HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2023 Council Work Session PacketCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
AMENDED
Monday, October 2, 2023
Community Room
6:00 P.M.
1.Public Safety Employee Wellness Update, John Swenson
2.Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment-Synthetic Grass, Katie Larsen
3.2300 Main Street (Glamos Wire, Inc.) Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, Katie
Larsen
4.Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment-General Updates, Katie Larsen
5.Gateway Design - 49/J Streetscape, WSB & Michael Grochala
6.Lake Amelia Ditch Study, Andy Nelson
7.POC Firefighter Compensation Plan, Meg Sawyer
8.Part-Time Firefighter Compensation Plan, Meg Sawyer
9.WTP Architectural Design Committee, Michael Grochala
10.Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council
a.North Metro TV Updates
11.Labor Negotiations Strategy (Closed Meeting Pursuant to MN Statute 13D.03)
12.Adjourn
Expanded Packet
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 1
STAFF ORGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Public Safety Employee Wellness Update
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
During the August 1, 2022, Council Work Session staff provided details on the need for
enhancements to the Public Safety Department’s Employee Wellness programing and identified
programing to better address the wellness of our team through Provicta. In the fall of 2022, the
Public Safety Department began to provide training on wellness topics through Provicta to all
Public Safety Department staff.
In January 2023, police personnel could elect to participate in the enhanced wellness
programming.
Members of the Provicta team will provide the Council information on the services provide to
our staff and outcomes of the programming to date.
In the coming weeks, fire personnel will be able to elect to participate in the enhanced wellness
programing with Federal Emergency Management Grant funding which was awarded to the
Public Safety Department and accepted by Council at the September 25, 2023 Council meeting.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
None – informational only
ATTACHMENTS
LLPS PROVICTA SERVICES
OCTOBER 2023
Lino Lakes Public Safety Department
WHO WE ARE: HQ & PROVICTA
•Health Quotient powered by TCO's mission is to make Minnesota the healthiest and safest place to work.
•By partnering with Provicta, we are focusing on supporting and healing our hometown heroes with a multidisciplinary approach.
SUPPORTING THE HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNEY
Based on measurements of:
•Blood Pressure
•Body Fat
•Bone Density
•Triglycerides
•HDL/LDL Cholesterol
•Glycated Hemoglobin (Hba1c)
•Muscle Mass
•Etc.
Our assumption is that everything we can measure about health will conform to this continuum. Sickness, wellness, and fitness are different measurements of a single quality: health.
The Provicta provider team has been
successful moving first responders
upstream to Wellness and Fitness phases of their health journey.
Sickness FitnessWellness
UPSTREAM: PREVENTATIVE SERVICES
•Educational Trainings
•Biometrics and Habits to Health
•Fitness (coaching and content)
•Vehicle, Uniform and Office Ergonomics
•Nutrition (Registered Dietitian services)
•Check up for the Neck Up Services
•Prehab and Functional Movement Screenings
•Heart Health Assessment and Lifestyle Programs
Upstream Services Downstream ResourcesWorker’s Comp
EDUCATIONAL TRAININGS
Tailored to provide the needed education and training centered around improving physical and mental health, resiliency and overall wellness while building a community of support.
Topics
•Nutrition Strategies for Health & Performance
•Sleep Best Practices for Shift Work, Health, Performance & Longevity
•Functional Fitness & Exercise
•Heart Health
•Mental Health
•Stress Management & Reduction
•Financial Fitness
•Cooking Best Practices
Provicta trainings accommodate any format from 1-8 hours. Zoom or in-person or hybrid are all supported formats.
POST approved training credit
LLPS SERVICES OVERVIEW
•90 Day Health & Wellness Immersion
−Pre & Post Heart Health Screening
o Blood Draw
o Cardiologist & Dietitian overread and recommendations
o Advanced heart screening, if recommended
−Functional Movement Screen (FMS)
−InBody Composition Assessment
−Coaching Support
o Nutrition
o Functional movement
•POST Approved Education
−17 presentations were delivered
•Coaching Sessions
−Following the 90-day immersion participants had access to ongoing support throughout 2023 in the form of nutrition or fitness coaching
o Eight 30-minute sessions per officer
•Level Coach App
−Public Safety staff joined a health and wellness app for continued support
−Customized bookmarks to LLPS wellness offerings, education, and more
•Mindset Pilot
−Department members participated in a pilot program focused on mindset development
FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT
•Indvidual's who score a 14 or higher without asymmetries are 80% less likely to sustain a non-contact injury
•LLPS average fitness sessions YTD: 4.5
LLPD FMS Average
90-Day Immersion
Pre-Test: 13.1
Post-Test: 15.5
Asymmetries: 68%
For firefighters, musculoskeletal injuries has been attributed to being a leading cause of compensation and
injury reporting, even overshadowing actual burns (Karter, Molis, & Association, 2011; Walton, Conrad,
Furner, & Samo, 2003). In police, apart from direct physical assault from offenders, injuries are commonly
caused by the handling of non-cooperative offenders to more mundane factors like the interaction between
hip holster and police car seats with the officer required to rotate to either exit the vehicle (sometimes at
speed) or read from their mobile data terminal (Orr, 2013a).
NUTRITION
•Chef Marshall
•New Kitchen
•Body Composition Changes
−Average weight loss: 6.1 lbs
−Average body fat % change: -1.14%
•LLPS Average Nutrition Sessions YTD: 2.25/person
"Provicta has provided one on one meetings with movement specialists who have developed an individualized
workout plan for me.This has made it easier and more enjoyable to go to the gym on a regular basis.Provicta has
also provided nutritional guidance and educational resources regarding nutrition. This program has cumulatively led to
an overall improvement in my health and physical wellbeing."-LLPS Officer
MINDSET PILOT
•6 members LLPD participated Mindset Coaching program:
−4 Officers
−1 Sergeant
−1 Command Staff
•Goals:
−Uncover individual "core" needs
−Build resilience and personal satisfaction
•The LLPD pilot group noted numerous benefits, such as:
−Having a list of what’s most important to them personally and having strategies to fill their buckets
−More strategies at their fingertips for self-care
−A sense of more control to show up with a productive and positive attitude
−Time to dig deep and really reflect on what makes them happy, and how important each of those things are for their own satisfaction in and out of work
•Attending to one’s core needs more often (versus waiting until the big vacation, or major life events that tend to be spaced apart, or retirement) tends to lead to more happiness and engagement –and happier, healthier officers engage their communities in healthier, more effective ways!
90-DAY IMMERSION RESULTS
QUESTIONS?
Mike Goldstein
Max Lipset
Ashley Stiles
REFERENCES
Kate Lyons,1 Cameron Radburn,1 Robin Orr,1,2,*and Rodney Pope (2011).A Profile of Injuries Sustained by Law Enforcement Officers: A Critical Review.A Profile of Injuries Sustained by Law Enforcement Officers: A Critical Review -PMC (nih.gov)
OiSaeng Hong, RN, PhD, FAAN, Dal Lae Chin, RN, PhD, Stephanie Phelps, RN, MSN, Jamie Feld, RN, MS, MPH, and Stephen Vogel, MD, FACEP (2012).Occupational Injuries, Duty Status, and Factors Associated With Injuries Among Firefighters.Occupational Injuries, Duty Status, and Factors Associated with Injuries among Firefighters (sagepub.com)
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 2
STAFF ORGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment-Synthetic Grass
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
At the Work Session, staff will present the October 9, 2023 Council staff report.
The applicant, Troy Johnson of ForeverLawn Minnesota Inc., submitted a Land Use Application
on behalf of Jon Lipinski, 75 Robinson Drive, for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow
synthetic grass/artificial turf as an approved ground cover.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
The Environmental Board, Planning & Zoning Board, and City staff recommend formal denial of
Ordinance No. 12-23 as presented by the applicant and property owner.
If the Council supports limited use of synthetic grass, staff is seeking Council direction on the
following items to take back to the Planning & Zoning Board for discussion:
1.Location: Where should synthetic grass be allowed?
a.Front, side, rear yards?
i.Staff does not recommend front yard.
b.Drainage & Utility Easement?
i.Staff does not recommend placement with these easements.
c.Maximum lot coverage?
2. Color?
3.Pile height?
a.Would synthetic carpet (low pile height) be acceptable?
4.Require City permit with detailed product specifications and installation?
ATTACHMENTS
2
1.Applicant’s Narrative
2.Applicant’s Proposed Ordinance Amendment
3.ForeverLawn Landscape System Drawing
4.Environmental Coordinator Memo dated September 5, 2023
5.Engineer Memo dated September 6, 2023
6.Applicant Handouts at September 13, 2023 Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting
7.October 9, 2023 Council Staff Report including Ordinance No. 12-23
Zoning Ordinance Text AmendmentSynthetic Grass
Work Session
October 2, 2023
Land Use Application•Applicant = Forever Lawn Minnesota, Inc. –Troy Johnson
•Property Owner = Jon Lipinski, 75 Robinson Drive
•Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to allow synthetic grass/artificial
turf as an approved ground cover
2
3
Background
•75 Robinson Drive
•August 2023:
Landscape crew
removed sod and
prepped site with rock
base for synthetic
grass installation
•Stop Work Order
Issued
•City Code requires sod
as ground cover
•No exception for
synthetic grass
4
75 Robinson Drive
Potential benefits of synthetic turf:•Per the August 30, 2023 Environmental Board staff report:
•No water required for irrigation
•No pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers are needed
•Less fuel emissions from lawn equipment
•Product is made from plastic bottles and “technology created from soybean
plants”5
Areas of Concern•Staff is not aware of any cities in the area that have amended their
ordinances to allow for the widespread use this product.
•Hazardous products are released if the product catches fire.
•Permeability of synthetic turf may be an issue.
•Even if the product is 100% permeable, this doesn’t take into account the
permeability of the underlying soil.
•Evapotranspiration has a cooling effect. Water uptake by plants also
contributes to stormwater management. 6
Areas of Concern•Product may contribute byproducts to surface and groundwater supplies as it
decomposes. The polyurethane that it is made of has hazardous
decomposition products.
•Use in easement areas and rights-of-way should be prohibited. These areas
require access for maintenance of utilities and management of stormwater
systems and are frequently disturbed.
•Examples of installations provided were for small portions of yards, not whole
yards.
•Expected life span of the product is 15-20 years. At that time, the material
must be removed and landfilled.
7
Environmental Board Comments•Other alternative lawn types are available that are better choices for limiting
water, pesticide, and fertilizer use
•Hazardous byproducts leaching into ground and surface waters
•Hazardous byproducts when product is exposed to fire
•Soil health impacts
•Losing the water uptake and cooling effect of evapotranspiration from plants
•Impacts on resale value of homes
8
Environmental Board Recommendation•Board voted:
•1 “no” for any use of the product
•3 “noes” for widespread use but may be allowed in certain limited, clearly
defined small areas such as high traffic or erosion areas.
9
City Engineer Comments•Drainage and Infiltration Concerns
•If product is going to allowed in small applications, treat it as an impervious
surface.
•Residential lots are allowed up to 65% maximum impervious surface coverage.
•Unknown potential environmental and health impacts.
•Synthetic grass should not be allowed in drainage and utility easements due
to potential restoration costs as a result of future City utility maintenance and
replacement activities.
10
P&Z Board Recommendation•The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2023.
•Troy Johnson, ForeverLawn Minnesota, Inc., Jon Lipinkski, 75 Robinson Drive
property owner, and Felipe Illescas, Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association,
spoke in favor of the use of synthetic grass.
11
P&Z Recommendation•Discussion topics included product impervious/pervious, location in front yards and
drainage & utility easements, environmental concerns, fire hazards, color, and
installation standards.
•Planning & Zoning Board opinions ranged from allowing all types and colors of
synthetic grass anywhere on a property to limited use with restrictions such as type,
color, and location.
•Board formally voted 7-0 to deny the zoning ordinance text amendment as proposed
by the applicant and property owner.
•Board would further review alternative language if directed to do so by the City
Council.
12
75 Robinson Drive-Property Owner•Reasons for installing artificial turf/synthetic grass
•biological deserts,
•reducing carbon footprint,
•water conservation,
•no fertilizers,
•low maintenance option,
•no noise or air pollution from lawn equipment etc.
•Property owner also noted difficulty in growing/maintaining sod or seed on
the site.13
Staff Comment•Staff notes these same outcomes can be achieved by installing Native
Landscapes as allowed by State Statute 412.925.
•Synthetic grass does require the use of lawn equipment such as leaf blowers
or sweepers.
•Synthetic grass creates more of a biological desert.
•Other properties along Robinson Drive have been able to grow/maintain sod.
•It should be noted that a zoning ordinance amendment would apply to all
properties in the City, not just 75 Robinson Drive.
14
Other Communities•Staff reached out to other communities to see if or how they deal with
synthetic grass.
•The responses differed with some communities saying it would not be
allowed at all and some would allow it in small applications.
•Several communities noted concerns regarding product permeability and
runoff.
15
16
Plymouth, MN
Mahtomedi, MN
Applicant Examples
•Not installed entire
yards or in front yard
•Small, defined areas
Edina, MN
17
Minneapolis, MN
Orono, MN
Applicant Examples
Recommendation•The Environmental Board, Planning & Zoning Board, and City staff recommend
formal denial of Ordinance No. 12-23 as presented by the applicant and property
owner.
•October 9, 2023 Council Meeting: Council will take formal action
18
Council Direction-Limited Use?•Location: Where should synthetic grass be allowed?
•Front, side, rear yards?
•Drainage & Utility Easement?
•Staff does not recommend placement with these easements.
•Maximum lot coverage?
•Color?
•Pile height?
•Would synthetic carpet (low pile height) be acceptable?
•Require City permit with detailed product specifications and installation?
19
20
Another Lino Lakes Example
Unused Slides
21
Findings of Fact-ZOTA•The zoning ordinance amendment submitted by the applicant to allow for the
widespread use of synthetic grass does not meet findings of fact criteria for a
zoning ordinance text amendment.
22
Findings of Fact-ZOTA1.Not consistent with Comprehensive Plan
•Water rate and quantity, water quality, or groundwater management
concerns
2.Not compatible with present and future land uses of the area
3.Does not conform with performance standards
•Impervious surface, drainage
4.Amendment can be accommodated with existing public services
5.Traffic generation is not applicable.
23
Attachment 1: Applicant's Narrative
Attachment 2: Applicant's Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 3: ForeverLawn Landscape System Drawing
Page 1
To: Katie Larsen
From: Andy Nelson
Date: 9/05/23
Re: Environmental Comments/9-05-23/Synthetic Grass
The Environmental Board had the following comments at the 8-30-23 EB meeting:
Votes:
One “no” for any use of the product.
Three “noes” for widespread use, may be allowable in certain limited, clearly defined
areas.
Overall, the Board had concerns related to:
•Other alternative lawn types are available that are better choices for limitingwater, pesticide, and fertilizer use
•Hazardous byproducts leaching into ground and surface waters
•Hazardous byproducts when product is exposed to fire
•Soil health impacts
•Losing the water uptake and cooling effect of evapotranspiration from plants
•Impacts on resale value of homes
Environmental staff does not support use of this product.
Environmental Memo
Attachment 4: Environmental Coordinator memo dated September 5, 2023
178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum
To: Katie Larsen, Lino Lakes City Planner
From: Kris Keller, WSB Engineering
Date: September 6, 2023
Re: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Synthetic Grass – Engineering Review
WSB reviewed the submitted information pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) for Synthetic Grass in Lino Lakes, MN, as submitted by ForeverLawn. We have the following comments and recommendations.
We recommend that synthetic grass be treated as impervious surface until more conclusive evidence can be provided as to the consistent infiltration rates that can be achieved over various installations and maintained over an extended period of time. It could therefore be installed up to established limits for impervious surfaces on lots.
We have reservations as to the unknown potential environmental and health impacts regarding biproducts from the materials leaching into the underlying soils and water runoff.
We recommend that synthetic grass be used more sparingly such as in smaller high traffic areas where traditional turf may be excessively worn and eroded to a point of being bare.
We recommend that synthetic grass be kept out of drainage and utility easements due to the potential restoration costs as a result of future City utility maintenance and replacement activities.
We recommend with future pervious submittal considerations, that they should include;
o Calculations and testing for the proposed infiltration rates that are signed by aprofessional engineer licensed in the StateoDetails on the impact on infiltration due to the variability of installation methodsoDetails on the impact on infiltration due to clogging over time and the requiredmaintenance.o Details on the water and soil quality with extended exposure to the syntheticgrass materials
If you or the applicant have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kris
Keller at (612) 419-3083 or kkeller@wsbeng.com. You may also contact Diane Hankee at (651)
982-2430 or dhankee@linolakes.us.
Attachment 5: Engineer Memo dated September 6, 2023
Attachment 6: Applicant Handouts at September 13, 2023 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting
1
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 6C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: October 9, 2023
TOPIC: Consider Denial of Ordinance No. 12-23 Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment-Synthetic Grass
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Troy Johnson of ForeverLawn Minnesota Inc., submitted a Land Use Application
on behalf of Jon Lipinski, 75 Robinson Drive, for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow
synthetic grass/artificial turf as an approved ground cover.
BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2023 a crew performing landscaping work at 75 Robinson Drive had removed
turf grass and soil and added rock in preparation for installation of synthetic grass that would
cover a large portion of the lot. A stop work order was issued for the site at that time due to
the violation of City Code requirements.
Currently, the zoning ordinance requires sod or seed as ground cover. There is no exception for
synthetic grass.
City Code Section 1007.043(17):
(h)Sod and Ground Cover. All areas not otherwise improved in compliance with the
approved site plans shall have a minimum depth of four (4) inches of topsoil and
be sodded including boulevard areas. Exceptions to these criteria may be
approved by the Zoning Administrator as follows:
1.Seed may be provided in lieu of sod in any of the following cases:
a.Where the seed is applied to future expansion areas as shown on the
approved plans, or
Attachment 7: October 9, 2023 Council Staff Report including Ordinance No. 12-23
2
b.Where the seed is applied adjacent to natural areas or wetlands. Seed
mixture shall be approved by the City, or
c.For single-family and two family residential properties, proper erosion
control measures shall be implemented and maintained until vegetation is
established. Sod may be required in areas subject to erosion as determined
by the Building Official or City Engineer.
2.Undisturbed areas containing existing viable natural vegetation which can be
maintained free of foreign and noxious plant materials.
3.Areas designated as open space or future expansion areas properly planted and
maintained with native grasses or wild flowers indigenous to Minnesota. Seed
mixture shall be approved by the City.
4.Use of mulch materials such as bark, wood chips, and decorative rock in support
of shrubs and foundation plantings.
5.Natural Prairie Restoration Areas. Native grasses and wild flowers indigenous to
Minnesota, planted and maintained on any occupied lot or parcel of land,
setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front lot line and/or side lot line abutting
a public street, as part of a garden or landscape treatment.
Environmental Board
Per the August 30, 2023 Environmental Board staff report:
Potential benefits of synthetic turf:
•No water required for irrigation
•No pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers are needed
•Less fuel emissions from lawn equipment
•Product is made from plastic bottles and “technology created from soybean plants”
Areas of concern:
•Staff is not aware of any cities in the area that have amended their ordinances to allow
for the widespread use this product.
•Hazardous products are released if the product catches fire.
•Permeability of synthetic turf may be an issue. Even if the product is 100% permeable,
this doesn’t take into account the permeability of the underlying soil.
•Evapotranspiration has a cooling effect. Water uptake by plants also contributes to
stormwater management.
3
•The product may contribute byproducts to surface and groundwater supplies as it
decomposes. The polyurethane that it is made of has hazardous decomposition
products.
•Use in easement areas and rights-of-way should be prohibited. These areas require
access for maintenance of utilities and management of stormwater systems and are
frequently disturbed.
•Examples of installations provided were for small portions of yards, not whole yards.
•Expected life span of the product is 15-20 years. At that time, the material must be
removed and landfilled.
The Environmental Board provided the following additional comments:
•Other alternative lawn types are available that are better choices for limiting water,
pesticide, and fertilizer use
•Hazardous byproducts leaching into ground and surface waters
•Hazardous byproducts when product is exposed to fire
•Soil health impacts
•Losing the water uptake and cooling effect of evapotranspiration from plants
•Impacts on resale value of homes
The Board voted 1 “no” for any use of the product and 3 “noes” for widespread use but may be
allowed in certain limited, clearly defined small areas such as high traffic or erosion areas.
City Engineer
The attached City Engineer’s Memo provides the following comments:
•Drainage and Infiltration Concerns-need more conclusive evidence. If product is going to
allowed in small applications, treat it as an impervious surface. Residential lots are
allowed up to 65% maximum impervious surface coverage.
o Additional comment: At the Planning & Zoning meeting, the recommendation to
treat it as an impervious surface caused too much confusion since the product is
pervious. Staff understands the product is pervious but was only recommending
it be treated as impervious as a way to limit the amount of synthetic grass
allowed on a property. Staff will suggest other ideas if directed to by Council.
•Unknown potential environmental and health impacts.
•Synthetic grass should not be allowed in drainage and utility easements due to potential
restoration costs as a result of future City utility maintenance and replacement
activities.
Planning & Zoning Board
4
The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2023. Troy Johnson,
ForeverLawn Minnesota, Inc., Jon Lipinkski, 75 Robinson Drive property owner, and Felipe
Illescas, Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association, spoke in favor of the use of synthetic
grass.
Discussion topics included product impervious/pervious, location in front yards and drainage &
utility easements, environmental concerns, fire hazards, color, and installation standards. The
Planning & Zoning Board opinions ranged from allowing all types and colors of synthetic grass
anywhere on a property to limited use with restrictions such as type, color, and location.
The Board formally voted 7-0 to deny the zoning ordinance text amendment as proposed by the
applicant and property owner. The Board would further review alternative language if directed
to do so by the City Council.
75 Robinson Drive
The property owner states in the attached narrative letter some of the reasons for installing
artificial turf/synthetic grass is that traditional turf grass lawns are biological deserts, reducing
carbon footprint, water conservation, no fertilizers, low maintenance option, no noise or air
pollution from lawn equipment etc. The property owner also noted difficulty in
growing/maintaining sod or seed on the site.
Staff notes these same outcomes can be achieved by installing Native Landscapes as allowed by
State Statute 412.926. Synthetic grass does require the use of lawn equipment such as leaf
blowers or sweepers. Synthetic grass creates more of a biological desert. The other properties
along Robinson Drive have been able to grow/maintain sod or seed on their properties.
It should be noted that a zoning ordinance amendment would apply to all properties in the City,
not just 75 Robinson Drive.
Other Communities
Staff reached out to other communities to see if or how they deal with synthetic grass. The
responses differed with some communities saying it would not be allowed at all and some
would allow it in small applications. Several communities noted concerns regarding product
permeability and runoff.
Findings of Fact
The zoning ordinance amendment submitted by the applicant to allow for the widespread use
of synthetic grass does not meet findings of fact criteria for a zoning ordinance text
amendment.
Per City Code Section 1007.015(4)
5
(e)The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold the public hearing and consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to,
the following factors:
1.The proposed action is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed action is not consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan goals of
addressing water rate and quantity, water quality, or groundwater management.
2.The proposed action is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of
the area.
The proposed action would not be compatible with present and future land uses of the area.
3.The proposed action conforms with all performance standards contained herein.
The proposed action does not conform with all performance standards.
4.The proposed action can be accommodated with existing public services and will
not overburden the City’s service capacity.
The proposed action can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden
the City’s service capacity.
5.Traffic generation by the proposed action is within capabilities of streets serving
the property as described in City Code Section 1007.020(4)(d).
Traffic generation is not applicable to the proposed action.
RECOMMENDATION
The Environmental Board, Planning & Zoning Board and City staff recommend formal denial of
Ordinance No. 12-23 as presented by the applicant and property owner.
Staff seeks Council direction regarding alternative language for the use of synthetic grass as
discussed at the October 2, 2023 Work Session.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Ordinance No. 12-23
1
1st Reading: Publication:
2nd Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 12-23
ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 1007 RELATED TO
SYNTHETIC GRASS AS AN ALLOWED GROUND COVER
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that the zoning ordinance text amendment protects
the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the residents of the
community.
Section 2. Amendment. Lino Lakes City Code Section 1007.043(17) is hereby amended as
follows:
(h) Sod and Ground Cover. All areas not otherwise improved in compliance with the approved site plans shall have a minimum depth of four (4) inches of topsoil and be sodded including boulevard areas. Exceptions to these criteria may be approved by the Zoning Administrator as follows:
1. Seed may be provided in lieu of sod in any of the following cases: a. Where the seed is applied to future expansion areas as shown on the approved plans, or
b. Where the seed is applied adjacent to natural areas or wetlands. Seed mixture shall be approved by the City, or c. For single-family and two family residential properties, proper erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained until vegetation is established. Sod may
be required in areas subject to erosion as determined by the Building Official or City Engineer. 2. Undisturbed areas containing existing viable natural vegetation which can be maintained free of foreign and noxious plant materials.
2
3. Areas designated as open space or future expansion areas properly planted and maintained with native grasses or wild flowers indigenous to Minnesota. Seed mixture shall be
approved by the City.
4. Use of mulch materials such as bark, wood chips, and decorative rock in support of shrubs and foundation plantings.
5. Natural Prairie Restoration Areas. Native grasses and wild flowers indigenous to
Minnesota, planted and maintained on any occupied lot or parcel of land, setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front lot line and/or side lot line abutting a public street, as part of a garden or landscape treatment.
6. Synthetic Grass.
a. Product. i. Synthetic grass shall consist of green lifelike individual blades of grass that emulate natural grass in look and color.
ii. Synthetic grass shall be considered a pervious material when used in
landscaped areas at grade as a replacement for natural sod when installed correctly. iii. Products that are not perforated or otherwise manufactured for drainage such as putting greens will be considered impervious.
iv. Synthetic Grass shall be lead free, and pass pill flammability test.
v. Minimum Pile Weight 45 OZ. vi. Minimum Pile Height 7/8". b. Warranty. i. Synthetic Grass warranty shall have a minimum eight-year manufacturer's
warranty protecting against color fading and decrease in pile height.
ii. The use of indoor/outdoor carpeting shall be prohibited. c. Installation. i. Synthetic Grass shall be properly anchored to ensure that the turf will withstand the effects of wind.
ii. All seams shall be glued, and the edges shall be trimmed to fit against all
regular and irregular edges to resemble a natural look. iii. Synthetic Grass should not be installed over grass or other plants. iv. Synthetic Grass shall also not be installed over dirt that is not covered by a minimum of 3-inch sub-base layer of aggregate, such as compacted free
draining gravel or crushed stone or similar product designed specifically
for synthetic grass sub-base. v. Class V and 3/8" minus is not permitted. vi. Proper grading, compaction, and drainage shall be provided for all synthetic grass installations to prevent excessive run-off or pooling of
water and have a minimum permeability of 30 inches per square yard.
vii. Any current drainage issues needs to be addressed before installing synthetic grass.
3
viii. Synthetic Grass shall be installed with grain pointing the same direction. Layout of rolls shall be designed to reduce waste and keep
seams to minimum.
ix. A solid barrier device such as a concrete mow strip, sidewalk, driveway, or attachment board shall be required to separate synthetic grass from planters, live vegetation, and property boundaries. x. Where synthetic grass is installed adjacent to new trees or new shrubs a
minimum of two-foot separation between the synthetic grass and the tree
trunks and shrubs shall be maintained to allow for plant growth. xi. Infill shall be permitted per manufacturer for ballast, and longevity of the blades. d. Maintenance.
i. Synthetic grass shall be cleaned regularly and maintained in an appropriate
and neat manner. ii. It shall be replaced if it is worn, uneven, discolored or damaged per manufacturers recommendations. iii. Cleaning shall be done with a biodegradable product.
e. Easements and Public Right of Ways
i. It is recommended that synthetic grass not be installed in easements and right of ways. ii. If installed in easements and right of ways, it shall be homeowners' responsibility to remove and replace if required.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and
publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this _____day of ____________, 2023.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council
Member_____________and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
____________________________
Rob Rafferty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Jolleen Chaika, City Clerk
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 3
STAFF ORGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Glamos Wire, Inc. (2300 Main Street) Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for Outdoor Storage
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
At the Work Session, staff will present the October 9, 2023 Council staff report.
The applicant, Steve Tomas of Tomas Companies/Glamos Wire, Inc., submitted a Land Use
Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to expand the outdoor storage area
at their facility located at 2300 Main Street.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
None. Discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS
1.October 9, 2023 Council Staff Report
Glamos Wire, Inc.-CUP Amendment for Outdoor Storage
Work Session
October 2, 2023
Land Use Application•Conditional Use Permit Amendment
•Outdoor Storage
•2300 Main Street
•Glamos Wire, Inc.
2
3
Background
•July 2021: Res. No. 21-69 approved for CUP
for Outdoor Storage
•October 2022: Owner disturbed/graded land
and filled in a stormwater basin south of the
outdoor storage area without permit and
began storing items outside, a violation of the
approved conditional use permit and city
ordinance.
•November 2022: Staff met with owner and
explained the CUP needs to be amended and
a formal land use application is required.
•August 2023: land use application was
received.
•Zoning = LI, Light Industrial
•CUP required for Outdoor Storage
2021:
Approved
Outdoor
Storage
2022:
Illegal
Grading/
Outdoor
Storage
4
Revised Site Plan
•18 acre site
•1.31 existing outdoor storage
•2.06 1.91 proposed additional
outdoor storage
•3 downlit lights
•Stormwater pond SW corner of
site
•Rate control and water
quality requirements met
•Tree Preservation & Open Area
Landscaping requirements met
•Impervious Surface =
•56% 54.9%<75% allowed
•No wetland impacts
Existing
Outdoor
Storage
1.31 acres
Proposed
Outdoor
Storage
1.91 acre
Existing
Building
SW
Pond
Wetlands
0.81 ac
5
Screening
•10ft high screen and landscaping required
around outdoor storage
•City Council may modify or waive along lot
lines that abut industrial property
•Revised Plan Set shows correct fencing
•Existing Outdoor Storage:
•8ft high vinyl privacy fence
•(Previous ordinance only required 8ft)
•No change needed
•Proposed Outdoor Storage
•Required
•West: 10ft vinyl privacy fence with
shrubs and landscaping
•Recommended Modification
•South: 8ft vinyl privacy fence
•East: 8ft vinyl privacy
•No additional landscaping required
8ft
10ft
Industrial
Industrial
6
Storage Area to Building
Footprint Ratio
•Ordinance allows 1:1 ratio
storage area to building
footprint
•Total Storage Area = 3.22 ac
•Current = 1.31 acres
•Proposed = 1.91 acres
•Building Footprint = 3.22 ac
•Storage Area = Building
Footprint
3.22
acres
1.31
acres
1.91
acres
Permitted Outdoor Storage Items
•Semi-trailers, utility trailers, and company vehicles
•Wire stems
•Steel scrap bin
•Bales of cardboard
•Overflow pallets
•Snow plow and sanding equipment
•One (1) eight (8) yard trash bin
7
Res. No. 23-101 Details Findings of Fact1. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
2. Compatible with present and future land uses
3. Conforms to performance standards with revisions
4. Traffic generation
5. Served with adequate water
6. Served with adequate sanitary sewer
7. No premature expenditures of City funds
8. No excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odor
9. No loss of natural, scenic or historic features
8
P&Z Board Comments
•The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2023.
•There were no public comments.
•The Board recommended approval with a 7-0 vote with conditions detailed in
Resolution No. 23-101.
9
Council Consideration•Consider Resolution No. 23-101 Approving Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for Outdoor Storage
•Consider Resolution No. 23-102 Approving Site Improvement Performance
Agreement
10
Unused Slides
11
12
Surrounding Land Use
•I-35E, Main Street
and Otter Lake Road
corridor
•Focus of high value,
high quality
commercial and
industrial
development for
both the City and
property owners.
•City should be
cognizant of outdoor
storage and its
limited increase in
land value.
13
Summer leaf on conditions vs. winter leaf off
conditions
14
These trees and landscaping are acceptable along west lot line
CUP Outdoor Storage Requirements1.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.
•Required Otter Lake Road setback = 50 feet.
•Proposed outdoor storage and fence setback = 160 ft.
•This requirement is met.
•Required rear setback = 15 feet.
•Proposed outdoor storage and fence setback = 250 ft.
•This requirement is met.15
Outdoor Storage Requirements•Required side yard setback = 10 feet.
•Proposed outdoor storage and fence = 18 ft.
