can drastically improve the
li fe cycle costs, performance and life of roads. The objective of a pavement mana gement program is to
maintain a high level network, measure the effectiveness of alternatives, and optimize cost effectiveness
and timing of maintenance and construction activity. Th ese objective s are us ually met by implementing
a system to regularly collect data and verify the condition of a system of roads. This data is typically
managed within a computer database or pavement management program which can manage, sort and
store the collected data. From this computer database, a variety of reports can be run to evaluate the
types of repairs or preservation techniques that could be implemented in a cost effective manner. As
part of the data analysis, models can be run allowing an agency to see the effect implemented budgets
have on the overall network OCI. Models can also be run to determine the budget that would be
required to maintain the OCI at a specific value. This information is crucial to decision makers in all
aspects of pavement management plan ning.
The Pavement Management Program is comprised of three components: (1) the assessment of the
currentApavementAconditionsAofAtheACity’sAroadwaysAandArecommendedAmaintenanceAandAreconstructionA
actions, (2) policies which will guide the timing and t ype of maintenance actions and reconstruction
activities and the financing of activities, and (3) a general schedule for the maintenance and
reconstruction of the streets, and strategies for the financing of these activities.
Why establish a Pavement Mana gement Program?
The City of Lino Lakes is continuing to make improvements to their Pavement Management Program to
preserveAtheACity’sA$104 million asset of roadways, provide for the safe and efficient travel of its citizens,
retain property values, keep th e City attractive and desirable, and minimize costs to the property
owners and taxpayers for the City.
The Pavement Management Program will provide a guide for the City to make strategic decisions related
to roadway maintenance and reconstruction activities to maximize the useful life of pavement and to
minimize maintenance costs by performing proper action s at the optimum time. The program will also
provide for financing strategies to make the most efficient use of available resources.
What is Pavement Forensics?
Pavement forensics identifies what exists under the visible layer of the pavement and can give a wealth
of information including depths of the pavement layers, signs of bonding or unbonding and distresses
that might not be visible from the road surface. Soil borings along the roadways can be used to identify
aggregate depths and soil classificatio ns can provide a better understanding of the roadway section to
4
determine the appropriate pavement rehabilitation technique. Another option is pavement cores which
provide information on the pavement thickness, condition of the base course and amount of C lass 5 that
is in place. The findings from a pavement forensic study have been proven to lead to cost savings and
bette r solutions for a road fix.
5
I II . PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE
Pavements have a useful life beginning from the time they are constructed until they have
deteriorated to the extent of being unusable. Figure 1 shows the typical life expectancy of pavement
based on data from the Army Corps of Engineers. While the actual useable life of roadways can vary
somewhat due to d ifferent factors, as indicated by this graph pavement begins to deteriorate shortly
after construction at a fairly constant rate and then deteriorates more rapidly as the pavement ages
and its condition declines.
Figure 2 shows the effect performing certai n types of maintenance can have on a pavement lifecycle.
Doing the right fix at the right time can extend the life of a pavement by more than 40 years.
ROADW AY PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION
WSB & Associates completed pavement inspections on 25% of the r oads in Lino Lakes in 2012. This was
done to establish the segments condition based upon what defects each segment contained. This
information was entered into Cartegraph and the database was updated and the estimated conditions
of the pavement were re -e valuated to determine the network OCI. Additionally, 25% of the roads will
be inspected on an annual basis there by providing inspection of all the City roads on a 4 year cycle.
The program rates the roadways by using an Overall Condition Index (OCI) having a 1 -100 scale with 100
being a perfect new roadway. It then uses the degradation curves to project how an OCI will drop so
Today’sAOCIAcanAbeAfound:AACartegraphAalsoAgivesAbud get -dependent maintenance protocols for a given
time period.
6
FIGURE 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
OC
I
Years in Service (Age)
PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE CURVE
7
FIGURE 2
8
Engineering staff has established the following OCI categories to describe the conditions of the
roadways:
Adequate – Overall Condition Index (OCI) 70.01 – 100.00
Marginal – Overall Condition Index (OCI) 40.01 – 70.00
Problem – Overall Condition Index (OCI) 0.00 – 40.00
Photographs of representative road sections for each OCI category are included as Figure 3. Additional
photos can be found in Appendix F .
EXISTING ROADWAY PAVEMENT CONDITIONS
Most of the roadway system at this time is in f air condition, but it is approaching a critical stage meaning
it is approaching a stage in which a reconstruction is needed . The average city standard (a) roadway is 20
years old and has been sealcoated at least once. The average non -standa rd (b) roadway is 30 years old
and has undergone either a seal coat or cold in place recycle :AA AbreakdownAofAtheACity’sAroadwayAoverallA
condition is:
Overall Condition Index Mileage Percent of System
Adequate Category – 70.01 – 100.00 69.26 miles 72.5 %
Marginal Category – 40.01 – 70.00 13.77 miles 14.4 %
Problem Category – 0.00 – 40.00 12.57 miles 13.1 %
(a) “Standard roadway” means a roadway within the City of Lino Lakes, which is in
general conforma nce with the City standard as set forth in Section 302 of the City
Code. They are commonly recognized as having a properly graded hard surface
with normal crowns, width, strength, acceptable drainage systems and concrete
curb and gutter on both sides.
(b) “No n -standard roadway” means a roadway located in the City of Lino Lakes, which
is not in general conformance with the City standards as set forth in Section 302 of
the City Code. They are commonly recognized as lacking a critical component
such as strength, adequate drainage or concrete curb and gutter but may have
some of all of these or other components.
Appendix A is a map of all City roadways showing their OCI classification. The specific OCI rating for
each roadway segment is contained in Appendix B.
9
FIGURE 3
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
LINO LAKES PAVEMENT RATING EXAMPLES
OCI RATING = 0
Lamotte Circle
Cartegraph ID: 1221
Detailed Distresses:
AC Block Cracking, Moderate Severity, 5.3%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, Low Severity, 3.2%
AC Linear Cracking, Low Severity, 1.1%
AC Patching, Moderate Severity, 87.8%
10
OCI RATING = 9.93
Marvy Street
Cartegraph ID: 401
Detailed Distresses:
AC Block Cracking, Moderate Severity, 25.8%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, High Severi ty, 77.4%
AC Linear Cracking, Low Severity, .3%
AC Linear Cracking, Moderate Severity, .3%
AC Patching, Low Severity, 5.8%
AC Patching, Moderate Severity, 26.4%
AC Raveling & Weathering, Moderate Severity, 5.3%
AC Raveling & Weathering, High Severity, 3.2%
11
OCI RATING = 17.31
Jon Avenue
Cartegraph ID: 313
Detailed Distresses:
AC Block Cracking, Moderate Severity, 38.1%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, High Severity, 11 .4%
AC Linear Cracking, Moderate Severity, .8 %
AC Patching, Moderate Severity, 20 %
12
OCI RATING = 40.65
James Street
Cartegraph ID: 307
Detailed Distresses:
AC Block Cracking, Low Severity, 35%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, Moderate Severity, 4.2%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, Low Severity, 11.4%
AC Linear Cracking, Low Severity, 3.2 %
AC Linear Cracking, Moderate Severity, .8%
AC Patching, Moderate Severity, 1.3%
13
OCI RATING = 51.5
Terra Court
Cartegraph ID: 556
Detailed Distresses:
AC Block Cracking, Low Severity, .8%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, Low Severity , 20.5%
AC Linear Cracking, Low Severity, 1.4%
AC Linear Cracking, Moderate Severity, 1.1%
AC Linear Cracking, High Severity, .3%
AC Patching, Low Severity, .5%
14
OCI RATING = 62.01
Elbe Street N.E.
Cartegraph ID: 202
Detailed Distresses:
AC Block Cracking, Low Severity, 79.2%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, Low Severity, 10.3%
AC Patching, Moderate Severity, 7.1%
15
OCI RATING = 83.28
James Street
Cartegraph ID: 308
Detailed Distresses:
AC Block Cracking, Low Severity, 12.8%
AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking, Low Severity, 6.8%
AC Linear Cracking, Low Severity, 1.9%
AC Linear Cracking, Moderate Severity, 1.4%
16
OCI RATING = 99.48
Kelly Street
Cartegraph ID: 1204
Detailed Distresses:
None
17
ROADWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION PROJECTIONS
Using the computer analysis, the expected useful life of each block was projected. This was done using
the maintenance approaches and the reconstruction levels that have occurred over the past years
within the City. This analysis showed that if the City continues its current process of special
maintenance and reconstruction at the same rate it has averaged over the past years, there will be
serious deterioration of the roadway system and ultimately very high reconstruction expenses.
It was p rojected that if current maintenance practices continue to be used over the next 10 years with
the current budget that is in place ($490,000 per year for seal coats and cold in place recycles), the
average OCI will drop from 66.95 to 60.69 at the end of 10 years. Not only would this reduction in the
overall condition of the roadways most likely be unacceptable to the public, it would be very expensive,
an estimated $4 5.7 million in 2023 (Plan Year 10), to restore the overall system at the end of that time
to only its current condition today.
MAINTENANCE COSTS INCREASE AS PAVEMENT GETS OLDER
Maintenance costs increase considerably as the pavement gets older. This is why implementing a
preventative maintenance strategy is both cost effective appropriate. Preventative maintenance actions
such as crack seals, chip seals, fog seals, and microsurfacing are done at a much lower cost than
preservation actions such as mill and overlays. The idea behind a preventative maintenance strategy is
that you keep the g ood roads in good condition by applying the appropriate maintenance action at the
right time at a lower cost. This is often a better strategy then waiting for the road to deteriorate before
applying a fix at which point the fix needed may cost 9 to 10 tim es as much as a chip seal or a fog seal.
Figure 2 demonstrates that with preventative maintenance techniques you can extend the life of a
pavement from 20 years to close to 60 years if the correct fix is done at the correct time. The previous
pavement management report created in 2004 indicated that the cost to reco nstruct all the roads that
needed to be reconstructed at the end of 10 years was $39 million. The updated model indicates that
now at the end of 10 years the cost to reconstruct all the roads that need to be reconstructed is close to
$4 5.7 million. This dollar amount will continue to get bigger unless something is done. A good
pavement management plan will budget for both preventative maintenance, to keep the good roads
good, and also for some roads to be reconstructed each year so that the worst roads s tart to be
addressed. Figure 5 shows the effect certain budgets have on the OCI values.
18
Plan Year Current Budget* Proposed Budget ** No Funds
1 68.49 69.77 6 5 .9 5
2 67.51 69.98 64.58
3 66.66 70.22 62.45
4 65.79 70.35 60.43
5 64.94 70.43 58.5
6 64.10 70.41 56.7
7 63.23 70.30 54.96
8 62.41 70.16 53.27
9 61.54 69.94 51.6
10 60.69 69.66 49.97
FIGURE 4
Current Budget*:
Annual chip seal , cold in place recycle budget = $490,000
Annual reconstruct budget = $0.00
Proposed Budget **:
Annual chip seal, cold in place recycle budget = $490,000
Average Annual reconstruct budget = $2,000,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
OC
I
Plan Year
Effect of Budget on OCI Level
Current Budget*
Proposed Budget **
No Funds
19
EXTENDING PAVEMENT LIFE BY SPECIAL MAINTENANCE ACTIONS
Lino Lakes has typically engaged in chip seals, cold in place recycles or reconstructs to extend the life
of a roadway. These maintenance actions are anticipated to last several years and be cost effective.
Chip sealing includes pre -sweeping and filling of al l cracks in the pavement. A layer of emulsified
(liquid) asphalt is applied uniformly across the pavement surface. This is followed by a uniform
cover of traprock chips. Chip sealing creates a surface seal to the existing pavement, which provides
additi onal support for traffic loads, and protection from weather conditions.
Cold in place recycling involves reclaiming the asphalt surface in place, compacting the recycled
material and placement of a bituminous wearing course over the entire surface. This t ype of action
provides a structural improvement to the roadway.
Reconstruction includes the complete removal of the existing pavement and aggregate base course.
The roadway will be replaced with the City street standard of a minimum 32 -foot width (back of
curb to back of curb) bituminous road with concrete curb and gutter. The pavement section will
consist of a minimum 7 -tonAdesignAwhichAisA1A½”AofAbituminousAwearingAcourse,A2”AofAbituminousA
baseAcourse,AandA8”AofAClassA5AaggregateAbaseAcourse:AAReconstru ction brings the pavement to an
absolute 100 (perfect condition) rating.
This report includes updating the data to the previous report done in 2004. The existing model was
used to stay consistent with what has been done in the City in the past. In order to maximize the life
cycle of the pavement at minimum maintenance cost, the proper maintenance actions need to be
undertaken at the optim um time. An updated proposed schedule for these special maintenance
activities, different than what was proposed in th e 2004 report is provided below in Table 1 . This
updated schedule includes performing maintenance activities based on the age of the pavement,
not simply on the OCI value.
20
TABLE 1
Typical Maintenance Schedule
Cumulative
Pavement Age
(Years)
Time Between
Maintenance Maintenance Predicted OCI
Initial Improved
0 0 New Construction 100
2 2 Years After New
Construction Initial Crack Seal 92 100
4 2 Years After Crack
Seal
2nd Crack Seal 92 100 Chip Seal
18 -22 14 -18 Years After
Chip Seal Cold In Place Recycle 59 83
20 -24 2 Years After Overlay Initial Crack Seal 78 86
22 -26 2 Years After Chip
Seal
2nd Crack Seal 81 97 Chip Seal
36 -44 14 -18 Years After
Chip Seal Cold In Place Recycle 58 81
38 -46 2 Years After Overlay Initial Crack Seal 77 85
40 -48 2 Years After Chip
Seal
2nd Crack Seal 80 96 Chip Seal
50 -60 10 -20 Years After
Chip Seal Reconstruction 40 100
The previous report recommended that $330,000 be used annually for chip sealing and cold in place
recycling and an additional $1,176,000 annually for street reconstruction. This report recommends
the $490,000 annual budget for chip sealing and cold in place recycling be continued in addition to
a n average annual budget of $2,000,000 for reconstruct ion costs . This rec onstruct ion budget will
allow t he OCI to stay close to what it is currently at, bringing the OCI value to a 69.66 at plan year
10 .
21
IV. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Using the computer analysis, many alternatives were run to determine the optimum actions to extend
the pavement life at the lowest overall cost. It was found that the key to achieving that goal is doing t h e
right action at the right time. This will require City initiated actions rather than waiting for complaints or
petitions.
It is recommended that the City institute a maintenance and reconstruction program in accordance with
the Cartegraph Criteria (Appendix C ) in order to start to tackle the deteriorating network of roads. It is
recognized that the desire to maintain a high overa llAconditionAmustAbeAbalancedAwithAtheACity’sAfinancialA
capabilities to fund the maintenance and reconstruction program.
ItAisAbeingArecommendedAthatAitAbeAtheACity’sAintentAtoAmaintainAtheAcurrentAroadwayAOverallAConditionA
Index rating of 66.95 as the l ong term average condition rating of its roadway system. In order to
maintain this rating, it has been determined that the present level of maintenance and reconstruction
activities, and therefore funding must be increased.
Since this report was done in 2 004, the City has added close to 13 miles of roads and has increased
funding for chip seals and overlays; however, hardly any funding has been spent on reconstruction of
these roads . The average OCI has also dropped nearly 6 points since the report in 200 4. This report
shows that if nothing is done to correct the current issue with road funding, the OCI will drop another 11
points in the next 10 years.
Using the cost assumptions contained in the Cartegraph Criteria (Appendix C ) and the Total
Maintenance C osts (Appendix D ) and Annual Maintenance Costs data (Appendix E ), the proposed
funding shown in Figure 5 for special maintenance and reconstruction activities will allow the city to
maintain an Overall Condition Index rating of 66.95 as the long term avera ge condition rating of its
roadway system, comparable to the current overall condition. It is recommended that the total
maintenance amount be budgeted in accordance with the plan year.
This level of increased special maintenance and reconstruction fundin g will contribute towards
improving the road network in the City over the next 10 years in comparison to continuing the past
maintenance and reconstruction funding or providing no funding. This comparison of the projected
amount of mileage of roadways wit hin each condition category and the projected Overall Condi tion
Rating is shown in Figure 6 .
This recommended maintenance program of spending $490,000 in maintenance and $2,000,000 in
reconstruction would maintain the condition of the roadways. As previou sly stated, continuing the past
funding levels over the next 10 years would require an estimated $4 5.7 million in 2023 (Plan Year 10), to
restore the overall system at the end of that time period to only its current condition today.
This report represents the initial presentation of data and analysis to the City Council for their use in the
continuation of the development of an overall Pavement Management Program.
22
FIGURE 5
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
PROPOSE D FUNDING
(5% INFLATION)
Plan Year Reconstruction
2014 (1) $2,000,000.00
2015 (2) $2,100,000.00
2016 (3) $2,205,000.00
2017 (4) $2,315,250.00
2018 (5) $2,431,012.50
2019 (6) $2,552,563.13
2020 (7) $2,680,191.28
2021 (8) $2,814,200.85
2022 (9) $2,954,910.89
2023 (10) $3,102,656.43
Maintenance
Plan Year Chip Seal Cold In Place Recycle Total
2014 (1) $122,500.00 $367,500.00 $ 490,000.00
2015 (2) $128,625.00 $385,875.00 $ 514,500.00
2016 (3) $135,056.25 $405,168.75 $ 540,225.00
2017 (4) $141,809.06 $425,427.19 $ 567,236.25
2018 (5) $148,899.52 $446,698.55 $ 595,598.06
2019 (6) $156,344.49 $469,033.47 $ 625,377.97
2020 (7) $164,161.72 $492,485.15 $ 656,646.86
2021 (8) $172,369.80 $517,109.41 $ 689,479.21
2022 (9) $180,988.29 $542,964.88 $ 723,953.17
2023 (10) $1 90,037.71 $570,113.12 $ 760,150.83
23
FIGURE 6
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
PROJECTED 10 -YEAR ROAD CONDITIONS
OCI 0 - 40 OCI 40.01 - 70 OCI 70.01 - 100
NO FUNDS 16.3% 65.8% 17.9%
CURRENT 11.2 % 60.5 % 28.3%
PROPOSED 1 0 .8% 22.84% 66.36%
PRESENT CONDITIONS 13.2 % 14.4 % 72.5 %
24
APPENDICES
25
APPENDIX A
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
26
APPENDIX B
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
64th Street 20th Ave to Sac 23.03 0 373.3
Lamotte Circle Lamotte Drive to Sac 24.55 0 825.63
Foxtail Drive Foxtail Ct to Woodchuck Cir 36.72 0 581.42
Gordon Avenue N Rehbeins St to 77th St E 36.62 0 452.92
Hokah Drive Bubble Sac (Hokah Dr) 27.08 0 152.78
Hokah Drive Totem Tr to Bubble Sac 31.96 0 473.43
Hokah Drive #6631 to Sac 31 0 475.65
Hokah Drive Bubble Sac to Birch St 30.47 0 664.89
Hokah Drive #6557 to #6631 15.2 0 868.54
64th Street Otter Lake Road to Sac 33.58 0 708.41
Lamotte Drive Lamotte Circle to Sac 24.55 0 281.22
Pheasant Run S Birch St to Sac 10 0 505.22
Phelps Road Service Rd to Arnt Construction 36.78 0 1317.58
Red Maple Lane Red Maple Lane split to #6280 26.76 0 1105.31
Rondeau Lake Road E 81st St E to 1682' N 31.7 0 1682.02
Rondeau Lake Road E Main St to 3088' East 25.58 0 3088.24
Rondeau Lake Road E 81st St to 3088' East 37.3 0 1505.11
Rondeau Lake Road
W #8399 to #8317 34.3 0 1196.57
Rondeau Lake Road
W #8317 to 2602 N of 81st W 19.88 0 1966.13
Rondeau Lake Road
W 81st St W to 2602' N 29.98 0 2602.66
Rondeau Lake Road
W Main St to 81st St W 35.28 0 1349.3
Sandpiper Drive Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac 30.64 0 343.71
Shadow Court Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac 33.14 0 281.94
Shadow Lake Drive W Birch St to3353' N of Birch St 27.8 0 3353.12
81st Street W Rondeau Lake Rd W to Sac 26.23 0 1034.25
Shadow Lake Drive W 3353' N of Birch St to Shadow Ct 26.6 0 3327.36
Old Birch Street Birch St to Birch St 26.84 0 2262.85
Arrowhead Drive Totem Trail to 550' East 34 0 550
Arrowhead Drive Ware Rd to Totem Trl 33.05 0 779.52
Lamotte Drive Lamotte Circle to City Limits 35.64 0 986.9
Rondeau Lake Road E 1682' N of 81st St. E. to N city limits 37.79 0.52 2451.03
Peltier Lake Drive Old Mill Road to #7600 37.83 0.63 2901.63
Talle Lane Canfield Rd to Karth Rd 38.54 0.72 1129.55
27
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Orange Street Dead end to Eva St 3.52 2.64 814.1
Main St 38.63 3.01 623.84
Woodland Drive Main St to Sac 38.63 3.01 1363.65
Red Maple Lane #6280 to Red Maple Lane split 38.9 3.74 1529.65
Peltier Lake Drive #7600 to 77th St E 38.88 3.79 655.88
4th Avenue Main St to Andall St 4.93 4.05 3837.72
4th Avenue Andall St to Pine St 5 4.12 1363.48
Holly Drive E 12th Avenue to East End 38.8 7.24 710
Holly Court E Holly Dr N to Sac 40.7 7.28 1603.86
Evergreen Trail #980 to #1004 9.94 9.25 502.72
Marvy Street Leonard Ave to Jon Ave 10.62 9.93 1936.98
Carl Street 4th Avenue to #346 11.07 10.38 1312.48
Rehbein Street Gordon Ave N to 20th Ave N 41.34 10.49 2080.78
Diane Court West Sac to Diane St 11.7 11.01 46
Canfield Road Gaage Lane to Talle Lane 41.92 11.08 562.41
Evergreen Trail #1004 to Sac 13.06 12.37 1135.21
Tomahawk Trail Chippewa Tr to Arrowhead Dr 42.82 12.45 344.01
Karth Road Talle Lane to Joyer Lane 43.89 15.41 1220.16
Gaage Lane Birch St to Canfield Rd 43.93 15.52 831.47
Tomahawk Trail Birch St to Tomahawk Ct 44 15.64 533.61
Arrowhead Court Arrowhead Dr to Sac 44.27 16.38 217.24
Jon Avenue Marvy St to 74th St 18 17.31 658.77
Totem Trail Hokah Dr to Rice Ct 44.18 17.76 325.72
Shadow Lake Drive W Shadow Ct to Sandpiper Dr 44.4 18.31 846.5
Hokah Drive Birch St to #6557 44.46 18.45 806.56
Arrowhead Drive
550' East of Totem Trail to Tomahawk
Trail 43.87 20.05 589.86
Nordin Street 21.94 21.36 221.45
Red Maple Lane 62nd St to Red Maple Lane split 46.06 22.1 431.47
Rice Court Totem Tr to Sac 46.07 22.17 404.08
Oak Lane Knoll Dr to Sac 22.92 22.32 2018.26
Shadow Lake Drive W Sandpiper Dr to Dead End 46.36 22.84 433.94
Chippewa Trail Tomahawk Trl to Arrowhead Dr 46.98 22.91 759.05
Evergreen Trail Lake Dr Ne to #980 23.62 23.04 884.24
Gordon Avenue N Sac to Rehbeins St 46.5 23.19 224.41
Olive Street Eva St to West Sac 25.26 24.68 799.32
Arrowhead Drive Arrowhead Court to Chippewa Trl 47.32 25.26 535.75
Joyer Lane Karth Rd to Birch St 47.85 25.64 1971.86
Tomahawk Court Tomahawk Tr to Sac 47.95 27.25 250.7
Totem Trail Rice Ct to Birch St 48 27.36 541.86
28
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Tomahawk Trail Tomahawk Ct to Chippewa Tr 48.68 27.87 291.52
Arrowhead Drive Tomahawk Trl to Arrowhead Ct 48.9 28.35 457.4
Karth Road Talle Lane to Sac 49.05 28.72 454.09
Totem Trail Arrowhead Dr to Hokah Dr 48.66 28.79 282.02
Diane Court Diane St to East Sac 29.62 29.21 213.71
77th Street E Gordon Avenue N to 20th Ave N 48.86 29.24 2086.95
Rondeau Lake Road
W #8399 to City Limits 49.7 31.03 582.08
Chippewa Trail Arrowhead Dr to Birchwood Acres 50.69 33.15 231.11
Foxtail Court Sac to Foxtail Dr 50.8 33.42 801.1
Bloom Court 20th Ave S to Sac 44.6 33.74 471.38
Olive Street Eva St to East Sac 34.34 34.04 497.92
Rice Lake Court Rice Lake Ln to Sac 52 35.43 528.29
Danube Street Sac to 81st St W 37.17 36.87 502.41
Knoll Drive Lois Lane to Oak Lane 37.28 36.97 1018.81
Rolling Hills Drive Deer Pass Tr to North Dead End 47 37.63 202.9
Marvy Street Sunset Ave to Leonard Ave 37.99 37.69 612.67
Diane Street #8107 to Diane Ct 38.1 37.8 1548.05
Woodchuck Circle Sac to Woodchuck Cir 53.51 37.8 420.36
77th Street E Peltier Lake Dr to Gordon Ave N 53.62 37.99 623.83
Bald Eagle Boulevard Partridge Court to Woodchuck Circle 51.58 39.1 377.7
Lamotte Drive County Rd J to Lamotte Cir 55.27 39.85 306.84
Rice Lake Lane Rice Lake Ct to Elm St 54.89 39.92 1768.77
Barbara Lane Marilyn Dr to Sac 40.36 40.07 542.71
James Street Lake Dr NE to #980 40.94 40.65 2202.17
Woodchuck Circle Woodchuck Ct to Foxtail Dr 55.41 40.68 574.03
Rice Lake Drive Ulmer Dr to Elm St 56.23 41.93 1775.14
Oak Lane Carole Dr to Knoll Drive 42.26 41.97 1748.75
Woodchuck Circle Bald Eagle Blvd W to Woodchuck Ct 56.33 42.06 758.7
Cedar Street E Clearwater Creek Dr to Otter Lake Rd 58 43.8 654
Maple Street Lake Dr NE to Sac 45.37 45.12 926.16
77th Street W Carole Dr to Sac 46.05 45.79 1256.01
Foxtail Drive Ash St to foxtail Ct 59.72 46.69 959.07
12th Avenue S Birch St to Buckthorn Lane 50 47.03 783.53
Sargent Court N Ash St to Sac 60.22 47.27 910.92
12th Avenue S Buckthorn Ln to White Oak Rd 50.8 47.37 337.87
Partridge Court Partridge Ct to Sac 61.39 48.02 448.75
12th Avenue S Peregrine Circle to Holly Dr E 51.6 48.33 309.75
81st Street W Lake Dr NE to Danube St 49.06 48.87 414.95
Holly Drive E Holly Court to County Road J 63.17 49.55 3463.97
29
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Orange Street Eva St to Lake Dr NE 50.19 50 1017.34
Holly Drive E County Rd 21 to West End 64.19 50.82 3821.43
Terra Court Apollo Dr to Sac 51.69 51.5 365.9
4th Avenue Lilac St to Thomas St 51.75 51.56 1333.92
81st Street W Danube St to Elbe St NE 52.89 52.7 348.44
Woodchuck Circle Foxtail Dr to Bald Eagle Blvd W 66.78 53 836.13
12th Avenue S White Oak Rd to Peregrine Cir 56.2 53.07 1197.55
Nancy Drive Vicky Ln to 79th St 53.26 53.07 1156.26
Glenview Drive Sunrise Ave to Lakeview Dr. 68.71 54.79 1298.3
Diane Street #8107 to Lake Dr 55.28 55.09 510.87
Sherman Lake Road Merganser Ct to Sherman Lake Ct 58.35 55.19 458.41
Bald Eagle Boulevard City Limits to Rolling Hills Drive 67.19 56.15 1144
Bald Eagle Boulevard
North End of Woodchuck Circle to
South End of Woodchuck Circle 67.66 56.58 1422.3
Linda Avenue Hodgson Rd to Linda Ct 71.9 57.23 179.32
Bald Eagle Boulevard Rolling Hills Drive to Partridge Court 68.54 57.4 1147.79
Baldwin Lake Road County Road J to Woodridge Ln 71.84 58.06 1786
Elbe Street NE Main St to 81st St W 58.4 58.21 864.09
Lakeview Drive Elm St to Fairmont 73.74 58.61 1312.92
Birch Court Birch St to Sac 74.48 58.72 128.65
Bald Eagle Boulevard
South End of Woodchuck Circle to
South City Limits 71.07 59.37 643.2
Gladstone Drive Sunset Ave to Lakeview Dr 75.2 59.71 643.34
Lakeview Drive Fairmont to Gladstone 75.2 59.71 1310.07
Lakeview Drive Gladstone to Glenview 75.2 59.71 1341.62
Lakeview Drive Glenview to North Rd 75.2 59.71 1321.52
Fairmont Drive Sunrise Dr to Lakeview Dr 75.2 59.71 603.96
Fairmont Drive Lakeview Dr to Sunset Ave 75.2 59.71 620.08
Glenview Drive Lakeview Dr. to Sunset Ave. 75.8 60.89 1298.3
81st Street E East rondeau Lake Rd. to Dead End 77.6 61.46 1252.53
77th Street W Country Lane to Sac 61.98 61.79 594.95
Elbe Street NE 81st St W to Sac 62.25 62.01 176.81
Thomas Street 4th Ave. to Dead End 62.36 62.12 1349.82
Eva Street Olive St to Orange St 63.12 62.88 325.3
Meadow Court Apollo Dr to Sac 63.36 63.12 585.34
Ulmer Drive Rice lake Dr to Rice Lake Ct 80.3 63.57 643.14
Gladstone Drive Lakeview Dr to Sunrise Dr 80.62 63.84 619.1
Heather Court N Apollo Dr to Sac 64.6 64.36 477.66
Service Road Phelps Road to North Sac 83 65.82 1702.98
Hawthorn Road Red Hawk Tr to Lonesome Pine Tr 69.05 66.02 1981.43
30
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Cedar Street E #2310 to Clearwater Creek Dr 84 66.04 712
Aqua Circle Aqua Lane to Aqua Lane 93.9 66.05 2392
Oakwood Drive Rohavic Ln to Sac 69.75 66.27 570.25
4th Avenue Thomas St to Sherwood Ln 66.72 66.52 1283.15
4th Avenue 479' N of Apollo to Lilac St 66.92 66.72 1327
Lea Court Apollo Dr to Sac 67.08 66.88 360.56
Aqua Lane Aqua Cir East to Park Property 83.42 66.99 534.19
Sherman Lake Road Timberwolf Tr to Pondview Cir 71 67.17 481.81
4th Avenue Sherwood Ln to Main St 67.4 67.2 2661.12
Linda Circle Linda Ln to Sac 85.4 67.32 204.02
Service Road Otter Lake Road to Phelps 85.76 67.55 1360.61
2nd Avenue Sunflower Ln to Smoketree Ln 71.73 68.32 318.29
Linda Lane Linda Ave to Sac 87.5 68.51 300.34
Elmcrest Avenue 65 St to Tart Lake Road 100 68.71 621.9
Sunrise Drive Rustic Ln to Cul de sac at cty 10 73.6 69.33 586.04
Linda Court Linda Lane to Sac 89 69.4 471.93
Black Duck Drive S Tamarack Ln to Birch St 73.78 69.65 408.25
Elm Street Lake Dr to 4th Ave 89.4 69.68 455.47
2nd Avenue 1860Green Briar Dr to Ulmer Dr 73.32 69.76 327.88
Aqua Lane Aqua Cir West to Aqua Cir East 88 69.82 303.17
2nd Avenue Red Clover Ln to Green Briar Dr 73.5 69.94 333.44
Bluebill Lane Main St to Sac 70.24 69.99 877.65
Linda Lane Linda Ct to Linda Cir 90.5 70.53 1038.94
Lacasse Drive Tele Ln to Otter Lake Rd 91.34 70.64 200.94
Sunrise Drive Gladstone Dr to Glenview Dr 75.2 70.65 1317.04
Sunrise Road Glenview Dr to Rustic Ln 75.2 70.65 505.07
Elm Street 4th Ave to Cinnamon Teal Court 91 70.95 405.74
Elm Street Cinnamon Teal Ct to Gray Heron Dr 91 70.95 359.04
Rustic Lane Glenview Dr to Sunrise Dr 75.2 71.4 784.51
Delina Circle Clearwater Creek Dr to Sac 92.8 71.57 213.15
Laurene Avenue Schlavin Ct to White Pine Rd 76.48 71.59 469.81
Ulmer Drive 2nd Ave to Rice Lake Dr 91.8 71.59 374.66
Pelican Place Egret Lane to Egret Lane 75.73 71.63 549.42
Hawthorn Road Ware Rd to Red Hawk Tr 75.95 71.83 383.2
Glenview Drive Sunrise Dr to Rustic Lane 76 72.1 475.3
Pheasant Hills Drive Birch St to Broken Oak Ct 77 72.12 360.8
Ellen Court Lacasse Dr to Sac 94 72.17 201.51
77th Street W Marilyn Dr to Country Ln 72.6 72.34 747.25