•This requirement is met.
•No outside storage is located between the principal structure and any public
right-of-way.
16
Outdoor Storage Requirements2.The storage area is landscaped and screened from view of adjacent uses and
public rights-of-way via a fence and greenbelt planting strip, in accordance with
§1007.043 (17)(f) of this Ordinance.
•As discussed, screening requirements are not met and plans shall be revised.
17
Outdoor Storage Requirements3.The entire storage area is fenced and secured in an appropriate manner.
•The proposed storage area is fenced and secured by a 6 ft tall fence; however, the
plans shall be revised per comments detailed in this staff report.
18
Outdoor Storage Requirements4.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.
•Existing outdoor storage area is located on the existing bituminous
blacktopped parking lot.
•Proposed outdoor storage area will be paved with asphalt.
•No outdoor storage shall occur on the grass or landscape area located
between the building and the parking lot.
19
Outdoor Storage Requirements5.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.
•The proposed outdoor storage area does not impact off-street parking
requirements.
20
Outdoor Storage Requirements6.The property shall not abut I-35W or I-35E.
•The property does not abut I-35W or I-35E.
7.The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed 2.5:1.
•As discussed, ratio requirements are not met and plans shall be revised.
21
Outdoor Storage Requirements8.All parking, loading and truck staging activities shall occur on site. On-street
parking and loading associated with the use is prohibited.
•No on-street parking or loading is proposed.
9.Storage shall not include material considered hazardous under Federal or State
Environmental Law.
10.The outdoor storage items or materials shall be directly related to the principal
industrial user. No off-site user storage shall be allowed.
22
1
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 6D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: October 9, 2023
TOPIC: Glamos Wire, Inc (2300 Main Street)
i.Consider Resolution No. 23-101 Approving
Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Outdoor
Storage
ii.Consider Resolution No. 23-102 Approving Site
Improvement Performance Agreement
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for
Glamos Wire, Inc. located at 2300 Main Street.
Complete Application Date: August 21, 2023
60-Day Review Deadline:October 20, 2023
120-Day Review Deadline:December 19, 2023
Environmental Board Meeting: August 30, 2023
Park Board Meeting: N/A
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: September 13, 2023
Tentative City Council Work Session: October 2, 2023
Tentative City Council Meeting: October 9, 2023
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Steve Tomas of Tomas Companies/Glamos Wire, Inc., submitted a Land Use
Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to expand the outdoor storage area
at their facility located at 2300 Main Street.
This staff report is based on the following information:
Attachment 1: October 9, 2023 Council Staff Report
2
• Narrative prepared by Bolton & Menk dated August 14, 2023
• Certificate of Survey prepared by Bolton & Menk dated September 21, 2023
• Site Development Plans for Tomas Companies prepared by Bolton & Menk dated August
14, 2023 September 21, 2023
• ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey prepared by EG Rud & Sons, Inc. dated July 2, 2020
• Impervious Areas Exhibit prepared by Bolton & Menk dated August 2023
• Stormwater Drainage Report, Drainage Maps & Modeling prepared by Bolton & Menk
revised dated August 1, 2023 September 21, 2023
• Geotechnical Report prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation dated March 29, 1996
• Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Bolton & Menk dated April 25, 2023
This staff report provides a comparison of the September 13, 2023 Planning & Zoning staff
report with the revised plans. Changes in the plans are either narratively described or shown as
strikethrough (deletions) or underline (additions).
ANALYSIS
Background
In July 2020, staff observed illegal outdoor storage of semi-trailers, signage, and construction
without a permit at 2300 Main Street, Glamos Wire, Inc. Staff reached out to the property
owner in August 2020 with a courtesy call and email. After no response, staff followed up with
letters and emails in September, October and November 2020. In December 2020 and March
2021, the applicant submitted incomplete land use applications. Staff continued to work with
the property owner until a complete land use application was submitted in May 2021. In July
2021, Council passed Resolution No. 21-69 approving a conditional use permit for open and
outdoor storage for Glamos Wire, Inc. (2300 Main St).
In October 2022, the owner disturbed/graded land and filled in a stormwater basin south of the
outdoor storage area without permit and began storing items outside, a violation of the
approved conditional use permit and city ordinance. In November 2022, staff met with owner
and explained the conditional use permit needs to be amended and a formal land use
application is required. In August 2023, the land use application was received.
Zoning
The property is zoned LI, Light Industrial. Outdoor storage (previously called open and outdoor
storage) is allowed with an approved conditional use permit. Conditions of the outdoor storage
use are detailed below.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
3
Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use
North GB, General
Business
Commercial
(McDonald’s & Main
Street Shoppes)
Commercial
South LI, Light Industrial Vacant Industrial Industrial
East LI, Light Industrial
Industrial
(Laborers Training
Center)
Industrial
West GB, General
Business Vacant Commercial Commercial
This I-35E, Main Street and Otter Lake Road corridor has been the focus of high value, high
quality commercial and industrial development for both the City and property owners. The City
should be cognizant of outdoor storage and its limited increase in land value.
Site Plan
The parcel is approximately 18 acres. The main building and associated parking lots are located
on the north half of the site. The south half of the site consists of trees, wetlands and
agricultural crop land.
The applicant’s site plan shows a new 2.06 1.91 acre outdoor storage area just south of the
existing outdoor storage area. The new area would be connected to the existing area by two
existing gates on the east half of the south border of the existing storage area. There is a new
vehicle access gate on the west side of the storage between the existing and proposed storage
areas. The proposed storage area would be enclosed by an 6 ft. tall chain linked 8ft and 10ft tall
vinyl fence and be paved with asphalt. The project would also entail grading, curb and gutter,
connection to existing storm sewer, lighting, landscaping, and stormwater
management/treatment.
Screening requirements and building footprint to outdoor storage area ratio limits are not met
as detailed below.
Lighting
The plans show three (3) light fixtures for the new storage area: placed on the west, north, and
east sides of the storage area. These fixtures will have a thirty (30) ft. mounting height, be LED,
and be downwards facing. The photometric plan shall be has been revised to clearly show foot
candle measurements along the west, south and east lot lines. Lighting requirements are met.
Off-Street Parking Requirements
4
Off-street parking requirements were analyzed and met with the original CUP. Additional off-
street parking is not required for the proposed outdoor storage area.
Grading Plan and Stormwater Management
The stormwater management for the outdoor storage expansion consists of an existing rain
garden and proposed sedimentation basin. Based on the provided HydroCAD modeling and
water quality calculations in the stormwater report, this project meets City requirements for
rate control and water quality treatment.
Pre- and Post- Development Discharge Rates (cfs)
Condition 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 10-Day Snowmelt
Existing 18.98
22.91
30.11
36.73
58.70
70.61 Not provided
Proposed 17.22
20.88
26.86
33.02
51.29
61.51 Not provided
Public Utilities
Public utilities exist along CR 84 (Otter Lake Road). Water and sanitary sewer are not impacted
by the outdoor storage area.
Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards
A tree survey was performed that identified:
Of the 210 trees surveyed, 92 will be removed. 61 of these trees are in the Basic Use Area
(within the outdoor storage area or within 20 feet of it). 31 of the tree removals that are
located near the proposed stormwater basin will require mitigation trees to be planted. 32
mitigation trees are required because one of the trees is large enough to require two trees
planted in its place.
Total Trees Surveyed 210
Total Trees Removed 92
Trees Removed in Basic Use Area 61
Mitigation Trees Required 32
5
There are 18 trees that will be preserved near the disturbance area. These trees will provide 43
trees worth of existing tree credit.
There are numerous ash trees on the site that have been infested with Emerald ash borer.
The following emerald ash borer infested trees must be removed:
• 11 trees along Otter Lake Road east of the sidewalk.
• Trees 208-215 in the northeast corner of the property.
These trees have the potential to impact public safety and cause off-site property damage.
All other ash trees on the site that have not been treated to prevent emerald ash borer
infestation should be removed as well, but their removal will not be a requirement of this
project.
Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards have been met.
Open Areas Landscape Standards
Open area landscape standards call for 1 large tree and 2 large shrubs per 2500 sf.
Required for 32,000 square feet of open space: 13 large trees
26 large shrubs
Provided: 75 large trees
0 large shrubs
Existing trees that will be preserved southwest of the proposed storage area provide 43 trees
worth of credit. There are also 32 new trees planned for the open space area. 75 total large
trees were provided.
One large tree can be substituted for 2 large shrubs. There are enough large trees provided to
also meet the large shrub requirement.
Open Areas Landscape Standards have been met.
Buffer and Screen Standards
Outdoor storage yards require a 10 foot high screen, though the City Council may approve a
modification or waiver from these standards if the affected lot line adjoins another industrial
property.
The current original plan set includes inconsistent information about the height and materials
for the proposed fence. The revised fence plans submitted should be are consistent across all
plan sheets.
6
The west perimeter of the storage area abuts Otter Lake Road and will require a 10 foot opaque
fence (ex: vinyl) with shrub cover for 50 percent of the wall. The shrub cover required for the
west section of fence has not been provided.
Additionally, trees are required along the length of the screen at intervals determined by size
(large trees every 50 linear feet, medium trees every 35 linear feet, or small trees every 25
linear feet). Between the existing trees that will be preserved and the new trees planned for
the west perimeter, the tree requirement for the west fence perimeter is met.
The south and east perimeters of the storage area abut industrial properties. For these
perimeters, staff is recommending 8 foot high vinyl fencing to match the existing fence on the
storage area to the north. Trees planted along the south perimeter will meet tree and shrub
requirements for the south perimeter fence. The east perimeter fence should not require
additional shrubs or trees due to screening provided by the berm that abuts the property line.
Buffer and screen requirements have not been met.
Canopy Cover
Canopy cover standards do not apply to permitted outdoor storage areas in Industrial Districts.
Sod and Ground Cover Standards
All areas not otherwise improved in accordance with the approved site plans shall have a
minimum depth of 4 inches of topsoil and be sodded including boulevard areas. Seed may be
provided in lieu of sod in certain cases, including when the area is adjacent to natural areas or
wetlands.
All disturbed areas outside of the paved areas will receive 6” of topsoil and be seeded with MN
DOT seed mix 35-241, a mesic prairie seed mix.
The unpermitted grading that created the berm running along the south and east perimeters of
the proposed storage area would have resulted in exposed soil. Exposed soil is prone to
colonization by invasive, weedy plant species. A vegetation management plan will be required
for the berm and any additional exposed soil around it that will not be paved for the storage
area. This must include a vegetation assessment that identifies the plant species present.
Depending on the results of the assessment, a plan to prepare the site for native seeding may
also be required.
Signage
New signage is not proposed. A separate Sign Permit Application with detailed sign information
would be required for any permanent or temporary signage.
Impervious Surface Coverage
7
The allowed maximum impervious surface coverage per lot in the LI, Light Industrial District is
75%. Per the Impervious Areas Exhibit, the site will have 56% 54.9% impervious surface and is
compliant.
Traffic Study
CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) is a Minor Arterial road. A traffic study is not required for the outdoor
storage area.
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Considerations
The site is within the 2005 I-35E Corridor AUAR environmental review boundary. The AUAR
identified this site as industrial in the land use scenarios. The outdoor storage project is
consistent with industrial development. No further environmental assessment is required.
Wetlands
A 0.81 acre area of wetland was delineated within the parcel boundaries. This shallow marsh
and seasonally flooded fringe are located on the southeast corner of the parcel.
Two additional wetlands just south of the proposed outdoor storage area were deemed
incidental by Rice Creek Watershed District in 2007. Impacts to these wetlands will not require
mitigation.
No additional wetland impacts that would require mitigation are proposed for this project.
Sheet C3.01, Grading and Drainage Plan, shows a Wetland Buffer Line. The City of Lino Lakes
and RCWD shall be listed as benefactors to any wetland declarations or easements.
Shoreland District
The site is not located in the Shoreland District.
Floodplain
There is no FEMA floodplain on site.
Additional City and Government Agency Review Comments
Anoka County Highway Department
Anoka County Highway Department was not requested to review the outdoor storage
application.
Public Safety Comments
Fire Division Deputy Director L’Allier did not have any issues with the proposed outdoor storage
area.
8
Lino Lakes Public Safety Department-Police Division did not express any concerns with the
proposed outdoor storage area.
Environmental Board
The Environmental Board reviewed the development proposal at their August 30, 2023 meeting
and supported the project with some with minor revisions as summarized in the attached
September 25, 2023 Environmental Coordinator memo.
Planning and Zoning Board
The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2023. There were no
public comments. The Board recommended approval with a 7-0 vote with conditions detailed
in Resolution No. 23-101.
Agreements
Stormwater Maintenance Agreement
The stormwater facilities will be privately maintained and a Declaration for Maintenance of
Stormwater Facilities will be required.
Site Improvement Performance Agreement
A Site Improvement Performance Agreement and securities are required.
Findings of Fact-Conditional Use Permit
Council Resolution No. 23-101 details the Conditional Use Permit Findings of Fact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Site Improvement Performance Agreement for Glamos Wire, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sheet C1.01, Site Plan
2. City Engineer Memo dated September 27, 2023
3. Environmental Coordinator Memo dated September 25, 2023
4. Resolution No. 23-101
5. Resolution No. 23-102
6. Site Improvement Performance Agreement (To Follow)
XXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXOTTER LAKE ROADS160.1159.679.939.939.979.9240.3439.639.478.2163.718.919.0119.150.0'MAIN ST.10C4.016C4.01CURB CUT7C4.01PROPOSED VINYL FENCE (MATCH EXISTING)CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGSDEMONSTRATING PROPOSED FENCE MATCHES EXISTINGPROPOSED VINYL FENCE (MATCH EXISTING)CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGSDEMONSTRATING PROPOSED FENCE MATCHES EXISTINGAPPROXIMATELOCATION OF EXISTING GATE9C4.016C4.016C4.018C4.0110C4.01STORMWATER PONDGATEAPPROXIMATELOCATION OF EXISTING GATE10' SIDE SETBACK10' REAR SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACKEXISTING PONDEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING WETLANDEXISTING PARKING LOT425.34'210.48'6" CLEARANCE TO BE PROVIDED BETWEENBOTTOM OF CHANNEL AND BOTTOM OF FENCEPROPOSED VINYL FENCE (MATCH EXISTING)CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGSDEMONSTRATING PROPOSED FENCE MATCHES EXISTING15.29'RSHEET Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2023, All Rights Reservedch:\tomascom_pr\0t7129812\CAD\C3D\129812C101.dwg 9/21/2023 4:45:59 PM
DESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCLIENT PROJ. NO.ISSUED FORDATENO.LINO LAKES, MINNESOTAOUTDOOR STORAGE EXPANSION0T7.129812DATELIC. NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.BRENT H. JOHNSON 2037809/21/2023MJIMAMBHJ1RCWD08/25/2023C1.01SITE PLANFEETSCALE050100HORZ.10'VLF1C4.01LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D. NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENTPROPOSED GRAVEL SURFACEPROPOSED CHAIN LINKED FENCINGFENCING KEY NOTE - 8' OR 10' HEIGHT FENCEPROPOSED LIGHT POLE - REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE1.REFER TO SHEET G0.01, TITLE SHEET, FOR GENERAL NOTES.2.CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.3.INSTALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS APPROXIMATELY 18 INCHES BEHIND BACK OF CURB.4.ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD, WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED, SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6” OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED. ALL AREAS NOT DESIGNATEDFOR SOD OR A SPECIFIC SEED MIX, WHICH ARE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE SEEDED WITH SEED MIX 35-241.5.WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING SOD, CUT A CLEAN, SHARP EDGE TO ALLOW FOR A CONSISTENT, UNIFORM, AND STRAIGHT JOINT BETWEEN NEW SOD AND EXISTING TURFGRASS. JAGGED ORUNEVEN JOINTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT THE JOINT BETWEEN NEW SOD AND EXISTING TURFGRASS, AS REQUIRED, TO ALLOW NEW SOD SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITHEXISTING TURFGRASS SURFACE.6.FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE TURF, RE-SOD OR RE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THEOWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.7.FENCE SEGMENTS SHALL BE PERPENDICULARLY OFFSET BY 2' EVERY 75' AT A MINIMUM8.BLANDING'S TURTLE (EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII) HAS BEEN OBSERVED WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE. THE MN DNR FLYER AND FACTSHEET ON THIS TURTLE MUST BEPROVIDED TO ALL CONTRACTORS WORKING ON THE SITE. ANY SIGHTINGS OF THIS SPECIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO CITY STAFF SO THAT THE TURTLES CAN BE SAFELY RELOCATED. NOTES10C4.018'VLF10C4.0110'VLFRBUILDING FOOTPRINT3.22 ACRESEXISTING STORAGE1.31 ACRESNEW STORAGE1.91 ACRESEXISTING PARKING, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS3.25 ACRES TOTAL AREA 19.11 ACRES- CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.46 ACRES SITE 17.65 ACRESPROPOSED SITE IMPERVIOUS % =(1.91+1.31+3.22+3.25)/17.65 =9.69/17.65 = 54.9%POND SURFACE0.31 ACRES8'VLF8'VLF
178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum
To: Katie Larsen, Lino Lakes City Planner From: Diane Hankee PE, Lino Lakes City Engineer Date: September 27, 2023 Re: Glamos Wire Storage Expansion CUP Plan Review 023534-000
WSB reviewed the plans for the Glamos Wire Storage Expansion site in Lino Lakes, MN, received September 22, 2023. The site is 17.93 acres and located at 2300 Main Street South of County Road 14 and east of County Road 84. Comments were made on the following documents:
• Glamos Wire Outdoor Expansion plans prepared by Bolton & Menk, dated September 21, 2023 The following review comments should be responded to in writing by the applicant. Bolton & Menk (9/21/2023) Responses in red. WSB (9/27/2023) responses and new comments in blue. Engineering
• Grading
A grading plan was provided for the storage expansion including paved areas, curb, and
a basin. Water from the previous storage area to the north is collected in a drainage
swale that runs around the outside of the curbed area (western) or sheet flows through
this paved area (eastern)
Comments: 1. The applicant shall clarify the proposed rim elevation of the pond OCS. The detail
shows an elevation of 910.4 and the drainage plan sheet shows 908.1. (BM 9/21/2023) Rim elevation on Sheet C3.01 has been updated.
2. Call out the EOF for basin
(BM 9/21/2023) EOF location and elevation have been called out on plans.
3. Eliminate the southwestern curb cut and direct drainage from northwestern corner to southern curb cut to minimize short circuiting of basin for treatment (0.8% slope)
(BM 9/21/2023) Southwestern curb cub has been removed.
4. Existing spot elevations do not appear to match the existing contours in the previous storage area in the northeast corner.
(BM 9/21/2023) Sheet C3.01 has been updated.
Ms. Katie Larsen 09/27/2023 Page 2
Glamos Wire Storage Expansion Engineering Review
5. Verify whether there is an existing storm sewer structure east of what is shown on the plans. The storm sewer is not shown starting at a structure. (BM 9/21/2023) Drain tile from the previous rain garden enters the storm sewer
structure from the east. There is no other storm sewer structure east of the catch basin manhole. 6. The fence and vehicle gate are shown crossing the drainage swale at the northwest corner of the storage area. Verify that these do not impede drainage or will collect debris that would impede drainage.
(BM 9/21/2023) The vehicle gate has been deleted. A note has been added to Sheet C1.01 calling for a clearance of 0.5 feet between the channel bottom and the base of the fence. A summary of the open channel depth is 0.65 feet. The depth at the upstream side of the fence will increase 0.29 feet as the hydraulic control changes from open channel to orifice control. The 100-year depth just upstream of the fence will be 0.94 feet, less than half-full in the channel. If debris collects at the corssing it
will be removed by Tomas Company maintenance staff.
• Stormwater Management
The stormwater management for the storage expansion consists of an existing rain garden
and proposed sedimentation basin. Based on the HydroCAD modeling and water quality
calculations provided in the updated stormwater report, this project meets City requirements for rate control and water quality treatment.
Pre- and Post- Development Discharge Rates (cfs)
Condition 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 10-Day Snowmelt
Existing 22.91 36.73 70.61 Not provided
Proposed 20.88 33.02 61.51 Not provided
Comments: 1. The applicant shall clarify the proposed rim elevation of the pond OCS. The detail shows an elevation of 910.4 and the drainage plan sheet shows 908.1. (BM 9/21/2023) The Rim elevation has been updated in the plans. 2. The applicant shall revise the BMP design in the northwest corner of the basin. Locating an inlet that flows over the OCS and into the basin will result in flow shortcutting and potential long-term damage to the structure. It is recommended to shift the inlet location, OCS, or both to avoid this risk. (BM 9/21/2023) The 18” inlet pipe to the OCS has been realigned and extended to draw water from the southwestern corner of the pond. 3. The applicant shall revise the riprap shown on the plans to cover the surface down to the normal water level of the pond. Current plans limit riprap to an elevation of 908, leaving approximately 10’ of unarmored ground at risk of erosion from flows into the basin. (BM 9/21/2023) Riprap has been extended to the normal water level on Sheet C3.01
Ms. Katie Larsen 09/27/2023 Page 3
Glamos Wire Storage Expansion Engineering Review
a. It is also recommended that the NWL and 100-yr HWL footprint of the BMP be shown on the plans. (BM 9/21/2023) NWL and HWL footprint have been added to Sheet C3.01
4. As proposed, the swale routed to the inlet at the northwest corner of the pond flows through a fence. The applicant shall revise the fence design at this location to ensure flows can pass freely and without risk of clogging from debris. (BM 9/21/2023) Please see comment #6 under grading above.
• Water Supply
Utilities are not proposed or shown for the site.
Comments: 1. We recommend that the City Deputy Director of Public Safety-Fire Division review the proposed plan to verify fire protection
• Sanitary Sewer
Utilities are not proposed or shown for the site.
• Transportation
Vehicle access will occur through the existing storage area south of the building. No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated and a traffic study is not required.
Comments: 1. A vehicle access gate is shown on the northwest corner of the proposed lot, but it is not evident how this gate will be used considering the proposed swale in that location and lack of impervious for driving. The applicant shall clarify this gate design. (BM 9/21/2023) The gate has been removed from the plans.
• Wetlands and Mitigation Plan
Wetlands are shown on the existing survey for the site. RCWD issued a decision in 2007
which found two incidental wetland areas on the property.
Comments: a. Applicant to verify that wetland buffer requirements are being met. i. Rice Creek Watershed District to review (BM 9/21/2023) Wetland buffer requirements are being met. Please see Sheet C3.02.
• Landscaping
Ms. Katie Larsen 09/27/2023 Page 4
Glamos Wire Storage Expansion Engineering Review
Landscaping plans were provided as part of the submittal. The City’s Environmental
Coordinator to review landscaping and provide in-depth comments.
• Floodplain
No floodplain impacts are proposed on site. RCWD to review whether RCWD floodplains are impacted with the project.
• Drainage and Utility Easements
Drainage and utility easements are required over stormwater management areas (pipe and
basin). (BM 9/21/2023) Drainage and utility easements over stormwater management areas have been drafted. (WSB 9/27/2023) Please provide final easements when available.
• Development Agreement
A Development Agreement is not applicable for this application.
• Grading Agreement
A Grading Agreement is not applicable for this application.
• Stormwater Maintenance Agreement
The stormwater facilities will be privately maintained, and a Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities will be required. Both the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the City of Lino Lakes shall be parties to the Declaration.
(BM 9/21/2023) A Declaration for maintenance of stormwater facilities has been drafted.
(WSB 9/27/2023) Please provide final maintenance agreement when available.
• Permits Required
1. NPDES General Construction Permit
2. City of Lino Lakes Zoning Permit for construction
3. Rice Creek Watershed Permit
(BM 9/21/2023) Acknowledged. Tomas Companies will submit an application for the
NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and for the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Permit. The Rice Creek Watershed has issued a permit with conditional approval.
Ms. Katie Larsen 09/27/2023 Page 5
Glamos Wire Storage Expansion Engineering Review
If you or the applicant have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kris
Keller at (612) 419-3083 or kkeller@wsbeng.com. You may also contact Diane Hankee at (651)
982-2430 or dhankee@linolakes.us.
Page 1
To: Katie Larsen
From: Andy Nelson
Date: 9/05/23 9/25/23
Re: Environmental Comments/8-30-23/Glamos Wire Outdoor Storage-Amend CUP
Environmental Board had the following comments at the 8-30-23 EB meeting:
Applicant responses from 9-21-23 in blue. Environmental staff responses from 9/26/23 in green. 1. The following emerald ash borer infested trees must be removed:
• 11 trees along Otter Lake Road east of the sidewalk.
• Trees 208-215 in the northeast corner of the property. These trees have the potential to impact public safety and cause off-site property
damage.
All other ash trees on the site that have not been treated to prevent emerald ash borer infestation should be removed as well.
Response: The 11 trees along Otter Lake Road are now shown as trees to be removed, and the appropriate mitigation trees have been proposed. Trees 208-215 are outside of the property line and have been removed from plans. The 11 ash trees to remove along Otter Lake Road are shown on the attached Landscape
Plan for Taylor Companies. These trees must be surveyed and removed. Trees 208-215 are ash shown to be planted on the property on the same attached Landscape Plan. These trees must be added to the survey and removed. These ash removals will not require additional mitigation trees to be planted. 2. Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) has been observed within a one-mile
radius of the site. The MN DNR flyer and factsheet on this turtle must be
provided to all contractors working on the site. Any sightings of this species should be reported to City staff so that the turtles can be safely relocated.
Environmental Memo
Page 2
Response: Blanding’s turtle note has been added to the site plan sheet C1.01. Ok. 3. A vegetation management plan will be required for the berm and any additional exposed soil resulting from the unpermitted grading activities. This will include a
vegetation assessment that identifies the plant species currently present. Depending on the results of the assessment, a plan to prepare the site for native seeding may also be required. Response: An appropriate MnDOT seed mix has been proposed in place of the existing
volunteer vegetation. A plan to prepare the berm for seeding is required. 4. Erosion blanket must be a natural net variety. A note stating this should be added
to the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C2.01), the Erosion Control Blanket Detail (Sheet C4.01), and the BMP Quantity Summary (Sheet C2.02).
Response: Plan sheets have been updated accordingly. Ok.
5. Buffer and Screen comments:
• West perimeter: 10 foot high fence; additional shrubs required to cover
50% of the west perimeter fence that faces Otter Lake Road
• South perimeter: 8 foot high fence
• East perimeter: 8 foot high fence
Response: Plan sheets have been updated accordingly.
Ok.
6. The provided Tree Protection Detail must be replaced with the City Tree Protection Fence Detail on Sheet L2.01. All trees planned for preservation will require tree protection fence to be installed in accordance with this detail. Also, the Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be shown on the Grading, Drainage, and
Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C3.01). The TPZs must be in place prior to issuance
of grading permit and will be reviewed by staff concurrently with inspection of sediment and erosion control measures. Response: The Lino Lakes Tree Protection Fence Detail is now shown on sheet L2.01 and TPZ fence limits are shown on Sheet C3.01 and the appropriate landscape plan sheets.
Tree protection fence not shown on plan sheets C3.01 or L1.03. Detail has been added to sheet L2.01.
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 23-101 RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 21-69 FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR TOMAS COMPANIES, INC./GLAMOS WIRE, INC. (2300 MAIN STREET)
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2021, the City Council passed Resolution No. 21-69 approving a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage at Glamos Wire, Inc. (2300 Main Street); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2023, the City received a land use application for a
Conditional Use Permit amendment from Tomas Companies, Inc./Glamos Wire, Inc. to expand the existing outdoor storage area and hereafter referred to as “Development”; and WHEREAS, the September 13, 2023 Planning & Zoning Staff Report and the October 9,
2023 Council Staff Report provide supporting narrative and documentation to the land
use application; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned LI, Light Industrial and allows for outdoor storage with an approved conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the legal description of the subject property is as follows: THE W1/2 OF SE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF SEC 24 TWP 31 RGE 22, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC; and
WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the land use application based on the following plans:
• Narrative prepared by Bolton & Menk dated August 14, 2023
• Certificate of Survey prepared by Bolton & Menk dated September 21, 2023
• Site Development Plans for Tomas Companies prepared by Bolton & Menk dated September 21, 2023
• ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey prepared by EG Rud & Sons, Inc. dated July 2, 2020
• Impervious Areas Exhibit prepared by Bolton & Menk dated August 2023
• Stormwater Drainage Report, Drainage Maps & Modeling prepared by Bolton &
Menk revised dated September 21, 2023
• Geotechnical Report prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation dated March 29, 1996
• Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Bolton & Menk dated April 25, 2023 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on September 13, 2023 and the Board recommended approval of the conditional use permit amendment with a 7-0 vote.
2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT Per City Code Section 1007.016(3):
(e) The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold the public hearing and consider
possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon,
but not limited to, the following factors:
1. The proposed development application has been found to be consistent
with the design standards listed in City Code Section 1007.020(4).
See below.
2. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
The proposed outdoor storage will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare, or odors.
3. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature of major importance.
The proposed outdoor storage will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
Per City Code Section 1007.020: (4) Performance Standards. Plans which fail to meet the following criteria shall not
be approved.
(a) The proposed development application must be consistent with the
policies and recommendations of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed outdoor storage is consistent with industrial land use. (b) The proposed development application is compatible with present and
future land uses of the area.
The proposed outdoor storage is compatible with present and future land uses of the
area.
3
(c) The proposed development application conforms to performance standards
herein and other applicable City Codes.
The proposed outdoor storage conforms to City Code performance standards with minor
revisions as noted in this resolution.
(d) Traffic generated by a proposed development application is within the
capabilities of the City when:
1. If the existing level of service (LOS) outside of the proposed development
is A or B, traffic generated by a proposed development will not degrade the level of
service more than one grade.
2. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed development is C, traffic
generated by a proposed development will not degrade the level of service below C.
3. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed development is D, traffic
generated by a proposed development will not degrade the level of service below D.
4. The existing LOS must be D or better for all streets and intersections
providing access to the proposed development. If the existing level of service is E or F,
the developer must provide, as part of the proposed project, improvements needed to
ensure a level of service D or better.
5. Existing roads and intersections providing access to the proposed
development must have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the
proposed development or the developer will pay to correct any structural deficiencies.
6. The traffic generated from a proposed development shall not require City
street improvements that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan.
However, the City may, at its discretion, consider developer-financed improvements to
correct any street deficiencies.
7. The LOS requirements in paragraphs 1. to 4. above do not apply to the I-
35W/Lake Drive or I-35E/Main St. interchanges. At City discretion, interchange impacts
must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County and the Minnesota Dept. of
Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to determine improvements needed to
resolve deficiencies. This plan must determine traffic generated by the proposed
development project, how this traffic contributes to the total traffic, and the time frame of
the improvements. The plan also must examine financing options, including project
contribution and cost sharing among other jurisdictions and other properties that
contribute to traffic at the interchange.
4
Traffic generated by Glamos Wire, Inc. and the outdoor storage area are within capabilities of the streets serving the property. CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) and CSAH 14
(Main Street) are arterial and A-Minor Connector roads respectively.
(e) The proposed development shall be served with adequate and safe water
supply.
The proposed outdoor storage will have an adequate water supply.
(f) The proposed development shall be served with an adequate or safe
sanitary sewer system.
The proposed outdoor storage does not require sanitary sewer. (g) The proposed development shall not result in the premature expenditures
of City funds on capital improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed
development.
The proposed outdoor storage will not result in the premature expenditures of City funds
on capital improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. (h) Fire prevention and fighting equipment acceptable to the Board of Fire
Underwriters and City Council shall be readily available when any activity involving the
handling or storage of flammable or explosive materials is carried on.
The proposed outdoor storage does not involve any activity involving the handling or
storage of flammable or explosive materials. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of Lino Lakes in addition to the administrative requirements of a conditional use permit, the following specific
performance standards of City Code Section 1007.120 (9) must also be met:
(e) Outdoor storage (not outdoor sales lots) as an accessory use provided that: 1. The designated storage area shall comply with all building setback
requirements for the district. Outdoor storage is prohibited between the principal structure and any public right-of-way. The required building setback along CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) is 50 feet. The proposed
outdoor storage and fence setback is 160 ft. This requirement is met.
The required building setback along the rear lot line is 15 feet. The proposed outdoor storage and fence setback is 250 ft. This requirement is met.
The required building setback along the side lot line is 10 feet. The proposed outdoor
storage and fence is 18 ft. This requirement is met.
5
No outdoor storage area is proposed between the principal structure and the public right-of-way.
2. The storage area is landscaped and screened from view of adjacent uses and public rights-of-way via a fence and greenbelt planting strip, in compliance with City Code Section 1007.043(17)(f).
City Code Section 1007.043(17)(f) Buffer and Screen Standards for outdoor storage
yards requires a 10 foot screen height and a wall or fence of permanent materials and
plantings shall provide shrub cover for 50 percent of the wall or fence on the exterior side. Additionally, at its discretion, the City Council may approve a modification or waiver from these standards where the affected lot line adjoins another industrial
property.
Sheet C1.01, Site Plan notes the new fence section along Otter Lake Road is a 10ft tall vinyl fence to match the existing fence. Required landscaping is also provided.
The south and east lot lines adjoin other industrial properties. City Council approves an
8ft tall vinyl fence to match existing be installed along the south and east perimeters of
the outdoor storage area. No additional landscape plantings are required. 3. The entire storage area is fenced and secured in an appropriate manner.
The proposed storage area is fenced and secured in an appropriate manner. 4. The storage area is blacktopped or concrete surfaced.
The proposed outdoor storage area will be paved with asphalt.
5. 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.
The proposed outdoor storage area does not impact off-street parking requirements.
6. The property shall not abut I-35W or I-35E. The property does not abut I-35W or I-35E.
7. The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed 1:1. The total storage area is 3.22 acres (1.31 acres existing + 1.91 acres new) and the building footprint is 3.22 acres. The ratio requirement is met.
8. All parking, loading and truck staging activities shall occur on site. On-street parking and loading associated with the use is prohibited. No on-street parking or loading is proposed.
6
9. Storage shall not include material considered hazardous under Federal or State Environmental Law.
No additional comment. 10. The outdoor storage items or materials shall be directly related to the principal industrial user. No off-site user storage shall be allowed.
No additional comment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional use permit amendment to Resolution No. 21-69 to expand the
outdoor storage area for Tomas Companies, Inc./Glamos Wire, Inc. located at 2300 Main
Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The outdoor storage of any semi-trailers, vehicles, equipment, materials etc. shall be accessory to the principal use. No off-site user storage shall be allowed.
2. The fence and/or outdoor storage items shall not impede or impair the function of
the drainage or stormwater management system.
3. The only items and equipment allowed in the outdoor storage area are as follows:
a. Semi-trailers, utility trailers, and company vehicles
b. Wire stems
c. Steel scrap bin
d. Bales of cardboard
e. Overflow pallets
f. Snow plow and sanding equipment
g. One (1) eight (8) yard trash bin
4. All outdoor storage shall be located within the approved outdoor storage area. No
items or equipment shall be stored on the grass or landscaped area.
5. No outside storage shall be located between the principal structure and any public right-of-way.
6. No outdoor storage shall occur within 10 ft. of the east lot line within the outdoor
storage area.
7. The landscape planting requirement along the south fence and east fence is waived; however, the existing trees and landscaping shall not be removed or they shall be replaced to provide sufficient screening in accordance with City Code.
8. A Site Performance Agreement and securities are required.
9. A building permit for the fence installation is required.
10. Failure to comply with any of the above listed conditions or approved plans may result in revocation of the conditional use permit.
7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional use permit subject to the following requirements being
addressed prior to issuance of a permit:
1. All plan sheets, submittals, and Certificate of Survey shall clearly and consistently show a solid line for all lot lines.
a. Per City Code Section 1007.001: Definitions
LOT LINE. A property boundary line of any lot held in single or
separate ownership except that where any position of the lot extends into the abutting street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley right-of-way.
2. All plan sheets shall include the correct revision date.
3. Certificate of Survey:
a. The lot line along CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) shall be clearly shown with a solid line.
b. The Building Setback Line along CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) shall be revised to 50ft.
4. Site Development Plans for Tomas Companies:
a. On all plan sheets, the lot line along CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) shall be clearly shown with a solid line.
b. On all plan sheets, the Legend shows a dashed line for the Property Line which is not shown on the plans. This shall be revised.
c. Sheet C1.01, Site Plan:
i. Setback measurements shall be provided from the lot lines to the fences.
1. The setback line along CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) shall be revised to 50ft.
2. The setback line along the rear/south lot line shall be
revised to 15ft.
ii. Hydrants, utility mains, and symbols shall be shown and labeled.
d. Sheet L2.02, Fence Details:
i. The Section of Screening notes an “Existing 10’ white vinyl fence”
but an 8’ vinyl fence was approved in June 2022. Please confirm
height and revise plan sheet accordingly.
e. Sheet C3.02, Wetland Buffer:
i. The sheet shall include the following:
1. A north arrow.
2. Monument sign locations per RCWD regulations.
8
3. Legend defining what the hatch marked areas represent.
ii. The City of Lino Lakes and RCWD shall be listed as benefactors
to any wetland declarations or easements.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 9th day of October, 2023. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council
Member_______________ and was duly seconded by Council Member
________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
______________________________ Rob Rafferty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________ Jolleen Chaika, City Clerk
CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 23-102
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH GLAMOS WIRE, INC. (2300 MAIN STREET) WHEREAS, the City has completed review of the site and building plan for Glamos Wire, Inc.
located at 2300 Main Street; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is legally described as follows: THE W1/2 OF SE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF SEC 24 TWP 31 RGE 22, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF
REC; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 1007.020(6) requires the execution of a site performance
agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Site Improvement Performance Agreement between the City of Lino Lakes and Tomas
Companies, Inc./Glamos Wire, Inc. is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are
authorized to execute such agreements on behalf of the City. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 9th day of October, 2023.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council
Member_______________ and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same: _______________________________ Rob Rafferty, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________ Jolleen Chaika, City Clerk
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 4
STAFF ORGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment-General Updates
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
At the Work Session, staff will present the October 9, 2023 Council staff report and proposed
ordinance amendment.
Ordinance No. 08-22 amending City Code Chapter 1007: Zoning Code was adopted in
November 2022 and went into effect in January 2023. When administering a new zoning code,
it is not uncommon to find language that needs to be amended or typos that need to be
corrected. The proposed Ordinance No. 13-23 corrects these issues.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
None. Discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS
1.October 9, 2023 Council Staff Report
1
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 6E
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: October 9, 2023
TOPIC: Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 13-23 Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment-General Updates
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Ordinance No. 08-22 amending City Code Chapter 1007: Zoning Code was adopted in
November 2022 and went into effect in January 2023. When administering a new zoning code,
it is not uncommon to find language that needs to be amended or typos that need to be
corrected.
The following is a summary of proposed zoning code amendments. Strikethrough is deleted
text, underline is new text.
BACKGROUND
Recreational Businesses
The new ordinance only allows for indoor recreational businesses as permitted uses in the GB,
General Business and LI, Light Industrial districts. Staff recommends these permitted uses also
be allowed in all business districts and the GI, General Industrial district.
•Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.110 NB, Neighborhood Business District.
(6)Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the NB District:
(a)Adult use – accessory.
(b)Office business – clinic.
Attachment 1: October 9, 2023 Council Staff Report
2
(c) Office business – general.
(d) Personal services (subject to any licensing requirements of City Code, County, or
State).
(e) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
(e)(f) Restaurants.
(f)(g) Retail business.
(g)(h) Service business – on-site.
(h)(i) Liquor sales: on-sale.
(i)(j) Community gardens operated by the City.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.111 LB, Limited Business District.
(6) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the LB District:
(a) Adult use – accessory.
(b) Liquor sales – on and off sale.
(c) Office business – clinic.
(d) Office business – general.
(e) Personal services (subject to any licensing requirements of City Code, County, or
State).
(e)(f) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
(f)(g) Residential extended care facilities such as nursing homes.
(g)(h) Restaurants.
3
(h)(i) Retail business.
(i)(j) Service business – off-site.
(j)(k) Service business – on-site.
(k)(l) Community Gardens operated by the City.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.121 GI, General Industrial District
(7) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the GI District:
(a) Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities and gift
shops containing merchandise directly related to the facility.
(b) Building material sales.
(c) Commercial (production) bakery.
(d) Community gardens operated by the City.
(e) Construction-related businesses, including contractor storage of equipment and
building materials if enclosed within a building, but not storage yards.
(f) Feed and seed sales.
(g) Greenhouses, nurseries.
(h) Indoor Self-Storage.
(i) Laundry, dry cleaning or dying plant.
(j) 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.
(k) Mass transit terminals.
4
(l) Office business—clinic and general.
(m) Radio and television stations.
(m)(n) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
(n)(o) Warehousing and distribution facilities, but not including trucking terminal or
mini self-storage facilities.
(o)(p) Wholesale businesses/showrooms.
PSP, Public and Semi-Public Street Right-of-Way Parking Lot & Recreation Facilities Setback
The new ordinance does not include a street parking lot setback. Staff recommends 15ft which
is consistent with the business and industrial zoning districts. The ordinance also does not
address recreation facility/athletic field setbacks. Staff recommends 15ft consistent with
parking lot setbacks.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.130 PSP, Public and Semi-Public District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks.
1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 50 feet.
b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 50 feet.
c. Parking Lot. 15 feet.
b.d. Recreation Facilities/Athletic Fields. 15 feet.
5
Data Centers
The new ordinance only allows data centers as permitted uses in the BC, Business Campus
district. Staff recommends also allowing them in the LI, Light Industrial and GI, General
Industrial districts.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.120 Light Industrial District.
(7) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the LI District:
(a) Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities and gift
shops containing merchandise directly related to the facility.
(b) Building material sales.
(c) Carpet and rug cleaning.
(d) Community gardens operated by the City.
(e) Construction-related businesses, including contractor storage of equipment and
building materials if enclosed within a building, but not storage yards.
(e)(f) Data centers.
(f)(g) Feed and seed sales.
(g)(h) Greenhouses, nurseries.
(h)(i) Indoor Self-Storage.
(i)(j) Laundry, dry cleaning, or dying plant.
(j)(k) 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.
(k)(l) Mass transit terminals.
6
(l)(m) Office business—clinic and general.
(m)(n) Radio and television stations.
(n)(o) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
(o)(p) Research laboratories
(p)(q) Trade or business schools.
(q)(r) Warehousing and distribution facilities, but not including trucking terminal or
mini self-storage facilities per City Code Section 1007.001(2).
(r)(s) Wholesale businesses/showrooms.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.121 GI, General Industrial District.
(7) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the GI District:
(a) Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities and gift
shops containing merchandise directly related to the facility.
(b) Building material sales.
(c) Commercial (production) bakery.
(d) Community gardens operated by the City.
(e) Construction-related businesses, including contractor storage of equipment and
building materials if enclosed within a building, but not storage yards.
(e)(f) Data centers.
(f)(g) Feed and seed sales.
(g)(h) Greenhouses, nurseries.
(h)(i) Indoor Self-Storage.
7
(i)(j) Laundry, dry cleaning or dying plant.
(j)(k) 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.
(k)(l) Mass transit terminals.
(l)(m) Office business—clinic and general.
(m)(n) Radio and television stations.
(n)(o) Warehousing and distribution facilities, but not including trucking terminal or
mini self-storage facilities.
(o)(p) Wholesale businesses/showrooms.
General Building and Use Provisions
The following general revisions need to be made to better clarify intent of the ordinance.
The Planning & Zoning Board recommended omitting the 4/12 roof pitch requirement stating
many modern single family homes don’t need to have a sloped roof. This change is reflected
below.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.043 General Building and Use Provisions.
(2) Building Type and Construction.
(a) Single Family Detached Dwellings. All single family detached dwellings shall meet
the following design criteria:
1. All dwellings, including an attached garage, shall have permanent concrete,
treated wood foundation, or other foundation anchoring system approved by
the Building Official.
8
2. All dwellings, including an attached garage, shall have a minimum width of 24
feet at its narrowest point. Width measurement shall not take into account overhangs or other
projections beyond the principal exterior walls.
3. All dwellings shall have a garage that is a minimum of 20 feet in width and has a
minimum footprint of 520 square feet.
4. All dwellings, including an attached garage, with a sloped roof shall have a
minimum 12 inch roof overhang and enclosed soffit.
5. All dwellings and any attached garage, including an attached garage, excluding
porches, shall have a minimum 4/12 roof pitch and with a sloped roof shall be covered with
shingles or tiles or a standing seam metal roof.
6. All dwellings, including an attached garage, shall be built in compliance with the
Minnesota State Building Code.
7. The exterior walls of all single family dwellings, including an attached garage,
shall be similar in appearance to standard wood or masonry residential construction. Any
metal siding upon single family residence structureson a dwelling, including an attached garage,
shall have a vertical dimension no greater than 12 inches. Sheet metal siding shall not be
permitted.
(d)
(e)(d) Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional. All buildings constructed on land
within commercial, industrial, public and semi-public zoning districts, and all institutional
buildings (such as public, education, and religious buildings) in residential and rural zoning
districts shall conform with the following:
7. Any wall facing a public right-of-way shall not have an uninterrupted length
exceeding 100 feet without including at least two of the following: change in plane, change in
texture or masonry pattern, two (2) class 1 materials, windows in a manner that is impactful to
the design, or an equivalent element that subdivides the wall into human scale proportions.
This shall only apply to commercial, public, educational, and religious buildings.
7.
16. Building foundations not exceeding two (2) feet need not comply with the
requirements for the primary water wall treatments or materials.
Quasi-Public Structures
9
The following sections were accidently deleted from the previous zoning ordinance and should
be added back in. There is no change in the language.
• Proposed Amendment
The Planning & Zoning Board suggested defining quasi-public structure so a new definition has
been added to the draft ordinance.
Section 1007.043 General Building and Use Provisions.
(2) Building Type and Construction.
(e) Quasi-Public Structures.
1. No quasi-public structure shall be located within the public right-of-way except
as approved by the City Council. Such structure shall include but not be limited
to trash containers, bicycle racks, benches, planting boxes, awnings, flag poles,
light standards, stairs, stoops, light wells, loading wells, signs and others.
2. Public and quasi-public utility poles and underground services may be permitted
within public right-of-way provided that:
a. A permanent identification tag or marking is affixed to each structure.
b. The City is notified as to the location and date of placement of the structure.
c. The City is notified of any change of structure ownership, removal or
modification.
d. Lease or joint use agreements or arrangements applicable to each utility
structure are disclosed.
(f) Completion of Exterior Improvements.
1. All exterior improvements of a structure, or portion thereof, to single family
dwellings, multiple family dwellings of twelve (12) units or less, or any structure
accessory to a residential use shall be completed in accordance with City-
approved construction plans within one hundred eighty (180) days after the date
the City issued the building permit.
2. All exterior improvements of a structure, or portion thereof, to multiple family
dwellings of more than twelve (12) units or any commercial, industrial, office,
institutional or non-residential structure shall be completed in accordance with
City-approved construction plans within one (1) year after the date the City
issued the building permit.
3. In all cases, the compliance deadline shall be upheld unless:
a. The process for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is completed as
described in the City Fee Schedule, as amended, which would extend the
completion date beyond those listed in paragraphs 1. and 2. above; or
10
b. A written extension is submitted and approved by the Building Official. Such
an extension may be granted in the event that a natural disaster or a
calamitous event occurs which unavoidably delays the completion of the
building project.
4. For building permits issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance
amendment establishing the time limits in paragraphs 1. and 2. above
(Ordinance No. 01-08), the time period for the limits begins with the effective
date of the amendment establishing the time limits.
Off-Street Parking
The old ordinance requirement for Fast Food parking spaces was fifteen (15) spaces per 1,000 sf
of gross floor area. The new ordinance is one (1) space per 50sf of floor area plus one (1) space
for each employee. Staff recommends going back to the old ordinance. Applying the new
ordinance results in an overabundance of parking spaces than needed. For consistency with
other parking requirements, staff recommends changing the requirement based on 1 space per
67 gross sf (1,000/15 = 67).
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.044 Off-Street Parking.
(6) Number of Spaces Required. The following minimum number of off-street parking
spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement and/or lease for and
during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth:
Fast Food Restaurant 1 space for each 50 67 square feet of gross floor area., plus
1 space for each employee of the maximum work shift.
Native Landscapes
Minnesota passed a new law effective July 1st that requires municipalities to allow property
owners and occupants to install and maintain managed natural landscapes. This statute needs
to be adopted into City ordinances. See attached State Statute 412.925 Native Landscapes
language.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.043(17) Screening, Landscaping, Buffer Yards and Tree Preservation.
11
(h) Sod and Ground Cover. All areas not otherwise improved in compliance with the
approved site plans shall have a minimum depth of four (4) inches of topsoil and
be sodded including boulevard areas. Exceptions to these criteria may be
approved by the Zoning Administrator as follows:
5.
6. Natural Prairie Restoration Areas. Native grasses and wild flowers indigenous to
Minnesota, planted and maintained on any occupied lot or parcel of land,
setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front lot line and/or side lot line abutting
a public street, as part of a garden or landscape treatment.
5. Native Landscapes in compliance with Minnesota Statute 412.925.
General Parcel, Lot and Yard Provisions.
Section 1007.082 was the proposed FUD, Future Urban Development District that was not
adopted in the new ordinance. This reference under Section 1007.042 shall be deleted.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.042 General Parcel, Lot and Yard Provisions.
(2) Unsewered Lots.
(a) Except as provided for in City Code Section 1007.042(1)(d), Section 1007.042(2)(b)
and , Section 1007.066 and Section 1007.082, the minimum unsewered lot size
within any zoning district is 10 acres.
Fences
The following correction shall be made.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.043(18) Fences and Retaining Walls.
(f) Rural and Residential District Fences.
4. Rural and Residential Fences Height Exceptions.
12
a. A fence for a sport court not exceeding 12 feet in height may be located at
least 10 foot from side and rear lot lines.
b. Residential and rural boundary line fences not exceeding eight (8) feet in
height may be located along a lot line abutting a commercial, industrial, or
semi-public use or zoning district.
I-35W and I-35E Setbacks
The current zoning ordinance establishes Street Right-of-Way setbacks. On a double frontage
lot, the street right-of-way setback applies to both the front and rear lot lines. For example, the
properties 248-400 Apollo Drive are zoned LI, Light Industrial. The street right-of-way setback
from both CSAH 12 (Apollo Drive) and I-35W, both arterial streets, is 50 feet. In practice, a 50
foot front setback has been applied along Apollo Drive and a 15-30 foot rear setback has been
applied along I-35W. Technically, the rear setback should be 50 feet. This would unnecessarily
encumber the rear yard.
Staff is proposing parcels abutting I-35W or I-35E that are zoned industrial have a street right-
of-way setback along the interstate of 15 feet which is consistent with the required rear lot line
setback.
• Proposed Amendment (This is just an example of how the LI, Light Industrial District will
read. The final amended ordinance will include the same changes for the GI, General
Industrial and BC, Business Campus Districts.)
Section 1007.120 LI, Light Industrial District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks.
1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet.
b. Collector or Arterial Street. 50 feet.
b.c. I-35W or I-35E. 15feet.
c.d. Parking Lot. 15 feet.
13
2. Rear Lot Line.
a. Principal Building. 15 feet.
b. Accessory Building. 10 feet.
c. Parking Lot. 5 feet.
3. Side Lot Line.
a. Principal Building. 10 feet.
b. Accessory Building. 10 feet.
c. Parking Lot. 5 feet.
4. From Property Guided by the Comprehensive Plan for Residential Use. 75 feet.
(3) Buffer. Where a side or rear lot line in an LI District coincides with an adjacent public
road right-of-way or abuts property guided by the comprehensive plan for residential or
commercial development, a landscape buffer area shall be provided along such side or
rear lot line not less than 40 feet wide and shall contain landscaping, planting, berming,
or other effective screening suitable to provide an effective screen in compliance with
City Code Section 1007.043(17)(f).
Setbacks-Major Collector Streets
In all zoning districts, the setback from Street Right-of Way is either from:
a. Local or Minor Collector Street.
b. Major Collector or Arterial Street.
Unfortunately, the word “Major” was accidently left out in some of the zoning districts and will
be corrected accordingly.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.110 NB, Neighborhood Business District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
14
(c) Setbacks.
1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet.
b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 40 feet.
c. Parking Lot. 15 feet.
PUD, Planned Unit Development District
The following corrections/additions are needed to the PUD zoning district.
• Proposed Amendment
Section 1007.131 PUD, Planned Unit Development District.
1.(5) List of PUD, Planned Unit Developments. The following is a list of PUD, Planned
Unit Developments:
(a) Rice Lake Estates.
1. Ord. No. 09-88, Adopted August 8, 1988.
(b) Pineridge Addition.
1. Ord. No. 08-90, Adopted September 10, 1990.
(c) Wenzel Farms.
1. Ord. No. 04-91, Adopted April 8, 1991.
2. Ord. No. 06-91, Adopted April 8, 1991.
(d) Park Grove.
1. Ord. No. 15-92, Adopted August 10, 1992.
(e) Quail Ridge.
1. Ord. No. 15-92, Adopted August 10, 1992.
15
(f) Willow Ponds.
1. Ord. No. 17-92, Adopted September 14, 1992.
2. Ord. No. 11-95, Adopted July 10, 1995.
(g) Country Lake Estates.
1. Ord. No. 93-10, Adopted July 26, 1993.
(h) Trappers Crossing.
1. Ord. No. 14-94, Adopted August 22, 1994.
(i) Behms Century Farm.
1. Ord. No. 08-95, Adopted May 8, 1995.
(j) Apollo Meadows Townhomes (CIC 34).
1. Adopted December 16, 1996.
(k) Surfside Addition.
1. Ord. No. 22-97, Adopted September 8, 1997.
2. Res. No. 99-47, Adopted June 28, 1999.
(l) Highland Meadows West.
1. Ord. No. 32-97, Adopted November 10, 1997.
2. Ord. No. 03-00, Adopted February 14, 2000.
(m) Clearwater Creek 3rd-5th Addition.
1. Ord. No. 08-99, Adopted April 26, 1999.
(n) Apollo Business Park (CIC 224 Lino Lakes Condo).
1. Ord. No. 09-99, Adopted April 26, 1999.
(o) Lino Lakes Commercial Development/JADT Addition
1. Ord. No. 12-99, Adopted May 10, 1999.
16
(o)(p) Peregrine Pass.
1. Res. No. 99-25, Adopted May 24, 1999.
2. Ord. No. 14-99, Adopted June 14, 1999.
(p)(q) Spirit Hills Center.
1. Ord. No. 08-02, Adopted December 9, 2002.
(q)(r) Keefe Estates.
1. Ord. No. 05-03, Adopted March 10, 2003.
(r)(s) Millers Crossroads.
1. Ord. No. 20-03, Adopted October 13, 2003.
(s)(t) Lino Lakes Market Place.
1. Ord. No. 16-01, Adopted August 27, 2001.
1.2. Ord. No. 03-05, Adopted July 11, 2005.
2.3. Ord. No. 04-05, Adopted June 27, 2005.
Findings of Fact
Per City Code Section 1007.015(4)
(e) The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold the public hearing and consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to,
the following factors:
1. The proposed action is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed action is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan goals of addressing
water rate and quantity, water quality, or groundwater management.
2. The proposed action is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of
the area.
The proposed action is compatible with present and future land uses of the area.
17
3. The proposed action conforms with all performance standards contained herein.
The proposed action conforms with all performance standards.
4. The proposed action can be accommodated with existing public services and will
not overburden the City’s service capacity.
The proposed action can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden
the City’s service capacity.
5. Traffic generation by the proposed action is within capabilities of streets serving
the property as described in City Code Section 1007.020(4)(d).
Traffic generation is not applicable to the proposed action.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2023. There were no
public comments. The Board voted 7-0 in favor of the proposed ordinance amendments with
the deletion of the 4/12 roof pitch requirement and adding a quasi-public structure definition.
Staff recommends approval of the 1st reading of Ordinance No. 13-23.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 13-23
1
1st Reading: Publication:
2nd Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 13-23
ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 1007 RELATED TO
GENERAL ORDINANCE UPDATES
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that the zoning ordinance text amendment protects
the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the residents of the
community.
Section 2. Amendment. The Lino Lakes City Code Chapter 1007 is hereby amended as
follows:
• Section 1007.001(2) Definitions: QUARTER-QUARTER SECTION. The northeast, northwest, southwest or southeast quarter of a quarter section delineated by the United States Government system of land survey and
which is exactly or nearly 40 acres in size. QUASI-PUBLIC. Essentially public although under private ownership or control. RECREATION AREA. An outdoor area which may include water bodies and incidental
buildings thereto used or intended for active or passive recreation, including, but not limited to, parks, playground, hunting preserves, polo grounds, nature trails, bridle paths, beaches, campsites, ski and snowmobile trails, and canoe routes, provided that parcels on which there are located stadiums, arenas, bowling alleys, swimming pools, and other recreational activities conducted primarily in structures are not recreation areas.
• Section 1007.110 NB, Neighborhood Business District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks.
2
1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet.
b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 40 feet. c. Parking Lot. 15 feet.
(6) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the NB District: (a) Adult use – accessory.
(b) Office business – clinic.
(c) Office business – general. (d) Personal services (subject to any licensing requirements of City Code, County, or
State).
(e) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building. (e)(f) Restaurants.
(f)(g) Retail business. (g)(h) Service business – on-site.
(h)(i) Liquor sales: on-sale.
(i)(j) Community gardens operated by the City.
• Section 1007.111 LB, Limited Business District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks.
1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet.
b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 40 feet.
3
c. Parking Lot. 15 feet.
(6) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the LB District: (a) Adult use – accessory.
(b) Liquor sales – on and off sale. (c) Office business – clinic.
(d) Office business – general.
(e) Personal services (subject to any licensing requirements of City Code, County, or State).
(e)(f) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
(f)(g) Residential extended care facilities such as nursing homes. (g)(h) Restaurants.
(h)(i) Retail business. (i)(j) Service business – off-site.
(j)(k) Service business – on-site.
(k)(l) Community Gardens operated by the City.
• Section 1007.121 GI, General Industrial District (7) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the GI District: (a) Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities and gift
shops containing merchandise directly related to the facility.
(b) Building material sales. (c) Commercial (production) bakery.
(d) Community gardens operated by the City. (e) Construction-related businesses, including contractor storage of equipment and building materials if enclosed within a building, but not storage yards.
4
(f) Data centers
(f)(g) Feed and seed sales. (g)(h) Greenhouses, nurseries.
(h)(i) Indoor Self-Storage.
(i)(j) Laundry, dry cleaning or dying plant. (j)(k) 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. (k)(l) Mass transit terminals.
(l)(m) Office business—clinic and general.
(n) Radio and television stations. (m)(o) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
(n)(p) Warehousing and distribution facilities, but not including trucking terminal or mini self-storage facilities. (o)(q) Wholesale businesses/showrooms.
• Section 1007.112 GB, General Business District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks.
1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet.
b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 40 feet.
c. Parking Lot. 15 feet.
5
• Section 1007.130 PSP, Public and Semi-Public District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks.
1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 50 feet.
b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 50 feet.
c. Parking Lot. 15 feet.
b.d.Recreation Facilities/Athletic Fields. 15 feet.
• Section 1007.120 Light Industrial District. (7) Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in the LI District:
(a) Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities and gift shops containing merchandise directly related to the facility. (b) Building material sales.
(c) Carpet and rug cleaning. (d) Community gardens operated by the City. (e) Construction-related businesses, including contractor storage of equipment and
building materials if enclosed within a building, but not storage yards.
(e)(f) Data centers. (f)(g) Feed and seed sales.
(g)(h) Greenhouses, nurseries. (h)(i) Indoor Self-Storage.
(i)(j) Laundry, dry cleaning, or dying plant. (j)(k) 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.
6
(k)(l) Mass transit terminals.
(l)(m) Office business—clinic and general. (m)(n) Radio and television stations.
(n)(o) Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
(o)(p) Research laboratories (p)(q) Trade or business schools.
(q)(r) Warehousing and distribution facilities, but not including trucking terminal or mini self-storage facilities per City Code Section 1007.001(2). (r)(s) Wholesale businesses/showrooms.
• Section 1007.043 General Building and Use Provisions. (2) Building Type and Construction.
(a) Single Family Detached Dwellings. All single family detached dwellings shall
meet the following design criteria: 1. All dwellings, including an attached garage, shall have permanent concrete, treated wood foundation, or other foundation anchoring system approved by the Building
Official.
2. All dwellings, including an attached garage, shall have a minimum width of 24 feet at its narrowest point. Width measurement shall not take into account overhangs or other projections beyond the principal exterior walls.
3. All dwellings shall have a garage that is a minimum of 20 feet in width and has a minimum footprint of 520 square feet. 4. All dwellings, including an attached garage, with a sloped roof shall have a
minimum 12 inch roof overhang and enclosed soffit.
5. All dwellings and any attached garage, including an attached garage, excluding porches, shall have a minimum 4/12 roof pitch and with a sloped roof shall be covered with shingles or tiles or a standing seam metal roof.
6. All dwellings, including an attached garage, shall be built in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code.
7
7. The exterior walls of all single family dwellings, including an attached garage, shall be similar in appearance to standard wood or masonry residential construction. Any metal
siding upon single family residence structureson a dwelling, including an attached garage, shall
have a vertical dimension no greater than 12 inches. Sheet metal siding shall not be permitted.
(b) Two Family Dwellings and Townhouse Design and Construction Standards.
1. Unit Width. The minimum width of a two family or townhouse dwelling unit shall be 24 feet. The minimum footprint per unit shall be established within the zoning district.
2. Unit Construction.
a. Building elevations and floor plans shall be furnished illustrating exterior building materials and colors to demonstrate compliance with City Code Section 1007.043 (2)(b)2.d. Building floor plans shall identify the interior storage space within each unit.
b. Decks or Porches. Provisions shall be made for possible decks, porches, or additions as part of the initial dwelling unit building plans.
c. Minimum Overhang. All dwellings, including an attached garage, with a sloped roof shall have a minimum 12 inch roof overhang and enclosed soffit.
d. Exterior Building Finish. The exterior of townhouse dwelling units shall include a variation in building materials which are to be distributed throughout the building façades on all sides and coordinated into the architectural design of the structure to create an architecturally balanced appearance. In addition, townhouse dwelling structures shall comply with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of 25% of the combined area of all building walls shall have an exterior finish of brick, natural stone, or artificial stone.
ii. Except for brick, natural stone, or artificial stone, no single building wall shall have more than 75% of one type of exterior finish.
iii. For the purpose of this section, the area of the building walls shall not include area devoted to windows, entrance doors, garage doors, or roof areas.
e. All dwellings, and anyincluding an attached garage, with a sloped roof shall have a minimum 4/12 roof pitch and shall be covered with shingles or tiles or a standing seam metal roof.
(d) Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional. All buildings constructed on land within commercial, industrial, public and semi-public zoning districts, and all institutional
8
buildings (such as public, education, and religious buildings) in residential and rural zoning districts shall conform with the following:
7. Any wall facing a public right-of-way shall not have an uninterrupted length
exceeding 100 feet without including at least two of the following: change in plane, change in
texture or masonry pattern, two (2) class 1 materials, windows in a manner that is impactful to
the design, or an equivalent element that subdivides the wall into human scale proportions. This
shall only apply to commercial, public, educational, and religious buildings.
7.
16. Building foundations not exceeding two (2) feet need not comply with the requirements for the primary water wall treatments or materials.
(e) Quasi-Public Structures.
1. No quasi-public structure shall be located within the public right-of-way except as
approved by the City Council. Such structure shall include but not be limited to trash containers,
bicycle racks, benches, planting boxes, awnings, flag poles, light standards, stairs, stoops, light
wells, loading wells, signs and others.
2. Public and quasi-public utility poles and underground services may be permitted
within public right-of-way provided that:
a. A permanent identification tag or marking is affixed to each structure.
b. The City is notified as to the location and date of placement of the structure.
c. The City is notified of any change of structure ownership, removal or
modification.
d. Lease or joint use agreements or arrangements applicable to each utility
structure are disclosed.
(f) Completion of Exterior Improvements.
1. All exterior improvements of a structure, or portion thereof, to single family
dwellings, multiple family dwellings of twelve (12) units or less, or any structure accessory to a
residential use shall be completed in accordance with City-approved construction plans within one
hundred eighty (180) days after the date the City issued the building permit.
2. All exterior improvements of a structure, or portion thereof, to multiple family
dwellings of more than twelve (12) units or any commercial, industrial, office, institutional or non-
residential structure shall be completed in accordance with City-approved construction plans
within one (1) year after the date the City issued the building permit.