Lacasse Court Lacasse Dr to W Sac 94.5 72.42 236.65
31
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Laurene Avenue Linda Ave to Sac 77.46 72.48 795.64
Lacasse Drive Clearwater Creek Dr to Lacasse Ct 94.7 72.52 764.35
Glen Circle Glen Trail S to Sac 93.9 72.68 263.6
2nd Avenue Elm St to Sunflower Ln 76.71 72.72 483.67
Lacasse Drive Lacasse Cir to Tele Ln 95.2 72.77 418.4
Clearwater Creek
Drive Lacasse Dr to Tele Dr 95.4 72.87 679.16
Rohavic Lane Hodgson Rd to Oakwood Dr 78.4 73.01 477.35
Lacasse Drive Lacasse Ct to Ellen Court 95.8 73.07 501.75
Town Center Parkway Village Dr to City Hall Entrance 94.8 73.15 639.6
Clearwater Creek
Circle Sac to Clearwater Creek Dr 96 73.17 213.72
Clearwater Creek
Drive Cedar St E to Clearwater Creek Ct 96.02 73.18 223.64
Tart Court Tart lake Rd to Sac 96.14 73.2 311.35
Clearwater Creek
Drive Tele Dr to Clearwater Creek Cir 96.8 73.57 350.46
Rolling Hills Drive Reiling Rd to Deer Pass Tr 79 73.59 551.11
Tart Lake Road Tart Ct to 24th Ave 96.98 73.62 231.57
Trappers Xing N Trappers Ct to Sac 97 73.65 396.68
Lacasse Court Lacasse Dr to E Sac 97 73.67 275.07
Aqua Lane Lake Dr to Aqua Cir West 93.9 73.77 448.52
Tele Drive Tele Ln to Clearwater Creek Dr 97.2 73.77 630.87
Country Lakes Drive Deerwood Lane to Sac 97.3 73.79 221.95
Hollow Lane South Glen Tr to Sac 96.2 73.83 656.85
Linda Lane Linda Cir to Linda Ave 96.21 73.84 331.96
Sherman Lake Road Birch St to Merganser Ct 79.46 73.9 1077.87
Country Lakes Drive Fawn Lane to W end 97.6 73.94 160.19
Trappers Court Trappers Xing N to Sac 97.6 73.95 327.13
Lacasse Drive Clearwater Creek Dr to Lacasse Cir 97.6 73.97 531.87
Lacasse Circle Lacasse Dr to Sac 97.6 73.97 244.04
Villiage Drive
Town Center Pkwy to North End of
Allina Medical Center 96.54 74.02 791.85
Hollow Lane South glen Tr to 62nd Ave N 96.6 74.03 473.14
Town Center Parkway Lake Dr to Village Dr 96.6 74.05 344.69
Clearwater Creek
Drive Clearwater Creek Cir to Tart Lake Rd 97.8 74.07 735.8
Tele Lane Tele Dr to Sac 97.8 74.07 355
Fawn Lane Birch St to Country Lakes Dr 97.9 74.09 473.24
Linda Avenue Linda Lane to Ware Rd 96.8 74.13 379.91
Deerwood Lane Country Lakes Dr to Birch St 98 74.14 1241.63
32
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Clearwater Creek
Drive Clearwater Creek Ct to Arthur Ct 97.96 74.15 438.88
Red Hawk Trail Hawthorn Rd to Lonesome Pine Tr 78.71 74.19 267.34
Country Lakes Drive Fawn Lane to Deeerwood Ln 97.2 74.33 1410.53
South Glen Trail 62nd Ave to Bubble Sac 97.2 74.33 501.94
Trappers Xing N 98.4 74.35 113.7
Trappers Xing N Holly Dr to Trappers Ct 98.4 74.35 794.75
Albert Court Tart Lake Rd to Sac 98.4 74.37 246.98
Arthur Court Clearwater Crk Dr to Sac 98.4 74.37 548.51
Clearwater Creek
Drive Arthur Ct to Lacasse Dr 98.5 74.42 936.05
Hawthorn Road Lonesome Pine Tr to Painted Turtle Rd 79 74.42 595.49
Tart Lake Road Stella Ln to Tart Ct 98.76 74.51 614.94
Clearwater Creek
Court Clearwater Creek Dr to Sac 98.8 74.57 407.74
Tele Lane Lacasse Dr to Tele Dr 98.8 74.57 377.34
South Glen Trail Bubble Sac to Glen Cir 97.8 74.63 360.14
South Glen Trail Hollow Ln to Glen Circle 97.8 74.63 518.93
Lacasse Drive Ellen Ct to Iverson Ct 99 74.67 411.23
Shadow Lake Drive W Fox Road to 62nd Ave N 99 74.78 1578.15
2nd Avenue Smoketree Ln to Red Clover Ln 79.33 74.93 343.35
Tart Lake Road Clearwater Creek Dr to Lacasse Dr 99.6 74.93 335.45
Tart Lake Road Langer Ln to Albert Ct 99.72 74.99 175.96
Tart Lake Road Lacasse Dr to Stella Ln 99.76 75.01 892.46
65th Street Stella Ln to 24th Ave 100 75.13 769.12
Coyote Court Coyote Trl to Sac 80 75.13 335.28
Tart Lake Road Albert Ct to Clearwater Creek Dr 100 75.13 325.05
Tart Lake Road Otter Lake Rd to Langer Ln 100 75.13 671.81
Elm Street Snow Owl Ln to Rice Lake Dr 98.8 75.15 486.34
Elm Street 2nd Ave to Rice Lake Dr 98.8 75.15 361.3
Lacasse Drive Iverson Court to Tart Lake Rd 99.96 75.15 581.21
Clearwater Creek
Drive Tart Lake Rd to Delina Cir 100 75.17 1224.04
Flora Court Langer Lane to Sac 100 75.17 349.98
Iverson Court Lacasse Dr to Sac 100 75.17 602.81
Langer Lane Tart Lake Rd to Flora Ct 100 75.17 1712.3
Langer Lane Flora Court to Langer Circle 100 75.17 453.86
Stella Lane 65th Street to Tart Lake Road 96.8 75.22 315
Timberwolf Trail Birch St to Pheasant Hills Dr 81.23 75.29 260.05
South Glen Trail Hollow Ln to Sac 99.2 75.33 134.39
33
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Elm Street Sunrise Dr to Lakeview 99.2 75.35 595.49
Prairie Flower Road Shadow Lake Dr W to Chippewa Tr 80.8 75.47 573.47
Elm Street Gray Heron Dr to Whipporwill Ln 99.6 75.55 339.51
Elm Street Whipporwill Ln to Snow Owl Ln 99.6 75.55 342.95
Northern Lights
Boulevard 21st Avenue to East Dead End 100 75.75 488.61
Elm Street Rice Lake Dr to Rice Lake Dr 100 75.75 591.83
Elm Street Mourning Dove to 2nd 100 75.75 973.81
Elm Street Mourning Dove to Sunrise Dr 100 75.75 340.05
Elm Street Lakeview to Sunset Rd 100 75.75 1070
21st Avenue S Main St to Northern Lights Blvd 100 75.75 385.74
21st Avenue S Northern Lights Blvd to 215' S 100 75.75 215
Oakwood Lane Woodridge Lane to Sac 83.1 75.83 529.94
Langer Circle Langer Lane to Sac 98.24 75.94 185
Stella Lane Stella Circle to Clearwater Creek Drive 98.48 76.06 341
Chippewa Trail
Shenandoah Addition to Prairie Flower
Dr. 85 76.12 225
Marshan Court MARSHAN LANE TO SAC 100 76.13 142
Woodridge Court Woodridge Ln to Sac 83.6 76.13 262.11
62nd Avenue South Glen Trl to Hollow Ln 100 76.13 960.94
62nd Avenue Ware Road to South Glen Trl 100 76.13 617.37
62nd Avenue N Shadow Lk Dr W to Red Maple Ln 100 76.13 434.73
62nd Avenue N Hollow Ln to Shadow Lake Dr W 100 76.13 2283.75
Holly Drive E Cassiopeia Ct to Trappers Xing N 100 76.13 449.41
Holly Drive E Trappers Xing N to Trappers Xing S 100 76.13 244.96
Holly Drive E 12th Ave to Royal Pines Pl 100 76.13 371.5
Holly Drive E
Royal Pines Pl to South Trappers
Crossing 100 76.13 255.04
Holly Drive E Cassiopeia Ct to Trappers Xing S 100 76.13 582.99
Holly Drive E Trappers Xing S to Cripple Creek Pass 100 76.13 759.85
Holly Drive E Holly Court to Cripple Creek Pass 100 76.13 899.25
Clearwater Creek
Drive Stella Lane to Delina Cir 98.76 76.2 744
Lonesome Pine Trail Linden Ln to Coyote Tr 81.58 76.25 861.99
77th Street W Lake Dr NE to Marilyn Dr 76.64 76.38 492.27
Hunters Ridge Timberwolf Tr to Timberwolf Tr 100 76.47 983.23
Arrowhead Drive Hodgson Road to Lakota Trail 100 76.47 276
Lakota Trail Arrowhead Drive to 198' North 100 76.47 198
Laurene Avenue White Pine Rd to Linda Ave 84.89 76.47 285.07
Laurene Avenue Rohavic Lane to Schlavin Ct 88.71 76.47 558.16
34
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Linda Avenue Laurene Ave to Hodgson Rd 87.5 76.47 935.44
Red Birch Court Birch St to Sac 96.2 76.47 575.19
Rohavic Lane Oakwood Dr to Laurene Ave 88.04 76.47 445.45
Schlavin Court Laurene Ave to Sac 86.03 76.47 478.18
Shadow Lake Court E Birch St to Sac 93.4 76.47 407.5
Teal Court Sherman lake Rd to Sac 98 76.47 649.85
Timberwolf Trail Wolf Cir to Sac 100 76.47 268.49
Timberwolf Trail Hunters Rdg to Sherman Lake Rd 94.6 76.47 585.73
Timberwolf Trail Hunters Ridge to Hunters Rdg 100 76.47 900.03
Timberwolf Trail Hunters Ridge to Wolf Cir 98.6 76.47 461.78
White Birch Court Birch St to Sac 97.8 76.47 578.29
White Pine Circle White Pine Rd to Sac 95 76.47 208.48
White Pine Road Oakwood Ln to Laurene Ave 91.58 76.47 1216.94
White Pine Road White Pine Cir to Oakwood Ln 90 76.47 576.51
White Pine Road Baldwin Lake Rd to White Pine Cir 96.64 76.47 907.32
Wolf Circle Timberwolf Tr to Sac 100 76.47 310.25
Woodridge Lane Woodridge Ct to Ash St 89.6 76.47 1058.86
Woodridge Lane Baldwin Lake Rd to Oakwood Ln 90.32 76.47 1378.79
Woodridge Lane Oakwood Ln to Woodridge Ct 85.4 76.47 1442.32
Oakwood Lane Woodridge Ln to White Pine Rd 97 76.47 586.89
Langer Lane Hartford Circle to August Circle 100 76.49 197
Killdeer Court Killdeer Dr to Sac 82.4 76.7 155.02
Langer Lane Langer Circle to Hartford Circle 100 76.82 460
Langer Lane August Circle to Stella Circle 100 76.82 713
Hartford Circle Langer Lane to Sac 100 76.82 196
August Circle Langer Lane to Sac 100 76.82 182
Stella Circle Langer Lane to Sac 100 76.82 137
Stella Lane Clearwater Creek Drive to 65th Street 100 76.82 530
Sherman Lake Road Birch Street to Sedge Court 100 76.84 280.3
Sherman Lake Road Stoneybrook Drive to Temp Sac 100 76.84 474.79
Sedge Court Sherman Lake Road to Sac 100 76.84 353.28
Stoneybrook Drive
Sherman Lake Road to Pheasant Hills
Drive 100 76.84 369.69
Stoneybrook Drive
Pheasant Hills Drive to South Temp
Sac 100 76.84 1609.07
Pheasant Hills Drive Birch Street to Oak View Court 100 76.84 1149
Oakview Court Pheasant Hills Drive to Sac 100 76.84 308.55
Pheasant Hills Drive Stoneybrook Drive to Goldenrod Circle 100 76.84 985
Goldenrod Circle Pheasant Hills Drive to Sac 100 76.84 264.75
Meadowview Court Pheasant Hills Drive to Sac 100 76.84 249.74
35
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Molitor Drive Centerville Road to East Sac 100 76.84 790
Pheasant Hills Drive Oak View Court to Stoneybrook Drive 100 76.84 278.61
Pheasant Hills Drive
Goldenrod Circle to Meadowview
Court 100 76.84 447
Pheasant Hills Drive
Meadowview Court to South
Stoneybrook Drive Sac 100 76.84 416.04
Sherman Lake Road Sedge Court to Stoneybrook Drive 100 76.84 722.1
Marshan Lane Lake Dr to Sac 96.8 76.88 937.69
Lonesome Pine Trail Bubble Sac to Linden Lane 82.44 76.95 523.07
Lonesome Pine Trail Coyote Tr to Red Hawk Tr 82.44 76.95 586.24
Antelope Drive Gladstone Dr to Wildflower Dr 82.18 77.06 483.83
Egret Lane Blue Heron Dr to Sac 82.6 77.13 183.77
Otter Lake Drive Sac to Otter Lake Road 83.8 77.19 1350.35
Baldwin Lake Road Woodridge Ln to White Pine Rd 94.5 77.29 557.36
Sandhill Drive Blue Heron Dr to Sac 82.8 77.32 891.47
Linda Lane Raven's Hollow to Oak Hollow Lane 95.8 77.34 376
Gladstone Drive Sunrise Dr to Antelope Dr 82.54 77.35 383.23
Antelope Drive Green Briar Dr to Green Briar Dr 82.58 77.38 153.19
Ruffed Grouse Road Ruffed Grouse Ct to Sac 83.6 77.47 630.7
Lantern Lane Lantern Cir to East Shadow Lake Dr E 81.92 77.64 555.84
Shadow Lake Drive W Birch St to Hickory Pl 84.8 77.72 206.33
Mourning Dove Road Smoketree Lane to Sac 83 77.72 268.32
Sunrise Drive Smoketree Ln to Fairmont Dr 96 77.87 451.15
Sunrise Drive Green Briar Dr to Gladstone Dr 89 77.87 1002.59
Sunrise Road Fairmont Dr to Green Briar Dr 87.1 77.87 316.38
Sunrise Road Elm St to Smoketree Ln 91.6 77.87 864.64
Osprey Court Sherman Lake Rd to Sac 100 77.87 522.81
2nd Avenue Wildflower Dr to Gladstone Cir 83.19 77.88 338.22
Rolling Hills Drive Bald Eagle Blvd W to Reiling Rd 85.4 78.07 1650.25
4th Avenue Apollo Dr to 479' N 78.53 78.25 479.09
Shadow Lake Drive W Painted Turtle Rd to River Birch Pl 86 78.38 330.6
Forsham Lake Drive Lake Dr to Stagecoach Trl 84 78.43 678.22
Cherokee Trail Hudson Trail to Cul -de -sac 98.92 78.46 324.38
Osprey Court 96 78.46 122.09
Trappers Crossing S 98.48 78.46 155.6
Cassiopeia Court Holly Drive E to Cul -de -sac 99.6 78.46 360.15
Cherokee Trail Hudson Trail to Trappers Xing S 98.92 78.46 514.12
Cripple Creek Court Cripple Creek Pass to Cul -de -sac 99.6 78.46 345.49
Cripple Creek Pass
Cripple Creek Ct to South Trappers
Xing 98.4 78.46 558.24
36
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Cripple Creek Pass Holly Dr N to Cripple Creek Ct 100 78.46 278.03
Durango Point Trappers Xing S to Cul -de -sac 99.48 78.46 474.86
Hawk Ridge Circle Pheasant Hills Drive to Cul -de -sac 98.8 78.46 163.19
Peregrine Circle 12th Avenue S to Cul -de -sac 100 78.46 345.86
Pheasant Hills Circle Pheasant Hills Drive to Cul -de -sac 89.3 78.46 144.79
Sherman Lake Road Teal Ct to Meadowlark Ct 100 78.46 491.85
Sherman Lake Road Meadowlark Ct to Osprey Ct 96 78.46 1585.58
Sherman Lake Road Osprey Court to Sherman Lake Circle 98.8 78.46 515.82
Trappers Crossing S Holly Drive to Mineral Point 100 78.46 276.03
Trappers Crossing S Cherokee Tr to Durango Pt 98.28 78.46 322.35
Trappers Crossing S Durango Pt to Holly Dr E 100 78.46 218.77
Trappers Crossing S Cripple Creek Pass to Hudson Tr 99.08 78.46 273.29
Trappers Crossing S Cherokee Tr to Hudson Tr 99.92 78.46 382.4
Trappers Crossing S Cripple Creek Pass to Mineral Pt 100 78.46 446.56
Meadowlark Court Sherman Lake Road to Cul -de -sac 95.01 78.46 148.68
Mineral Point Trappers Xing S to Sac 100 78.46 395.42
Hudson Trail Trappers Xing S to Cherokee Trail 98.48 78.46 676.73
Post Road Stagecoach Tr to #443 (Mid -Rad) 84.2 78.59 486.65
Killdeer Drive Killdeer Ct to Tamarack Ln 86 78.81 331.7
Ware Road Birch St to Ware Cir 85.54 79.05 432.66
Egret Lane Pelican Pl to Pelican Pl 85.1 79.07 418.81
Ruffed Grouse Road Wild Turkey Tr to Ruffed Grouse Ct 86.5 79.09 269.59
2nd Avenue Parkview Dr to Lake Dr 84.8 79.14 653.44
Oak Hollow Lane Linda Lane to Ravens Court 99.2 79.26 980
Pheasant Run S Aspen Lane to Dead End 87 79.34 398.8
Lonesome Pine Trail Hawthorn Rd to Bubble Sac 85.78 79.42 333.82
Prairie Flower Road Chippewa Tr to Sac 88 79.42 243.04
4th Avenue Elm St 160' to north 99.6 79.48 160
Linda Lane Oak Hollow Lane to Ravens Court 99.6 79.48 448
Fox Road
208 ft. from Fox Road/Deerwood Lane
to Red Fox Road 100 79.56 230
Fox Road Red Fox Road to Red Fox Road 100 79.56 724
Fox Road Red Fox Road to end 100 79.56 452
Red Fox Road Fox Road to Bubble 100 79.56 816
Red Fox Road Bubble to Fox Cove 100 79.56 745
Red Fox Road Fox Cove to Fox Hollow 100 79.56 223
Red Fox Road Fox Hollow to Fox Road 100 79.56 298
Bubble Red Fox Road to back of Bubble 100 79.56 100
Fox Cove Red Fox Road to end of Fox Cove 100 79.56 338
Fox Hollow Red Fox Road to end of Fox Hollow 100 79.56 168
37
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Lakota Trail
198 ft from Lakota Trail/Arrowhead
Drive to Ojibway Path 100 79.56 540
Lakota Trail Ojibway Path to Business Entrance 100 79.56 70
Lakota Trail Business Entrance to Birch Street 100 79.56 220
Ojibway Path Lakota Trail to Arrowhead Drive 100 79.56 1098.6
Carpenter Place Black Duck to East end 100 79.57 81
Vaughan Court Birch Street to end of sac 100 79.57 165
Snow Owl Lane Snow Owl Cir to Gray Heron Dr 86 79.57 355.28
Black Duck Drive S Aspen Ln to Tamarack Ln 87.48 79.59 583.36
Shadow Lake Drive W Hickory Pl to Prairie Flower Rd 88.5 79.67 510.66
Painted Turtle Road Shadow Lake Dr W to Hawthorn Rd 88.5 79.67 475.27
Arrowhead Drive Ware Rd to Ojibway Path 100 79.71 161
Arrowhead Drive Ojibway Path to Lakota Lane 100 79.71 773
Ravens Court Ware Road to Linda Lane 100 79.71 357
Ravens Court Linda Lane to Oak hollow Lane 100 79.71 543
Ravens Court Oak Hollow Lane to Sac 100 79.71 488
Royal Pines Place Holly drive to Sac 100 79.71 531.6
Elmcrest Avenue South City Limits to 65th St 100 79.73 243.4
Elmcrest Avenue Tart Lake Road to North City Limits 100 79.73 914.9
Oak Hollow Lane 99.2 79.81 146.51
Gray Heron Drive Snow Owl Ln to Whippoorwill Ln 86.5 79.85 374.16
Stage Coach Trail Post Rd to Post Rd 86.52 79.86 344.65
Ware Road Hawthorn Rd to Arrowhead Dr 86.64 79.91 624.98
Shadow Lake Drive W Prairie Flower Rd to Ironwood Cir 89 79.92 157.15
Timberwolf Trail Timberwolf Cir to Sherman Lake Rd 89 79.93 468.54
Egret Lane Pelican Pl to Blue Heron Dr 86.9 80.05 449.97
Aspen Lane Pheasant Run S to Black Duck Dr S 88.4 80.05 183.19
Snow Owl Lane Gray Heron Dr to Elm St 87 80.1 1361.26
Stage Coach Trail Post Rd to Forsham Lake Dr 87 80.1 290.98
Blue Heron Drive Hodgson Rd to Sandhill Dr 87.1 80.15 639.44
Grey Squirrel Road Sunflower Ln to Sac 86.12 80.18 269.43
Aspen Lane Black Duck Dr S to Killdeer Dr 89 80.36 641.59
Coyote Trail Lonesome Pine Trl to Linden Ln 87.65 80.4 377.63
Deerwood Lane Deerwood Circle to Fox Rd 86.46 80.4 488.17
Reiling Road Rolling Hills Dr to Whitetail Rdg 89.94 80.46 871.78
Fox Road White Owl Dr to Fox Cir 89.3 80.51 462.5
Ruffed Grouse Road Wild Turkey Tr to Sac 89.3 80.51 356.88
Antelope Drive Ulmer Dr to Green Briar Dr 86.6 80.54 190.6
Fox Road Deerwood Lane to Fox Cir 89.4 80.56 1056.47
Stage Coach Trail Post Rd to Sac 88 80.61 251.53
38
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Mourning Dove Road Sunflower Ln to Smoketree Ln 86.96 80.73 370.88
Muskrat Run Deerwood Ln to Fawn Ln 87 80.73 330.87
Pony Court Mustang Lane to Cul -de -sac 81.06 80.78 255.58
Shadow Lake Drive W River Birch Pl to White Owl Dr 90.5 80.78 538
Snow Goose Trail Pheasant Hills Drive to Cul -de -sac 91 80.78 289.33
Smoketree Lane Mourning Dove Rd to Sunrise Dr 87.2 80.84 328.43
Villiage Drive
ALLINA SPORTS CENTER to WOODS
EDGE BLVD 99.6 80.86 1204.5
Buckthorn Lane 12th Ave S to Whitetail Trl 98.8 80.9 499.75
Chokecherry Road Whitetail Trl to White Oak Rd 97.2 80.9 425.07
Chokecherry Road Sac to Whitetail Trl 94.36 80.9 476.69
Deer Pass Trail Rolling Hills Dr to Whitetail Rdg 93.3 80.9 523.35
Fox Road Deerwood Lane to E end 99.6 80.9 159.4
Fox Road Sac to Shadow Lake Dr W 97.4 80.9 494.23
Fox Road Shadow Lake Dr W to White Owl Dr 95.7 80.9 338.69
Hickory Place Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac 96 80.9 142.74
Ironwood Circle Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac 99 80.9 220.62
Killdeer Drive Aspen lane to Aspen Lane 96.8 80.9 126.84
Killdeer Drive Aspen Lane to Sac 97.4 80.9 157.83
Killdeer Drive Aspen Lane to Killdeer Ct 94.5 80.9 259.27
Kingfisher Court Birch St to Sac 96.8 80.9 489.63
Pheasant Hills Drive Timberwolf Tr to Sac 95 80.9 323.45
Pheasant Hills Drive Snow Goose Tr to Hawk Ridge Cir 99.6 80.9 348.85
Pheasant Hills Drive Broken Oak Ct to Pheasant Hills Cir 97.6 80.9 245.77
Pheasant Hills Drive Pheasant Hills Cir to Snow Goose Tr 97 80.9 259.54
Pheasant Hills Drive Hawk Ridge Cir to Timberwolf Tr 97.8 80.9 873.78
Pheasant Run S Aspen Ln to Birch St 91 80.9 961.49
Pondview Circle Sherman Lake Rd to Sac 91.92 80.9 425.13
River Birch Place Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac 94 80.9 651.6
River Birch Place
Shadow Lake Dr W to Painted Turtle
Rd 97.2 80.9 769.47
Ruffed Grouse Court Ruffed Grouse Rd to Sac 98.4 80.9 311.26
Shadow Lake Drive W Ironwood Cir to Painted Turtle Rd 95.2 80.9 417.52
Shadow Lake Drive W Fox Rd to White Owl Dr 93.4 80.9 385.52
Sherman Lake Circle Sherman Lake Rd to Sac 100 80.9 101.66
Sherman Lake Court Sherman lake Rd to Sac 97.94 80.9 228.81
Sherman Lake Road Sherman Lake Ct to Sherman Lake Cir 97.06 80.9 611.38
Sherman Lake Road Pondview Cir to Teal Ct 98.8 80.9 323.88
Tamarack Lane Black Duck Dr S to Killdeer Dr 92.72 80.9 571
Timberwolf Circle Timberwolf Tr to Sac 96.8 80.9 212.71
39
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Timberwolf Trail Timberwolf Cir to Pheasant Hills Dr 98.4 80.9 423.35
Velvetleaf Lane White Oak Rd to Sac 98 80.9 277.51
White Oak Road Whitetail Tr to 12th Ave S 98.4 80.9 496.75
White Oak Road Birch St to Chokecherry Rd 96 80.9 452.9
White Oak Road Chokecherry Rd to Velvetleaf Ln 96.6 80.9 232.67
White Oak Road Velvetleaf Ln to Whitetail Tr 96.28 80.9 851.52
White Owl Drive Shadow Lake DR W to Fox Rd 94.4 80.9 726.1
Whitetail Ridge Reiling Rd to Deer Pass Tr 96.2 80.9 412
Whitetail Trail White Oak Rd to Buckthorn Ln 96.44 80.9 335.73
Whitetail Trail Buckthorn Ln to Chokecherry Rd 95.2 80.9 555.9
Wild Turkey Trail Birch St to Ruffed Grouse Rd 95.8 80.9 699.72
Merganser Court Sherman lake Rd to Sac 95.58 80.9 552.48
Mourning Dove Road Elm St to Sunflower Ln 87.32 80.9 486.18
Painted Turtle Road River Birch Pl to Sac 97.4 80.9 152.35
Painted Turtle Road Hawthorn Rd to River Birch Pl 94 80.9 462.93
Aspen Lane Killdeer Dr to Sac 97.6 80.9 581.93
Fox Circle Fox Rd to Sac 94.24 80.9 172.58
Broken Oak Court Pheasant Hills Drive to Cul -de -sac 93.9 80.9 301.19
Deer Pass Trail Whitetail Ridge to Sac 97.6 80.9 119.75
Antelope Drive Wildflower Dr to Ulmer Dr 87.34 80.91 333.29
Blue Heron Drive Sandhill Dr to Egret Ln 88.75 80.99 474.95
2nd Avenue Ulmer Dr to Wildflower Dr 87.56 81.03 323.02
Town Center Parkway
CITY HALL ENTERANCE TO WOODS
EDGE BLVD 100 81.09 1691.7
Park Court Lake Drive to Stage Coach Trail 100 81.09 367.61
Stage Coach Trail North cul -de -sac to Park Court 100 81.09 123.45
Stage Coach Trail Park Court to Marshan Court 100 81.09 336.02
Stage Coach Trail Marshan Court to south cul -de -sac 100 81.09 174.4
Marshan Court Stage Coach Trail to west cul -de -sac 100 81.09 340.42
2nd Avenue Gladstone Cir to Glenview Ave 87.87 81.12 331.36
Black Duck Drive Partridge Pl to Lantern Ln 90 81.2 695.19
Fawn Lane Sac to Muskrat Run 88 81.22 698.35
Coyote Trail Bubble Sac to Coyote Ct. 89.44 81.31 773.45
Coyote Trail Coyote Ct. to Ware Road 89.44 81.31 377.94
Black Duck Drive Crystal Ct to Mallard Ln 89.5 81.34 311.55
Lantern Lane Black Duck Dr to Lantern Cir 89.5 81.34 527.06
Glenview Drive Rustic Lane to Glenview Ln 88.2 81.35 363.24
Whippoorwill Lane Gray Heron Dr to Elm St 89.5 81.37 1328.92
Beaver Circle Deerwood Ln to Sac 88.46 81.45 528.5
Beaver Trail Deerwood Ln to Fawn Ln 88.5 81.47 533.67
40
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Deerwood Lane Fox Rd to Sac 89.4 81.5 988.09
Sunfish Court Sunflower Ln to Sac 88.64 81.57 265.92
Sunflower Lane Mourning Dove Rd to Grey Squirrel Rd 88.76 81.63 317.01
Mallard Lane Black Duck Dr to Sac 90 81.64 336.68
Gray Heron Drive #7128 to Whippoorwill Lane 90 81.67 328.72
Gray Heron Drive Elm St to #7128 90 81.67 1159.3
Stage Coach Trail Forsham lake Dr to Sac 90 81.67 589.36
Marilyn Drive 77th St W to Barbara Ln 81.99 81.7 1043.5
2nd Avenue Glenview Ave to Parkview Dr 89 81.76 319.66
Park Court Lake Drive to West Cul -de -sac 100 81.93 560.53
Cinnamon Teal Court Sac to Elm St 90.5 81.97 354.06
Deerwood Lane Birch St to Beaver Trl 90.2 81.97 230.13
Red Hawk Trail Lonesome Pine Tr to Sac 75.26 81.99 296.05
Gladstone Circle 2nd Ave to Sac 89.6 82.07 311.21
Fawn Lane Muskrat Run to Beaver Trl 90.5 82.15 801.77
Phelps Road Arnt Construction to Otter Lake Rd 90 82.19 1317.58
Post Road #443 (Mid -Rad) to Stagecoach Tr 91 82.28 804.25
Snow Owl Circle Snow Owl Ln to Sac 91 82.28 393.24
Caribou Circle Wildflower Dr to Sac 90.2 82.43 333.64
Green Briar Drive Sunrise Dr to Antelope Dr 90.4 82.55 383.61
Sunflower Lane Grey Squirrel Rd to Sunfish Ct 90.8 82.8 448.59
Coyote Trail Linden Tr to Coyote Tr Bubble Sac 91.92 82.81 748.54
Black Duck Circle Black Duck Dr to Sac 92 82.86 408.99
Lantern Circle Sac to Lantern Lane 92 82.86 582.3
Shadow Lake Drive E Lantern Ln to Sac 92 82.86 558.28
Black Duck Court Sac to Black Duck Drive 98.4 83.15 318.12
Black Duck Drive Partridge Pl to Black Duck Cir #6796 99.2 83.15 1146.55
Black Duck Drive Black Duck Ct to Birch St 99.56 83.15 327.33
Black Duck Drive Shadow Lake Dr E to Black Duck Cir 98.68 83.15 249.71
Black Duck Drive Captains Pl to Black Duck Ct 94.28 83.15 541.54
Black Duck Drive Lantern Ln to Captains Pl 98.2 83.15 105.55
Black Duck Drive North End Sac to Crystal Ct 84 83.15 1651.78
Black Duck Drive Partridge Pl to Partridge Pl 96.72 83.15 426.27
Black Duck Drive Mallard Ln to Shadow Lake Dr E 93 83.15 487.35
Crystal Court Black Duck Dr to Sac 93 83.15 188.57
Egret Lane Hodgson Rd to Pelican Pl 94 83.15 463.8
Linden Lane Coyote Tr to Lonesome Pine Tr 92.96 83.15 1317.35
Shadow Lake Drive E Black Duck Dr to Lantern Ln 94 83.15 2166.98
Partridge Place Black Duck Dr to #6723 (south) 96.2 83.15 719.82
41
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Partridge Place #6723 to Black Duck Tr (north) 97.4 83.15 796.74
James Street #980 to Main St 83.56 83.27 441.9
Wildflower Drive Caribou Cir to Antelope Dr 91.6 83.28 333.63
Ware Road 62nd Ave to County Road J 92.6 83.29 2630.32
Fawn Lane Beaver Trail To Birch St 92.72 83.34 222.84
Sunflower Lane 2nd Ave to Sunfish Ct 92.2 83.6 208.05
Ulmer Drive Antelope Dr to 2nd Ave 92.2 83.6 928.08
Oak Lane Lake Dr NE to Carole Dr 83.97 83.64 832.18
Deerwood Circle Deerwood Lane to West Sac 92.4 83.65 125.26
Green Briar Drive Antelope Dr to 2nd Ave 92.4 83.68 909.65
Deerwood Lane Beaver Cir to Muskrat Run 93.9 83.8 484.75
Stage Coach Trail
174' SOUTH OF MARSHAN COURT TO
516' SOUTH OF MARSHAN COURT
(GRANDVIEW) 100 83.84 174.4
Glenview Lane Parkview Dr to Glenview Ave 92.8 83.84 324.6
Sioux Lookout Sioux Ln to Sac 94.28 83.96 614.65
Wildflower Drive 2nd Ave to Caribou Cir 93.3 84.08 603.17
Glenview Avenue 2nd Ave to Glenview Lane 93.58 84.21 494.56