9
3. In all cases, the compliance deadline shall be upheld unless:
a. The process for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is completed as
described in the City Fee Schedule, as amended, which would extend the completion date beyond
those listed in paragraphs 1. and 2. above; or
b. A written extension is submitted and approved by the Building Official. Such
an extension may be granted in the event that a natural disaster or a calamitous event occurs which
unavoidably delays the completion of the building project.
4. For building permits issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance amendment establishing the time limits in paragraphs 1. and 2. above (Ordinance No. 01-08), the time period for the limits begins with the effective date of the amendment establishing the time limits.
• Section 1007.044 Off-Street Parking. (6) Number of Spaces Required. The following minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement and/or lease for and during the life
of the respective uses hereinafter set forth:
Fast Food Restaurant 1 space for each 50 67 square feet of gross floor area., plus 1
space for each employee of the maximum work shift.
• Section 1007.043(17) Screening, Landscaping, Buffer Yards and Tree Preservation.
(h) Sod and Ground Cover. All areas not otherwise improved in compliance with the approved site plans shall have a minimum depth of four (4) inches of topsoil and be sodded including boulevard areas. Exceptions to these criteria may be approved by the Zoning
Administrator as follows:
5. Natural Prairie Restoration Areas. Native grasses and wild flowers indigenous to Minnesota, planted and maintained on any occupied lot or parcel of land, setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front lot line and/or side lot line abutting a public street, as part of a garden or
landscape treatment. 5. Native Landscapes in compliance with Minnesota Statute 412.925.
• Section 1007.042 General Parcel, Lot and Yard Provisions.
(2) Unsewered Lots. (a) Except as provided for in City Code Section 1007.042(1)(d), Section 1007.042(2)(b) and , Section 1007.066 and Section 1007.082, the minimum unsewered lot size within any zoning
district is 10 acres.
10
• Section 1007.043(18) Fences and Retaining Walls.
(f) Rural and Residential District Fences. 4. Rural and Residential Fences Height Exceptions.
a. A fence for a sport court not exceeding 12 feet in height may be located at least 10 foot from side and rear lot lines. b. Residential and rural boundary line fences not exceeding eight (8) feet in
height may be located along a lot line abutting a commercial, industrial, or
semi-public use or zoning district.
• Section 1007.120 LI, Light Industrial District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements. (c) Setbacks. 1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet. b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 50 feet.
b.c. I-35W or I-35E. 15 feet. c.d. Parking Lot. 15 feet. 2. Rear Lot Line.
a. Principal Building. 15 feet. b. Accessory Building. 10 feet.
c. Parking Lot. 5 feet. 3. Side Lot Line. a. Principal Building. 10 feet.
b. Accessory Building. 10 feet. c. Parking Lot. 5 feet.
11
4. From Property Guided by the Comprehensive Plan for Residential Use. 75 feet.
(3) Buffer. Where a side or rear lot line in an LI District coincides with an adjacent public
road right-of-way or abuts property guided by the comprehensive plan for residential or commercial development, a landscape buffer area shall be provided along such side or rear lot line not less than 40 feet wide and shall contain landscaping, planting, berming, or other effective screening suitable to provide an effective screen in compliance with City Code Section
1007.043(17)(f).
• Section 1007.121 GI, General Industrial District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks. 1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet. b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 50 feet.
b.c. I-35W or I-35E. 15 feet.
c.d. Parking Lot. 15 feet. 2. Rear Lot Line.
a. Principal Building. 15 feet. b. Accessory Building. 10 feet. c. Parking Lot. 5 feet.
3. Side Lot Line. a. Principal Building. 10 feet.
b. Accessory Building. 10 feet. c. Parking Lot. 5 feet. 4. From Property Guided by the Comprehensive Plan for Residential Use. 75 feet.
(3) Buffer. Where a side or rear lot line in an GI District coincides with an adjacent public road right-of-way or abuts property guided by the comprehensive plan for residential or commercial development, a landscape buffer area shall be provided along such side or rear lot
12
line not less than 40 feet wide and shall contain landscaping, planting, berming, or other effective screening suitable to provide an effective screen in compliance with City Code Section
1007.043(17)(f).
• Section 1007.122 BC, Business Campus District.
(2) Lot and Setback Requirements.
(c) Setbacks. 1. From Street Right-of-Way.
a. Local or Minor Collector Street. 30 feet. b. Major Collector or Arterial Street. 50 feet.
b.c. I-35W or I-35E. 15 feet.
c.d. Parking Lot. 15 feet. 2. Rear Lot Line.
a. Principal Building. 15 feet. b. Accessory Building. 10 feet. c. Parking Lot. 5 feet.
3. Side Lot Line. a. Principal Building. 10 feet.
b. Accessory Building. 10 feet. c. Parking Lot. 5 feet. 4. From Property Guided by the Comprehensive Plan for Residential Use. 75 feet.
(3) Buffer. Where a side or rear lot line in an BC District coincides with an adjacent public road right-of-way or abuts property guided by the comprehensive plan for residential or commercial development, a landscape buffer area shall be provided along such side or rear lot
line not less than 40 feet wide and shall contain landscaping, planting, berming, or other effective
screening suitable to provide an effective screen in compliance with City Code Section 1007.043(17)(f).
• Section 1007.131 PUD, Planned Unit Development District.
13
(3)(5) List of PUD, Planned Unit Developments. The following is a list of PUD, Planned
Unit Developments:
(a) Rice Lake Estates. 1. Ord. No. 09-88, Adopted August 8, 1988.
(b) Pineridge Addition.
1. Ord. No. 08-90, Adopted September 10, 1990.
(c) Wenzel Farms.
1. Ord. No. 04-91, Adopted April 8, 1991. 2. Ord. No. 06-91, Adopted April 8, 1991.
(d) Park Grove.
1. Ord. No. 15-92, Adopted August 10, 1992. (e) Quail Ridge.
1. Ord. No. 15-92, Adopted August 10, 1992.
(f) Willow Ponds. 1. Ord. No. 17-92, Adopted September 14, 1992.
2. Ord. No. 11-95, Adopted July 10, 1995.
(g) Country Lake Estates. 1. Ord. No. 93-10, Adopted July 26, 1993.
(h) Trappers Crossing.
1. Ord. No. 14-94, Adopted August 22, 1994.
(i) Behms Century Farm.
1. Ord. No. 08-95, Adopted May 8, 1995. (j) Apollo Meadows Townhomes (CIC 34).
1. Adopted December 16, 1996.
(k) Surfside Addition.
14
1. Ord. No. 22-97, Adopted September 8, 1997.
2. Res. No. 99-47, Adopted June 28, 1999.
(l) Highland Meadows West. 1. Ord. No. 32-97, Adopted November 10, 1997.
2. Ord. No. 03-00, Adopted February 14, 2000.
(m) Clearwater Creek 3rd-5th Addition. 1. Ord. No. 08-99, Adopted April 26, 1999.
(n) Apollo Business Park (CIC 224 Lino Lakes Condo).
1. Ord. No. 09-99, Adopted April 26, 1999.
(o) Lino Lakes Commercial Development/JADT Addition
1. Ord. No. 12-99, Adopted May 10, 1999. (o)(p) Peregrine Pass. 1. Res. No. 99-25, Adopted May 24, 1999.
2. Ord. No. 14-99, Adopted June 14, 1999.
(p)(q) Spirit Hills Center. 1. Ord. No. 08-02, Adopted December 9, 2002.
(q)(r) Keefe Estates.
1. Ord. No. 05-03, Adopted March 10, 2003.
(r)(s) Millers Crossroads.
1. Ord. No. 20-03, Adopted October 13, 2003. (s)(t) Lino Lakes Market Place.
1. Ord. No. 16-01, Adopted August 27, 2001. 1.2.Ord. No. 03-05, Adopted July 11, 2005. 2.3.Ord. No. 04-05, Adopted June 27, 2005.
15
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and
publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this _____day of ____________, 2023.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council
Member_____________and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
____________________________
Rob Rafferty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Jolleen Chaika, City Clerk
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 5
STAFF ORGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Gateway Design
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The City Council authorized preparation of Gateway Design guidelines for key entrances into
the City and streetscape plans for the Hodgson Road/CR J intersection improvements. WSB
has completed a draft design manual and preliminary plans for the intersection. Jordan
Gedrose, from WSB, will be present to walk through the draft Gateway Guidelines and
proposed streetscape improvements.
Initial estimates of the streetscape components for the Hodgson/CRJ improvements are
approximately $500,000 of which entry monument signs are approximately $130,000. To stay
within budget constraints we will need to cut this back or phase in some of the proposed
improvements. We are also anticipating some modifications based on staff and council
comments.
Staff will be prepared to discuss optional elements that could be removed to reduce costs as
well discuss different entry monument options.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff is requesting City Council direction on proposed design elements and comments on the
Gateway Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Gateway Design Guidelines
2.Draft 49/J Streetscape plans
Gateway Planning /
Hodgson Rd and County
Road J Landscape Plans
October 2, 2023 –City Council Work Session
1
2
3
4
Process
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
THANK YOU
15
Prepared by WSB DRAFTLino Lakes Gateway Planning
August 2023
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 2
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................
MONUMENT SIGNS..........................................................
ROUNDABOUT MONUMENT............................................
ROUNDABOUT DESIGN...................................................
MEDIAN DESIGN...............................................................
CONCEPT DESIGN
PRIMARY GATEWAY..................................................
SECONDARY GATEWAY...........................................
COMMUNITY INTERSECTION................................
3
5
9
10
11
14
20
22
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 3
INTRODUCTION WHAT ARE GATEWAYS?
Through a collaborative effort between the City of
Lino Lakes and Landscape Architects at WSB, a
comprehensive gateway manual has been created
for key intersections throughout the City. This manual
serves as a toolkit for the continues development
of intersections and entry points as they redevelop.
This Gateway Planning manual provides guidance
to Lino Lakes city staff and outside consultants who
are involve din specifying, fabricating, and installing
gateway signage or related landscape elements.
It is designed to guide the design of gateways and
to assure that gateways are implemented correctly
and consistently throughout the community.
This manual is a City planning document intented
to support internal discussions and maintain
gateway design consistency. It is important that
staff members become familiar with this context,
refer to it when planning future gateways, and
support its use by others. The City of Lino
Lakes is responsible for overseeing ongoing
implementation and adherence to the guidelines.
Gateways are entries into a designated space, in this case the City of Lino Lakes. The
gateway is meant to serve as a welcoming feature that notifies residents and guests
that they have entered into city limits. Gateways help in creating a sense of identity for
the city, creating a sense of place, and provide general wayfinding and orientation.
PRIMARY
GATEWAY
Main entrance along major corridors from adjacent communities
or key Interstate Highway exits into Lino
Lakes
SECONDARY
GATEWAY
Entrance into Lino Lakes along corridors
from adjacent communities
PRIMARY
COMMUNITY
INTERSECTION
Key intersection
between heavily
trafficked corridors
within Lino Lakes
city limits.
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 4
Gateway Locations
35W
35E
35W
¯1 inch = 4,000 feet
0 4,000FeetLino Lakes, MN
Lino Lakes Overview
HODGSON ROAD & COUNTY ROAD J
MAIN STREET AND 24TH AVE NMAIN STREET AND 35-E
CENTERVILLE ROAD & COUNTY ROAD J
35-E & COUNTY ROAD J
LAKE DRIVE & 35-W
MAIN STREET & LAKE DRIVE
MAIN STREET & SUNSET AVE
CITY OF BLAINECITY OF CIRCLE PINESSHOREVIEW CITY OF NORTH OAKS WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP WHITE BEAR LAKECITY OF HUGOCITY OF COLUMBUS
LOCATOR MAP Legend
PRIMARY GATEWAY
SECONDARY GATEWAY
PRIMARY COMMUNITY INTERSECTION
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 5
MONUMENT SIGN SUITE
MONUMENT SIGN TYPE MONUMENT SIGN TYPE MONUMENT SIGN TYPE A B C
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 6021397-000 Gateway PlanningMonument Signs - Concept 2
FRONT ELEVATION
LARGE MONUMENT SIGN TYPE A
SIDE ELEVATION
PAINTED ALUMINUM PANEL (MULTI COLOR TO GIVE APPEARANCE OF CORTEN STEEL)
GRAY PRECAST CAP
FIELD STONE
18’
4’10’6”8.5’3’9”
2’
ACRYLIC CHANNEL LETTERING
COLORED CONCRETE WITH ROCK FACE FORM LINER
BACKLIT CHANNEL LETTERING
UPLIGHTING ON COLUMN
CHANNEL LETTERING LIGHTING
UPLIGHT
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE
The large monument sign is intended to be located at Primary Gateway entrances. The sign
is large enough to be visible from vehicles traveling at high speeds along major corridors. The
sign is comprised of decorative concrete, field stone, painted aluminum, and acrylic lettering.
The sign will require an electrical connection if lighting is desired.
LIGHTING RENDERING
A
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 78.5’2’
PAINTED ALUMINUM PANEL (MULTI COLOR TO GIVE APPEARANCE OF CORTEN STEEL)
GRAY PRECAST CAP
ACRYLIC CHANNEL LETTERING
COLORED CONCRETE WITH ROCK FACE FORM LINER
FIELD STONE
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPES B
B
C
TYPE
This style of sign is intended for use
at secondary gateways. The columnar
design can fit into narrow areas that
don’t allow space for a horizontal
sign. The sign incorporates the same
materials as the large monument sign
TYPE
This style of sign is intended for use at
community intersections or other areas
that allow for directions to a specific
location. The sign base will be similar
to the decorative light and banner pole
to create a cohesive suite of bases.
The Lino Lakes logo medallion will
be attached to the top of the pole.
C
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 8
SITE AMENITIES
DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTLumec Standard pole with custom medallion fixed to arm hook
DECORATIVE BANNER POLELumec Standard pole with custom medallion fixed to top of pole
BOLLARD
Landscape Forms
Annapolis Bollard
- 6” dia.
- Embedded
- Black finish
DECORATIVE CROSS WALKTrafficPatternsXD
BENCH
Dumor 160 Series Bench
- 6’ Length
- Surface Mount
- Black Finish
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 9
PAINTED ALUMINUM PANEL (MULTI COLOR TO GIVE APPEARANCE OF CORTEN STEEL)
ACRYLIC CHANNEL LETTERING
COLORED CONCRETE WITH ROCK FACE FORM LINER
SCULPTURE OF BLUE HERON BIRD
CATTAILS MADE OF CUT STEEL
ROUNDABOUT MONUMENT
Alternate - Central Roundabout Monument Sign
This sign is intended for use at primary gateway locations. The
sign includes a panel in the center with the Lino Lakes blue heron
and text facing away from the city boundary to welcome visitors
into Lino Lakes. If roundabout is placed on a road dividing two
different communities, the adjacent city can place their city’s
monument signage on the opposite side of the central panel.
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 10
ROUNDABOUT DESIGN - TYPICAL 021397-000 Gateway PlanningCOLORED CONCRETE - TAN
COLORED/STAMPED CONCRETE - GREYISH BROWN COLOR, FIELDSTONE STAMP
PERENNIAL PLANTINGS
ORNAMENTAL TREES WITH UPLIGHTING
RIVER ROCK
BOULDER (TYP)
NO MOW FESCUE GRASS (TYP)
HERON BIRD SCULPTURE
STEEL / PAINTED ALUMINUM WALL
ROUNDABOUT WITH SCULPTURE ELEMENT
The typical roundabout design incorporates natural elements in the center to create a visual softscape reprieve from the surrounding pavement of the intersection. Colored concrete of a beige/brown color is used in the medians, truck apron banding, and as a splash ribbon in the central landscape area. Pockets of a low maintenance turf are bounded by bands of river rock that lead to the center of the roundabout. In the center granite boulders are placed around a mix of shrubs, perennials, and 3 ornamental trees.
At primary and secondary gateway entrances, a sculptural element will take the place of the ornamental trees in the center of the roundabout. The sculptural element will welcome users to the City and help orient users to their location within the area.
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 11
MEDIAN AND BOULEVARD DESIGN
The median design includes (2) types of neutral colored decorative concrete. Medians will not include and planted material. Decorative bollards and banner poles will be grouped together as shown in the beige colored decorative concrete.
DECORATIVE CONCRETE - BEIGE, FIELD STONE STAMP
DECORATIVE CONCRETE - LIGHT TAN; BROOM FINISH
DECORATIVE STREET LIGHT (TYP)
SEATING AREA (TYP)
DECORATIVE BANNER POLE (TYP)
DECORATIVE BOLLARD (TYP)
COBRA ROADWAY LIGHT(TYP)
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 12021397-000 Gateway PlanningBridge Aesthetic Improvements
TEXT ON RAILING
TEXT IN CONCRETE PARAPET
BRIDGE AESTHETICS
ADDING METAL LETTERING ATTACHED TO RAILINGS MAY REQUIRE A SECTION OF RAILING TO BE REPLACED BASED ON STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
LETTERING INTEGRATED INTO THE CONCRETE WILL LIKELY ONLY BE FEASIBLE WHEN CONSTRUCTING A NEW BRIDGE.
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 13
APPLICATION OF DESIGN ELEMENTS TO
GATEWAY LOCATIONS
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 14
CONCEPT DESIGN | HODGSON ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD J
PRIMARY GATEWAY
This primary gateway is an entrance into the city of Lino Lakes from the south adjacent to Shoreview. The roundabout will follow the design that includes a sculptural element in the center. (2) Type B Monument signs will create a gateway as users enter the city on Hodgson Road by flanking each side of the road.
LINO LAKES
SHOREVIEWHODGSON RDSEE MEDIAN AND BOULEVARD CONCEPTS
SEE ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT
B
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE B
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
BMONUMENT SIGN - TYPE B
LOCATION
CTY RD J / ASH ST
REGIONAL TRAIL
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 15
CONCEPT DESIGN | HODGSON ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD J
PRIMARY GATEWAY - RENDERING
VIEW FROM SOUTH SIDE OF ROUNDABOUT
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 16
CONCEPT DESIGN | HODGSON ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD J
PRIMARY GATEWAY - RENDERING
BIRD’S EYE VIEW FROM SOUTH SIDE OF ROUNDABOUT
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 17021397-000 Gateway PlanningA
A
LOCATIONLAKE DR35W
35W
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE AGUARD RAIL
THE ROOKERY
TOWN CENTER PARKWAYEXISTING STANDARD RAILING
EXISTING LIGHPOLES AND ORNAMENTAL RAILING
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE A
GUARD RAIL
BRIDGE AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS
TYPE D
PLANTINGS
PLANTINGS
Lake Drive and 35W: Primary Entrance Gateway
CONCEPT DESIGN | LAKE DRIVE AND 35W
PRIMARY GATEWAY
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 18
CONCEPT DESIGN | MAIN STREET AT 35E AND 24TH AVENUE
PRIMARY GATEWAY
021397-000 Gateway PlanningLOCATIONLINO LAKES CENTERVILLELINO LAKES HUGOMONUMENT SIGN - TYPE B
BRIDGE AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS
MAIN STREET
35E35EMAIN STREET
OTTER LAKE RD24TH AVE NMONUMENT SIGN - TYPE A
B
A
BRIDGE AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE A
A
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 19
CONCEPT DESIGN | LAKE DRIVE AND 35W
PRIMARY GATEWAY
TYPICAL MONUMENT SIGN ALONG INTERSTATE EMBANKMENTA
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE A
LIMESTONE BLOCK RETAINING WALL
GUARDRAIL
VERIFY SETBACK DISTANCE
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 20
CONCEPT DESIGN | MAIN STREET AND SUNSET AVENUE
SECONDARY GATEWAY 1397-000 Gateway PlanningScale in Feet
0’40’20’10’
NLINO LAKES CITY OF BLAINELOCATION
SEATING AREA PROPOSED RESIDENTAL
PROPOSED RESIDENTAL
MAIN STREET
MAIN STREET
LINO LAKES CITY OF BLAINESUNSET AVEALTERNATIVE ROUNDABOUT SCULPTURAL ELEMENT
Main St. & Sunset Ave: Secondary Entrance Gateway
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 21
CONCEPT DESIGN | COUNTY ROAD J AT CENTERVILLE ROAD AND 35E
SECONDARY GATEWAY
1397-000 Gateway PlanningCounty Road J at Centerville Road and 35E: Secondary Entrance Gateway
LOCATION
35E35EOTTER LAKE RDCENTERVILLE
RD20TH AVE SS BOUND
ON RAMP
WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP
COUNT RD J / ASH STREET
CITY OF NORTH OAKS
CITY OF NORTH OAKS
LINO LAKES
PROPOSED TRAIL
LINO LAKES
PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT
PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT
AMELIA LAKE
BRIDGE AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED TRAIL
MONUMENT SIGN SIGN - TYPE B
ROUNDABOUT SCULPTURAL ELEMENT
B
MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE AA
GATEWAY PLANNING
PAGE 22
CONCEPT DESIGN | MAIN STREET AND LAKE DRIVE
PRIMARY COMMUNITY INTERSECTION 1397-000 Gateway PlanningScale in Feet
0’80’40’20’
N
LOCATION
MAIN STREET MAIN STREETLAKE DRIVELAKE DRIVEEXISTING STORM WATER BASIN
EXISTING TRAIL
PROPOSED TRAIL
WAYFINDING SIGN - TYPE C
PROPOSED TRAIL
POTENTIAL ROUNDABOUT - GATEWAY PLAN TO BE REVISED TO ACCOMMODATE ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT
C
WAYFINDING SIGN - TYPE C
C
Main Street & Lake Drive: Community Intersection Gateway
COUNTY RD J/ ASH ST
COUNTY RD J/ ASH STHODGSON ROADHODGSON ROADTREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT
3 OSTRYA VIRGINIANA / AMERICAN HOPHORNBEAM 1.5" CAL B&B
GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE
22 SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM `BLUE HEAVEN` / BLUE HEAVEN LITTLE BLUESTEM 1 GAL
48 SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS `TARA` / PRAIRIE DROPSEED 1 GAL
ANNUALS/PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE
94 HEMEROCALLIS X `CHICAGO APACHE` / CHICAGO APACHE DAYLILY 1 GAL
32 HEMEROCALLIS X `HAPPY RETURNS` / HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY 1 GAL
135 NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW' / WALKER'S LOW CATMINT 1 GAL
PLANT SCHEDULE
K:\021397-000\Cad\Plan\021397-000-LP-PLNT-PLAN.dwgFEET
0
H:
INSCALE
60 120
N
SHEET
OF
SHEETS
ANOKA & RAMSEY COUNTY, MNCSAH 49 at Ramsey County
CSAH 1 / Anoka County CSAH 32
Intersection Improvements OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1
10
SEE NORTH MEDIAN
AND BOULEVARD
1
L3
SEE SHEET L2 - ROUNDABOUT LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEE SOUTH
MEDIAN
2
L3
SEE EAST
MEDIAN
2
L3
SEE WEST
MEDIAN
1
L3
Sheet List Table
Sheet Number Sheet Title
L1 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2 ROUNDABOUT LANDSCAPE PLAN
L3 NORTH & SOUTH MEDIANS & BOULDEVARDS
L4 EAST & WEST MEDIANS
L5 IRRIGATION PLAN
L6 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
L7 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
L8 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
L9 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
L10 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
L11 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
27 Walker's Low Catmint
1 gal
3 American Hophornbeam
1.5" Cal B&B
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 2 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 1 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
1
L6
NO MOW FESCUE
GRASS SEED MIX (TYP)
2" - 4" DIA. RIVER ROCK (TYP)
CONTROL JOINT (TYP)
ROADWAY LIGHT (TYP),
SEE LIGHTING PLAN
LANDSCAPE EDGER (TYP)
9 Happy Returns Daylily
1 gal
29 Prairie Dropseed
1 gal
79 Walker's Low Catmint
1 gal
59 Chicago Apache Daylily
1 gal
7Happy Returns Daylily
1 gal
UP LIGHT,
SEE DETAIL
5
L6
UTILITY CABINET,
FIELD VERIFY
19Prairie Dropseed
1 gal
29Walker's Low Catmint
1 gal
35Chicago Apache Daylily
1 gal
1
L6
5
L6
UP LIGHT (TYP),
SEE DETAIL
DECORATIVE
CROSSWALK
(TYP), SEE
DETAIL
7
L6
MONUMENT SIGN,
SEE DETAIL
1
L7 MONUMENT SIGN,
SEE DETAIL
1
L7
K:\021397-000\Cad\Plan\021397-000-LP-PLNT-PLAN.dwgFEET
0
H:
INSCALE
10 20
N
SHEET
OF
SHEETS
ANOKA & RAMSEY COUNTY, MNCSAH 49 at Ramsey County
CSAH 1 / Anoka County CSAH 32
Intersection Improvements ROUNDABOUT LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L2
10
SEE NORTH MEDIAN AND BOULEVARD 1/L3
SEE EAST MEDIAN 2/L4SEE WEST MEDIAN 1/L4SEE SOUTH MEDIAN 2/L3
HODGSON RD11Blue Heaven Little Bluestem
1 gal
8Happy Returns Daylily
1 gal
DECORATIVE LIGHT
(TYP), SEE DETAIL
LANDSCAPE EDGER
BENCH (TYP),
SEE DETAIL
BOLLARD (TYP),
SEE DETAIL
BANNER POLE
(TYP), SEE DETAIL
5'
ROADWAY LIGHTS (TYP),
SEE LIGHTING PLAN
7'
7'
5'
24'
24'
46'-5"
46'-5"
24'
24'
11Blue Heaven Little Bluestem
1 gal
8Happy Returns Daylily
1 gal
LANDSCAPE EDGER
4
L6
2
L6
5
L6
6
L6
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 2 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 1 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
1
L6
1
L6 HODGSON RD11Blue Heaven Little Bluestem
46'-6"
24'
ROADWAY LIGHTS
(TYP), SEE
LIGHTING PLAN
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 2 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
1
L6
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 1 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
1
L6
HODGSON RDDECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 2 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 1 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
1
L6
1
L6
K:\021397-000\Cad\Plan\021397-000-LP-PLNT-PLAN.dwgFEET
0
H:
INSCALE
20 40
N
SHEET
OF
SHEETS
ANOKA & RAMSEY COUNTY, MNCSAH 49 at Ramsey County
CSAH 1 / Anoka County CSAH 32
Intersection Improvements NORTH & SOUTH MEDIANS &
BOULDEVARDS
L3
10
NORTH MEDIAN1
L3
SOUTH MEDIAN2
L3
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
SEE L2 - ROUNDABOUT
LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEE L2 - ROUNDABOUT
LANDSCAPE PLAN
COUNTY ROAD J / ASH STCOUNTY ROAD J / ASH ST
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 2 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 1 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
1
L6
1
L6
24' TYP46' TYP
COUNTY ROAD J / ASH ST
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 2 (TYP), SEE DETAIL
1
L6
DECORATIVE CONCRETE -
TYPE 1 (TYP), SEE DETAIL 1
L6
46' TYP
4'-1" TYP
K:\021397-000\Cad\Plan\021397-000-LP-PLNT-PLAN.dwgFEET
0
H:
INSCALE
20 40
N
SHEET
OF
SHEETS
ANOKA & RAMSEY COUNTY, MNCSAH 49 at Ramsey County
CSAH 1 / Anoka County CSAH 32
Intersection Improvements EAST & WEST MEDIANS
L4
10
WEST MEDIAN1
L4
EAST MEDIAN2
L4 SEE L2 - ROUNDABOUTLANDSCAPE PLANSEE L2 - ROUNDABOUTLANDSCAPE PLAN
LEGEND:
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
CND
4" NON-METALLIC
IRRIGATION CONDIUT
(BY OTHERS)CNDCNDCND
CND
CND
CNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCNDCND CND CND CND CND
COUNTY ROAD J / ASH ST
COUNTY ROAD J / ASH ST HODGSON ROADK:\021397-000\Cad\Plan\021397-000-LP-PLNT-PLAN.dwgFEET
0
H:
INSCALE
30 60
N
SHEET
OF
SHEETS
ANOKA & RAMSEY COUNTY, MNCSAH 49 at Ramsey County
CSAH 1 / Anoka County CSAH 32
Intersection Improvements IRRIGATION PLAN
L5
10
VERIFY LUMEC
PRODUCT WITH
CITY
10'-2"
15'-11"
20'
+/- 10'. REFER TO
PLANS
VERIFY LUMEC
PRODUCT WITH
CITY
STAMP: BUTTERFIELD FIELDSTONE OR
APPROVED EQUAL
COLOR: CEMSTONE WOODLAND BARK
CPC127L OR APPROVED EQUAL
STAMP: BRUSH FINISH
COLOR: CEMSTONE
MANKATO CPC112L OR
APPROVED EQUAL
TYPE 1:
REFER TO ROADWAY PLANS FOR
CONCRETE SECTION DETAIL
TYPE 2:
REFER TO ROADWAY PLANS FOR
CONCRETE SECTION DETAIL
18"
12"
DIA.
TREE UPLIGHT UNIT
ANCHOR TREE UPLIGHT
STAKE 12" IN CONCRETE
FOOTING (MINIMUM 4,00 PSI)
COST OF CONCRETE FOOTING IS
INCIDENTAL TO COST OF LIGHT UNIT
12"
8"
CONDUIT
K:\021397-000\Cad\Plan\021397-000-LP-DETL-PLAN.dwgSHEET
OF
SHEETS
ANOKA & RAMSEY COUNTY, MNCSAH 49 at Ramsey County
CSAH 1 / Anoka County CSAH 32
Intersection Improvements LANDSCAPE DETAILS
L6
10
DECORATIVE CONRETE FINISHES1
L6
BENCH2
L6
DECORATIVE BANNER POLE4
L6
DECORATIVE LIGHT3
L6
UP LIGHT5
L6
BOLLARD6
L6
LANDSCAPE FORMS ANNAPOLIS BOLLARD
6" DIA. IMBEDDED
COLOR: BLACK
DECORATIVE CROSSWALK7
L6
K:\021397-000\Cad\Plan\021397-000-LP-DETL-PLAN.dwgSHEET
OF
SHEETS
ANOKA & RAMSEY COUNTY, MNCSAH 49 at Ramsey County
CSAH 1 / Anoka County CSAH 32
Intersection Improvements LANDSCAPE DETAILS
L7
10
MONUMENT SIGN1
L7
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 6
STAFF ORGINATOR: Andy Nelson, Environmental Coordinator
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2nd, 2023
TOPIC: Lake Amelia Ditch Study
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Amelia Lake is a natural environment lake located in the southeast portion of Lino Lakes.
The watershed area is approximately 754 acres. A private ditch serves as an outlet for
approximately 340 acres of the watershed. The ditch corridor and adjacent wetlands are
proposed components of the City’s parks, greenways, and trail system in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Recently, there has been flooding in the ditch corridor due to limited maintenance and failure
of private culverts. This has raised concerns regarding long-term management of the system as
development pressure increases upstream.
In an effort to evaluate long-term stormwater management options for this subwatershed area,
the City of Lino Lakes partnered with the Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization
(VLAWMO) and WSB and Associates to prepare the Lake Amelia Ditch Study.
Tom Hoffman, Engineering Technician with WSB and Associates, will be summarizing the results
of the study and discussing the recommended next steps that follow from the study.
Pending Council discussion, City and WSB staff will be reaching out to homeowners for a
neighborhood meeting to discuss the study and potential next steps for maintenance.
Following this neighborhood meeting, staff will bring the final Lake Amelia Ditch Study back to
the Council for final acceptance.
The Environmental Board discussed the study at their August 30th, 2023 meeting and had no
additional comments.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
None. Discussion only.
2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Lake Amelia Study Area Map
2. Lake Amelia Ditch Study
Lino Lakes Amelia Ditch
Feasibility Study
1
Site Background
•Private Ditch
•Public Drainage
•Drains into Lake Amelia
•Maintenance and Flooding Concerns
•No public access or easements.
2
3
Design Considerations
•Short term access and maintenance
•Long term water quality and flood
plain management
•Full development build out
Short Term Design
•Ditch maintenance
project
•Remove sediment
and stabilize banks
•Gain voluntary
easements
•Replace back pitched
culvert
4
Short Term Issues
5
Long term solution and development
•Water Quality
•Wetland Restoration
•Floodplain Management
•Remeandering of ditch
6
7
Questions
8
Ameila RMU
CentervilleRMU
ClearwaterCreek RMU
Sherman RMU
Wilkinson RMU
City of Lino Lakes
Lake Amelia Legend
Private_Ditch
Study Area
Lake_Amelia_watershed
1 inch = 900 feet
Subwatershed Study Area
K:\020018-000\Admin\Docs\Memo\020018-000 Amelia Ditch Study Memo.docx
Memorandum
To: Michael Grochala, Lino Lakes Community Development Director
Phil Belfiori, VLAWMO Administrator
Diane Hankee, Lino Lakes City Engineer
From: Earth Evans, PE, Director of Water Resources
Tom Hoffman, Engineering Technician
Henry Meeker, EIT
Date: August 10, 2023
Re: Amelia Ditch Study
WSB Project No. 020018-000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Amelia Lake Ditch study was conducted with the goal of analyzing existing drainage
conditions and proposing drainage improvements to the ditch draining to Lake Amelia within the
City of Lino Lakes and the Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization (VLAWMO). The
ditch has known flooding and other stormwater concerns in existing conditions. While these have
been addressed in the past with localized private and public projects, the City aims to understand
the problems along the entirety of the ditch and find solutions that best serve the surrounding
properties
Based on the existing concerns and anticipated future changes to the area, two phases of work
are recommended. The short-term phase would consist of conveyance improvements to the
section of the ditch currently causing the most problems for landowners. The long-term phase
proposes more holistic improvements to the corridor that would occur alongside its eventual
development.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Based on the ditch alignment and surrounding topography, all signs indicate this was a
constructed channel, not a natural stream. It is likely that the ditch was built and further expanded
or modified based on agricultural needs in the surrounding areas. Where it is not serving direct
surface flow drainage, the ditch also receives drain tile flows to aid in managing groundwater
levels for nearby fields. This is supported by the broken remnants of a clay drain tile pipe found in
the ditch during survey.
All evidence indicates that this is and always has been a private ditch. No easement or
maintenance records have been found supporting public ownership or management of the ditch.
Maintenance has been conducted on a piecemeal basis depending on the needs and concerns of
property owners along the ditch.
Historical aerial images of the ditch have been found that date back to 1938. This oldest imagery
appears to show the ditch with a slightly different and smaller alignment. However, certain
stretches appear to be consistent with the current location. Imagery from 1957 shows the ditch
with its current alignment. It appears much of the work bringing the ditch to its current condition
occurred around this time. The spoil piles on either side of the channel appear in sharp relief and
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 2
with minimal vegetation cover. Later historical aerials show little changes to the ditch besides
increased vegetation and development of I-35E and residential properties.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The ditch to Lake Amelia serves a 255-acre drainage area, primarily consisting of agricultural and
lightly developed residential areas. See the Existing Conditions Map in Appendix A for these
drainage areas and Appendix B for modeled high water levels (HWLs) and peak flows. Table 1
below and the Parcels Map of Appendix A summarize the properties that cover this study area.
Flows to the ditch originate in wetland complexes east of I-35E that collect runoff primarily from
grassed and forest cover, with some roadway and residential impervious cover. These basins
outlet via storm sewer running under I-35E to the two most upstream branches of the ditch.
Property Address Parcel ID(s) Property Owner Culvert
6518 20th Ave 253122310003
253122320001
253122330001
Frances Burque A & B
1926 Birch St 263122410002 Farrell Properties LLC N/A
6483 20th Ave 263122440003 Judith Knabe D
6443 20th Ave 263122440005 Michael Kriegler N/A
6433 20th Ave 263122440004 Mathew and Mary
Vesel
E
1826 Birch St 263122430001
353122120001
James Cardinal
Andrew Cardinal Jr
F
The northern branch of the ditch is in an agricultural area, within drainage areas 3, 4, and 5.
There are two small basins on its upstream end that seem to empty in drier periods of the year.
Between these basins is Culvert A that appears to have filled with sediment and likely does not
provide any significant flows. The ditch section is less defined in this area, with widths varying
from 10-20 feet and depths typically around 1-3 feet. The channel is dry much of the year, only
seeing consistent water in the spring and around rainfall events. Outside of the channel is largely
flat, HWLs are very likely to spill out from the channel and into the surrounding fields.
The southern branch of the ditch is also in an agricultural area, within drainage areas 7 and 8.
There is a small basin on its upstream end that seems to empty in drier periods of the year.
Culvert B runs below a driveway but similar to Culvert A, it appears to have filled with sediment
and likely does not provide any significant flows. The upstream ditch section is roughly 20 feet
wide and 2-3 feet deep. Downstream of the driveway crossing, the ditch section narrows to 10-15
feet wide and depths decrease to 1-2 feet. The channel is dry much of the year, only seeing
consistent water in the spring and around rainfall events.
These branches converge roughly 300 feet east of 20th Ave, still in an agricultural area. The ditch
section here is 20-25 feet wide and about 1 foot deep, with the exception of the pool just east of
20th Ave where the bottom is roughly 6 feet deep. There is a small channel running south to north
that also drains into the ditch. Besides the pool, the channel is dry much of the year, only seeing
consistent water in the spring and around rainfall events. The space outside the channel is largely
flat and there are known flooding concerns in the area.
The ditch crosses below 20th Ave via Culvert C, a 30” RCP. This culvert is well below much of the
surrounding ground elevations, but above the bottom elevations of the pools on either side.
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 3
Culvert C is likely submerged year-round except during very dry conditions, as such, the condition
of this pipe could not be verified during the survey. Modeling does not indicate that HWLs reach a
point that the road overtops, even in the 100-year event.
West of 20th Ave, the ditch turns to the southwest and follows a straight alignment through
agricultural land. There is a fair degree of accumulated sediment downstream of the pool off
Culvert C that settles from larger washout events. The ditch section is well defined here, with a
width of 25 feet and depths of 3-5 feet. The channel appears to be inconsistently dry, likely
depending more on downstream water levels. Outside of the channel is largely flat, HWLs are
likely to spill out from the channel and into the surrounding fields. This ditch section drains
through Culvert D on the 6483 20th Ave property. This culvert is 24” CPP with positive drainage,
flowing beneath an access path on the property between the eastern and western sides of the
ditch.
Downstream of Culvert D, the ditch flows through a grassed and lightly forested area in a well-
defined channel with spoils piled on either side. The channel section is 25-35 feet wide and 4-6
feet deep. There is a small tributary ditch north of the property line between 6443 and 6483 20th
Ave that runs west to east into the channel that has formed a significant sediment delta, likely
impeding flows upstream. The ditch likely has water in this section year-round due to poor
downstream drainage. Modeled high water levels are contained in the channel with the exception
of a small inundation area in the 6483 20th Ave property. This section of ditch drains through
Culvert E on the 6433 20th Ave property. This culvert is 36” CPP that is back sloped and installed
above an old culvert that was left in place. As such, Culvert E is higher than the others in the ditch
and likely impounds water upstream.
Through the 6483 20th Ave property, the ditch flows in grassed and lightly forested areas in a
well-defined channel that has spoils piled on its north side. The channel section is 30-35 feet wide
and 5-6 feet deep. Through the 1826 Birch St property, the ditch flows through more agricultural
land, although there are some trees lining the channel. The channel section there is 30-40 feet
wide and 4-5 feet deep, with flatter topography to the south that floods based on modeled HWLs.
Both of these ditch sections likely have water year-round due to the poor condition of the Culvert
F and tailwater effects from Lake Amelia. This culvert is a 30” CMP that is in poor condition. The
middle of the pipe is heaved upwards, impounding water upstream. Additionally, water was
observed flowing beneath the pipe, indicating the potential for Culvert F to wash out in the event
of major flows through the ditch.
Downstream of Culvert F, there is a section of ditch that eventually blends into Lake Amelia. The
channel is roughly 40 feet wide and 3-5 feet deep where it is still defined as a ditch between
agricultural fields. For the sake of this study, the end of the ditch was defined at the boundary
between the fields and wetlands surrounding the lake. The water level in this section is
functionally hydrostatic with the lake based on its profile and proximity.
In existing conditions, there are known drainage concerns with the low-lying fields around ditch
near its crossing of 20th Ave. While a fair amount of these HWLs can be attributed to the very flat
nature of the ditch, the problems are exacerbated by sediment loading in the channel and culverts
that are too high or in poor condition. The entirety of the ditch is shown as FEMA Zone A
floodplain with no flood elevation; however, Lake Amelia has a mapped flood elevation of 910.2.
In addition, there are currently no easements over the ditch which has led to confusion around
which parties are responsible for its maintenance or impacts to upstream properties when
changes are made.
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 4
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Improvements to the ditch are recommended to alleviate drainage problems and more efficiently
convey flows. These recommended improvements generally fall into two categories, short-term
and long-term. Short-term work is recommended within the next year or two and would consist of
less significant work that would provide benefits to ditch conveyance with the goal of reducing
flooding and ponded water. Long-term work is recommended with the eventual development of
the area. This work would consist more of floodplain storage, BMP construction, and ditch
realignment/meandering with the goal of floodplain and water quality improvements. This long-
term work would likely come from the City as a recommended concept plan that would then be
brought into final design and construction by a developer of the area.
Short-Term Work
The majority of proposed short-term improvements would consist of earthwork within and
adjacent to the ditch channel, as shown in the Proposed Conditions Map of Appendix A. This
work will be limited to the ditch alignment between 20th Ave and Culvert F. The City would obtain
easements along the ditch to conduct the work and allow for future maintenance. Excavation is
recommended to remove accumulated sediment from upstream loading, channel bed and bank
scour, and settling around culverts. Much of this excavation would be within the top foot of the
ditch bottom, up to 2 feet where more sediment has accumulated. The main intent of earthwork
on the bottom of the channel is to provide a more consistent slope through the ditch. This would
increase conveyance and reduce future sediment settling.
Through much of the residential property (6433, 6443, and 6484 20th Ave), the channel slopes
are sparsely vegetated and often steeper than 3:1. The proposed earthwork would bring these
slopes to 3:1 at most in order to improve stability and reduce sediment loading from bank erosion.
Decreasing these slopes would also slightly widen the channel section, further increasing
conveyance capacity of the ditch and reducing flood levels. This earthwork on the banks would
only expand the channel footprint into the existing spoil piles and not impact the usable lawn
areas observed during survey.
This earthwork would also involve vegetation management. In areas not farmed, most of the
vegetation observed during survey were lower quality trees and scrub along the banks of the
ditch. During earthwork, many of these trees will need to be removed. This will provide an
opportunity to replant with native grasses and other vegetation that is more resistant to erosion.
Removal of trees will also bring more sunlight to the channel, further improving the uptake of new
seeding. This proposed new vegetation would provide more consistent soil cover, stabilizing the
banks and reducing sediment loading to the ditch.
Another major component of the short-term work would be replacement of Culvert F. The pipe is
recommended to be replaced with a 36” RCP with flared end sections instead of the existing 30”
CMP. This replaced culvert would be placed lower to ensure it is not impounding water upstream
like it currently does. Additionally, a properly bedded RCP will be more resistant to washing out
unlike the risk posed to the current pipe. There is also potential to reseat the back sloped Culvert
E as part of this project, but that is not a major priority since it was installed recently and seems to
be functioning well.
There is also an opportunity to excavate a small settling basin upstream of Culvert F. This would
serve to provide additional settling and pollutant removals before the discharge to Lake Amelia.
Expansion to the west would impact upland agricultural area and not require wetland impacts. As
this basin would be relatively small with respect to the remaining floodplain and proposed channel
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 5
excavation, it is not anticipated to impact flood levels in any appreciable manner. Approximately
700 cubic yards of excavation would be needed to create this basin, with an estimated cost of
$21,000.
The modeling results presented in Appendix B show the drainage improvements expected as a
result of this work. Since the short-term work takes place downstream of the 20th Ave road
crossing, that’s where the majority of the modeled drainage improvements are shown. Within DA
11, the modeled 100-year HWL drops approximately 0.5’ from existing conditions due to
increased downstream conveyance. This HWL decrease goes up to 3.4’ upstream of Culvert F.
This pattern is reflected by the increased max flow rates in these same drainage areas. Modest
increases from existing flows are shown for areas upstream of Culvert E, while major flow
increases are seen leading up to and including the proposed replaced culvert. This will all serve
to improve conveyance in the ditch and reduce water levels in major rain events.
While the proposed modeling shows increased flow rates to Lake Amelia, adverse impacts are
not anticipated to the lake’s hydrology or ecosystem. The ditch is proposed to be restored to as-
built conditions, not a major rework of the channel. Much of the increase in flow capacity comes
from improved ditch conveyance and replacing a failing culvert. These increased flows will not
appreciably increase velocities into the lake due to the hundreds of feet of ditch downstream of
the improvements attenuating flows. Additionally, the improved grading and stabilization will
better dissipate energetic flow than in current conditions, reducing pollutant loading from erosive
forces. This phase of the project is solely focused on conveyance of water to alleviate flooding
concerns and does not propose to increase the volume of water reaching Lake Amelia in flood
conditions. The increase in flow rates may slightly alter the lake’s flood hydrograph, but relative to
the rest of the lake’s tributary area it is unlikely to increase high water levels.
The majority of work in the short-term would consist of grading the ditch to improve conveyance,
clearing nuisance vegetative canopy to encourage understory growth, and the replacement of
Culvert F. In all, this work is estimated to cost $252,500 to complete. This cost includes a 30%
contingency factor to account for potential changes to ditch conditions prior to work beginning.
The estimate does not account for any potential costs for easement acquisition, if they are
needed. A detailed breakdown of this estimate can be found in Appendix C.
Long-Term Work
As opposed to the short-term improvements, the long-term work is proposed for the current
agricultural areas along the ditch. These properties, namely the 6518 20th Ave and 1926 Birch St
parcels, are anticipated to develop into single family residential housing in the next 10-20 years.
Development of these properties is currently limited by the lack of sanitary sewers. It is expected
that the extension of the sewer from the west will drive development of these parcels. For
development, the City could require out lots and easements along the existing ditch alignment to
construct these more significant improvements. Alternatively, the City would still request the out
lots, but instead recommend these improvements and the developments would take them into
consideration for their requisite stormwater management facilities.
With this larger project, the ditch alignment would be proposed to meander similar to a natural
stream, as opposed to the current sharp turns and straight channel sections. This meandering
portion would have a wider and more gently sloped channel section. The ditch would have
improved ecological value as the meander provides a variety of flow conditions and water depths
for plant and animal life. In addition, a meandering alignment improves the aesthetics and
recreational value of the area. With the potential trail extending through the area from the west,
this region could serve as a greenway space for the City.
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 6
Another component of the long-term work would be floodplain management in the area. With the
known flooding concerns and FEMA floodplain designation, it is evident that the area surrounding
the ditch would be well served by increased flood storage capacity. This capacity would come in
the form of large basins adjacent to the ditch. In major storm events, the channel would overtop
its banks and flow into these basins. This increased storage will reduce flooding concerns for the
existing properties downstream, as well as slightly ease flood levels within Lake Amelia.
These basins would also provide ecological value and water quality treatment. Depending on the
proposed planting and hydrologic regimes, the basins may be restored to different wetland types.
Based on how much of the area is delineated as wetland, these restored wetlands would offset
any impacts from development or increase their footprint. Similar to the proposed basins on the
Shenandoah Improvement Project, these would be proposed to draw down via evapotranspiration
or very slow groundwater infiltration. This abstracted runoff would result in a significant degree of
pollutant removals from Lake Amelia as well as provide dynamic habitats for plant and animal life.
For more direct water quality treatment, biofiltration BMPs are proposed on further upstream
areas where there is sufficient elevation difference. Soil information indicates in situ soils are
conducive to filtration when provided an underdrain. As such, biofiltration basins could be
constructed offline from the ditch alignment at minimal cost. These basins would not serve as
significant floodplain or ecological value but would further increase pollutant removals.
Significant drainage improvements are seen in the modeling as a result of this proposed work, as
summarized in Appendix B. Due to impounded flows in the proposed biofiltration basins, HWLs
are increased slightly in the drainage areas upstream of them. However, these are not areas with
drainage concerns, increased HWLs will not cause major flood area increases. There are HWL
decreases of 1.1’ in DA 5 and DA 9 because of the increased storage proposed in the wetlands
alongside the ditch channel. Further downstream, HWLs drop more, up to 2.7’. This is both an
effect of the ditch cleanout in the short-term and an anticipated replacement of Culvert E in the
medium- to long-term. Additionally, flow rates increase significantly across the site, especially
around the culverts that would be replaced. Some flow rates were modeled to decrease near the
biofiltration basins and wetlands due to changes in flood storage, but overall, the system will allow
for greater flows.
This long-term work includes many more benefits to the tributary area to the lake but comes at an
increased cost compared to the short-term improvements. The total estimated cost for the work is
$1.71 million, plus an additional $150,000 in wetland maintenance and monitoring over the 5
years following the project. The majority of these costs are anticipated from the large volumes of
earthwork required to create the wetland and filtration basins. Additional costs come from storm
sewer required for the BMPs and the required seeding over the large area of disturbance. This
cost includes a 30% contingency factor to account for potential changes between this concept
and future design implementation. It should be noted that this estimate is unlikely to be accurate
by the time major development is occurring in the area and will need to be revised to reflect
updated costs in the future The estimate does not account for any potential costs for easement or
property acquisition for the stormwater features. A detailed breakdown of this estimate can be
found in Appendix C.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Water quality samples were collected monthly within Lake Amelia and the ditch to Lake Amelia
from May through August 2022. See the Water Quality Sampling Location map found in
Appendix A. Data was collected to understand the existing water quality and how the water from
the ditch may affect Lake Amelia’s water quality. Samples were analyzed for total phosphorus,
orthophosphate, and total suspended solids. Results can be seen in Figures 1-3 below.
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 7
Figure 1: TSS Results
Figure 2: TP Results
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 8
Figure 3: OP Results
Results show Lake Amelia having steady water quality throughout the 2022 season. Total
phosphorus levels within the lake were below the state standards for shallow lakes. During
sampling events it was noted that the lake was visually clear to the bottom and is heavily
vegetated. Overall, the TSS, TP, and OP concentrations are much lower in the lake compared to
the ditch. The drought conditions in 2022 provided very low to no flow within the ditch. No visible
flow was observed while sampling. Sampling at times of flow would provide better understanding
on sediment and nutrient transport into the lake. Increased pollutant loading in the ditch could
contribute to an increase of pollutants entering Lake Amelia during large rain events. Dredging
existing sediment deltas and stabilizing erosion within the ditch would limit the amount of TP and
TSS that would be able to reach the lake.
PERMITTING
As this work takes place in a ditch draining wetlands to a public water, local, state, and federal
permitting will be needed. VLAWMO is the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the
City of Lino Lakes regulates stormwater management. As this project has been undertaken
collaboratively with VLAWMO, communication will continue regarding the required regulations
that must be followed for any proposed work.
WCA compliance must be demonstrated for work on drainage systems such as this ditch. Short-
term work will consist of maintenance of the ditch to its original capacity based on historical
aerials and field visits. There are numerous wetlands around the ditch, however they have not
been delineated as part of this phase. These wetlands have current or recent cropping history
based on aerial imagery and field visits. Filling or excavation of wetlands not proposed as short-
term work will be limited almost entirely to the ditch channel. The full maintenance history of the
system is not known as it has been under private ownership; a full cleanout of the ditch has not
been performed. Recent maintenance history includes culvert replacement at Culverts D and E
by the City, plus evidence of past maintenance of Culvert F based on observations during a field
visit. As the proposed long-term improvements will change the drainage system beyond its
historical constructed conditions, more involved permitting will be required and factored into final
design. Compliance will need to be demonstrated around ditch capacity expansion and
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 9
excavation and filling of wetlands. Full WCA permitting will be completed as needed before
construction for both short- and long-term ditch work.
Lake Amelia is listed as a Minnesota DNR public water (ID 02001400). As such, any work that is
proposed within the lake must be permitted through the DNR. Based on preliminary
conversations, it is anticipated that DNR regulated activity will be limited to any proposed work
downstream of the hydrologic break line at Culvert F. There will be a small amount of earthwork
proposed in this section of the ditch with the short-term improvements and as such, a DNR permit
must be applied for. Additionally, the ditch is shown as a DNR stream in their online surface water
viewer. However, this is a private ditch and has been for more than 50 years. Further coordination
will be conducted with the DNR to determine its status as a public waters stream and how it may
impact permitting requirements.
Per the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), wetlands that drain to a public water are
considered within their permitting jurisdiction. Since this ditch is closely related to the formation
and draining of its adjacent wetlands and flows to Lake Amelia, these wetlands would likely fall
under USACE jurisdiction. As such, any work in the short- or long-term that may impact the
hydrology of these wetlands will need to be permitted through the Corps in addition to WCA and
the DNR. Much of the area is listed as FEMA floodplain. Therefore, any work that would
significantly alter floodplain levels would need review. This would not apply with the proposed
short-term work, but the long-term work would likely require federal permitting.
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 10
APPENDIX A: PROJECT MAPS
6443 20TH AVE
KRIEGLER, MICHAEL J
Parcel ID: 263122440005
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122310003
6518 20TH AVE
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122320001
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122330001
6433 20TH AVE
VESEL MATHEW P & MARY E
Parcel ID: 263122440004
6483 20TH AVE
KNABE JUDITH
Parcel ID: 263122440003
1926 BIRCH ST
FARRELL PROPERTIES LLC
Parcel ID: 263122410002
CARDINAL, JAMES G
Parcel ID: 263122420002
CARDINAL JR, ANDREW J
Parcel ID: 353122120001
1826 BIRCH ST
CARDINAL, JAMES G
Parcel ID: 263122420001
CARDINAL, JAMES G
Parcel ID: 263122430001
Culvert A
Culvert B
Culvert F
Culvert E
Culvert D
Culvert C Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Parcel Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 500 feet
0 500
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Figure 1: Project Parcels
Page 11
""
"
"""""""""""""
"""""""
"""""""""""
"
"
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(912926908930928922
924920916 918920908 926926920908916942
92
2922
922912908 9249309
20936928
936928
9 00932
908934
92 4
910
906
9 1 4 924930
9
10 932926
898
9 2 6
922924928
9529209309
1
4
930912914914926912 912910934 932910904926
918 928928910932
926900902
910 910920 924914 9289 38 93491891
4926928
9 0 8
924910944940924
916 92 4 954928916916
9189089 34
924
930922
9229 14934916 914904
920932918
91893 2
93492 6 942928 924918922
9 2 8
9
3
093695092692291891693 0
934932924920906
9
1
8936
900
930
934930 926922 9229
24924928930926928898
92890892692
69289
1
8 924928
918912912
9289 1893
291
0924924
91 6924 924926
9329429
1
6928 934
934926930924 932902
92492 6 912948
924
92
2
91 8
918940922922
91 293493 2926
918
93
8908 908938912926
912 92892 8928
930926
9329109329309
1
8922926924916
9049 2 4916
926
928938
946900
9 42916
94
8928930
9 249 1 2
9 28
922924916912
91 0930
930 93 0
9 2 8900
91
4 9429229
24
9309
32
916
934
934 9189 30932
936 930938926
9 1291 0
920
9
26
924 938914930914
926
94
09 2893492492 4898
92
6932 932916938920904 9
2
89 24926920916
9229289 1 4
932934
920932
934
910
930916922
930
928926 9169 1 4
92
8900930
912940928 91892091493
0 934922
934
9
4
0
9549449149289
28908940922912
924914930
926
9 2 2 912926
9189
309409109 1 2938924
9229209
1292 8
9309109129 4 4910
924
918
91
4
938
92092
4
9 30928928
92
0912
918
902918
926902
9369
32
922932928934 930910 9349309
3493292492492 6916 914928932
948
92
4 920930
92 8900 914928928
92 6914 922
926
912
9409 1692 8
9
3
6
928
914
9 2 4
912
930
9189
3
2
9 1 292292
0932926
9149 1492092492
6
910
918
9
28934918 9329389289
24922926920938
924
93
4
92
2924
930
93 6 9269 36928
93091 6 92692690291492
8930
920924
920
930918
916
928
930
926
93
0
9
2
4
916914 930928
928924
928
922
914910
928 952916
9249269 2 29169
1
4
9349269269 4 2
92094091293
2
932914920930 9
1
4
9
2
2934
938 9269149249 44924910918936 92292892292
8928
916 924946924
932936932 926922
9
2
6
9
349109189
4
2
918918
934930
928
9 5 0 9
32
9409089269
3
29
2
2
91
8926932
932
91
0930924900
9249169489
30930932924946
918 920922
92 8 916914930
91
6
9
44930
930928
9309329289329029
3
0930 926
94
2920
940918926
91
2908906 934908
93 4938918924938936926928910910920926936908910928920
912
904
934914
926930930928 926916
9329
1
8
928928920
922
9109109
1
2
922
9209189
1
0918924914916
926
928
916 924922914914
9
16920918922
926
912
9241
2
6
3
7
8
4
5
9
10
11
12 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Existing Conditions Date Saved: 6/15/2023¯1 inch = 500 feet
0 500
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Figure 2: Existing Conditions
Existing 100-yr HWL
Subcatchments
Lake Amelia 100-yr HWL
Contour
10 ft
2 ft
Page 12
35E
35E
35E
"""""""""""""!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(1
2
6
3
7
8
4
5
9
10
11
12
Pipe 5
Pipe 6
Pipe 3
Pipe 4
Channel 11
Channel 6
Channel 1
Channel 3
Channel 10
Channel 0
Channel 4
Channel 2
Pipe 1
Channel 13
Pipe 2
Channel 8
DA-1
DA-2
DA-3
DA-4
DA-5
DA-6
DA-7
DA-8
DA-9
DA-10
DA-11
DA-12
Junction 1
Junction 3
Junction 4
Junction 5
Junction 2 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Model Elements Date Saved: 6/15/2023¯1 inch = 500 feet
0 500
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Figure 3: XPSWMM Model Elements
!(Model Nodes
Model Conduits
Subcatchments
Page 13
""
"
"""""""""""""
"""""""
"""""""""""
"
"
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(912926908930928922
924920916 918920908 926926920908916942
92
2922
922912908 9249309
20936928
936928
9 00932
908934
92 4
910
906
9 1 4 924930
9
10 932926
898
9 2 6
922924928
9529209309
1
4
930912914914926912 912910934 932910904926
918 928928910932
926900902
910 910920 924914 9289 38 93491891
4926928
9 0 8
924910944940924
916 92 4 954928916916
9189089 34
924
930922
9229 14934916 914904
920932918
91893 2
93492 6 942928 924918922
9 2 8
9
3
093695092692291891693 0
934932924920906
9
1
8936
900
930
934930 926922 9229
24924928930926928898
92890892692
69289
1
8 924928
918912912
9289 1893
291
0924924
91 6924 924926
9329429
1
6928 934
934926930924 932902
92492 6 912948
924
92
2
91 8
918940922922
91 293493 2926
918
93
8908 908938912926
912 92892 8928
930926
9329109329309
1
8922926924916
9049 2 4916
926
928938
946900
9 42916
94
8928930
9 249 1 2
9 28
922924916912
91 0930
930 93 0
9 2 8900
91
4 9429229
24
9309
32
916
934
934 9189 30932
936 930938926
9 1291 0
920
9
26
924 938914930914
926
94
09 2893492492 4898
92
6932 932916938920904 9
2
89 24926920916
9229289 1 4
932934
920932
934
910
930916922
930
928926 9169 1 4
92
8900930
912940928 91892091493
0 934922
934
9
4
0
9549449149289
28908940922912
924914930
926
9 2 2 912926
9189
309409109 1 2938924
9229209
1292 8
9309109129 4 4910
924
918
91
4
938
92092
4
9 30928928
92
0912
918
902918
926902
9369
32
922932928934 930910 9349309
3493292492492 6916 914928932
948
92
4 920930
92 8900 914928928
92 6914 922
926
912
9409 1692 8
9
3
6
928
914
9 2 4
912
930
9189
3
2
9 1 292292
0932926
9149 1492092492
6
910
918
9
28934918 9329389289
24922926920938
924
93
4
92
2924
930
93 6 9269 36928
93091 6 92692690291492
8930
920924
920
930918
916
928
930
926
93
0
9
2
4
916914 930928
928924
928
922
914910
928 952916
9249269 2 29169
1
4
9349269269 4 2
92094091293
2
932914920930 9
1
4
9
2
2934
938 9269149249 44924910918936 92292892292
8928
916 924946924
932936932 926922
9
2
6
9
349109189
4
2
918918
934930
928
9 5 0 9
32
9409089269
3
29
2
2
91
8926932
932
91
0930924900
9249169489
30930932924946
918 920922
92 8 916914930
91
6
9
44930
930928
9309329289329029
3
0930 926
94
2920
940918926
91
2908906 934908
93 4938918924938936926928910910920926936908910928920
912
904
934914
926930930928 926916
9329
1
8
928928920
922
9109109
1
2
922
9209189
1
0918924914916
926
928
916 924922914914
9
16920918922
926
912
9241
2
6
3
7
8
4
5
9
10
11
12 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Proposed Short Term Date Saved: 8/10/2023¯1 inch = 500 feet
0 500
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Figure 4: Proposed Conditions - Short-Term
Subcatchments
Lake Amelia 100-yr HWL
Settling Basin
Contour
10 ft
2 ft
Replace with
36" RCP
Culvert and
Excavate
Settling Basin
3.4' HWL
Decrease
0.5' HWL
Decrease
No HWL
Decrease 0.2' HWL
Decrease
0.2' HWL
Decrease
Remove 0.9'
of Sediment
from Channel
Bottom
Remove 0.6'
of Sediment
from Channel
Bottom
Remove 0.5'
of Sediment
from Channel
Bottom
Page 14
35E
35E
35E ""
"
"""""""""""""
"""""""
"""""""""""
"
"
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(912926908930928922
924920916 918920908 926926920908916942