Grey Squirrel Road Smoketree Ln to Red Clover Ln 93.9 84.36 330.8
Smoketree Lane Grey Squirrel Rd to 2nd Ave 93.9 84.36 603.1
Deerwood Lane Muskrat Run to Deerwood Cir 94 84.37 441.88
Glenview Lane Parkview Dr to Glenview Dr 94.8 84.77 824.14
Ware Road Ware Cir to Sioux Ln 96.2 84.85 208.04
Parkview Drive Glenview Ln to 2nd Ave 95 84.87 501.41
Grey Squirrel Road Sunflower Ln to Smoketree Ln 95.7 85.2 335.98
Deerwood Circle Deerwood Lane to East Sac 96 85.3 278.92
Red Clover Lane Grey Squirrel Rd to 2nd Ave 96 85.33 593.99
Sioux Court Sioux Ln to Sac 96 85.33 152.93
Ware Road Sioux Lane to Hodgson Rd. (CR 49) 100 85.42 670
Deerwood Lane Beaver Trl to Beaver Cir 82.07 85.42 222.91
Sioux Lane Sioux Lookout to #6629 97.74 85.42 352
Sioux Lane Ware Rd to Sioux Ct 100 85.42 779.51
Sioux Lane Sioux Ct to Sioux Lookout 100 85.42 308.57
Ware Circle Ware Rd to Sac 98.72 85.42 121.36
Ware Road Arrowhead Dr to Birch St 98.12 85.42 1040.89
Ware Road Coyote Tr to Hawthorn Rd 100 85.42 1461.14
Ware Road 62nd Ave to Linda Ave 98.8 85.42 309.33
Ware Road Linda Av to Coyote Tr 97.8 85.42 541.64
Aspen Lane Pheasant Run S to Pheasant Run S 100 86.56 183.19
Apollo Drive 88.6 86.73 1393.09
42
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Quarter Horse Court Lilac Street to Cul -de -sac 87.88 87.5 285.91
Apollo Court Apollo Drive to Sac 88.8 88.42 432
Oakwood Lane 83.1 88.8 622.3
Nancy Court 90.6 88.95 579.09
Marilyn Drive 79th St W to Oak Ct 89.4 89.01 418.09
Palomino Lane Mustang Ln to Cul -de -sac 90.42 90.1 800.47
Market Place Drive 92 90.45 794.29
Woods Edge Blvd Town Center Parkway to Village Drive 97.48 90.67 631.3
Lilac Street 91 90.68 1787.86
Lilac Street Apollo Drive to Sac 91.2 90.88 890
Savanna Court Ash St to Sac 91.4 91.08 458.38
Market Place Drive 93.76 91.55 1511.24
Pine Street 92.2 91.8 3845.98
Pine Street 92.8 92.28 1811.45
Highland Drive Highland Cir to Highland Ln 93 92.48 498.22
Oak Court Marilyn Dr to Oak Ln 93 92.48 369.63
Joseph Court Myrtle Lane to Sac 93.12 92.6 220
79th Street W Lake Dr NE to Nancy Dr 93.3 92.78 437.13
77th Street W Carole Dr to Lake Dr NE 93.4 92.88 1248.17
Jeanne Drive Marcia Lane to Lilac St 93.6 93.1 720.46
Palomino Lane Behm Ln to Lilac St 93.6 93.1 698.18
Carl Street #346 to sac 93.7 93.2 776.59
Palomino Lane Appaloosa Ln to Palomino Ln 93.9 93.4 368.25
Oak Lane Marilyn Dr to Oak Ct 94 93.48 473.06
Behm Lane Palomino Ln to Teckla Ct 94 93.5 788.39
Patti Drive Marcia Ln to Lilac St 94 93.5 736.81
Highland Circle Highland Dr to Sac 94.2 93.68 152.93
Marilyn Drive Oak Ln to Barbara Ln 94.4 93.88 1077.59
Palomino Lane Appaloosa Ln to Sac 94.5 94 481.56
Palomino Lane Pinto Lane to Mustang Lane 94.5 94 586.1
Patti Drive 74th St to Connie Ln 94.5 94 663.19
Highland Court Highland Dr to Sac 94.6 94.08 359
Highland Drive Highland Ln to Highland Tr 94.6 94.08 156.75
Market Place Drive 96.6 94.11 643.49
79th Street W Nancy Dr to Marilyn Dr 94.8 94.28 621.06
Behm Lane Palomino Ln to E end 94.8 94.3 152.6
Palomino Lane Palomino Ln to Behm Ln 94.8 94.3 798.61
Apollo Court 96.97 94.48 1054.37
Mustang Lane Palomino Ln to Pony Ct 95 94.5 496.69
43
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Lois Lane Meadow View Tr to 520' East 95.1 94.58 520.46
Highland Lane Highland Dr to Sac 95.2 94.68 213.48
Robinson Drive 97.2 94.71 284.25
Marilyn Drive 79th St W to Arlo Ln 95.4 94.88 138.95
Morgan Lane 97.4 94.91 557.86
Shetland Lane 97.4 94.91 461.08
Highland Drive Highland Ct to Highland Cir 95.6 95.08 798.34
Arlo Lane Joseph Ct to Henry Ln 95.6 95.08 772.63
Lois Lane Country Lane to #595 95.7 95.18 452.74
Oak Court Oak Ln to Sac 95.7 95.18 233.95
Marcia Lane Patti Dr to Jeanne Dr 95.7 95.2 750.04
Teckla Court Behm Ln to Sac 95.7 95.2 315.86
Highland Trail Highland Dr to Marilyn Dr 96 95.48 661.14
Arlo Lane Highland Drive to #665 96.2 95.68 415
Myrtle Lane Woodduck Tr to Joseph Ct 96.2 95.68 724.23
Carole Drive Oak Lane to 77th St W 96.4 95.88 1484.28
Marilyn Drive Oak Ct to Oak Ln 96.4 95.88 457.21
Vicky Lane Lake Dr NE to Nancy Drive 96.4 95.88 971.36
Highland Drive Marilyn Dr to Highland Ct 96.6 96.08 661.62
Lois Lane Greenwood Ln to Sherwood Ln 96.6 96.08 296.77
Arlo Lane Joseph Ct to Highland Dr 96.6 96.08 402.04
Behm Lane Teckla Ct to Lilac St 96.6 96.1 230.59
Jeanne Drive Connie Lane to Marcia Lane 96.6 96.1 1251.97
Appaloosa Court Appaloosa Ln to Sac 96.6 96.1 359.98
Arlo Lane #665 to Marilyn Drive 96.8 96.28 305
Stallion Lane Century Trail to 820' East 96.8 96.3 820
Carl Street
85 ft East of Clydesdale Circle/Carl
Street to end of sac 96.8 96.3 311
Century Trail 96.8 96.3 641.64
Mustang Lane Palomino Lane to Pinto Lane 96.8 96.3 793
Appaloosa Lane Lilac St to Appaloosa Ct 96.8 96.3 451.42
Joseph Court Myrtle Lane to Arlo Lane 97 96.48 330.19
Marilyn Drive Arlo Ln to Highland Tr 97 96.48 395.04
Wood Duck Trail Henry Ln to 200' W 97 96.48 200.1
Pinto Lane Century Trail to North Sac 97 96.5 550
Connie Lane Patti Dr to Jeanne Dr 97 96.5 661.15
Jeanne Drive 74th St to Connie Lane 97 96.5 658.79
Patti Drive Connie Lane to Marcia Lane 97 96.5 1275.26
Pinto Lane Palomino Lane to Mustang Lane 97 96.5 403.04
Henry Lane Arlo Ln to Woodduck Trail 97.2 96.68 429.96
44
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Lois Lane Meadow View Tr to 350' WEST 97.2 96.68 350
Pinto Lane Mustang Lane to Century Trail 97.2 96.7 277.91
Appaloosa Lane Appaloosa Ct to Palomino Ln 97.2 96.7 1203.45
Palomino Lane Sunset Avenue to Pinto Lane 97.2 96.7 642.86
Highland Drive Arlo Lane to Highland Trl 97.4 96.88 395.24
Lois Lane Marilyn Dr to #595 97.4 96.88 1288.46
Century Trail Shetland Lane to Robinson Drive 97.4 96.9 308
Clydesdale Circle Carl Street to end of sac 97.4 96.9 310
Praire View Place Country Ln to Meadow View Tr 97.6 97.08 570.81
Morgan Lane 99.6 97.11 477.05
Nottingham Lane Greenwood Ln to Lois Ln 97.8 97.28 1319.39
Century Trail 7850 Century Trail to Shetland Lane 97.8 97.3 438
Mustang Lane Pony Ct to Mustang Ct 97.8 97.3 357.3
Greenwood Lane Lois Lane to Nottingham Ln 98 97.48 575.02
Lois Lane Sherwood Ln to Nottingham 98 97.48 1377.3
Meadowview Trail Lois Ln to Prairie View Pl 98 97.48 1461.56
Nancy Drive Main St to Vicky Lane 98 97.48 392.88
Century Trail Stallion Lane to East #7790 98 97.5 839.6
Robinson Drive Century Trail to Shetland Lane 98 97.5 402
Wood Duck Trail Henry Ln to Myrtle Lane 98.4 97.88 693.5
Wood Duck Trail Myrtle Lane to Henry Lane 98.4 97.88 330.1
Century Trail Sunset Road to Pinto Lane 98.4 97.9 644.72
Century Trail Pinto Lane to Stallion Lane 98.4 97.9 955.68
Arabian Circle Century Trail to Sac 98.4 97.9 346
Robinson Drive 98.4 97.9 425.67
Henry Lane Woodduck Trl to Woodduck Tr 98.8 98.28 1357.65
Wood Duck Trail Main St to Henry Ln 98.8 98.28 237.89
Century Trail Century Trail to Sac 98.8 98.3 122.23
Robinson Drive Century Trail to East End 99.2 98.7 140
Market Place Drive Lake Dr to 1st Intersection 99.2 98.7 275
Lois Lane Country Lane to 176' West 99.6 99.08 697.15
Sherwood Lane Lois Ln to Carl St 99.6 99.1 492.78
Mustang Court Mustang Lane to Cul -de -sac 99.6 99.1 342.86
Mustang Lane Mustang Ct to Lilac St 99.6 99.1 488.49
Blackbird Lane Andall St to Sac 100 99.48 751.55
Kelly Street Lake Drive (CSAH 23) to Shelia Ave 100 99.48 832.36
Kelly Street Shelia Avenue to Timothy Court 100 99.48 952.53
Shelia Avenue Kelly Street to south cul -de -sac 100 99.48 483.84
Timothy Court Kelly Street to cul -de -sac 100 99.48 201.99
45
Route Description Inspected
OCI Today ’s OCI Length (ft)
Kelly Street Timothy Court to Wayne Court 100 99.48 380.12
Wayne Court Kelly Street to cul -de -sac 100 99.48 201.33
Kelly Street Wayne Court to Jane Ave 100 99.48 691.64
Jane Avenue Kelly Street to north stub 100 99.48 267.37
Kelly Street Jane Avenue to Lois Lane 100 99.48 787.87
Lois Lane 350' WEST TO NOTTINGHAMM LANE 100 99.48 200
Pine Street 100 99.48 1629.99
Pine Street 100 99.48 2997.9
Country Lane Prairie View Pl to Lois Lane 100 99.48 1534
Country Lane 77th St W to Prairie View Pl 100 99.48 811.46
Lois Lane Lake Dr NE to #790 100 99.48 572.66
Lois Lane Knoll Dr to Sac 100 99.48 937.51
Lois Lane #790 to Knoll Dr 100 99.48 2168.01
Aenon Place Main St to Sac 100 99.48 1118.05
Andall Street Hse #647 to Wood Duck Tr 100 99.48 960.03
Andall Street 4th Ave to Blackbird Ln 100 99.48 904.84
Andall Street Blackbird Ln to Wood Duck Trl 100 99.48 699.31
Andall Street Wood Duck Tr to Hse #647 100 99.48 1036.65
Wood Duck Trail Main St to Andall St 100 99.48 3124.53
Wood Duck Trail Andall St to Andall St 100 99.48 676.87
Robinson Drive Shetland Lane to West end 100 99.5 40
74th Street Jean to Patti Drive 100 99.5 627.95
74th Street Patti Drive to Jon Ave 100 99.5 366.9
Bradley Street Sunset Ave to Leonard Ave 100 99.5 605.19
Lilac Street 100 99.5 5163.54
Leonard Avenue Marvy St to Bradley St 100 99.5 1737.81
Leonard Avenue Bradley St to Lilac St 100 99.5 1537.91
Apollo Drive Lake Dr to Kohl's Lot 100 99.5 1201.75
46
APPENDIX C
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
CARTEGRAPH (PAVEMENTview PLUS) CRITERIA
The PAVEMENTview Plus software package, provided by Cartegraph, requires an initial setup of
variables to run a pavement analysis. These variables must be determined by City staff to
provide the most accurate projections possible for this analysis .
Listed below are the variables that have been set for the AC -Asphalt Concrete 10 -Year
Pave ment Analysis:
BUDGET – Inflation Rate of 5 % Assumed for Any Surplus
Major (Reconstruction): $2,000,000 per year
Minor (Cold In Place Recycle): $$367,500 per year
Incidental (Chip Seals): $122 ,500 per year
CONSTRUCTION COSTS – 3% Cost Factor Applied
Reconstruction : $11.00 per square foot (Includes standard roadway with
curb and gutter.)
PerformAwhenAOCIA≤A40
Provides an Absolute 100 OCI increase to segment
Cold In Place Recycle .A$2:30AperAsquareAfootA( pproximatelyA1:5”Aoverlay)
Grinding of existing a sphalt surface followed by an overlay
Perform when 40A<AOCIA≤A66
Provides an Absolute 95 OCI increase to segment
Chip Seal : $.14 per square foot
Crack filling included
Pothole filling included
PerformAwhenA66A<AOCIA≤A83
Provides a 20% OCI increase to segment
PAVEMENT LIFE (See attached OCI Performance Curve)
NETWORK PRIORITY RATING (NPR)
Established overall priority of each segment considered for improvements
each year.
Parameters
OCI
System Designation
Functional Classification
Detour Length
ADT
Pavem ent Classification
47
APPENDIX D
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
TOTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS AT CURRENT CONDITIONS
(2013 Dollars)
CHIP SEAL
Cost to sealcoat per mile : $ 21,162.59
Miles of Road in Need: 62.68
Total Cost to Sealcoat All Roads in Need: $ 1,326,471
COLD IN PLACE RECYCLE
Cost for Cold in Place Recycle per mile : $ 326,488.6
Miles of Road in Need: 1 4 .06
Total Cost to Perform Cold in Place Recycle on All Roads in Need: $ 4,263,941
RECONSTRUCTION
Cost to Reconstruct per mile : $ 1,508,090
Miles of Road in Need: 18.8 6
Total Cost to Reconstruct All Roads in Need: $ 28,382,261
4 8
APPENDIX E
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS
(2013 Dollars)
CHIP SEAL
Cost to sealcoat per mile : $ 21,162.59
Miles of Road in Need: 5.78
Total Cost to Sealcoat All Roads in Need: $ 1 22 ,500.00
COLD IN PLACE RECYCLE
Cost for Cold in Place Recycle: $ 326,488.6
Miles of Road in Need: 1.13
Total Cost to Perform Cold in Place Recycle on All Roads in Need: $ 3 67 ,500.00
RECONSTRUCTION
Cost to Reconstruct per mile : $ 1,508,090
Miles of Road in Need: 1.33
Total Cost to Reconstruct All Roads in Need: $ 2,000,000
49
APPENDIX F
Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report
July 31 , 2013
LINO LAKES PAVEMENT RATING EXAMPLES
Kelly Street
Today’s OCI = 99.48
Cartegraph ID = 1204
50
Vicky Lane
Today’s OCI = 95.88
Cartegraph ID = 592
51
79 th Street West
Today’s OCI = 94.28
Cartegraph ID = 45
52
James Street
Today’s OCI = 83.28
Cartegraph ID = 308
53
Lea Court
Today’s OCI = 66.88
Cartegraph ID = 361
54
Meadow Couty
Today’s OCI = 63.12
Cartegraph ID = 403
55
Thomas Street
Today’s OCI = 62.12
Cartegraph ID = 999
56
Elbe Street N.E.
Today’s OCI = 62.01
Cartegraph ID = 202
57
Nancy Drive
Today’s OCI = 53.07
Cartegraph ID = 963
58
Terra Court
Today’s OCI = 51.5
Cartegraph ID = 556
59
James Street
Today’s OCI = 40.65
Cartegraph ID = 307
60
Jon Avenue
Today’s OCI = 17.31
Cartegraph ID = 313
61
Carl Street
Today’s OCI = 10.38
Cartegraph ID = 132
62
Marvy Street
Today’s OCI = 9.93
Cartegraph ID = 401
63
4 th Avenue
Today’s OCI = 4.12
Cartegraph ID = 22
64
Lamotte Drive
Today’s OCI = 0
Cartegraph ID = 342
65
Lamotte Circle
Today’s OCI = 0
Cartegraph ID = 1221
66
WS – Item # 7
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 7
Date: August 5, 2013
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Subsurface Sewer Treatment Systems Code Update
Background
City Code Section 403 regulates the permitting, insta llation and maintenance of
Subsurface Subsurface Treatment Systems (SSTS) otherwise known as septic systems.
There are approximately 1,800 systems currently in use within the City. The State of
Minnesota adopted revised requirements for SSTS’s in 2011 an d Anoka County
completed their update in April of 2013. Accordingly, sta ff if proposing revision of this
chapter to remain consistent with s tate and c ounty requirements. Under State Law the
City cannot be less restrictive than the county and state requi rements.
The changes in state law were generally intended to address new technology for system
design. The state requirements are adopted by reference in the proposed code. The
primary change locally is regarding the frequency of pumping and/or system inspections.
Currently, owners of SSTS’s are required under City Code to have their systems
inspected and tanks pumped every two years. A triennial inspection of the system is
allowed for systems meeting certain criteria.
Under the new requirements all systems will require inspection at least every 3 years.
Pumping will only be required when the level of sludge and scum meet certain criteria
defined in the ordinance. This provision will likely reduce the frequency of pumping for
most Lino residents.
Requested Council Direction
None required. Staff is proposing to place the 1 st reading of the ordinance on the August
12, 2013 regular agenda for consideration.
Attachments
1. Proposed SSTS Ordinance.
1
1 st Reading: Publication:
2 nd Reading: Effective:
Council Member ________________ moved for adoption of the following
ordinance:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 403 OF THE LINO LAKES CITY
CODE —INDIVIDUAL SE WAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS .
The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota, does ordain:
Section 1. That Chapter 403 of the Lino Lakes City Code is hereby deleted in its
entirety and the following inserted in lieu thereof :
CHAPTER 403: INDIVIDUAL SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
Section
403.0 1 Purpose, Applicability, and Authority
403.0 2 General Provisions
403.0 3 Standards Adopted
403.0 4 Permits
403.0 5 Violations and Penalties
§ 403.0 1 PURPOSE, APPLICABILITY, AND AUTHORITY
(1) P urpose. It is the purpose of this Chapter to establish standards for the proper
design, installation, location, construction, operation, use, and maintenance of
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) and Individual Subsurface Sewage
Treatment Systems (ISTS ) in order to protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare .
(2) Applicability . This Chapter shall apply to those sites or facilities that are licensed,
permitted, or otherwise regulated by the City of Lino Lakes. The sewer provisions
of t his Chapter shall also apply to any premises in the City that are not served by a
sewage treatment system permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
2
(3) Authority. This Chapter is adopted pursuant to the authorization and requirements
contained in Minnesota Statutes §§ 145A.05, 115.55, and Minnesota
Administrative Rules Chapter 7082.
§ 403.0 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS
(1) Treatment Required. All sewage generated in unsewered areas shall be treated
and disbursed by an approved SSTS or a system permit ted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
(2 ) Administration. This Chapter shall be administered by the City of Lino Lakes
Building Department. The term “Department,” where used in this Chapter, shall
mean the City of Lino Lakes Building Department .
(3 ) Compliance. No person shall cause or permit the location, construction, alteration,
extension, conversion, operation, or maintenance of a subsurface sewage treatment
system, except in full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter .
(4 ) Condit ions. Violation of any condition imposed by the City on a license, permit,
or variance issued under this Chapter shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter
and subject to the penalty provisions set forth herein.
(5 ) Site Evaluation, System Design, Const ruction, Inspection, and Servicing. Site
evaluation, system design, construction, inspection, and system servicing shall be
performed by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency listed SSTS businesses or
qualified employees of local governments or persons exemp t from licensing in
Minnesota Administrative Rule 7083.0700. For lots platted after January 23 ,
1996, a design shall evaluate and locate space for a minimum of two soil treatment
area s .
(6 ) Inspection. No part of an individual sewage treatment sys tem shall be covered
until it has been inspected and approved by the Department. If any part of the
system is covered before being inspected and approved as provided herein, it shall
be uncovered upon the direction of the Department. The Department shall cause
such inspections as are necessary to determine compliance with this Chapter. It
shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the Department that the system
is ready for inspection. If the integrity of the system is threatened by adverse
weather if left open and the Department is unable to conduct an inspection, the
permittee may, after receiving written permission from the Department, document
compliance with this Chapter by photographic means that show said compliance
and submit that evi dence to the Department prior to final approval being sought.
3
(7 ) Compliance Inspection and Certificate of Compliance Required. An SSTS
compliance inspection and a Certificate of Compliance are required prior to the
issuance of a building p ermit :
(a) For a new or replacement SSTS.
(b) When altering an existing structure to add a bedroom.
(c) When a parcel having an existing system undergoes development,
subdivision, or split.
(8 ) Imminent Public Health and Safety Threat; Failing System ; and Surface
Discharge.
(a) The owner of a n SSTS that poses an imminent threat to public health and
safety shall immediately abate the threat according to instructions by the
Department and be brought into compliance with this Chapter in
accordance with a schedule established by the Department, which schedule
shall not exceed ten (10) months.
(b) A failing system, including a SSTS that is not protective of groundwater,
shall be brought into compliance with 24 months after receiving notice
from the Depart ment.
(c) An SSTS discharging raw or partially treated wastewater to ground surface
or surface water is prohibited unless permitted under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System.
(9 ) Septic Tank Maintenance. The owner of a sewage tank, or ta nks, shall regularly,
but not less frequently than every three (3) years inspect the tank(s) and measure
the accumulations of sludge and scum. If the system is pumped, measurement is
not ne eded. The owner shall remove and sanitarily dispose of septage whenever
the top of the sludge layer (a) is less than twelve (12) inches below the bottom of
the outlet baffle or transfer hole, or (b) the bottom of the scum layer is less than
three (3 ) inches above the bottom of the outlet baffle or transfer hold. Removal of
septage shall include complete removal of scum and sludge. Pumping permits are
required prior to pumping of tank(s)
(1 0 ) Non -Complying Systems. Existing systems that are non -com plying but are not an
imminent health or safety threat, failing, or discharging to surface may continue in
use so long as the use is not changed or expanded. If the use changes or is
expanded, the non -complying elements of the existing system must be brou ght
into compliance.
4
(11 ) Non -Complying Work. New individual sewage treatment system construction that
is non -compliant, or other work on a system that is non -complying, must be
brought into compliance with this Chapter in accordance with a schedule
esta blished by the Department, which schedule shall not exceed seven (7) days
unless the Department finds extenuating circumstances.
(12 ) Change in Use. A Certificate of Compliance may be voided if, subsequent to the
issuance of the certificate, the use of t he premises or condition of the system has
changed or been altered.
(13 ) Variances —Setback Reduction. Where conditions prevent the construction,
alteration, and/or repair of an individual sewage treatment system on an existing
developed parcel of real pr operty, the Department may reduce property line and
building setbacks and system sizing requirements provided said reduction does not
endanger or unreasonable infringe on adjacent properties.
(14 ) Floodplain. An SSTS shall not be located in a floodway or floodplain. Location
within the flood fringe is permitted provided that the design complies with this
Chapter and all of the Rules and Statutes incorporated herein by reference.
(15 ) Class V Injection Wells. All owners of new or replacement SSTS that a re
considered to be Class V injection wells, as defined in the Code of Federal
Regulations, title 40, part 144, are required by Federal law to submit SSTS
inventory information to the Environmental Protection Agency.
§ 403.0 3 STANDARDS ADOPTED
(1) Minnes ota Rules Adopted. Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapters 7080 and
7081, that are in effect on the date of passage of this Chapter , relating to
subsurface sewage treatment systems, are hereby adopted by reference and made a
part of this Chapter as if ful ly set forth herein.
(2) Rules Amended. The Rules, adopted in Section 403.0 3 (1 ), are amended as
follows:
(a) Compliance Inspection – 15 Percent Vertical Separation Reduction.
Minnesota Administrative Rule 7080.1500, subp. 4D is amended to allow
15 per cent reduction of vertical separation (separation distance no less than
30.6 inches) may be determined to be compliant for existing systems to
account for settling and variable interpretation of soil characteristics.
(3) Holding Tanks. Holding tanks may be allowed for the following applications:
5
(a) As replacement to a failing system;
(b) As replacement for a n SSTS that poses an imminent threat to public health
and safety; or
(c) For an existing lot in which an SSTS cannot feasibly be installed and the
Department finds extenuating circumstances.
(4) System Abandonment. An SSTS or any component thereof that is no longer
intended to be used must be abandoned in accordance with the adopted standards
of this Chapter.
§ 403.0 4 PERMITS
(1) Permit Requi red. No person shall cause o r allow the location, construction,
alteration, extension, conversion, modification or pumping of any SSTS without
first obtaining a permit for such work from the Department. No person shall
construct, alter, extend, conve rt, or modify any structure that is or will utilize a
SSTS without first obtaining a permit.
(a) All work performed on an SSTS shall be done by an appropriately licensed
business, qualified employees or persons exempt from licensing. Permit
applications shall be submitted by the person doing the individual SSTS
construction on forms provided by the Department and accompanied by
required site and design data, and permit fees.
(b) Permits shall only be issued to the person doing the individual sewage
treat ment system construction.
(c) Permit applications for new and replacement SSTS shall include a
management plan for the owner that includes a schedule for septic tank
maintenance.
(d) A permit is not required for minor repairs or replacement of damaged or
deteriorated components that do not alter the original function, change the
treatment capacity, change the location of system components, or otherwise
change the original system’s design, layout, or function.
(2) Operating Permit. An operating permit sh all be required of all owners of new
holding tanks, Type IV and V systems, MSTS, and other SSTS that the
Department has determined require operational oversight.
6
(a) Application. Application for an operating permit shall be made on a form
provided by the Department.
(b) Holding Tanks. The owner of holding tanks installed after the effective
date of this Chapter shall provide the Department with a copy of a contract
with a licensed sewage maintenance business for monitoring and removal
of holding tank co ntents.
§ 403.0 5 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
(1) Misdemeanor. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this Chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. A separate offense shall be deemed committed
upon each day during on which a violation occur s or continues.
(2) Civil Action/Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation or a threat of violation of
this Chapter, the Department may institute appropriate civil or administration
actions or proceedings, include actions seeking damaged, declarator y relief, or
injunctive relief to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate such violations or threatened
violations, and the City Attorney is authorized to institute such action.
Section 2 . Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall be in force and ef fect
from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter.
________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
____________________________
Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this _____d ay of ____________, 2013
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council
Member _________ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
The following voted against same:
Whereupon said ord inance was declared duly passed and adopted.
WS – Item #9
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 9
Date: August 5 , 2013
To: City Council
From: John Swenson, Chief of Police
Re: Police Department Job Vacancy
Background
At the July 1, 2013 Council Work Session the current job vacancy i n the police
department was discussed. The staff report from that Work Ses sion is attached for your
review.
Since the July 1 st Work Session we have received a letter of resignation from an officer.
This will create an additional vacant sworn position in the patrol division effective
August 11, 2013.
Staff has completed a patrol staffing evaluation as requested and that report is attached
for your review as well .
Requested Council Direction
Staff request Council direction regarding the filling of a vacant Sergeant Position ,
backfilling an O fficer position, and filling the pending vacant Officer position.
Attachments
1. July 1 st Work Session Staff Report
2. Patrol Staffing Report
WS - #5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 5
Date: July 1, 2013
To: City Council
From: John Swenson, Chief of Police
Re: Police Department Job Vacancy
Background
The police department is currently operating one FTE under the staff ing authorized in the
2013 Adopted Budget. The vacant position is a Sergeant p osition in the Patrol Division.
Currently, the police department has fill ed the vacant shift s in the Patrol Division with
the Officer who is assigned as the School Resource Off icer. This shift ing of personnel
has enabled the police department to meet minimum staffing levels with minimal
overtime expense. The School Resource Officer will not be available to fill patrol shifts
in the coming weeks, which will require overtime exp ense to fill some vacant shift s to
maintain minimum patrol staffing.
Prior to 2010 the police department staff consisted of 31.75 FTEs (27 sworn personnel, 4
part time CSOs, 2 Record Technicians, .75 FTE Community Relations Coordinator). The
police dep artment staffing for 2013 is 28 FTEs (25 sworn personnel, 2 part time CSOs, 2
Record Technicians. In 2013 th e police department is funded with 3.75 fewer FTEs than
in 2010. With the sudden loss of Sgt. Bragelman, t he police department is currently
operat ing with 4.75 fewer FTEs than in 2010.
Small police agencies such as the Lino Lake Po lice Department utilize staff in a
multitude of areas, which leads to high degree of efficiencies, but when staffing shortage s
are sustain ed in one area of the police d epartment other areas of the department are
affected. An example of this would be the use of patrol officers in secondary
investigation s . Th e LLPD patrol officer will investigate all calls they respond to and only
pass the case to an investigator when fu rther investigative work on their part would result
in compromised patrol staffing. This business practice leads to higher quality of public
safety services, but when making staffing reduction s this business practice amplifies the
effects across the polic e department .
The City of Lino Lakes consistently has the lowest combine d crime rate for all cities in
Anoka County and has experienced even furthe r reduction in burglaries in 2012. The
police department ’s crime prevention strategies, utilizing Communi ty Oriented Policing
(COP) and Problem Orien ted Policing (POP), have proven effective in reducing crime,
fear and disorder. Further staff reduction s in the police department will adversely affect
the department’s ability to continue to provide high qualit y public safety services to the
Lino Lakes community.
If the Council elects not to the fill the vacant Sergeant position , the annual savings to the
budget would be $116,292 (based on current wage and benefit scale). If the Council
elects to fill the va cant Sergeant position, but elects not to backfill for the promoted
officer ; thereby eliminating an officer position the annual savings to the budget would be
$102,577 (based on current wage and benefit scale).
The below table illustrates what the prope rty tax savings would be on various home
values if a Sergeant position ($116,292) or an Officer position ($102,577) had been
eliminated in the 2013 Adopted Budget.
$ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000
2013 Adopt ed Tax
Rate = 46.052 $ 498.80 $ 723.08 $ 947.35 $ 1,171.62
Eliminate Sgt
Position Tax Rate =
45.962
$ 490.63
(savings of
$8.17 annually )
$711.22
(savings of
$11.86 annually )
$931.82
(savings of
$15.53
annual ly )
$1152.42
(savings of
$19.20 annually )
Eliminate Officer
Pos i tion Tax Rate =
46.052
$491.59
(savings of
$7.21 annually )
$712.62
(savings of
$10.46 annually )
$933.65
(savings of
$13.70
annually )
$1154.67
(savings of
$16.95 annually )
If the City Council elects to fill the Sergeant position and hire an Officer to backfill, the
promotion and hiring process could be gin immediately as there are current Sergeant and
Officer Eligibility lists in place with viable candidates.
Possible Fun ding Solution:
The continuing property va lue decrease in the City of Lino Lakes has created a projected
budget shortfall for 2014. As noted by the Anoka County Assessor’s office and elected
officials it is believe d that property values will begin to rebo und in 2014/2015.
Acknowledging the 2014 budget situation as well as the likely property value rebound,
one potential solution for 2014 Budget would be to fund one sworn position with
forecasted forfeiture funds for 2014.
Through our on -going participa tion with DEA Task Force and our direct involvement in
a major narcotics investigation, it is anticipated that a significant number of forfeiture
dollars will be award to the LLPD upon conclusion of the court proceedings . The amount
of this forfeiture is forecasted to cover a sworn position in 20 14. This would enable the
police department to maintain service levels at the current levels and continue to have the
officer assigned to the DEA Task Force.