92
2922
922912908 9249309
20936928
936928
9 00932
908934
92 4
910
906
9 1 4 924930
9
10 932926
898
9 2 6
922924928
9529209309
1
4
930912914914926912 912910934 932910904926
918 928928910932
926900902
910 910920 924914 9289 38 93491891
4926928
9 0 8
924910944940924
916 92 4 954928916916
9189089 34
924
930922
9229 14934916 914904
920932918
91893 2
93492 6 942928 924918922
9 2 8
9
3
093695092692291891693 0
934932924920906
9
1
8936
900
930
934930 926922 9229
24924928930926928898
92890892692
69289
1
8 924928
918912912
9289 1893
291
0924924
91 6924 924926
9329429
1
6928 934
934926930924 932902
92492 6 912948
924
92
2
91 8
918940922922
91 293493 2926
918
93
8908 908938912926
912 92892 8928
930926
9329109329309
1
8922926924916
9049 2 4916
926
928938
946900
9 42916
94
8928930
9 249 1 2
9 28
922924916912
91 0930
930 93 0
9 2 8900
91
4 9429229
24
9309
32
916
934
934 9189 30932
936 930938926
9 1291 0
920
9
26
924 938914930914
926
94
09 2893492492 4898
92
6932 932916938920904 9
2
89 24926920916
9229289 1 4
932934
920932
934
910
930916922
930
928926 9169 1 4
92
8900930
912940928 91892091493
0 934922
934
9
4
0
9549449149289
28908940922912
924914930
926
9 2 2 912926
9189
309409109 1 2938924
9229209
1292 8
9309109129 4 4910
924
918
91
4
938
92092
4
9 30928928
92
0912
918
902918
926902
9369
32
922932928934 930910 9349309
3493292492492 6916 914928932
948
92
4 920930
92 8900 914928928
92 6914 922
926
912
9409 1692 8
9
3
6
928
914
9 2 4
912
930
9189
3
2
9 1 292292
0932926
9149 1492092492
6
910
918
9
28934918 9329389289
24922926920938
924
93
4
92
2924
930
93 6 9269 36928
93091 6 92692690291492
8930
920924
920
930918
916
928
930
926
93
0
9
2
4
916914 930928
928924
928
922
914910
928 952916
9249269 2 29169
1
4
9349269269 4 2
92094091293
2
932914920930 9
1
4
9
2
2934
938 9269149249 44924910918936 92292892292
8928
916 924946924
932936932 926922
9
2
6
9
349109189
4
2
918918
934930
928
9 5 0 9
32
9409089269
3
29
2
2
91
8926932
932
91
0930924900
9249169489
30930932924946
918 920922
92 8 916914930
91
6
9
44930
930928
9309329289329029
3
0930 926
94
2920
940918926
91
2908906 934908
93 4938918924938936926928910910920926936908910928920
912
904
934914
926930930928 926916
9329
1
8
928928920
922
9109109
1
2
922
9209189
1
0918924914916
926
928
916 924922914914
9
16920918922
926
912
9241
2
6
3
7
8
4
5
9
10
11
12 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Proposed Long Term Date Saved: 6/15/2023¯1 inch = 500 feet
0 500
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Figure 5: Proposed Conditions - Long-Term
Proposed BMPs
Proposed Meandered Channel
Subcatchments
Proposed 100-yr HWL
Lake Amelia 100-yr HWL
Contour
10 ft
2 ft
South
Filtration
Basin
North
Filtration
Basin
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Page 15
K:\020018-000\Graphics\020018-000 Amelia DitchAmelia Ditch Concept Plan
Lino Lakes, MN
July 21, 2023 | WSB Project number: 020018-000 Scale in Feet
0’400’200’
AMELIA LAKE
PROPOSED TRAIL
PROPOSED CHANNEL ROUTE
PLUNGE POOL
OTTER LAKE RD20TH AVE SBIRCH STREET
PROPOSED WETLAND
PROPOSED FILTRATION BASIN
EXISTING FLOOD PLAIN
EXISTING WETLAND
TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION
10’ TRAIL
DISTANCE
VARIES WATER CHANNEL
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 16
APPENDIX B: MODELING RESULTS
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 17
Table 1: Short-Term Improvements 100-yr HWL Comparison
Model Node Existing HWL Proposed HWL Change
DA-1 928.79 928.79 0
DA-2 915.18 915.18 0
DA-3 913.81 913.81 0
DA-4 911.53 911.53 0
DA-5 910.19 910.02 -0.17
DA-6 916.43 916.43 0
DA-7 915.06 915.06 0
DA-8 915.02 915.02 0
Junction 1 910.19 910.02 -0.17
DA-9 910.19 910.02 -0.17
Junction 2 910.16 910.15 -0.01
DA-10 910.16 910.16 0
Junction 3 911.30 910.81 -0.51
Junction 4 911.30 910.81 -0.51
DA-11 911.30 910.81 -0.49
Junction 5 910.90 908.48 -2.42
DA-12 910.89 907.48 -3.41
Table 2: Short-Term Improvements Max Flow Comparison
Model Connection Existing Max
Flow (cfs)
Proposed Max
Flow (cfs) Change
Pipe 1 29.76 29.76 0
Channel 1 48.80 48.80 0
Channel 2 33.64 33.66 +0.02
Channel 0 14.61 18.08 +3.47
Pipe 2 12.53 12.53 0
Channel 3 80.50 80.51 +0.01
Channel 5 89.93 89.95 +0.02
Channel 6 22.29 26.85 +4.56
Pipe 3 16.13 20.89 +4.76
Channel 8 15.29 20.57 +5.28
Pipe 4 16.39 22.72 +6.33
Channel 10 16.44 22.92 +6.48
Channel 11 16.72 23.16 +6.44
Pipe 5 40.33 71.04 +30.71
Channel 13 39.19 71.17 +31.98
Pipe 6 44.19 104.10 +59.91
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 18
Table 3: Long-Term Improvements 100-yr HWL Comparison
Model Node Existing HWL Proposed HWL Change
DA-1 928.79 928.79 0
DA-2 915.18 915.18 0
DA-3 913.81 913.81 0
DA-4 911.53 913.05 +1.53
DA-5 910.19 909.01 -1.18
DA-6 916.43 916.45 +0.02
DA-7 915.06 915.37 +0.31
DA-8 915.02 915.36 +0.34
Junction 1 910.19 909.06 -1.14
DA-9 910.19 909.06 -1.13
Junction 2 910.16 909.56 -0.60
DA-10 910.16 909.76 -0.40
Junction 3 911.30 909.47 -1.84
Junction 4 911.30 909.45 -1.85
DA-11 911.30 909.45 -1.86
Junction 5 910.90 908.58 -2.32
DA-12 910.89 908.13 -2.75
Table 4: Long-Term Improvements Max Flow Comparison
Model Connection Existing Max
Flow (cfs)
Proposed Max
Flow (cfs) Change
Pipe 1 29.76 30.07 +0.31
Channel 1 48.80 48.81 +0.01
Channel 2 33.64 169.28 +135.64
Channel 0 14.61 21.00 +6.39
Pipe 2 12.53 12.10 -0.43
Channel 3 80.50 51.68 -28.82
Channel 5 89.93 41.92 -48.01
Channel 6 22.29 20.44 -1.85
Pipe 3 16.13 22.47 +6.34
Channel 8 15.29 56.13 +40.84
Pipe 4 16.39 75.85 +59.46
Channel 10 16.44 76.94 +60.50
Channel 11 16.72 78.89 +62.17
Pipe 5 40.33 118.23 +77.90
Channel 13 39.19 119.36 +80.17
Pipe 6 44.19 141.03 +96.84
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 19
APPENDIX C: COST ESTIMATES
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 20
Cost Estimate - Short Term
Description Units
Contract
Quantity Unit Price Total Price
MOBILIZATION LS 1 $15,000 $15,000
CLEAR AND GRUB LS 1 $25,000 $25,000
DEWATERING LS 1 $20,000 $20,000
COMMON EXCAVATION C C Y 700 $30 $21,000
CHANNEL EXCAVATION C Y 1500 $40.00 $60,000
RANDOM RIPRAP CL III C Y 30 $120 $3,600
36" RCP L F 31 $220 $6,820
36" RCP APRON EACH 2 $3,200 $6,400
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH 1 $1,500 $1,500
FLOATING SILT CURTAIN L F 20 $40 $800
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET S Y 3500 $3 $10,500
WOOD FIBER BIOROLL L F 5500 $3 $16,500
SEEDING ACRE 1.5 $2,000 $3,000
SEED MIX 33-261 LB 55 $75 $4,125
30% Contingency $58,300
Total: $252,500
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 21
Cost Estimate - Long Term
Description Units
Contract
Quantity Unit Price Total Price
MOBILIZATION LS 1 $150,000 $150,000
CLEAR AND GRUB EACH 20 $1,000 $20,000
COMMON EXCAVATION C Y 45000 $20 $900,000
COMMON EMBANKMENT C Y 4500 $20 $90,000
RANDOM RIPRAP CL III C Y 30 $120 $3,600
6" PERF HDPE PIPE LF 860 $24 $20,640
6" PERF HDPE PIPE CLEANOUT EACH 10 $500 $5,000
15" RCP L F 75 $100 $7,500
15" RCP APRON EACH 5 $1,500 $7,500
FLAP GATE/DUCKBILL VALVE EACH 3 $3,000 $9,000
48" OCS EACH 2 $10,000 $20,000
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH 1.00 $1,500 $1,500
FLOATING SILT CURTAIN L F 20 $40 $800
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET S Y 15000 $3 $45,000
WOOD FIBER BIOROLL L F 5000 $3 $15,000
SEEDING ACRE 8 $2,000 $16,000
SEED MIX 33-261 LB 55 $75 $4,125
30% Contingency $394,700
Total: $1,710,400
Amelia Ditch Study
August 10, 2023
Page 22
APPENDIX D: SURVEY DATA AND SITE PHOTOS
Surveyed Ditch Profile
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000Elevation
Distance from Lake Amelia (ft)
Existing Ditch Profile
Existing Culverts
Amelia OHWL
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 23
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122310003
6518 20TH AVE
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122320001
SPOT
910.3
SPOT
911.297SPOT
911.082
SPOT
910.75SPOT
910.151 SPOT
910.61SPOT
910.633
SPOT
911.088 SPOT
910.745
SPOT
912.912
SPOT
913.142
SPOT
913.892
SPOT
912.836
SPOT
913.003
SPOT
913.1
SPOT
913.05
SPOT
910.551SPOT
911.14
SPOT
909.878
SPOT
910.153
SPOT
910.327
SPOT
910.673
SPOT
910.95
SPOT
910.338
SPOT
910.236
SPOT
911.792
FES
910.413
SPOT
909.73
SPOT
909.361
SPOT
910.727
SPOT
910.841
SPOT
910.714
SPOT
911.059
SPOT
908.913
SPOT
911.074SPOT
911.037
SPOT
912.705
SPOT
912.829
FES
911.346FES
913.154 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Survey Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 80 feet
0 80
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Survey Map 1
Parcels
918.131
906.756
Elevation
SPOT
MARSH
FES
Survey Point
Page 24
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122310003
6518 20TH AVE
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122320001
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122330001
SPOT
914.895SPOT
912.836
SPOT
915.993SPOT
914.55
SPOT
918.199SPOT
916.001SPOT
913.792
SPOT
912.961
SPOT
912.779SPOT
914.07
SPOT
915.062
SPOT
914.767
SPOT
913.784
SPOT
914.961
SPOT
915.35 SPOT
913.839
SPOT
912.795
FES
913.479
SPOT
914.272
SPOT
912.989
SPOT
913.111SPOT
914.715
SPOT
913.302
SPOT
910.774
SPOT
910.838
SPOT
913.414
SPOT
911.234
SPOT
913.777
SPOT
912.067
SPOT
914.27 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Survey Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 80 feet
0 80
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Survey Map 2
Parcels
918.131
906.756
Elevation
SPOT
MARSH
FES
Survey Point
Page 25
6518 20TH AVE
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122320001
SPOT
908.775
SPOT
907.502
SPOT
908.74
SPOT
909.141
SPOT
908.354
SPOT
908.831
SPOT
908.032
SPOT
907.493
SPOT
908.581
SPOT
908.407
SPOT
907.607
SPOT
909.03
SPOT
908.734
SPOT
907.462
SPOT
908.988 SPOT
908.647SPOT
908.43
SPOT
907.72
SPOT
907.558
SPOT
908.377
SPOT
908.644
SPOT
909.105
SPOT
908.499
SPOT
908.417
SPOT
907.651
SPOT
909.942SPOT
910.011 SPOT
908.777
SPOT
909.547
SPOT
909.677
SPOT
909.774
SPOT
908.813
SPOT
908.776
SPOT
908.821
SPOT
908.55
SPOT
907.661
SPOT
908.291
SPOT
908.636
SPOT
908.227
SPOT
907.196
SPOT
908.636
SPOT
908.638
SPOT
908.819
SPOT
908.987
SPOT
908.177
SPOT
907.228
SPOT
907.371
SPOT
908.288
SPOT
908.663
SPOT
908.772
SPOT
910.662
SPOT
910.077
SPOT
909.489
SPOT
908.369
SPOT
909.148 SPOT
909.054
SPOT
913.522 SPOT
913.801SPOT
913.793
SPOT
914.353
SPOT
912.001
SPOT
914.921SPOT
915.582
SPOT
914.823
SPOT
908.775
SPOT
907.722
SPOT
906.544
SPOT
906.717
SPOT
907.692
SPOT
908.055
SPOT
906.996
SPOT
906.978
SPOT
907.709
SPOT
906.678
SPOT
906.74SPOT
907.844
SPOT
907.782
SPOT
907.229
SPOT
908.305
SPOT
914.048SPOT
911.9
SPOT
914.371
SPOT
913.653
SPOT
911.191
SPOT
913.66
SPOT
909.374
SPOT
908.477
SPOT
909.179 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Survey Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 80 feet
0 80
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Survey Map 3
Parcels
918.131
906.756
Elevation
SPOT
MARSH
FES
Survey Point
Page 26
6518 20TH AVE
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122320001
BURQUE, FRANCES GEORGE
Parcel ID: 253122330001
1926 BIRCH ST
FARRELL PROPERTIES LLC
Parcel ID: 263122410002
CTRL
912.274SPOT
912.472
SPOT
907.493
SPOT
909.179
SPOT
909.115 SPOT
907.5
SPOT
908.813
SPOT
907.077SPOT
907.431
SPOT
908.251
SPOT
907.495
SPOT
907.407
SPOT
907.09
SPOT
907.159 SPOT
908.492
SPOT
907.368
SPOT
908.461
SPOT
908.666
SPOT
907.478
SPOT
907.085
SPOT
907.452
SPOT
909.465
SPOT
908.39SPOT
908.311
SPOT
908.731
SPOT
909.046
SPOT
908.451
SPOT
908.015
SPOT
909.786
SPOT
908.658SPOT
907.971
SPOT
909.787
SPOT
909.118
SPOT
907.745SPOT
906.893
SPOT
908.989 SPOT
908.437
SPOT
907.094
SPOT
908.889
SPOT
908.828
SPOT
908.957SPOT
908.046
SPOT
908.755
SPOT
907.896
SPOT
902.879
FES
905.137
SPOT
902.868
SPOT
907.12
SPOT
906.224SPOT
907.674 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Survey Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 80 feet
0 80
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Survey Map 4
Parcels
918.131
906.756
Elevation
SPOT
MARSH
FES
Survey Point
Page 27
6443 20TH AVE
KRIEGLER, MICHAEL J
Parcel ID: 263122440005
6483 20TH AVE
KNABE JUDITH
Parcel ID: 263122440003
1926 BIRCH ST
FARRELL PROPERTIES LLC
Parcel ID: 263122410002 SPOT
910.309
SPOT
909.843
FES
905.38
FES
905.265
SPOT
909.852
SPOT
907.31
SPOT
911.82
SPOT
911.222SPOT
906.789
SPOT
911.964
SPOT
909.786
SPOT
907.381
SPOT
912.201
SPOT
907.647
SPOT
908.136
SPOT
907.69
SPOT
907.239
SPOT
909.854
SPOT
907.395
SPOT
910.817
SPOT
909.194
SPOT
907.615
SPOT
905.322
SPOT
905.201
SPOT
906.991
SPOT
909.738
SPOT
908.255 SPOT
905.378
SPOT
905.073
SPOT
908.806
SPOT
907.597SPOT
905.856
SPOT
904.954
SPOT
905.243
SPOT
904.54
SPOT
916.214
SPOT
910.381
SPOT
906.408
SPOT
905.347 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Survey Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 80 feet
0 80
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Survey Map 5
Parcels
918.131
906.756
Elevation
SPOT
MARSH
FES
Survey Point
Page 28
6443 20TH AVE
KRIEGLER, MICHAEL JParcel ID: 263122440005
6433 20TH AVE
VESEL MATHEW P & MARY E
Parcel ID: 263122440004
CARDINAL JR, ANDREW J
Parcel ID: 353122120001
CARDINAL, JAMES G
Parcel ID: 263122430001
FES
912.427
SPOT
910.229
FES
906.791
SPOT
913.563
SPOT
908.988
SPOT
907.193
SPOT
914.159
SPOT
907.498
SPOT
907.329
SPOT
907.616
SPOT
906.066
SPOT
908.019
SPOT
909.295
SPOT
906.24SPOT
906.364 SPOT
907.865 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Survey Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 80 feet
0 80
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Survey Map 6
Parcels
918.131
906.756
Elevation
SPOT
MARSH
FES
Survey Point
Page 29
CARDINAL JR, ANDREW J
Parcel ID: 353122120001
SPOT
911.642SPOT
906.91
MARSH
907.73 MARSH
908.259
MARSH
908.185
MARSH
909.059
MARSH
909.73
MARSH
908.5
SPOT
910.638
SPOT
909.271
SPOT
912.108
SPOT
911.115
SPOT
908.923
SPOT
909.722
SPOT
911.033
SPOT
906.264
SPOT
907.142
SPOT
906.418
SPOT
907.919
SPOT
908.887
SPOT
907.552
SPOT
906.265
SPOT
904.819
SPOT
904.923
SPOT
905.326
SPOT
907.432 Document Path: K:\020018-000\GIS\Maps\WR Map\Survey Map Date Saved: 6/16/2023¯1 inch = 80 feet
0 80
FeetAmelia Ditch Drainage Study
City of Lino Lakes
Survey Map 7
Parcels
918.131
906.756
Elevation
SPOT
MARSH
FES
Survey Point
Page 30
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 31
1 – Culvert C Upstream
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 32
2 - North Main Branch
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 33
3 - North Side Branch
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 34
4 - North Vegetation
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 35
5 –Culvert C Downstream
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 36
6 – Submerged Downstream End of Culvert C
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 37
7 – Channel in 1926 Birch St Property
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 38
8 – Channel Upstream of Culvert D
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 39
9 –Upstream End of Culvert D
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 40
10 –Submerged Upstream End of Culvert D
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 41
11 – Channel Downstream of Culvert D
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 42
12 –Submerged Downstream End of Culvert D
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 43
13 – Looking West Down Tributary Side Ditch
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 44
14 – Property Fence South of Side Ditch
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 45
15 – Narrowing of Channel Near Side Ditch
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 46
16 – Side Ditch Delta
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 47
17 – Side Ditch Delta
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 48
18 – Looking East Down Tributary Side Ditch
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 49
19 – Channel in 6443 20th Ave Property
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 50
20 – Channel Debris in 6443 20th Ave Property
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 51
21 - Culvert E Upstream Pool
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 52
22 - Culvert E Downstream End
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 53
23 – Culvert E Downstream End
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 54
24 - Culvert E Downstream Channel
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 55
25 - 6433 20th Ave Bridge Upstream Channel
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 56
26 - 6433 20th Ave Bridge Downstream Channel
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 57
27 – Channel Debris in 1826 Birch St Property
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 58
28 – Culvert F Upstream Pool
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 59
29 – Culvert F Upstream Channel
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 60
30 – Culvert F Upstream Channel
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 61
31 – Culvert F Downstream End
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 62
32 – Culvert F Downstream Erosion
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 63
33 – Culvert F Heaving
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 64
34 – Culvert F Downstream Channel Debris
Amelia Ditch Study
June 19, 2023
Page 65
35 – Channel to Lake Amelia
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 7
STAFF ORGINATOR: Meg Sawyer, Human Resources and Communications Manager
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Paid On-Call Fire Compensation Plan
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
In 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-61, which established the compensation plan
for Paid On-Call fire personnel. In 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-97, which
amended the compensation plan for Paid On-Call fire personnel, specifically the pre-service
training hourly rate. At the time, this rate was below minimum wage. The League of Minnesota
Cities issued guidance in 2017 that Paid On-Call Firefighter wages were not subject to the
minimum wage law. In 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-84, which amended the
compensation plan for Paid On-Call Fire personnel. Resolution No. 21-84, requires staff to review
the compensation plan for Paid On-Call Fire personnel on a biennial basis (every two years) and
the City Council to consider whether an amendment to the plan is warranted. The current
compensation plan for Paid On-Call Fire personnel is as follows:
2020 Hourly
Wage
2021
Hourly
Wage
Starting Wage $10.50 $15.00
Upon Completion of 5 Years of Service $13.50 $16.50
Upon Completion of 10 Years of Service $14.00 $17.08
Upon Completion of 15 Years of Service $14.50 $17.68
Upon Completion of 20 Years of Service $15.00 $18.29
In addition to the hourly compensation outlined above, all Paid-On Call Firefighters are enrolled
in the Statewide Volunteer Firefighters (SVF) pension plan that is administered by the Public
Employees Retirement Association (PERA). The Lino Lakes Paid-On Call pension plan benefit level
per year of service is $7,000. This benefit level is the third highest benefit level of the 206 fire
departments enrolled in the SVF pension plan. Lino Lakes Paid-On Call Firefighters are partially
vested after 5 years of service and fully vested after 20 years of service. Attached to this report
2
are documents from PERA with details on the SVF pension plan and list of fire departments that
participate in the SVF pension plan.
When Paid-On Call Firefighters are hired and do not have the required Firefighter 1, Firefighter
2, & Hazardous Materials Awareness certifications, the City provides this training through the
Anoka County Fire Academy. While the Paid-On Call Firefighter is attending the Anoka County
Fire Academy they are not paid an hourly wage but are compensated with $1,200 stipend upon
completion and certification of Firefighter 1 and second stipend of $1,400 upon completion and
certification of Firefighter 2 and Hazardous Materials. It should be noted that during this
preservice training time, Paid-On Call Firefighters are eligible to respond to calls for service as a
Probationary Firefighter and receive the starting hourly wage for response to fire calls for service.
Lino Lakes Paid-On Call Firefighters that are assigned to serve as Paid-On Call Fire Lieutenant are
paid a stipend of $225 per month and those assigned to serve as Paid-On Call District Chief are
paid a stipend of $300 per month. There are two Paid-On Call Fire Lieutenants assigned to each
fire station and one Paid-On Call District Chief assigned to each fire station.
In an effort to continue to recruit and retain Paid On-Call Fire personnel, staff has recently
conducted another market study of the hourly rates of pay for Paid On-Call Fire personnel in the
metro area and throughout the state. The study found that on average, Paid On-Call Firefighters
were paid a starting wage of $16.04 per hour. The maximum hourly starting wage was $20.25
and the minimum hourly starting wage was $10.59.
City Starting Wage Top Wage
Apple Valley $18.05 $18.05
Brainerd $18.79 $21.79
Centennial Fire $13.25 $13.25
Chaska* $16.75 $26.56
Columbia Heights* $10.59 $16.50
Elk River $15.62 $18.62
Faribault $15.26 $17.67
Forest Lake* $20.25 $23.25
Hastings * $16.92 $16.92
Hopkins* $17.15 $17.15
Hugo $15.90 $28.50
Lake Elmo $16.35 $18.68
Lino Lakes $15.00 $18.29
Minnetonka $15.51 $18.74
New Brighton* $17.60 $17.60
Plymouth $13.44 $16.48
Roseville $17.39 $17.39
St. Anthony $14.86 $14.86
3
Average $16.04 $18.91
Max $20.25 $28.50
Min $10.59 $13.25
*Keystone Compensation Plan Peer Group City
Based on this research, staff is recommending an increase in the starting hourly rate of pay from
the current $15.00 to $17.50. Upon completion of every five years of service, Paid On-Call
Firefighters would receive an additional increase in their hourly rate of pay of $1.50. The
recommended increase in the starting hourly wage is 9% over the researched average starting
hourly rate of pay.
Current Hourly Wage Recommended Hourly Wage
Starting Wage $15.00 $17.50
Upon Completion of 5 Years of Service $16.50 $19.00
Upon Completion of 10 Years of Service $17.08 $20.50
Upon Completion of 15 Years of Service $17.68 $22.00
Upon Completion of 20 Years of Service $18.29 $23.50
If approved, staff is also recommending that Paid On-Call Fire personnel be eligible for the annual
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) approved as part of the Compensation Plan for non-union
employees.
The 2024 budget impact of the proposed amendments is approximately $17,650 which is already
accounted for within the proposed contingency budget.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff is seeking Council direction to move forward with implementing an amended compensation
plan for Paid On-Call Firefighters. If approved, staff will request formal Council approval at the
October 9, 2023, City Council meeting with an effective date of October 22, 2023.
ATTACHMENTS
No. 14-61
No. 21-84
PERA Statewide Volunteer Firefighters Plan Retirement Benefits
MN Statewide Volunteer Firefighter Pension Funding Report
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 14-61
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR PAID ON-CALL FIRE PERSONNEL
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes has decided to integrate fire services into the Public Safety
Department; and
WHEREAS, the wages and compensation of paid on-call fire personnel is a vital component of
an effective recruitment and retention program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes values a professional and engaged workforce.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that
the city does hereby establish the compensation plan for paid on-call fire personnel as follow:
Firefighter Per Hour Wage
Pre -service training; Calls only not paid for hours in pre -
service training 9.00
Upon completion of basic fire training 10. 50
Upon completion of EMT 12.00
Upon completion of 5 years of service 13.50
Upon completion of 10 years of service 14.00
Upon completion of 15 years of service 14.50
Upon completion of 20 years of service 15.00
Fire Command / Officer Monthly Stipend
Fire Lieutenant 225.00
Station Chief / Deputy Chief 300.00
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 23rd day of June 2014.
The motion for the adoption ofthe foregoing resolution was introduced by Council MemberKustermanandwasdulysecondedbyCouncilMemberanduponvote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Kusterman, Roeser, Rafferty, Stoesz, REinert
The following voted against same:
none I
1...
Jeff Reinert, or
ATTEST:
Ju ne Bartell, City C1$rk
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16- 97
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR PAID ON-CALL FIRE PERSONNEL
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes has integrated fire services into the Public Safety
Department; and
WHEREAS, the wages and compensation of paid on-call fire personnel is a vital component of
an effective recruitment and retention program; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 14-61 established the compensation for paid on-call fire personnel;
and
WHEREAS, due to changes in the minimum wage law, the pre -service training hourly rate
needs to be increased to be in compliance with state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that
the City hereby amends the compensation plan for paid on-call fire personnel, effective August 1,
2016:
Fire Fighter Per Hour Wage
For calls during pre -service training 9. 50
Upon completion of the basic fire training (FFI &FFII) 10.50
Upon completion of EMT 12.00
Upon completion of 5 years of service 13.50
Upon completion of 10 years of service 14.00
Upon completion of 15 years of service 14.50
Upon completion of 20 years of service 15.00
Fire Command/ Officer Monthly Stipend
Fire Lieutenant 225.00
Station Chief/ Deputy Chief 300.00
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 25th day of July 2016.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
Rafferty and was duly seconded by Council Member Maher and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Rafferty, Maher, Manthey, Kusterman
The following voted against same:
none
AT I'EST:
e Bartell, Ci Cler
JeffReinert, Ma • r
1 of 58.1.23
60 EMPIRE DRIVE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2088 1.800.652.9026 | 651.296.7460 | mnpera.org
STATEWIDE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER (SVF) PLAN
The SVF Plan is a Defined Benefit Plan (DBP), however, unlike other DBPs PERA administers, the retirement benefit is a one-
time, lump-sum amount. A volunteer firefighter’s SVF Plan retirement benefit is based on their certified years of service, vesting
status, and the benefit level in effect for their fire department at the time they separate from service. A fire department’s SVF
Plan benefit level is the dollar amount corresponding to each year of a volunteer firefighter’s certified service.
SVF PLAN BENEFIT LEVEL RANGE
The SVF Plan currently offers benefit levels ranging from $500 to $15,000 per year of credited service. This range is subject to
statutory change. Benefit levels are set in $100 increments.
WHO SETS A FIRE DEPARTMENT’S BENEFIT LEVEL IN THE SVF PLAN?
The fire department’s governing body sets the benefit level in the SVF Plan for their volunteer firefighters. The governing body can
elect to approve an increase in the fire department’s benefit level once per year. Benefit level increases approved in a given year are
effective on January 1 of the next year.
At any time, either the fire chief or governing body representative(s) may request that PERA provide a cost analysis showing
the estimated cost of increasing the fire department’s benefit level under the SVF Plan. PERA’s cost analysis is intended to help the fire chief and governing body determine whether and the extent to which a benefit level increase is appropriate for their fire
department. For step-by-step instructions on how to increase a fire department’s benefit level, see the guidance in Consider
Increasing the Benefit Level for My Fire Department.
SVF PLAN VESTING SCHEDULES
A volunteer firefighter’s vesting percentage represents the extent (in a percentage) to which they are entitled to a future
retirement benefit under the SVF Plan. A volunteer firefighter’s years of service determine their vesting percentage.
If the fire department joined the SVF Plan effective prior to January 1, 2023, the following vesting schedule applies:
SVF Plan Retirement Benefits
Years of Service 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Vested %40%44%48%52%56%60%64%68%72%76%80%84%88%92%96%100%
VESTING SCHEDULE 1
Years of Service 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Vested %40%44%48%52%56%60%64%68%72%76%80%84%88%92%96%100%
Years of Service 5 6 7 8 9 10
Vested %40%52%64%76%88%100%
VESTING SCHEDULE 2
If the fire department joined the SVF Plan effective January 1, 2023 or later, the department selected one of the following vesting
schedules:
Years of Service 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Vested %40%46%52%58%64%70%76%82%88%94%100%
VESTING SCHEDULE 3
2 of 58.1.23
60 EMPIRE DRIVE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2088 1.800.652.9026 | 651.296.7460 | mnpera.org
STATEWIDE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER (SVF) PLAN
SVF PLAN RETIREMENT BENEFIT CALCULATION
The SVF Plan retirement benefit is calculated according to the volunteer firefighter’s certified years of service, vesting status, and
the benefit level in effect for their fire department at the time they separate from service. Specifically, the retirement benefit is
calculated as:
[Years of Service x Benefit $ Level x Vested % = $ Retirement Benefit]
The terms in the calculation shown above have the following definitions:
• Years of Service: Certified service at time of separation from service. The SVF Plan retirement benefit calculation rounds
service credits downward to the whole year, meaning, for example, that if a volunteer firefighter serves for 19 years and 11
months, the benefit calculation factors in 19 years of service (no months).
• Benefit $ Level: Annual benefit level (in dollars) per year of service in effect at the time of separation from service.
• Vested Percentage: The extent to which the SVF Plan member has vested their benefit, expressed as a percentage (out of
100%). A SVF Plan member’s vested percentage corresponds to the number of years of certified service they have ren-dered. The member’s vested percentage increases as their certified years of service increase, until 100% vesting is reached
per the applicable fire department’s vesting schedule. To determine a SVF Plan member’s years of service for vesting purpos-
es, PERA counts their certified, non-concurrent volunteer firefighter service rendered at any fire department in the state of
Minnesota (regardless of the fire department’s participation in the SVF Plan).
Vested Percentage Determination Example:
• A volunteer firefighter serves for 3 years at the Green Fire Department and then subsequently serves for 10 years at the
Red Fire Department. The Red Fire Department participates in the SVF Plan, and the Green Fire Department does not.
• Upon separating from service with the Red Fire Department, the volunteer firefighter has, for vesting purposes, 13 total
years of service: [3 years at Green Fire Department + 10 years at Red Fire Department] = 13 years
• The Red Fire Department follows the vesting schedule shown below:
• The volunteer firefighter’s vested percentage with the Red Fire Department is 72%, which is the vested percentage corre-
sponding to 13 years of service.
Retirement Benefit Example 1: Fully Vested
• 50-year old volunteer firefighter separates from service after serving 20 years
• Fire department’s benefit level at the time the volunteer firefighter separates from service is $1,000
• Fire department’s vesting schedule starts at 40% after 5 years of service, increasing by 4% each subsequent year until 100%
vesting is reached after 20 years of service
[20 years x $1,000 x 100%] = $20,000 retirement benefit
Years of Service 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Vested %40%44%48%52%56%60%64%68%72%76%80%84%88%92%96%100%
3 of 58.1.23
60 EMPIRE DRIVE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2088 1.800.652.9026 | 651.296.7460 | mnpera.org
STATEWIDE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER (SVF) PLAN
Retirement Benefit Example 2: Partially Vested
• 50-year old volunteer firefighter separates from service after serving 10 years
• Fire department’s benefit level at the time the volunteer firefighter separates from service is $1,000
• Fire department’s vesting schedule starts at 40% after 5 years of service, increasing by 4% each subsequent year until 100%
vesting is reached after 20 years of service
[10 years x $1,000 x 60%] = $6,000 retirement benefit
Retirement Benefit Example 3: Partially Vested with Some Months of Service
• 50-year old volunteer firefighter separates from service after serving 19 years and 11 months*
• Fire department’s benefit level at the time the volunteer firefighter separates from service is $1,000
• Fire department’s vesting schedule starts at 40% after 5 years of service, increasing by 4% each subsequent year until 100%
vesting is reached after 20 years of service
[19 years x $1,000 x 96%] = $18,240 retirement benefit
* The SVF Plan retirement benefit calculation rounds service credits downward to the whole year.
Retirement Benefit Example 4: Not Vested
• 50-year old volunteer firefighter separates from service after serving 4 years
• Fire department’s benefit level at the time the volunteer firefighter separates from service is $1,000
• Fire department’s vesting schedule starts at 40% after 5 years of service, increasing by 4% each subsequent year until 100%
vesting is reached after 20 years of service
[4 years x $1,000 x 0%] = $0 retirement benefit
Retirement Benefit Example 5: Partially Vested with Service at Multiple Fire Departments*
• 50-year old volunteer firefighter separates from service after serving 3 years at the Green Fire Department and subse-
quently serving 10 years at the Red Fire Department. The Red Fire Department participates in the SVF Plan, and the
Green Fire Department does not.
• The Red Fire Department’s benefit level at the time the volunteer firefighter separates from service is $1,000
• The Red Fire Department’s vesting schedule starts at 40% after 5 years of service, increasing by 4% each subsequent year
until 100% vesting is reached after 20 years of service
[10 years x $1,000 x 72%] = $7,200 retirement benefit paid by the Red Fire Department
* The benefit calculation in this example is based on (1) the 10 years of service rendered at the Red Fire Department, (2) the $1,000 benefit level in effect for the Red Fire Department, and (3) the vested percentage achieved with 13 years of total service rendered
between the Green (3 years) and Red (10 years) Fire Departments.
4 of 58.1.23
60 EMPIRE DRIVE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2088 1.800.652.9026 | 651.296.7460 | mnpera.org
STATEWIDE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER (SVF) PLAN
Retirement Benefit Example 6: Partially Vested with Service at Multiple Fire Departments*
• 50-year old volunteer firefighter separates from service after serving 3 years at the Green Fire Department, then 10 years
at the Red Fire Department, and then 5 years at the Blue Fire Department. The Red and Blue Fire Departments participate in the SVF Plan, and the Green Fire Department does not.
• The Red Fire Department’s benefit level at the time the volunteer firefighter separates from service with the Red Fire De-
partment is $1,000
• The Blue Fire Department’s benefit level at the time the volunteer firefighter separates from service with the Blue Fire
Department is $2,000
• The Red and Blue Fire Departments both have vesting schedules starting at 40% after 5 years of service, increasing by 4%
each subsequent year until 100% vesting is reached after 20 years of service.
[10 years x $1,000 x 72%] = $7,200 retirement benefit paid by the Red Fire Department
[5 years x $2,000 x 92%] = $9,200 retirement benefit paid by the Blue Fire Department
* The vested percentage achieved with 13 years of total service rendered between the Green (3 years) and Red (10 years) Fire De-
partments is 72% according to the Red Fire Department’s vesting schedule. The vested percentage achieved with 18 years of total
service rendered between the Green (3 years), Red (10 years), and Blue (5 years) Fire Departments is 92% according to the Blue Fire
Department’s vesting schedule.
TAXABILITY OF SVF PLAN BENEFITS
Unless the SVF Plan member or survivor elects different tax treatment on their benefit application form, PERA automatically
withholds applicable federal and Minnesota state income taxes from the gross, lump-sum amount of the SVF Plan benefit.
PERA does not withhold income tax for any state other than Minnesota. The SVF Plan member or survivor may elect to roll their
benefit over to another tax-qualified retirement account with no federal or Minnesota state taxes withheld. For additional details
on how your SVF Plan retirement benefit or survivor benefit will be taxed (including the applicable tax rates), see the SVF Plan
Retirement Benefit Application or SVF Plan Survivor Benefit Application.
DEFERRED SVF PLAN RETIREMENT BENEFITS
For firefighters who defer their retirement benefit AFTER the fire department joins the SVF Plan: No interest is earned on benefits deferred under the SVF Plan. When the firefighter eventually collects their deferred retirement benefit, the lump-sum
amount is calculated as:
[Years of Service x Benefit $ Level effective at time of deferral x Vested % = $ Retirement Benefit]
For firefighters who defer their retirement benefit BEFORE the fire department joins the SVF Plan: If a firefighter deferred their
benefit prior to the fire department joining the SVF Plan, the rules of the relief association will apply to the calculation of their benefit. In other words, PERA will calculate the firefighter’s retirement benefit according to the relief association’s vesting require-
ments, benefit level, interest earnings, and retirement age applicable at the time the firefighter deferred.
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS
In addition to a lump-sum retirement benefit, the SVF Plan provides volunteer firefighters with a one-time cash supplemental ben-efit, equivalent to that outlined in Minnesota Statutes 424A.10. PERA applies for reimbursement of these supplemental benefits
from the Minnesota Department of Revenue and deposits the reimbursement into the fire department’s SVF Plan account.
5 of 58.1.23
60 EMPIRE DRIVE, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2088 1.800.652.9026 | 651.296.7460 | mnpera.org
STATEWIDE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER (SVF) PLAN
SURVIVOR BENEFITS
SVF Plan members do not specify their survivor beneficiaries. Instead, the succession of SVF Plan survivor beneficiaries is set in
state statute. PERA pays the applicable SVF Plan survivor benefit to the surviving spouse of the deceased volunteer firefighter. If
no spouse exists, PERA pays the benefit to the volunteer firefighter’s minor children. If no spouse or minor children exist, the de-ceased volunteer firefighter’s estate receives the benefits. The survivor benefit amount is equal to the retirement benefit that would
have been payable to the firefighter at age 50 based on their service credit earned as of the date of death.
APPLY FOR AN SVF PLAN RETIREMENT BENEFIT OR SURVIVOR BENEFIT
For instructions on how to apply for a SVF Plan benefit, see the guidance provided in Apply for a Retirement Benefit or Survivor Benefit.
SVF PLAN MONTHLY BENEFIT DIVISION
The SVF Plan is designed to pay a lump-sum retirement benefit, rather than to pay annuities on a monthly basis. However, PERA
can administer the pension for fire departments that currently pay monthly benefits to their volunteer firefighters. Eligibility for
monthly benefits is based on the fire department’s pension plan document. The application for monthly benefits is available from
the department’s fire chief rather than PERA. Firefighters work directly with the department’s fire chief to apply for monthly
benefits.
DISABILITY BENEFITS
The SVF Plan does not currently provide disability benefits.
The following data contains some elements of the Annual Funding Reports PERA prepares and distributes
annually by August 1 to each fire department participating in the Statewide Volunteer Firefighter (SVF)
Plan. The Annual Funding Report details the fire department’s SVF Plan funding status and any required
contribution for the following year.
Please exercise caution when using this data to draw conclusions or make decisions about a fire depart-
ment’s benefit level. Users should contact PERA at PERASVF@mnpera.org to understand the impact of
potential changes to the fire department’s SVF Plan benefit level.
DATA COMPILATION OF STATEWIDE VOLUNTEER
FIREFIGHTER PLAN ANNUAL FUNDING REPORTS
Member: 651.296.7460 or 1.800.652.9026
Employer: 651.296.3636 or 1.888.892.737260 Empire Drive, Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55103-2088 mnpera.org
Fire Department SVF Plan Membership Date
Benefit Level per Year of Service
AMOUNTS PROJECTED TO 12/31/2023 COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT
Annual Financial Requirement
REDUCTIONS TO ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT Total Reductions to Annual Financial Requirement
Required Contribution Due 12/31/2024
Present Value of Assets Accrued Liability Surplus or (Deficit)Funding Ratio
Increase in Lia-bility Between 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024
Administrative Fees One-tenth Deficit/(Surplus) Fire State Aid Supplemental State Aid 6% Assumed Interest
A B (A - B)(A / B)C D E (C + D + E)F G H (F + G + H)
Alborn (Township)01/01/2010 $1,200 $206,109 $152,653 $53,456 135%$17,399 $660 $(5,346)$12,713 $(11,661)$(2,197)$(12,367)$(26,225) None
DeGraff (City)01/01/2010 $500 $111,469 $59,507 $51,962 187%$7,875 $510 $(5,196)$3,189 $(6,108)$(1,151)$(6,688)$(13,947) None
Manchester (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2010 $2,300 $319,623 $318,703 $921 100%$33,164 $450 $(92)$33,521 $(8,885)$(1,674)$(19,177)$(29,736)$3,785
North Star (Township)01/01/2010 $500 $156,455 $93,518 $62,937 167%$8,598 $720 $(6,294)$3,024 $(8,885)$(1,674)$(9,387)$(19,946) None
Ottertail (City)01/01/2010 $1,500 $756,394 $537,309 $219,085 141%$29,078 $750 $(21,909)$7,920 $(20,325)$(3,829)$(45,384)$(69,538) None
Twin Valley (City)01/01/2010 $1,300 $384,826 $291,854 $92,972 132%$28,321 $1,020 $(9,297)$20,044 $(11,661)$(2,197)$(23,090)$(36,948) None
Alden (City)01/01/2011 $1,200 $305,306 $333,166 $(27,860)92%$24,902 $840 $2,786 $28,528 $(13,327)$(2,511)$(18,318)$(34,156) None
Biwabik (Township)01/01/2011 $1,600 $362,236 $301,247 $60,989 120%$19,807 $510 $(6,099)$14,218 $(10,551)$(1,988)$(21,734)$(34,273) None
Buyck (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2011 $1,000 $187,506 $127,869 $59,637 147%$15,657 $810 $(5,964)$10,504 $(6,664)$(1,255)$(11,250)$(19,169) None
Crane Lake (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2011 $1,000 $261,510 $209,764 $51,746 125%$17,695 $630 $(5,175)$13,150 $(5,553)$(1,046)$(15,691)$(22,290) None
Elbow Tulaby Lakes (Firefight-ing Corp)01/01/2011 $1,500 $154,631 $97,412 $57,219 159%$11,515 $270 $(5,722)$6,063 $(7,774)$(1,465)$(9,278)$(18,517) None
Emmons (City)01/01/2011 $1,000 $529,443 $274,300 $255,143 193%$17,967 $810 $(25,514)$(6,737)$(10,551)$(1,988)$(31,767)$(44,305) None
Grand Marais (City)01/01/2011 $2,300 $494,635 $407,721 $86,915 121%$35,829 $660 $(8,691)$27,798 $(19,974)$(3,763)$(29,678)$(53,416) None
Lakeland (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2011 $1,500 $568,906 $559,890 $9,016 102%$33,563 $870 $(902)$33,531 $(9,440)$(1,779)$(34,134)$(45,353) None
Lexington (City)01/01/2011 $5,000 $613,468 $666,484 $(53,016)92%$63,191 $840 $5,302 $69,332 $(12,305)$(2,318)$(36,808)$(51,431)$17,901
Lutsen (Township)01/01/2011 $2,000 $366,520 $329,839 $36,681 111%$24,813 $540 $(3,668)$21,685 $(14,395)$(2,712)$(21,991)$(39,098) None
Scandia (City)01/01/2011 $3,500 $942,614 $885,248 $57,366 106%$76,887 $930 $(5,737)$72,080 $(36,076)$(6,797)$(56,557)$(99,430) None
Warba - Feeley - Sago (City/
Twp)
01/01/2011 $1,500 $365,524 $271,948 $93,576 134%$18,532 $600 $(9,358)$9,775 $(10,551)$(1,988)$(21,931)$(34,470) None
Brandon (City)01/01/2012 $1,600 $496,343 $555,540 $(59,197)89%$36,671 $960 $5,920 $43,550 $(15,066)$(2,838)$(29,781)$(47,685) None
Breitung (Township)01/01/2012 $2,500 $531,720 $643,013 $(111,292)83%$49,308 $720 $11,129 $61,157 $(12,217)$(2,302)$(31,903)$(46,421)$14,736
Carsonville (Township)01/01/2012 $2,000 $447,276 $386,259 $61,017 116%$39,692 $930 $(6,102)$34,521 $(18,625)$(3,509)$(26,837)$(48,970) None
Colvill (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2012 $1,400 $183,536 $201,743 $(18,207)91%$14,083 $480 $1,821 $16,384 $(7,774)$(1,465)$(11,012)$(20,251) None
Ellsburg (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2012 $900 $206,541 $145,806 $60,735 142%$17,097 $780 $(6,074)$11,804 $(3,887)$(732)$(12,392)$(17,011) None
Embarrass Region (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2012 $1,000 $340,704 $206,348 $134,356 165%$14,368 $780 $(13,436)$1,712 $(7,497)$(1,412)$(20,442)$(29,351) None
Hardwick (City)01/01/2012 $1,100 $276,750 $210,213 $66,537 132%$16,256 $690 $(6,654)$10,292 $(10,861)$(2,046)$(16,605)$(29,512) None
Lester Prairie (City)01/01/2012 $1,500 $593,424 $706,844 $(113,419)84%$43,904 $1,020 $11,342 $56,266 $(16,678)$(3,142)$(35,605)$(55,426)$840
McKinley (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2012 $600 $197,457 $67,432 $130,025 293%$4,483 $390 $(13,003)$(8,130)$(7,774)$(1,465)$(11,847)$(21,086) None
Normanna (Township)01/01/2012 $900 $142,245 $62,330 $79,915 228%$9,856 $630 $(7,991)$2,495 $(6,664)$(1,255)$(8,535)$(16,454) None
Palo (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2012 $2,100 $461,655 $546,828 $(85,173)84%$36,876 $600 $8,517 $45,993 $(12,217)$(2,302)$(27,699)$(42,217)$3,776
Pennock (Joint Power Entity)01/01/2012 $1,400 $562,504 $401,834 $160,670 140%$26,855 $930 $(16,067)$11,718 $(15,110)$(2,847)$(33,750)$(51,706) None
Pequaywan Lake (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2012 $1,000 $159,904 $173,375 $(13,471)92%$16,377 $570 $1,347 $18,294 $(7,219)$(1,360)$(9,594)$(18,173)$121
Scandia Valley (Township)01/01/2012 $3,000 $594,245 $751,843 $(157,598)79%$59,794 $750 $15,760 $76,304 $(15,455)$(2,912)$(35,655)$(54,022)$22,282
Sunburg (City)01/01/2012 $500 $359,237 $204,881 $154,356 175%$13,150 $870 $(15,436)$(1,416)$(12,772)$(2,406)$(21,554)$(36,732) None
Tower (City)01/01/2012 $1,000 $285,467 $92,260 $193,207 309%$3,777 $600 $(19,321)$(14,944)$(8,329)$(1,569)$(17,128)$(27,027) None
Willmar (City)01/01/2012 $6,000 $2,057,202 $1,916,029 $141,173 107%$175,582 $1,380 $(14,117)$162,845 $(113,690)$(21,419)$(123,432)$(258,542) None
Fire Department SVF Plan Membership Date
Benefit Level per Year of Service
AMOUNTS PROJECTED TO 12/31/2023 COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT
Annual Financial Requirement
REDUCTIONS TO ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT Total Reductions to Annual Financial Requirement
Required Contribution Due 12/31/2024
Present Value of Assets Accrued Liability Surplus or (Deficit)Funding Ratio
Increase in Lia-bility Between 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024
Administrative Fees One-tenth Deficit/(Surplus) Fire State Aid Supplemental State Aid 6% Assumed Interest
A B (A - B)(A / B)C D E (C + D + E)F G H (F + G + H)
Albert Lea (City)01/01/2013 $4,000 $860,413 $342,039 $518,374 252%$40,522 $690 $(51,837)$(10,625) Allocated;
Combined
FD
$(17,678)$(51,625)$(69,303) None
Ashby (City)01/01/2013 $1,300 $660,971 $495,287 $165,684 133%$31,663 $870 $(16,568)$15,965 $(15,139)$(2,852)$(39,658)$(57,649) None
Canby (City)01/01/2013 $2,700 $744,840 $617,457 $127,383 121%$52,604 $990 $(12,738)$40,856 $(23,033)$(4,339)$(44,690)$(72,062) None
Clifton(Firefighting Corp)01/01/2013 $2,700 $743,825 $660,872 $82,953 113%$59,513 $1,020 $(8,295)$52,238 $(14,354)$(2,704)$(44,630)$(61,688) None
Dalbo(Firefighting Corp)01/01/2013 $1,800 $544,323 $395,465 $148,858 138%$31,427 $840 $(14,886)$17,381 $(15,429)$(2,907)$(32,659)$(50,995) None
Dent (City)01/01/2013 $1,800 $428,066 $386,801 $41,265 111%$31,474 $810 $(4,127)$28,158 $(25,831)$(4,867)$(25,684)$(56,382) None
Echo (City)01/01/2013 $1,200 $361,406 $303,887 $57,518 119%$16,562 $540 $(5,752)$11,350 $(9,440)$(1,779)$(21,684)$(32,903) None
Fairfax (City)01/01/2013 $3,000 $633,032 $656,740 $(23,708)96%$52,258 $960 $2,371 $55,589 $(19,352)$(3,646)$(37,982)$(60,980) None
Federal Dam (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2013 $500 $206,101 $52,779 $153,322 390%$5,316 $510 $(15,332)$(9,506) Withheld by DOR; no Form FA-1 $(12,366)$(12,366) None
Fredenberg (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2013 $1,800 $360,218 $399,825 $(39,607)90%$30,954 $750 $3,961 $35,665 $(10,868)$(2,048)$(21,613)$(34,529)$1,136
Gilbert (City)01/01/2013 $1,800 $305,286 $370,644 $(65,358)82%$30,009 $600 $6,536 $37,145 $(11,106)$(2,092)$(18,317)$(31,515)$5,630
Gnesen (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2013 $2,800 $458,490 $628,186 $(169,696)73%$55,029 $810 $16,970 $72,809 $(11,227)$(2,115)$(27,509)$(40,851)$31,957
Grand Lake (Township)01/01/2013 $4,000 $631,553 $495,692 $135,860 127%$51,670 $1,020 $(13,586)$39,104 $(17,021)$(3,207)$(37,893)$(58,121) None
Granite Falls (City)01/01/2013 $2,600 $663,427 $758,172 $(94,745)88%$76,338 $1,050 $9,474 $86,863 $(27,303)$(5,144)$(39,806)$(72,253)$14,610
Hovland (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2013 $2,000 $278,197 $261,129 $17,068 107%$34,708 $600 $(1,707)$33,601 $(7,077)$(1,333)$(16,692)$(25,102)$8,499
Industrial (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2013 $1,300 $471,083 $342,986 $128,097 137%$20,015 $600 $(12,810)$7,805 $(8,885)$(1,674)$(28,265)$(38,824) None
Lake Bronson (City)01/01/2013 $900 $301,863 $174,610 $127,253 173%$16,152 $840 $(12,725)$4,267 $(13,882)$(2,615)$(18,112)$(34,609) None
Le Sueur (City)01/01/2013 $5,300 $1,222,044 $1,321,002 $(98,958)93%$128,503 $810 $9,896 $139,208 $(41,647)$(7,846)$(73,323)$(122,816)$16,392
Mayer (City)01/01/2013 $3,200 $912,591 $1,202,487 $(289,895)76%$84,075 $1,080 $28,990 $114,144 $(16,712)$(3,149)$(54,755)$(74,616)$39,528
Melrose (City)01/01/2013 $3,200 $746,935 $796,072 $(49,137)94%$74,429 $1,110 $4,914 $80,453 $(33,662)$(6,342)$(44,816)$(84,820) None
Northome (City)01/01/2013 $700 $198,873 $141,706 $57,167 140%$13,068 $720 $(5,717)$8,071 $(9,440)$(1,779)$(11,932)$(23,151) None
Norwood Young America (City)01/01/2013 $3,000 $726,741 $904,770 $(178,029)80%$66,398 $1,020 $17,803 $85,221 $(31,316)$(5,900)$(43,604)$(80,820)$4,400
Osakis (City)01/01/2013 $4,800 $1,052,624 $946,829 $105,794 111%$87,072 $690 $(10,579)$77,183 $(30,312)$(5,711)$(63,157)$(99,180) None
Rice Lake (City)01/01/2013 $4,000 $612,330 $594,459 $17,871 103%$73,477 $960 $(1,787)$72,650 $(22,724)$(4,281)$(36,740)$(63,745)$8,905
Shevlin (City)01/01/2013 $1,600 $440,094 $482,501 $(42,407)91%$32,508 $900 $4,241 $37,649 $(8,885)$(1,674)$(26,406)$(36,965)$684
Ulen (City)01/01/2013 $1,200 $464,723 $430,341 $34,382 108%$29,142 $900 $(3,438)$26,604 $(13,327)$(2,511)$(27,883)$(43,721) None
Wolf Lake (City)01/01/2013 $1,400 $375,964 $290,492 $85,472 129%$23,171 $870 $(8,547)$15,494 $(14,576)$(2,746)$(22,558)$(39,881) None
Barnum (City)01/01/2014 $1,700 $495,069 $447,088 $47,981 111%$35,791 $840 $(4,798)$31,833 $(12,772)$(2,406)$(29,704)$(44,882) None
Central Lakes (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2014 $1,600 $138,005 $93,895 $44,110 147%$21,081 $600 $(4,411)$17,270 $(11,106)$(2,092)$(8,280)$(21,478) None
Eagle's Nest (Township)01/01/2014 $1,900 $98,117 $90,700 $7,417 108%$20,371 $480 $(742)$20,109 $(7,219)$(1,360)$(5,887)$(14,466)$5,643
Evergreen (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2014 $1,800 $96,146 $81,748 $14,398 118%$13,387 $300 $(1,440)$12,247 $(7,219)$(1,360)$(5,769)$(14,348) None
Hewitt (City)01/01/2014 $1,600 $246,396 $227,979 $18,417 108%$17,776 $480 $(1,842)$16,414 $(8,329)$(1,569)$(14,784)$(24,682) None
Houston (City)01/01/2014 $1,800 $635,258 $613,064 $22,194 104%$42,556 $900 $(2,219)$41,237 $(17,024)$(3,207)$(38,116)$(58,346) None
Linwood (Township)01/01/2014 $3,400 $921,914 $1,003,402 $(81,487)92%$77,927 $960 $8,149 $87,036 $(32,243)$(6,075)$(55,315)$(93,633) None
Mahtowa (Township)01/01/2014 $1,800 $345,395 $288,843 $56,552 120%$22,972 $540 $(5,655)$17,857 $(12,217)$(2,302)$(20,724)$(35,243) None
Fire Department SVF Plan Membership Date
Benefit Level per Year of Service
AMOUNTS PROJECTED TO 12/31/2023 COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT
Annual Financial Requirement
REDUCTIONS TO ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT Total Reductions to Annual Financial Requirement
Required Contribution Due 12/31/2024
Present Value of Assets Accrued Liability Surplus or (Deficit)Funding Ratio
Increase in Lia-bility Between 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024
Administrative Fees One-tenth Deficit/(Surplus) Fire State Aid Supplemental State Aid 6% Assumed Interest
A B (A - B)(A / B)C D E (C + D + E)F G H (F + G + H)
Mountain Iron (City)01/01/2014 $2,500 $563,146 $373,353 $189,793 151%$40,967 $1,080 $(18,979)$23,068 $(15,530)$(2,926)$(33,789)$(52,245) None
Oak Grove (City)01/01/2014 $4,500 $1,879,096 $1,995,642 $(116,546)94%$133,064 $1,620 $11,655 $146,338 $(55,762)$(10,506)$(112,746)$(179,014) None
Ogilvie (City)01/01/2014 $1,600 $472,225 $478,446 $(6,221)99%$38,018 $930 $622 $39,570 $(18,644)$(3,513)$(28,334)$(50,491) None
Porter (City)01/01/2014 $1,750 $640,308 $568,929 $71,378 113%$36,710 $900 $(7,138)$30,473 $(13,327)$(2,511)$(38,418)$(54,256) None
Victoria (City)01/01/2014 $4,500 $1,873,777 $1,682,622 $191,155 111%$131,093 $1,620 $(19,115)$113,598 $(84,453)$(15,911)$(112,427)$(212,790) None
Waite Park (City)01/01/2014 $4,400 $880,071 $711,942 $168,129 124%$66,472 $780 $(16,813)$50,439 $(47,565)$(8,961)$(52,804)$(109,331) None
Aitkin (City)01/01/2015 $3,900 $1,299,728 $1,314,887 $(15,159)99%$96,651 $840 $1,516 $99,007 $(61,135)$(11,518)$(77,984)$(150,636) None
Cambridge (City)01/01/2015 $5,800 $1,350,525 $1,615,808 $(265,282)84%$165,225 $960 $26,528 $192,713 $(88,901)$(16,749)$(81,032)$(186,682)$6,031
Center City (City)01/01/2015 $2,300 $539,626 $371,948 $167,679 145%$35,778 $780 $(16,768)$19,790 $(15,263)$(2,876)$(32,378)$(50,516) None
Elmore (City)01/01/2015 $1,800 $356,574 $309,938 $46,636 115%$22,706 $480 $(4,664)$18,523 $(7,884)$(1,485)$(21,394)$(30,764) None
Goodview (City)01/01/2015 $3,000 $655,007 $936,497 $(281,490)70%$72,576 $1,020 $28,149 $101,745 $(21,435)$(4,038)$(39,300)$(64,773)$36,972
Kettle River (City)01/01/2015 $800 $218,623 $72,730 $145,893 301%$6,411 $510 $(14,589)$(7,668)$(8,885)$(1,674)$(13,117)$(23,676) None
Lino Lakes (City)01/01/2015 $7,000 $1,174,620 $740,171 $434,449 159%$111,125 $630 $(43,445)$68,310 $(110,170)$(24,820)$(70,477)$(205,467) None
Northland (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2015 $1,250 $134,647 $106,126 $28,521 127%$5,650 $210 $(2,852)$3,008 $(2,776)$(523)$(8,079)$(11,378) None
Plato (City)01/01/2015 $2,000 $397,229 $512,560 $(115,331)77%$32,368 $900 $11,533 $44,801 $(13,882)$(2,615)$(23,834)$(40,331)$4,470
Sabin-Elmwood (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2015 $900 $551,153 $337,220 $213,933 163%$20,206 $840 $(21,393)$(347)$(17,682)$(3,331)$(33,069)$(54,082) None
Sacred Heart (City)01/01/2015 $1,000 $271,302 $261,235 $10,067 104%$25,038 $870 $(1,007)$24,901 $(13,882)$(2,615)$(16,278)$(32,775) None
St. Leo (City)01/01/2015 $1,000 $338,533 $309,462 $29,071 109%$17,863 $600 $(2,907)$15,556 $(9,995)$(1,883)$(20,312)$(32,190) None
Waconia (City)01/01/2015 $5,700 $2,310,647 $1,853,040 $457,607 125%$155,047 $1,380 $(45,761)$110,666 $(101,199)$(19,066)$(138,639)$(258,904) None
Aurora (City)01/01/2016 $2,000 $395,713 $416,372 $(20,659)95%$34,421 $630 $2,066 $37,117 $(10,697)$(2,015)$(23,743)$(36,455)$663
Belview Fire (City)01/01/2016 $900 $323,796 $285,621 $38,175 113%$17,358 $720 $(3,818)$14,260 $(10,551)$(1,988)$(19,428)$(31,966) None
Blomkest (City)01/01/2016 $1,200 $399,926 $198,273 $201,653 202%$8,502 $360 $(20,165)$(11,303)$(13,018)$(2,453)$(23,996)$(39,467) None
Brook Park (City)01/01/2016 $1,200 $379,203 $245,208 $133,995 155%$23,860 $720 $(13,400)$11,181 $(9,440)$(1,779)$(22,752)$(33,971) None
Clarks Grove (City)01/01/2016 $1,000 $303,225 $235,495 $67,730 129%$18,904 $810 $(6,773)$12,941 $(11,588)$(2,183)$(18,194)$(31,965) None
Culver (Township)01/01/2016 $600 $164,792 $69,603 $95,189 237%$7,362 $570 $(9,519)$(1,587)$(6,664)$(1,255)$(9,888)$(17,807) None
Delavan (City)01/01/2016 $1,300 $291,144 $230,297 $60,847 126%$25,222 $720 $(6,085)$19,857 $(9,440)$(1,779)$(17,469)$(28,688) None
Ely (City)01/01/2016 $2,200 $766,057 $816,611 $(50,554)94%$68,692 $1,260 $5,055 $75,007 $(22,091)$(4,162)$(45,963)$(72,216)$2,791
Forada (City)01/01/2016 $1,900 $743,837 $359,435 $384,402 207%$31,885 $930 $(38,440)$(5,625)$(16,104)$(3,034)$(44,630)$(63,768) None
Hill City (City)01/01/2016 $1,200 $316,836 $388,467 $(71,631)82%$23,635 $870 $7,163 $31,668 $(14,438)$(2,720)$(19,010)$(36,168) None
Hollandale (City)01/01/2016 $1,000 $180,615 $128,488 $52,127 141%$17,357 $690 $(5,213)$12,834 $(9,625)$(1,813)$(10,837)$(22,275) None
Hoyt Lakes (City)01/01/2016 $2,100 $373,137 $360,013 $13,124 104%$35,637 $900 $(1,312)$35,224 $(12,217)$(2,302)$(22,388)$(36,906) None
Isanti (Joint Power Entity)01/01/2016 $6,500 $3,190,962 $2,717,514 $473,448 117%$224,652 $1,320 $(47,345)$178,627 $(96,479)$(18,177)$(191,458)$(306,114) None
Kelliher (City)01/01/2016 $1,100 $256,258 $303,036 $(46,779)85%$24,701 $780 $4,678 $30,159 $(12,540)$(2,363)$(15,375)$(30,278) None
Montrose (City)01/01/2016 $5,000 $1,532,264 $1,585,171 $(52,907)97%$93,463 $1,080 $5,291 $99,834 $(26,916)$(5,071)$(91,936)$(123,923) None
Palisade (City)01/01/2016 $1,100 $353,288 $286,038 $67,250 124%$22,761 $810 $(6,725)$16,846 $(11,881)$(2,238)$(21,197)$(35,316) None
Parkers Prairie (City)01/01/2016 $1,800 $339,730 $452,295 $(112,565)75%$45,105 $960 $11,257 $57,322 $(15,548)$(2,929)$(20,384)$(38,861)$18,461
Raymond (City)01/01/2016 $1,400 $525,785 $450,084 $75,701 117%$26,443 $720 $(7,570)$19,592 $(14,870)$(2,802)$(31,547)$(49,219) None
Silver Lake (City)01/01/2016 $1,400 $317,500 $436,512 $(119,012)73%$32,842 $750 $11,901 $45,493 $(15,571)$(2,934)$(19,050)$(37,555)$7,938
Barrett (City)01/01/2017 $1,300 $271,837 $216,953 $54,884 125%$24,379 $660 $(5,488)$19,551 $(11,661)$(2,197)$(16,310)$(30,168) None
Fire Department SVF Plan Membership Date
Benefit Level per Year of Service
AMOUNTS PROJECTED TO 12/31/2023 COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT
Annual Financial Requirement
REDUCTIONS TO ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT Total Reductions to Annual Financial Requirement
Required Contribution Due 12/31/2024
Present Value of Assets Accrued Liability Surplus or (Deficit)Funding Ratio
Increase in Lia-bility Between 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024
Administrative Fees One-tenth Deficit/(Surplus) Fire State Aid Supplemental State Aid 6% Assumed Interest
A B (A - B)(A / B)C D E (C + D + E)F G H (F + G + H)
Bricelyn (City)01/01/2017 $1,100 $464,377 $291,998 $172,380 159%$20,666 $720 $(17,238)$4,148 $(9,440)$(1,779)$(27,863)$(39,081) None
Browerville (City)01/01/2017 $1,500 $446,801 $317,529 $129,272 141%$30,347 $720 $(12,927)$18,140 $(18,159)$(3,421)$(26,808)$(48,388) None
Colvin (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2017 $1,800 $182,545 $102,138 $80,408 179%$16,754 $450 $(8,041)$9,163 $(6,108)$(1,151)$(10,953)$(18,212) None
Cosmos (City)01/01/2017 $1,700 $450,437 $367,877 $82,560 122%$29,250 $750 $(8,256)$21,744 $(12,024)$(2,265)$(27,026)$(41,315) None
Cottage Grove (City)01/01/2017 $9,100 $4,091,969 $3,002,890 $1,089,079 136%$228,831 $1,680 $(108,908)$121,603 $(230,560)$(43,438)$(245,518)$(519,516) None
Crookston (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2017 $4,200 $1,158,298 $1,474,422 $(316,124)79%$94,413 $1,080 $31,612 $127,105 $(31,655)$(5,964)$(69,498)$(107,117)$19,989
French (Township)01/01/2017 $1,000 $279,124 $205,213 $73,911 136%$16,640 $750 $(7,391)$9,999 $(13,327)$(2,511)$(16,747)$(32,585) None
Frost (City)01/01/2017 $900 $352,783 $234,252 $118,531 151%$17,503 $600 $(11,853)$6,250 $(10,551)$(1,988)$(21,167)$(33,706) None
Geneva (City)01/01/2017 $800 $362,681 $411,333 $(48,652)88%$18,423 $930 $4,865 $24,218 $(12,772)$(2,406)$(21,761)$(36,939) None
Greenwood (Township)01/01/2017 $3,000 $611,676 $285,324 $326,352 214%$32,572 $570 $(32,635)$507 $(17,646)$(3,325)$(36,701)$(57,672) None
Henning (City)01/01/2017 $1,100 $580,949 $433,201 $147,748 134%$28,363 $900 $(14,775)$14,488 $(17,939)$(3,380)$(34,857)$(56,176) None
Hermantown (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2017 $6,200 $2,531,635 $1,658,564 $873,071 153%$101,882 $900 $(87,307)$15,475 $(62,373)$(11,751)$(151,898)$(226,022) None
Hitterdal (City)01/01/2017 $800 $369,533 $249,639 $119,894 148%$16,424 $780 $(11,989)$5,215 $(9,995)$(1,883)$(22,172)$(34,050) None
Lancaster (City)01/01/2017 $1,100 $278,761 $237,632 $41,128 117%$25,827 $960 $(4,113)$22,674 $(13,327)$(2,511)$(16,726)$(32,564) None
Lynd (City)01/01/2017 $1,000 $156,834 $125,419 $31,415 125%$13,782 $510 $(3,142)$11,151 $(6,108)$(1,151)$(9,410)$(16,669) None
Mahtomedi (City)01/01/2017 $6,500 $2,378,590 $811,661 $1,566,929 293%$72,724 $780 $(156,693)$(83,189)$(80,379)$(15,144)$(142,715)$(238,238) None
McGregor (City)01/01/2017 $3,000 $1,233,829 $1,226,422 $7,407 101%$70,244 $900 $(741)$70,403 $(37,216)$(7,012)$(74,030)$(118,258) None
Milaca (City)01/01/2017 $5,000 $1,047,187 $934,197 $112,990 112%$86,544 $990 $(11,299)$76,235 $(50,868)$(9,584)$(62,831)$(123,283) None
Newfolden (City)01/01/2017 $600 $265,845 $128,222 $137,623 207%$8,955 $660 $(13,762)$(4,147)$(8,039)$(1,515)$(15,951)$(25,505) None
Pickwick (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2017 $1,400 $99,503 $73,990 $25,513 134%$19,012 $660 $(2,551)$17,121 $(12,217)$(2,302)$(5,970)$(20,489) None
Pike Sandy Britt (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2017 $1,700 $430,228 $372,953 $57,275 115%$29,665 $630 $(5,728)$24,568 $(10,996)$(2,072)$(25,814)$(38,881) None
Solway (Cloquet) (Firefight-ing Corp)01/01/2017 $1,700 $413,192 $189,099 $224,093 219%$13,999 $660 $(22,409)$(7,750)$(11,473)$(2,162)$(24,792)$(38,427) None
Solway Rural Beltrami Co
(Firefighting Corp)
01/01/2017 $1,500 $242,303 $233,591 $8,712 104%$25,180 $660 $(871)$24,968 $(8,885)$(1,674)$(14,538)$(25,097) None
Spring Grove (City)01/01/2017 $1,300 $354,364 $322,470 $31,894 110%$29,161 $1,080 $(3,189)$27,052 $(15,436)$(2,908)$(21,262)$(39,606) None
St Francis (City)01/01/2017 $2,900 $1,194,690 $616,146 $578,544 194%$59,965 $900 $(57,854)$3,011 $(44,659)$(8,414)$(71,681)$(124,754) None