This potential funding solution is temporary as forfeit ure funds are not a g uaranteed
funding source. It should also be noted that according to federal forfeiture rules (Guide
to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2009 ), forfeiture
funds may only be utilized to fund a sworn positi on for one year. T herefore , the police
department 2015 budget would require the use of General Fund revenues to fund this
sworn position for 2015.
If the Council elects to utilize this temporary funding source, staff could apply $116,292
to the 2014 budge t gap and not sustain any reduction in services stemming from the
elimination of a sworn position .
Requested Council Direction
Staff request Council direction regarding the filling of a vacant Sergeant Position and
backfilling an O fficer position.
1
Lino Lakes Police
Department
Patrol Staff Report
July 2013
Purpose:
The purpose of this document is to provide information regarding the sworn staffing
levels of the Patrol Division within Lino Lakes Police Department.
Methodology:
This document discusses the unique factors that should be taken into account when
making a staffing assessment for the City of Lino Lakes. I t also discuss es the following
staffing models: per capita approach, the minimum staffing approach, and finally the
most accepte d staffing approach, the workload model. The workload model is then
broken down into an ideal staffing model, the current staffing model, and a staffing
model that reflects a cut of one FTE .
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) make s the following assertion:
Ready -made, universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist. Ratios, such as
officers -per -thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing
decisions. Defining patrol staffing allocations and d eployment requirements is a complex
endeavor which requires consideration of an extensive series of factors and a sizeable
body of reliable, current data. (IACP Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study , p.2 ).
Lino Lakes Specific F actors
Policing Philosophy
T he Lino Lakes Police Departmen t currently operates under the C ommunity Oriented
P olicing (COP) and P roblem Oriented P olicing (POP) philosophy. Officers are expected
to be actively engaged with all members of the community . Officers are also expected to
pa rticipate in activities that allow them to identify current and emerging problems
affecting our citizens. Officers often use the SARA (Scan, Analysis, Response,
Assessment) model to formulate a response to their identified problem.
The Lino Lakes Police Department operates under the COP and POP philosophies
because research and past practice have indicated that successful police departments
operate with a high level of focus and incorporate a wide array of diverse approaches to
crime prevention (Weisburd & Eck, 2004). In addition to empirical research, it has been
the experience of the Lino Lakes Police Department that our philosophy using COP and
POP is highly effective in reducing crime, fear, and disorder. Lino Lakes consistently
enjoys the lowest com bine crime rate and highest clearance rate of any city in Anoka
County (Uniform Crime Report, 2011).
2
While the current philosophy of the Lino Lakes Police Department is undisputedly
effective, it does demand more of employees than a traditional reactive p olicing
philosophy. Officers are expected to spend a considerable amount of time engaged with
the community and participating in problem solving a ctivities. Officers track their time
doing specific activities on their shift log. Table one details which log codes are
considered proactive.
Table 1:
Reactive Proactive
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CHECKS
ASSIST AGENCY
BUSINESS
CONTACT
BACKUP LLPD
COMPLIANCE
CHECKS
FOLLOW UP CRIME MAPPING
INVESTIGATION HOUSE CHECKS
PAPERWORK LICENSE CHECKS
PUBLIC ASSISTS
O PEN GARAGE
DOOR
RADIO CALLS PARKING
ROLL CALL PATROL
TRAINING POP PROJECT
BREAKS PRT INVEST
MEETINGS
SCHOOL
CROSSING
DELIVERIES SPECIAL DETAILS
WELLNESS Speed Trailer
SUSPICIOUS
ACTIVITY
TRAFFIC CONTROL
TRAFFIC
ENFORCEMENT
TRAFFIC STOP
UNS ECURED CAR
DOOR
WARRANT
ATTEMPTS
Traditional, reactive police departments usually divide a patrol officer’s time into thirds ,
with 1/3 spent responding to calls for service, 1/3 enga ged in random patrol , and 1/3 in
administrative duties. The I ntern ational Chiefs of Police suggests that agencies take a
more pr oactive approach with a minimum of 33% of an officer’s time spent on COP and
POP activities. Lino Lakes has a target of 45% proactive activity for patrol staff. Figure
one shows the perce ntage of time that the patrol unit spent conducting proactive crime
prevention.
3
50
59 55
46
37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 YTD
% of time spent on proactive
activities
Source Data: Logger data appendix A
To further reduce the staffing level of the patrol division would require a change in
policing philosophy from proactive to a more reactive model.
Supervision
The 2013 budget allows for 4 patrol sergeants. Patrol sergeants have all the
responsibilities of patrol officers and are included in our staff minimums. Historically,
patrol sergeants were not incl uded in minimums so that they were available to be present
on calls and focus on supervision and administration. After the elimination of two patrol
positions in 2011 , sergeants had to be included in minimums and be primary responders
on calls in addition to their supervision and administrative duties. Sergeants are also
expected to participate i n crime prevention activities and traffic enforcement. In 2012,
patrol sergeants were the primary responding officer on 124 part 1 and par t 2 calls
(Anoka County Records ). Sergeants are also responsible for coordinating and
supervising a special project or volunteer group. Historically, the sergeants were
scheduled on a rotating shift of five days on with four days off with a 10 hour work day.
This allowed us t o assign two sergeants to a day power shift and two to a night power
shift. This provided maximum coverage with a day of overlap for administrative
purposes. Because of staffing shortages, the sergeants were moved to the same rotation
as officers so that they could more readily fill entire shifts as call cars. This change in
scheduling has resul ted in less supervisor coverage.
In addition to responding to calls for service and supervising patrol staff, some of the
a dditional duties of patrol sergeants a re:
Coordination, documentation, and supervision of Police Explorers, Police
Reserves, and the CERT program
Traffic safety grant coordination, scheduling, and supervision
Tracking and coordinating state mandated training
Squad/patrol equipment integratio n and tracking
Service Philosophy
The service philosophy of the Lino Lakes Police Department mirrors that of a private
sector customer service model. Each officer is tasked with providing a level of service
that meets or exceeds the expectations of the c itizens of Lino Lakes. Officers are
4
expected to respond to every call for service and make contact with complainants and
victims. The geography of Lino Lakes does not always allow for the timely response of
an officer to low level crimes, so some reports are handled by phone. It is up to the
officer to determine the appropriate method of response. Officer’s annual performance
evaluations contain a citizen feedback portion.
Lino Lakes Patrol Office rs are expected to investigate a case as far as possib le before
passing the case off to investigations if it is necessary . This practice follows the
recommendations made in the seminal study by the Rand Corporation, The C riminal
Investigative Process (1975). The study suggests that much of an Investigator ’s t ime is
spent on case preparation in addition to investigations and that cities will benefit from
patrol officers having an expanded role in the investigative process. Lino Lakes p atrol
officers are trained in evidence collection, interviewing, and case pr eparation. In some
insistences, patrol officers are able to take a case all the way from the initial call to
preparing the felony case file. For example, ICR 13 -010769, a burglary, patrol officers
contributed another 25 hours of investigation time after t he initial report. In 2012 , patrol
officers conducted 439 investigations, submitted 9 felony case files for charging , and
wrote and executed 5 search warrants.
Geography and Population
The C ity of Lino Lakes is 33 square miles with a large county park dissecting the city
into two distinct patrol areas. The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park is a 5,500 acre park
that extends from the south to north borders of the city. The park provides a unique
challenge when traveling to and from the east and west side o f the city . There are only
three ways in Lino Lakes for vehicle traffic to cross the park to the other side of the city,
Main Street, Birch Street, and Ash Street. The scarcity of routes provides for increased
traff ic and slower response times. According to Google maps, i n normal traffic it takes
from 13 minutes to 18 minutes to go across the city. Another factor to consider is the
time it takes for officers to do a transport to jail. The Anoka County Jail is located 20
miles away in Anoka City. Round trip travel time is 40 minutes not including the wait at
jail and booking process. A conservative estimate for a tip to jail is 1 hour.
Lino Lakes is bordered on two sides by agencies from other counties. This is an
important factor as it relates to o fficer safety. Because other counties do not monitor our
radio system, they cannot directly monitor a call for assistance from a LLPD officer on
the east or south side s of the city. Should an officer need assistance, the request would
have to be relayed from Anoka County Dispatch to Ramsey or Washington County
dispatch, and the n to the officer on the street, which results in a slower response time.
This is a significant officer safety consideration that must be considered when making
patrol staffing deci sions.
To assess e mergency response times, the average response times from medicals were
chosen at random in 4 grids in different parts of the city. Grid area 7 is the Behm Century
Farm neighborhood on the west side of the city, grid area 31 is the Baldwi n Lake area
located on the south side of the city, grid 25 is the Highland M eadows area on the east
side and grid 36 is the West Oaks area.
5
5.6 5.4 5.4
8.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Grid 7 Grid 25 Grid 31 Grid 36
Average response time
in minutes
Source Data: CAD medicals appendix B
In 2012, The Lino Lakes Police Department was on 12 hour shifts with a three car
minimum. Due to budget and staffing issues, shifts were changed to a 9.5 hour shift with
only a two car minimum. It is unknown how the reduction in staffing will affect response
times going forward.
Availability Ti me
Each Lino Lakes Officer is scheduled for 2080 hours per year, but they are not available
for patrol coverage for 2080 hours. To ca lculate the hours that each sworn employee is
available for patrol coverage, you need to take into account holidays, vacat ion days,
training days, court, sick days, and other approved leave. National availability rates
range from 65%-85%. Through in -house computer based training and moving to an on -
call basis for court, Lino Lakes Officers have an availability rate of 75 %. The Lino
Lakes availability rate was calculated by taking the number of shifts where officers took
leave or scheduled for training and dividing that by the number of scheduled shifts in a
month. Breaks dictated b y contract and a ccrued l eave amounts are ca lculated in as well.
The sworn patrol staff of the LLPD has an average of 529 hours of available leave per
officer (529 divided by 2080 = .25). Using this availability rate, each patrol officer starts
with 1560 potential hours. While the Lino Lakes goal is that 45% of an officer ’s time is
spent on proactive, self -initiated activities, the IACP states that common practice is one -
third of an officer’s time is spent on such activities. If the LLPD is to keep up with
industry standards and have officer spen d one -third of their time on COP/POP activities,
then each officer has 1040 hours to dedicate to patrol, administration, and responding to
calls for service.
Total Hours Availability rate of 75% Available Hours after
dedicated COP/POP
2080 1560 1040
6
Staffing Models
The Per Capita A pproach
The per capita approach to patrol staffing takes the population of a given city and
determines the optimum number of patrol officers needed. The optimum number is
obtained by comparing staffing levels to the sta ffing levels of other cities with a similar
population and demographic (Performance Based Approach to Police Staffing and
Allocation , 2006 ). Because the per capita approach does not consider several factors that
could affect staffing (geography, policing p hilosophy and call load), it is generally
considered the least reliable staffing model. In 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
reported that the number of full -time officers in the mid -west region was 2.2 officers per
1,000 residents. In department s that serviced a population of 10,000 to 24,999, such as
Lino Lakes, the officer to 1,000 resident ratio was 1.9 officers. Using the per capita
staffing approach, the Lino Lakes Police Department should be staffed at 38 full -time
patrol officers.
Minimu m Staffing Approach
The minimum staffing approach requires government leaders to determine the number of
officers required to meet the minimum needs of population at any given time. There are
no objective standards for setting the minimum staffing levels. In some areas, minimum
staffing levels are set by ordinance or labor contract (Performance Based Approach to
Police Staffing and Allocation , 2006 ). Several factors were considered when setting the
minimum for the LLPD including geography, call load, resp onse and travel time,
customer expectations and officer safety. In 2013 , the minimum staffing level changed
from three officers to two officers. Our current budget does not support a guarantee of
three officers on a shift. To ensure proper staffing lev els at peak call times and in an
effort to minimize over -time, th e Lino Lakes Police Department moved from a three
officer minimum on 12 hour shifts to a two officer minimum on 9.5 hour shifts. T he
move to 9.5 hour shifts double d our staffing during peak call times and allow for more
flexibility when back -filling for emergencies. The change also dramatically reduced the
need for over time.
Two officers on duty at all times on a 9.5 schedule require 57 scheduled hours per day
(9.5 x 3 x 2=57) or 20805 ho urs per year. If you factor in the officer availability rate of
75 %, it requires 13.3 sworn officers assigned to patrol . The approach does not factor in
time spent in prevention activities , any supervision, or problem solving activities . To
keep with IAC P standards, the LLPD would need to have 20 sworn staff members
assigned to patrol.
Workload Approach
The workload based approach takes into account actual workload, department
philosophy, minimum performance standards, and other variables that impact s ervice
delivery. The workload approach is generally considered the most accurate as it requires
careful analysis and consideration of community norms and expectations (Fritsch,
Leiderbach, and Taylor, 2009). In addition to the call for service data, the department
takes policing philosophy, performance standards, geography, and administrative time
into account.
7
Using the workload approach and taking all known fac tors into consideration, staff
outlined three staffing models that reflect different levels of staffing and supervision.
The first two models maintain our present policing philosophy while the third reflects a
major change in our approach. The models are an ideal model, the current model, and a
model that reflects reducing the number of sworn staff by 1 FTE.
Ideal Patrol Staffing Model
The ideal staffing model reflects the values and expectations of the citizens of Lino
Lakes. The guiding principles in the creation of this model are:
The ge ography of the city mandates three cars on at all ti mes
Activity/call times suggest maximum staffing from 1600 -1800 and again from
2200 -0100 making the 9.5 hour shifts the most feasible.
To allow sergeants to supervise and attend to all other duties and responsibilities,
they should not be considered in t he minimums .
Because of the training time and needs of the K9 program, the K9 officer should
not be included in minimums .
Officers are expected to spend 1/3 of their time in problem solving and
community involvement activities.
The school resource officer would supplement patrol in the summer as an
additional car to offset increased service demands during the summer months.
This model requires the following:
17 dedicated patrol officers on a 6/4 rotation , 15 on regular shifts with a day and night
power
4 p atrol sergeants on a 5/4 rotation who are not factored into the 3 car minimum
1 K9 officer on a 6/4 rotation that is not factored into the 3 car minimum
Three cars on at all times on 9.5 hour shifts results in a total of 36,608 work hours per
year with 12 ,202 hours devoted to community oriented policing and problem solving
activities.
This model would require that 4 officers are added to 2013 authorized staffing level;
which would bring the total funded staffing for patrol to 21 and the total police
dep artment staffing to 29. The curr ent financial situation of the C ity of Lino Lakes
makes this model unattainable.
Current Staffing Model
The patrol division is staffed at 13 patrol officers and 4 patrol sergeants, all on a 6/4
rotation of 9.5 hour shifts. Sergeants and the K9 Officer are figured into staffing
minimums. The School Resource O fficer (SRO) supplemen ts the patrol division in the
summer to offset increased service demands during June, July, and August . This model
provides a total of 26,520 (1 ,560 available hours x 17 employees) hours of total patrol
hours not including any dedicated time for prevention and supervision, but it is assumed
that the 6,520 hours over the necessary 20,805 would be divided up into those activities.
Currently, the po lice department has fallen below the IACP recommended target of 1/3 of
an o fficers time spent on COP/POP.
8
Reduction Model
If we were to reduce o ur staff by one sworn FTE (current vacant Sergeant position), it is
staff’s recommendation that we change the s chedule of the remaining sergeants to one
day shift sergeant and two night power sergeants. This would reduce the total number of
available patrol hours to 24,960 hours with only 4,680 hours of supervision (18%). It
would be unrealistic to expect officer s to dedicate 1/3 of their time to crime prevention
and community involvement as it would reduce coverage hours to 16,640 , less than the
20,805 hours needed. In order for this model to work and increase the number of patrol
hours available, staff would re commend the following to if a sworn FTE is eliminated:
1. Elimination of the Police Explorer program.
a. Lino Lakes Staff dedicated 400 hours to this program in 2012.
Elimination would allow us to use those hours for patrol.
b. Elimination of the Explorer progra m would allow the police department to
shift the training responsibilities as well as accommodate for the increased
supervisory demands placed on the remaining 3 sergeants to compensate
for 1 less sergeant.
2. No longer assign a Lino Lakes Officer to the DEA Task Force
a. This would enable the police department to add an addition al 1,560 hours
to the patrol division
Bringing the officer assigned to DEA Task Force would allow for patrol staff of 14
officers and 3 patrol sergeants, all on a 6/4 rotation of 9.5 hou r shifts. The 3 sergeants
and K9 officer are figured into the staffing minimums. The SRO supplements the patrol
division in the summer to offset increased service demands during June, July, and
August. This model provides a total of 26,520 (1,560 availa ble hours x 17 employees)
hours of total patrol hours not including any dedicated time for prevention and
supervision, but it is assumed that the 6,520 hours over the necessary 20,805 would be
divided up into those activities.
This cut would impact servic e delivery to the Lino Lakes community, but it allow s the
patrol staff to remain at 17 FTEs . If staffing is reduced and the officer assigned to the
DEA Task Force is re -assigned to patrol, Lino Lakes would no longer have a dedicated
resource proactive ly investigating drug related offenses. This is at a time when the Twin
City metropolitan area has seen an increase in narcotics activity and Anoka County has
seen an increase in deaths due to overdoes . The revenue of the City Lino Lakes would
also be impac ted as the police department would no longer be eligible to participate in the
equitable sharing of proceeds stemming from forfeited properties and monies; nor would
the city receive federal reimbursement of $17 ,202.25.
Assigning an officer to the DEA has produced the following positive impacts for the Lino
Lakes community.
The DEA Task Force Officer (TFO) provides a resource and investigative tool for
officers at the Lino Lakes Police Department. The TFO has access to DEA databases that
wouldn’t nor mally be accessible to Lino Lakes Officers. The TFO has been able to
9
provide additional information to Lino Lakes Officers regarding suspects involved in
drug activity and other crimes in Lino Lakes.
The TFO has been able to provide intelligence bulle tins and information related to drug
trafficking activities and trends.
The TFO obtained access for officers from the Lino Lake s Police Department to DICE, a
telephone database. This database allows officers to link suspects involved in criminal
activity in Lino Lakes.
DEA personnel and equipment, such as surveillance equipment, are available to the Lino
Lakes Police Department for officers to work collaboratively with the DEA to investigate
suspects in Lino Lakes.
The DEA TFO is a point of contact fo r Lino Lakes Officers to further coordinate with
other agencies and resources, including:
-the Anoka/Hennepin Drug Task Force
-other State/Local Drug Task Forces
-MN Police Departments/Sheriff’s Office
-BCA
-Fusion/Intelligence centers
-Federal Ag encies: HSI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals Services, FDA, IRS
-U.S. Postal Service
The DEA TFO position allows the Lino Lakes Police Department to contribute to
investigations involving large drug trafficking organizations which supply Minnesota
communities, i ncluding Lino Lakes, with drugs.
During the 2012 fiscal year, investigations conducted by the DEA Minneapolis/St. Paul
District Office resulted in 200 arrests, the seizure of $5,249,628 in money and assets, and
the seizure of 4.2 kilograms of heroin, 20.8 kilograms of cocaine, 30.8 kilograms of
marijuana, and 19.5 kilograms of methamphetamine.
In 2012/2013, the DEA and the TFO investigated two suspects that had rece ived
s hipments of K hat at a hotel in Lino Lakes. The DEA provided the intelligence gained
during the investigation to other federal law enforcement agencies which were
conducting international investig ations into the trafficking of K hat into the United States.
The DEA, the Anoka Hennepin Drug Task Force, and other agencies have conducted a
mul ti -year investigation into numerous heroin overdoses and overdose deaths in the
Anoka County area. In 2010 , a resident in Lino Lakes died of a heroin overdose. In
2012, the investigation led to federal indictments and the arrest of multiple individuals
involved in supplyin g heroin to the metro area; this investigation is ongoing.
The DEA has been investigating multiple stores and individuals selling synthetic drugs in
the metro and greater Minnesota area. Synthetic drug use has resulted in overdoses a nd
overdose deaths. In 2010, the Lino Lakes Police department encountered a female that
10
had overdosed on synthetic drugs. In addition, the police department has dealt with
people that have been either in possession or under the influence of synthetic dru gs. The
investigations conducted by the DEA and other law enforcement agencies have led to
criminal charges and the seizure of large amounts of synthetic products and assets.
The TFO acts as a liaison between the DEA and the Anoka County Attorney’s Offic e.
In 2013 , t he TFO presented a joint DEA/ATF investigation into a methamphetamine
distributor operating in the metro area to the Anoka County Attorney’s Office. The
investigation resulted in 1st degree felony controlled substance charges on two
indivi duals.
Thus far , the Lino Lakes Police Department has received $14,289.99 as a result of the
asset/seizure sharing. $12,161.16 (approximate) is pending administrative/criminal
proceedings. Currently there is a case which involves a significant about of forfeitures
proceeds which is scheduled to trial in September or 2013.
2013 Patrol Schedule
As requested the police department has examined the actual 2013 patrol schedule,
attached are tables detailing the actual staffing levels for first 7 days of every month. For
the months of August through December, we utilized a 75% availability rate to forecast
what the actual staffing would be.
As previous noted the patrol division was assigned to 5/2 rotation on 12 hours shifts and
the Sergeants were a 5/4 rot ation on 10 hour shifts for the first quarter of 2013. On April
1, 2013, the start of the 2 nd quarter of 2013, the entire patrol division, officers and
sergeants, was moved to the current 6/4 rotation 9.5 hour shift. This changes has
dramatically decreas es overtime within the patrol division (Q1 non -reimbursed overtime
$20,904.12 compared to Q2 non -reimbursed overtime $5,969.98).
The police department active ly monitors the patrol schedule and when staffi ng allows,
supervisors modify an officer’s shift to minimize the need to fill shifts with overtime.
This is accomplished by requiring officers to modify the start or end time of their
schedule shift by 4 hours. Police department management will continue to utilize this
option when possible, but this busi ness practice is not always available due the staffing
levels on the adjacent shift. Police management must also remain mindful that this
business practice does have negative impact on our patrol workforce.
11
Q1 - 2013 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Ja nuary (12 -hour shift)
Days On -Duty 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Days Overtime
Days Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nights On -Duty 3 2 3 3 3 2 3
Nights Overtime 1 1
Nights Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
February (12 -hour
shift)
Days On -Duty 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
Days Overtime 1
Days Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nights On -Duty 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nights Overtime
Nights Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
March (12 -hour shift)
Days On -Duty 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Days Overtime
Days Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nights On -Duty 3 2 2 3 3 2 2
Nights Overtime 1 1 1 1
Nights Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
12
13
14
15
Q2 - 2013 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
April (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 2 2 2 2 2 2
Days Overtime
Days Total Staffing 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
Afternoons On -Duty 2 3 4 3 2 2 2
Afternoons Overtime
Afternoons Tot al Staffing 2 3 4 3 2 2 2
Nights On -Duty 3 3 2 3 2 2 2
Nights Overtime
Nights Total Staffing 3 3 2 3 2 2 2
May (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 2 4 4 3 3 3 2
Days Overtime
Days Total Staffing 2 4 4 3 3 3 2
Aft ernoons On -Duty 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
Afternoons Overtime
Afternoons Total Staffing 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
Nights On -Duty 2 3 2 3 3 4 3
Nights Overtime
Nights Total Staffing 2 3 2 3 3 4 3
June (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Days Overtime
Days Total Staffing 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Afternoons On -Duty 3 3 2 3 3 3 2
Afternoons Overtime
Afternoons Total Staffing 3 3 2 3 3 3 2
Nights On -Duty 2 2 3 3 2 2 2
Nights Overtime
Nights Total Staffing 2 2 3 3 2 2 2
16
17
18
19
Q3 - 2013 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
July (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 3 3 2 3 2 2 2
Days Overtime
Days Total Staffing 3 3 2 3 2 2 2
Afternoons On -Duty 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
Afternoons Overtime
Afternoons Total Staffing 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
Nights On -Duty 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
Nights Overtime 1
Nights Total Staffing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
August (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 4 4 2 2 2 3 4
Days Overtime
Days Total Staffing 4 4 2 2 2 3 4
Afternoons On -Duty 4 4 2 3 2 2 2
Afternoons Overtime
Afternoons Total Staffing 4 4 2 3 2 2 2
Nights On -Duty 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
Nights Overtime
Nights Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
September (9.5 hour
shift)
Days On -Duty 2 1 3 3 3 2 2
Days Overtime 1
Days Total Staffing 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Afternoons On -Duty 1 3 3 2 1 2 2
Afternoons Overtime 1 1
Afternoons Total Staffing 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
Nights On -Duty 3 3 3 3 1 3 3
Nights Overtime 1
Nights Total Staffing 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
20
21
22
23
Q4 -2013 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
October (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
Days Overtime 1 1 1 1
Days Total Staffing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Afternoons On -Duty 1 3 4 3 4 3 0
Afternoons Overtime 1 2
Afternoons Total Staffing 2 3 4 3 4 3 2
Nights On -Duty 3 4 3 1 3 2 3
Nights Overtime 1
Nights Total Staffing 3 4 3 2 3 2 3
November (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 1 1 2 2 2 1 3
Days Overtime 1 1 1
Days Total Staffing 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
A fternoons On -Duty 3 2 4 4 2 3 2
Afternoons Overtime
Afternoons Total Staffing 3 2 4 4 2 3 2
Nights On -Duty 3 3 3 1 2 2 2
Nights Overtime 1
Nights Total Staffing 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
December (9.5 hour shift)
Days On -Duty 0 1 1 1 2 2 2
Days Overtime 2 1 1 1
Days Total Staffing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Afternoons On -Duty 3 2 3 4 2 4 2
Afternoons Overtime
Afternoons Total Staffing 3 2 3 4 2 4 2
Nights On -Duty 3 3 2 3 2 3 3
Nights Overtime
N ights Total Staffing 3 3 2 3 2 3 3
24
25
26
27
References
Greenwood, P., Chaiken, J., & Petersilia, J. (1977). The criminal investigation process .
Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
IA CP (unknown). Patrol staffing and deployment study . Retrieved from
http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/ManagementStudies/ta
bid/241/Default.aspx
Uniform crime report. In (2012). Minnesota Crime Information. Retrieved from
https://dps.mn.gov
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear?
In The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Vol.
593, pp. 42 -65).
Wilson, J., & Weiss, A. (2012). A performance -based approach to police staffing and
allocation . Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
DOI: www.cops.usdoj.gov
Source Data and Logs available upon request.
WS – Item # 10
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 10
Date: July 30, 2013
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Al Rolek
Re: 2014 Draft Budget and Tax Levy
Transmitted for your review is the first draft of the 201 4 Budget and tax l evy proposal.
The draft was prepared by d epartment d irectors and reviewed by the City Administrator
with the intention of providing the resources needed to continue city services at their
current levels. The draft also incorporates the priorities and ini tiatives identified by the
City Council.
Draft Budget. The 2014 draft budget is balanced with resources and expenditures of
$8,947,775, a 1.2% increase from the 2013 adopted budget. T he draft includes the
resource s needed to continue the City s ervices a t their present levels and maintains the
Ci ty’s efforts toward street maintenance. The budget includes a two percent w age
increase, as well as PERA contribution increases and adjustments in the C ity ’s
contribution toward estimated health insurance premium s . With the exception of the
elimination of the Economic Deve l opment Coordinator position, the draft maintains
personnel at 2013 levels. Increases in fuel costs and electric rates are reflected in the
draft. Adjustments have also been made in considera tion of the sales tax exemption.
Expenditure estimates in all areas continue to represent only what is required to continue
services at their current levels. No new initiatives, capital outlay , or other increases have
been included in this draft.
C onstr uction and development activities have improved over the last year , and oth er
revenue areas, such as MSA, have also shown some improvement. I nterest income and
other revenues continue to lag, increasing reliance on property taxes . To reduce the strain
on property tax levels the draft includes the use of $165,947 in general fund reserves, the
same level as in the adopted 2013 budget. The general fund reserve balance would
continue to be maintained at a level greater than 52 percent of annual expenditures. Also
included in the proposal is the use of drug forfeiture funds to fund a police sergeant
position. This is a one -time use of funding for the 2014 budget.
Preliminary Tax Levy. For the first time in 2013 , the pr eliminary levy includes a voter -
appr oved levy of $181,151 for the signalization projects at the Lake/Main and
Birch/Ware intersections. Slight increas es for existing debt service have reduced the levy
amounts available for operations.
P roperty values declined 0.69% for 2014, a significant improvement from declines of
7.96% in 2013, 8.25% in 2012, and 10.43% in 2011 . The preliminary operating levy has
been reduced by $61,616 to reflect the drop in values. However, the addition of the
voter -approved levy results in an increase in the total pr eliminary levy of $125,701 .
Levy Limits. The State Legislature imposed a levy limit on counties and cities with a
population over 2,500 for 2014 . The levy limit base for 2014 is the greater of the 2013 or
2012 levies, net of approved special levies (primarily debt service levies). The levy limit
base is increased by a factor of 3% and reduced by LGA received from the state to arrive
at the entity’s levy limit. The MN Department of Revenue will certify our final levy limit
on or before September 1. Based on our calculations according to the above formula, the
City’s estimated levy limit for 2014 is $7,408,603. The City’s projected levy subject to
the levy limit (net of special levies) is $7,128,922, leaving the pr eliminary levy $279,681
below the es timated levy limit.
Discussion. Staff is ready to discuss the budget draft with the Council during the initial
budget work session. The remainder of the budget is very lean. The greatest potential for
meaningful cost reduction would be achieved through staffing adjustments. Staff
reductions in the past have come through an early retirement incentive, staff furloughs,
attrition, vacant positions, or through position eliminations . Careful consideration to the
effect on service areas and service levels m ust be giv en to achieve the desired level of
services while considering quality of life vs. cost of services for city residents.
Consideration must also be given to the use of one -time funding sources and the potential
effects on future budgets.
B udget work sessions may be scheduled at the discretion of the Council to achieve the
desired budget level for 201 4 . The Council must take action at the September 9 meeting
on the preliminary tax levy and set a public hearing date in December on the budget and
t ax levy. The preliminary levy set at this time may not be increased thereafter, but may
be lowered before approving a final levy in December.
Item # 11
MANAGEMENT TEAM ’S Monthly Progress Report
August 5 , 2013
Item Last Action Taken Staff Status
Pavement Management Plan City engineer prepar ing plan Jason
Wedel
Included on tonight’s agenda
Elmcrest Road improvements 5/6/13 – Staff met with Hugo to discuss
road improvements at Elmcrest & Cedar
Michael
& Rick
Hugo is interested, but is
waiting for development
Utility Rate Study 4/1/13 – Council discussed feasibility of a
water treatment plant or using a deeper
aquife r to reduce chemical treatment costs
Rick Included on tonight’s agenda
2014 Budget 6/17/13 – Staff presented various options
for reducing the gap
Al Included on tonight’s agenda
Scanning project City purchased a support package for
Laserfiche from Cities Digital
Jeff Staff continues to work with
Cities Digital to create file
structure
7309 Lake Dr. code violation Staff reviewed response letter Michael Included on tonight’s agenda
Labor negotiations Police officers and Local 49 settled
through 2013; A FSCME through 2012;
Sergeants through 2011
Jeff
A closed meeting is scheduled
on Aug. 12
WS – Item #12
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 12
Date: August 5, 2013
To: City Council
From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Re: Charter Amendments relating to Elections
Background
In 2011, the council forwarded two proposed ch arter amendments to the Lino Lakes
Charter C ommission. The amendments concern two areas of the city charter that contain
schedules related to elections and that have been impacted by federal and state election
schedules. The original staff report that o utlines the amendments is attached.
Charter Commission Action – At their meeting on July 25, 2013, the Lino Lakes
Charter Commission considered and approved the two proposed amendments. The
amendments were approved with slight changes recommended by the Commission’s
attorney. City Attorney Joseph Langel has reviewed the recommended changes and
concurs with them.
Charter Amendment Procedure. The charter amendment process is governed by state
statute , which provides more than one method by which a hom e rule charter can be
amended:
- Charter Commission – may propose amendments to the charter for submission
to the voters;
- Petition – a petition meeting the requirements of state law can be submitted by
citizens and the question would be brought to the vote rs;
- Amendment proposed by the council – the council may propose an
amendment by ordinance and, after review by the charter commission, may
present it to the voters;
- Upon receiving a recommendation from the charter commission, the council
may enact a char ter amendment by ordinance with an affirmative vote of all
council members (with a post approval waiting period of 90 days).
These amendments are being submitted with a positive recommendation of the
Commission and could therefore be enacted by an affir mative vote of all council
members.
Requested Council Direction
Staff proposes to begin the processed outlined by State Statute to adopt the two proposed
charter amendments relating to election by a vote of the council. A schedule of the
process inc luding a p ublic hearing and a 1 st and 2 nd reading has been developed by staff.
The process would culminate with consideration by the Council at the regular meeting on
September 23, 2013.
Attachments
May 11, 2011 staff report
July 31, 2013 Charter Commis sion letter