St Paul Park (City)01/01/2017 $2,900 $1,090,117 $695,579 $394,538 157%$53,985 $870 $(39,454)$15,401 $(31,836)$(5,998)$(65,407)$(103,241) None
Stephen (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2017 $1,400 $501,763 $451,602 $50,161 111%$37,867 $960 $(5,016)$33,811 $(14,993)$(2,825)$(30,106)$(47,924) None
Vesta (City)01/01/2017 $600 $248,214 $160,477 $87,738 155%$10,414 $570 $(8,774)$2,210 $(11,106)$(2,092)$(14,893)$(28,091) None
Winnebago (City)01/01/2017 $1,300 $844,681 $565,600 $279,081 149%$36,007 $1,140 $(27,908)$9,238 $(20,557)$(3,873)$(50,681)$(75,110) None
Benson (City)01/01/2018 $1,500 $709,013 $625,995 $83,018 113%$40,868 $1,200 $(8,302)$33,766 $(37,465)$(7,059)$(42,541)$(87,064) None
Biwabik (City)01/01/2018 $1,900 $328,351 $199,618 $128,733 164%$40,105 $1,110 $(12,873)$28,342 $(9,440)$(1,779)$(19,701)$(30,920) None
Brownsville (City)01/01/2018 $500 $379,457 $74,325 $305,132 511%$6,942 $840 $(30,513)$(22,731)$(10,551)$(1,988)$(22,767)$(35,306) None
Hills (City)01/01/2018 $1,500 $391,884 $332,937 $58,947 118%$29,092 $660 $(5,895)$23,858 $(15,130)$(2,851)$(23,513)$(41,494) None
Lake Kabetogama (Firefight-ing Corp)01/01/2018 $1,200 $337,780 $168,866 $168,914 200%$14,639 $540 $(16,891)$(1,712)$(6,664)$(1,255)$(20,267)$(28,186) None
Middle River (City)01/01/2018 $600 $299,609 $139,139 $160,470 215%$10,257 $780 $(16,047)$(5,010)$(9,995)$(1,883)$(17,977)$(29,855) None
Fire Department SVF Plan Membership Date
Benefit Level per Year of Service
AMOUNTS PROJECTED TO 12/31/2023 COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT
Annual Financial Requirement
REDUCTIONS TO ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT Total Reductions to Annual Financial Requirement
Required Contribution Due 12/31/2024
Present Value of Assets Accrued Liability Surplus or (Deficit)Funding Ratio
Increase in Lia-bility Between 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024
Administrative Fees One-tenth Deficit/(Surplus) Fire State Aid Supplemental State Aid 6% Assumed Interest
A B (A - B)(A / B)C D E (C + D + E)F G H (F + G + H)
Miltona (City)01/01/2018 $2,200 $437,579 $555,098 $(117,520)79%$52,985 $780 $11,752 $65,517 $(15,273)$(2,878)$(26,255)$(44,406)$21,111
Minnesota City (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2018 $500 $53,136 $17,765 $35,371 299%$4,212 $360 $(3,537)$1,035 $(7,774)$(1,465)$(3,188)$(12,427) None
Princeton (City)01/01/2018 $5,000 $2,159,748 $2,237,494 $(77,745)97%$172,519 $1,230 $7,775 $181,523 $(79,066)$(14,896)$(129,585)$(223,547) None
Russell (City)01/01/2018 $700 $321,083 $184,399 $136,685 174%$12,873 $690 $(13,668)$(106)$(10,551)$(1,988)$(19,265)$(31,803) None
Schroeder (Township)01/01/2018 $1,500 $286,555 $156,773 $129,782 183%$13,419 $390 $(12,978)$830 $(6,664)$(1,255)$(17,193)$(25,112) None
Vadnais Heights (City)01/01/2018 $6,900 $2,137,469 $1,766,285 $371,184 121%$212,694 $1,680 $(37,118)$177,256 $(88,001)$(16,580)$(128,248)$(232,829) None
Vermilion Lake (Township)01/01/2018 $1,500 $323,054 $331,767 $(8,713)97%$18,576 $480 $871 $19,927 $(8,329)$(1,569)$(19,383)$(29,281) None
Vining (City)01/01/2018 $500 $213,158 $127,161 $85,997 168%$6,536 $660 $(8,600)$(1,404)$(8,885)$(1,674)$(12,789)$(23,348) None
Watertown (City)01/01/2018 $3,100 $1,670,130 $1,200,945 $469,185 139%$85,648 $1,050 $(46,919)$39,780 $(48,647)$(9,165)$(100,208)$(158,020) None
Wells (City)01/01/2018 $2,000 $741,353 $661,941 $79,412 112%$55,041 $900 $(7,941)$48,000 $(25,680)$(4,838)$(44,481)$(74,999) None
Wood Lake (City)01/01/2018 $1,700 $276,638 $282,299 $(5,661)98%$28,534 $810 $566 $29,910 $(10,551)$(1,988)$(16,598)$(29,137)$773
Alaska (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2019 $900 $199,151 $178,194 $20,957 112%$13,344 $540 $(2,096)$11,788 $(7,219)$(1,360)$(11,949)$(20,528) None
Baldwin (Township)01/01/2019 $4,100 $934,121 $905,498 $28,623 103%$105,667 $1,230 $(2,862)$104,035 $(41,520)$(7,822)$(56,047)$(105,389) None
Canton (City)01/01/2019 $600 $162,298 $104,514 $57,784 155%$10,569 $690 $(5,778)$5,481 $(11,106)$(2,092)$(9,738)$(22,936) None
Cotton (Township)01/01/2019 $1,500 $405,454 $300,576 $104,878 135%$21,479 $540 $(10,488)$11,531 $(7,774)$(1,465)$(24,327)$(33,566) None
Cottonwood (City)01/01/2019 $1,400 $716,894 $474,214 $242,680 151%$32,969 $780 $(24,268)$9,481 $(18,627)$(3,509)$(43,014)$(65,150) None
Foxhome (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2019 $1,500 $58,602 $70,517 $(11,915)83%$17,776 $510 $1,192 $19,478 $(9,995)$(1,883)$(3,516)$(15,394)$4,083
Hamburg (City)01/01/2019 $2,000 $560,289 $563,720 $(3,431)99%$40,062 $840 $343 $41,245 $(12,772)$(2,406)$(33,617)$(48,795) None
Hayfield (City)01/01/2019 $2,200 $757,468 $744,679 $12,789 102%$58,857 $960 $(1,279)$58,539 $(30,019)$(5,656)$(45,448)$(81,122) None
International Falls (City)01/01/2019 $3,600 $1,095,786 $869,953 $225,833 126%$98,580 $1,200 $(22,583)$77,197 $(55,330)$(10,424)$(65,747)$(131,501) None
Kiester (City)01/01/2019 $500 $274,885 $157,667 $117,218 174%$8,546 $690 $(11,722)$(2,486)$(13,327)$(2,511)$(16,493)$(32,331) None
Leaf Valley (Township)01/01/2019 $1,700 $442,466 $440,788 $1,678 100%$32,534 $810 $(168)$33,176 $(12,217)$(2,302)$(26,548)$(41,067) None
Ogema (City) 01/01/2019 $500 $70,290 $31,549 $38,741 223%$8,034 $690 $(3,874)$4,850 $(10,384)$(1,956)$(4,217)$(16,558) None
Shafer (City)01/01/2019 $1,500 $424,706 $394,796 $29,910 108%$34,144 $780 $(2,991)$31,933 $(18,857)$(3,553)$(25,482)$(47,892) None
Winthrop (City)01/01/2019 $2,500 $843,352 $845,555 $(2,203)100%$73,679 $960 $220 $74,859 $(17,485)$(3,294)$(50,601)$(71,380)$3,479
Wrenshall (City)01/01/2019 $1,100 $413,895 $303,463 $110,432 136%$20,686 $720 $(11,043)$10,363 $(14,438)$(2,720)$(24,834)$(41,992) None
Brimson (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2020 $1,600 $198,644 $162,890 $35,754 122%$19,949 $480 $(3,575)$16,854 $(7,774)$(1,465)$(11,919)$(21,157) None
Chatfield (City)01/01/2020 $2,450 $565,876 $380,310 $185,566 149%$54,349 $900 $(18,557)$36,692 $(36,914)$(6,955)$(33,953)$(77,822) None
Dunnell (City)01/01/2020 $750 $161,596 $133,600 $27,996 121%$9,176 $510 $(2,800)$6,886 $(7,774)$(1,465)$(9,696)$(18,935) None
Elgin (City)01/01/2020 $1,500 $584,254 $593,250 $(8,996)98%$44,290 $990 $900 $46,180 $(23,762)$(4,477)$(35,055)$(63,294) None
Ellsworth (City)01/01/2020 $700 $334,277 $319,785 $14,492 105%$16,792 $780 $(1,449)$16,123 $(12,772)$(2,406)$(20,057)$(35,235) None
Garvin (City)01/01/2020 $800 $182,243 $72,414 $109,829 252%$6,722 $420 $(10,983)$(3,841)$(9,440)$(1,779)$(10,935)$(22,153) None
Harris (City)01/01/2020 $3,700 $151,062 $135,258 $15,804 112%$47,281 $720 $(1,580)$46,421 $(6,869)$(1,294)$(9,064)$(17,227)$29,194
Hinckley (City)01/01/2020 $2,500 $753,858 $596,929 $156,928 126%$52,084 $840 $(15,693)$37,231 $(28,968)$(5,458)$(45,231)$(79,657) None
Lakewood (Township)01/01/2020 $1,100 $252,663 $181,814 $70,849 139%$17,615 $660 $(7,085)$11,190 $(13,882)$(2,615)$(15,160)$(31,657) None
Makinen (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2020 $800 $95,678 $78,060 $17,618 123%$6,366 $330 $(1,762)$4,934 $(4,998)$(942)$(5,741)$(11,681) None
Remer (City)01/01/2020 $2,300 $448,959 $361,827 $87,132 124%$33,896 $660 $(8,713)$25,843 $(19,418)$(3,658)$(26,938)$(50,014) None
St Anthony Village (City)01/01/2020 $3,800 $1,377,118 $1,026,973 $350,145 134%$65,260 $1,020 $(35,015)$31,266 $(59,541)$(11,218)$(82,627)$(153,386) None
Toivola (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2020 $700 $171,484 $109,045 $62,439 157%$10,356 $630 $(6,244)$4,742 $(7,774)$(1,465)$(10,289)$(19,528) None
Fire Department SVF Plan Membership Date
Benefit Level per Year of Service
AMOUNTS PROJECTED TO 12/31/2023 COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT
Annual Financial Requirement
REDUCTIONS TO ANNUAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT Total Reductions to Annual Financial Requirement
Required Contribution Due 12/31/2024
Present Value of Assets Accrued Liability Surplus or (Deficit)Funding Ratio
Increase in Lia-bility Between 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024
Administrative Fees One-tenth Deficit/(Surplus) Fire State Aid Supplemental State Aid 6% Assumed Interest
A B (A - B)(A / B)C D E (C + D + E)F G H (F + G + H)
Wanda (City)01/01/2020 $700 $218,922 $181,159 $37,763 121%$12,235 $600 $(3,776)$9,059 $(8,885)$(1,674)$(13,135)$(23,694) None
Bearville (Township)01/01/2021 $500 $21,909 $9,492 $12,418 231%$3,834 $360 $(1,242)$2,952 $(6,664)$(1,255)$(1,315)$(9,234) None
Braham (City)01/01/2021 $3,000 $587,635 $580,276 $7,359 101%$45,185 $840 $(736)$45,289 $(30,737)$(5,791)$(35,258)$(71,786) None
Evansville (City)01/01/2021 $1,400 $321,717 $224,019 $97,698 144%$21,816 $720 $(9,770)$12,767 $(12,217)$(2,302)$(19,303)$(33,821) None
Finlayson (City)01/01/2021 $1,100 $311,654 $281,656 $29,998 111%$19,148 $660 $(3,000)$16,808 $(13,994)$(2,637)$(18,699)$(35,330) None
Lake Lillian (City)01/01/2021 $900 $184,647 $158,869 $25,778 116%$13,505 $450 $(2,578)$11,377 $(10,773)$(2,030)$(11,079)$(23,882) None
Mantorville (City)01/01/2021 $1,600 $655,139 $596,299 $58,840 110%$37,349 $1,200 $(5,884)$32,665 $(20,043)$(3,776)$(39,308)$(63,127) None
Taylors Falls (City)01/01/2021 $1,700 $388,589 $281,133 $107,457 138%$30,900 $630 $(10,746)$20,785 $(7,219)$(1,360)$(23,315)$(31,894) None
Canosia (Township)01/01/2022 $1,600 $564,067 $583,019 $(18,952)97%$33,561 $660 $1,895 $36,116 $(14,050)$(2,647)$(33,844)$(50,541) None
Gaylord (City)01/01/2022 $2,000 $532,458 $605,490 $(73,032)88%$43,541 $810 $7,303 $51,654 $(24,242)$(4,567)$(31,947)$(60,756) None
Hanley Falls (City)01/01/2022 $900 $223,478 $213,231 $10,246 105%$18,644 $690 $(1,025)$18,309 $(13,327)$(2,511)$(13,409)$(29,247) None
Kerrick (City) 01/01/2022 $500 $80,192 $77,525 $2,667 103%$5,886 $360 $(267)$5,979 $(6,664)$(1,255)$(4,812)$(12,731) None
LeRoy (City)01/01/2022 $900 $297,628 $273,632 $23,996 109%$17,994 $900 $(2,400)$16,494 $(13,306)$(2,507)$(17,858)$(33,671) None
Morse Fall Lake (Joint Powers Entity)01/01/2022 $3,200 $899,615 $411,244 $488,371 219%$48,779 $570 $(48,837)$512 $(42,742)$(8,053)$(53,977)$(104,772) None
New Germany (City)01/01/2022 $2,800 $697,455 $683,904 $13,551 102%$54,874 $690 $(1,355)$54,208 $(11,661)$(2,197)$(41,847)$(55,706) None
Nowthen (City)01/01/2022 $2,500 $86,804 $52,182 $34,622 166%$20,466 $390 $(3,462)$17,394 $(30,487)$(5,744)$(5,208)$(41,439) None
Stacy Lent (Joint Powers Entity)01/01/2022 $2,700 $764,958 $858,169 $(93,211)89%$69,801 $1,110 $9,321 $80,232 $(27,946)$(5,265)$(45,898)$(79,109)$1,123
Underwood (Fire Corp)01/01/2022 $2,300 $564,985 $459,573 $105,412 123%$49,117 $750 $(10,541)$39,326 $(24,485)$(4,613)$(33,899)$(62,997) None
West Concord (City)01/01/2022 $1,400 $446,452 $436,805 $9,647 102%$28,548 $990 $(965)$28,573 $(20,575)$(3,876)$(26,787)$(51,238) None
Breckenridge (City)01/01/2023 $1,500 $480,998 $440,726 $40,272 109%$35,582 $780 $(4,027)$32,335 $(31,627)$(5,959)$(28,860)$(66,446) None
Carver (City)01/01/2023 $4,000 $1,302,221 $1,300,548 $1,673 100%$118,894 $1,440 $(167)$120,166 $(46,101)$(8,686)$(78,133)$(132,920) None
Dakota(City)01/01/2023 $1,200 $321,367 $290,788 $30,579 111%$19,615 $540 $(3,058)$17,097 $(8,885)$(1,674)$(19,282)$(29,841) None
Finland (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2023 $1,100 $193,407 $158,542 $34,865 122%$12,389 $480 $(3,487)$9,382 $(17,382)$(3,275)$(11,604)$(32,261) None
Hastings (City)01/01/2023 $11,000 $5,029,656 $3,790,600 $1,239,056 133%$346,186 $1,530 $(123,906)$223,810 $(195,725)$(36,875)$(301,779)$(534,380) None
Hendricks (City)01/01/2023 $1,200 $296,871 $401,310 $(104,439)74%$35,643 $990 $10,444 $47,077 $(13,882)$(2,615)$(17,812)$(34,309)$12,768
Meadowlands (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2023 $700 $118,840 $119,780 $(940)99%$11,710 $510 $94 $12,314 $(7,219)$(1,360)$(7,130)$(15,709) None
Moose Lake (Firefighting Corp)01/01/2023 $2,700 $695,589 $568,753 $126,836 122%$42,676 $720 $(12,684)$30,712 $(35,099)$(6,613)$(41,735)$(83,447) None
Newport (City)01/01/2023 $4,500 $1,138,011 $1,099,808 $38,203 103%$94,023 $780 $(3,820)$90,982 $(23,816)$(4,487)$(68,281)$(96,584) None
Proctor (City)01/01/2023 $2,400 $842,849 $635,579 $207,270 133%$47,879 $810 $(20,727)$27,962 $(25,445)$(4,794)$(50,571)$(80,810) None
Rockford (City)01/01/2023 $3,600 $848,369 $791,247 $57,122 107%$59,437 $1,080 $(5,712)$54,805 $(38,548)$(7,262)$(50,902)$(96,712) None
Sandstone (City)01/01/2023 $1,750 $380,971 $227,459 $153,512 167%$25,322 $510 $(15,351)$10,481 $(24,475)$(4,611)$(22,858)$(51,944) None
TOTALS $126,562,171 $107,797,904 $18,764,267 117%$9,018,928 $168,720 $(1,876,427)$7,311,222 $(4,695,387)$(906,364)$(7,593,730)$(13,195,482)
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 8
STAFF ORGINATOR: Meg Sawyer, Human Resources and Communications Manager
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Part-Time Firefighter Compensation Plan
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
In 2021, the City Council approved a daytime fire response plan and the hiring of a part-time
duty crew of firefighters assigned to Fire Station #1 and #2. At that time, staff used the
Keystone Job Leveling System, which is a point-factor job evaluation system, to determine the
relative value of the part-time firefighter position within the City of Lino Lakes. The evaluation
outcomes are used to develop internally equitable compensation structures and establish
external compensation programs using market benchmark data. Staff also uses this job
evaluation system when reporting their required local government Pay Equity Report to the
State of Minnesota (Local Government Pay Equity Act, M.S. 4 71.991-471.999 and Minnesota
Rules, Chapter 3920).
After completion of the job evaluation system, the following Salary Range Matrix and annual
step structure was created for the part-time firefighter position. The position graded out at a
110 level with a starting rate in 2022 at $18.66 per hour.
Lino Lakes Salary Range Matrix and Steps
Year Position(s) Grade
Starting
Rate Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6
2022 Firefighter (PT) 110 $18.66 $19.18 $19.70 $20.24 $20.80 $21.37 $21.96
2023 Firefighter (PT) 110 $19.36 $19.89 $20.44 $21.00 $21.58 $22.17 $22.78
2024 Firefighter (PT) 110 $20.09 $20.64 $21.21 $21.79 $22.39 $23.01 $23.63
Part-time firefighters are eligible for an annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) approved as
part of the Compensation Plan for Non-Union Employees. The 2023 compensation plan
included a 3% general wage increase (COLA), plus a .75% market adjustment. The 2024
compensation plan includes a 3% general wage increase (COLA), plus a .75% market
adjustment.
In addition to the compensation outlined above, all part-time firefighters are enrolled in the
Coordinated Pension Plan that is administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association
(PERA). City of Lino Lakes part-time firefighters contribute 6.5% of their total salary and the City
2
of Lino Lakes contributes 7.5% to PERA. Attached to this report is a guide to the PERA
Coordinated Plan.
In an effort to continue to recruit and retain part-time firefighter personnel, staff has recently
conducted a market study of the hourly rates of pay for part-time firefighter personnel in the
metro area and throughout the state. The study found that on average, part-time firefighters
were paid a starting wage of $15.61 per hour. The maximum hourly starting wage was $21.34
and the minimum hourly starting wage was $11.79.
City
Does City
have PT
Firefighters
Starting
Wage
Top
Wage
Belle Plaine Yes $11.90 $11.90
Brooklyn Center Yes $11.79 $17.52
Centennial Fire No
Chaska* Yes $16.75 $26.56
Chisholm Yes $14.00 $14.00
Columbia Heights* No
Dodge Center Yes $21.34 $21.34
Elk River Yes $15.62 $18.62
Fairmont Yes $18.09 $18.09
Forest Lake* No
Hastings* Yes $16.92 $16.92
Hopkins* Yes $17.15 $17.15
Lino Lakes Yes $19.36 $22.78
New Brighton* No
Oak Grove Yes $13.18 $18.61
Oakdale No
Orono Yes $16.00 $25.00
Plymouth Yes $13.44 $16.48
Prior Lake* No
St. Anthony Yes $14.86 $14.86
Tracy Yes $12.50 $12.50
White Bear Lake* Yes $15.86 $19.71
Worthington Yes $16.60 $16.60
Average $15.61 $18.16
Min $11.79 $11.90
Max $21.34 $26.56
*Keystone Compensation Plan Peer Group City
Based on this research, staff is recommending the continuation of the current wage range
matrix for the City of Lino Lakes for 2023 and 2024. Part-time firefighters would continue to be
eligible for an annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) approved as part of the Compensation
3
Plan for non-union employees. Historically, non-union employee salary adjustments have been
consistent with adjustments negotiated and approved in union labor agreements.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff is seeking Council agreement to continue with the current part-time firefighter
compensation plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Work Session Item 9 - Daytime Fire Response - May 3, 2021
PERA Coordinated Plan Guide
WS – Item 9 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 9
Date: May 3, 2021 To: City Council
From: John Swenson, Public Safety Director
Re: Daytime Fire Response
Background
The delivery of fire services has been a discussion point with Council for approximately the last year. Here is a recap regarding daytime fire response:
• During the spring of 2020, staff developed Police Officer/Firefighter and
Sergeant/Firefighter position descriptions and engaged in labor contract negotiations with the applicable labor groups during the summer and fall of 2020. Labor contracts, which included agreed upon compensation rates for the Police Officer/Firefighter and Sergeant/Firefighter positions, were ratified in December of 2020.
• On January 13, 2021 all police staff participated in a meeting to discuss the new Police Officer/Firefighter and Sergeant/Firefighter positions and answer any questions regarding these new positions. All police staff had until February 1,
2021 to elect to or decline to transition to one of the new positions.
• During the February 1, 2021 Council Work Session, staff updated the Council on this topic and informed Council that one police officer informed the City that they
would be willing to transition to the new Police Officer / Firefighter position.
• Based on the low level of interest from police staff, staff recommended researching the following options to provide daytime fire response to the Council:
o development of daytime fire duty crew
o contract with an outside vendor to provide daytime fire services
o collaborate with another jurisdiction for daytime fire response
• The Centennial Fire District (CFD) had been undergoing a study of their fire
operations since the summer of 2020 and a report was released in the winter of 2021. As part of the findings of that study and direction from Council, we have engaged in talks with CFD to examine options for potential collaboration for daytime fire response in the cities of Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Circle Pines. On April 15, 2021, CFD requested that we prepare a proposal to provide daytime
fire response on a contract for services basis.
Staff has conducted research on the options articulated above to provide daytime fire response and found that there are currently no private outside vendors that would be able to provide daytime fire response to Lino Lakes. Staff spoke with the Spring Lake Park,
Blaine, Mounds View (SBM) and Forest Lake Fire Departments and determined that
further collaboration with these departments for daytime fire response is not viable at this time. Potential collaboration with CFD may be a viable option and further details are provided below.
If a daytime fire duty crew is implemented in Lino Lakes to provide daytime fire response, staff recommends a duty crew be staffed with 4 firefighters during the hours of 6 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday. These hours of operation will ensure that we have fire responders available when our POC Firefighters are working their full-time jobs.
In order to reduce costs for the daytime fire duty crew, staff proposes utilizing part-time firefighters for the duty crew. One cautionary note that Council should consider is many jurisdictions have had trouble recruiting and retaining part-time firefighters; therefore, some of these jurisdictions have migrated from part-time firefighters to full-time
firefighters. The personnel cost (wages and associated benefits) to staff a daytime duty crew with part-time firefighters during the staff recommended hours of operation is estimated to be
$300,000.
As noted above, collaboration with CFD may be a viable option and discussions thus far have focused on:
1. CFD would staff two firefighters and Lino Lakes would staff two firefighters during the recommended hours of operation and the 4 firefighters would provide daytime fire response, Monday through Friday, in the cities of Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Circle Pines. In order for such a collaboration to be successful,
there would need to be a comprehensive operational plan with leadership of both
departments. 2. CFD has requested a proposal from Lino Lakes to provide daytime fire response in the cities of Centerville and Circle Pines. If the Council is supportive of this,
staff recommends that we utilize the cost sharing formula currently used by the Anoka County Fire Protection Council to determine what CFD’s portion of the personnel costs would be for a duty crew. Staff would further recommend establishing a fee for consumables, apparatus and equipment usage.
Staff has previously communicated to Council that CFD is currently considering an agreement with SBM Fire Department to provide administrative oversight for CFD. Staff believes that it is crucial for the individual (or organization) that would implement any collaboration agreement to be part of the discussion to ensure the collaboration efforts are a successful joint venture; therefore, further discussion regarding a jointly staffed fire
duty crew should wait until CFD has made a decision on this point.
If the Council is supportive of providing CFD with a proposal to provide daytime fire services, staff recommends charging CFD $185,590.84 per year to provide daytime fire services in the cities of Circle Pines and Centerville in the same manner we provide fire services in Lino Lakes. This amount is based on the fire duty crew personnel and
administrative costs apportioned using the ACFPC cost sharing formula ($160,590.84 personnel and administrative costs) and flat fee for apparatus/equipment usage and consumables ($25,000 flat fee). Staff is seeking Council direction on this matter.
can receive a benefit is 55, but this will result in a
lower monthly benefit because you will be receiving a
pension from PERA over a longer period of time.
Service— The longer you are employed in
public service, the greater the benefit. After you are
enrolled in PERA, you earn one service credit for each
month in which you worked and were compensated.
Once you have earned enough service credits to be
vested (60 credits for members hired after June 30,
2010) you qualify for future lifetime benefits.
High-five average salary—This is the 60
consecutive months during which your earnings are
the greatest. Typically, this is the five years just prior
to retirement.
etirement benefits
For members just entering public service
in the Coordinated Plan, the formula looks like this:
(1.7% x Years of Service) x High-5 Salary
= Annual Retirement Benefit
As an example, 30 years of service would result in
a benefit of 51 percent of your high-five salary at full
retirement age. MY PERA can provide you with esti-
mates of your future benefits at any retirement age.
Disability benefits
You may be eligible for benefits from PERA if you
are unable to work, not just at your job, but any job
because of a physical or mental disability. That is,
Welcome! Whether you are a new or return-
ing member, we are pleased to have you participate
in the Public Employees Retirement Association
(PERA).
As a Coordinated Plan member of PERA, you
are part of Minnesota's largest public pension plan.
Today the Association serves over 160,000 public
employees from approximately 2,100 cities, coun-
ties and school districts across the state. We cur-
rently pay benefits to over 90,000 retirees, disabled
members and survivors of deceased members.
ERA is a traditional
pension plan
Recognizing the need for a retirement program
for employees of county and local governments, the
Minnesota Legislature created PERA in 1931, four
years prior to the creation of Social Security.
Unlike most retirement plans today, traditional
pension plans like PERA—also known as defined
benefit plans—provide you with the security of a
lifetime benefit.
PERA is a tax qualified plan under Section 401(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code. As a result, your
federal and state taxes on PERA contributions are
deferred to the time of withdrawal. Because PERA
is a tax-qualified plan, there may be limits on the
amount you can contribute tax deferred to an IRA.
You should contact the IRS or a qualified tax advi-
sor to find out what the limits are for you.
ligibility
Your employer enrolled you in PERA
after determining you qualified for membership.
Membership is required for employees who are
expected to earn a minimum of $5,100 in a year
($3,800 for school employees) unless their posi-
tion is excluded by law.
As a Coordinated Plan member, you and your
employer contribute a percentage of your gross
salary to the Association. In turn, PERA invests
these contributions to fund benefits for our mem-
bers. Go to MY PERA at www.mnpera.org to
check details of your contributions and member-
ship data.
While contributions and investment earnings
are critically important to the long-term funding of
the Association, they do not determine the value
of your individual benefit. Instead, your benefit is
based on a formula that takes into consideration
three factors:
Age— The closer you are to full retirement
age, the larger the monthly benefit you will
receive. While there are exceptions, full retirement
age is typically age 65 to 66 for Coordinated mem-
bers. The earliest age at which most members
you must be totally and permanently disabled
and unable to engage in any substantial gainful
activity. You become eligible for disability bene-
fits once you are vested with the Association—
after three or five years of service, depending on
when you first entered public service.
lternatives for survivors
PERA also provides survivor (death)
benefits for families of members who unfortu-
nately die before receiving a retirement benefit.
Survivor benefits follow a simple succession.
Should you die, any survivor benefits due would
first go to your surviving spouse. If there is no
spouse, benefits would then be payable to any
dependent children. Finally, if there are no sur-
vivor benefits due, the balance in your account,
plus interest, would be distributed to your ben-
eficiaries. If we have no listed beneficiaries, the
funds would be paid to your estate. (A form for
changing your beneficiary(ies) can be found on
our website in Forms & Publications.)
If you leave before retirement
If you terminate public employment after
you have become vested (five years of service if
hired after June 30, 2010), you can leave your
contributions with PERA and qualify for a pen-
sion any time after reaching retirement age.
(Continued on reverse side)
PERA: Just the Basics
To learn more about PERA,
visit us at www.mnpera.org.
Your individual information
is always available by
registering for
MY PERA.
Regardless of your length of service, you are
entitled to a refund of your employee contribu-
tions plus interest, compounded annually, after
your termination of public employment. Keep in
mind, however, that employer contributions are
not refundable and you will forfeit all future PERA
benefits.
Repayment of a refund
If you were previously a PERA member who left
public service and received a refund, you have the
option to repay the refund to restore lost service
credit with PERA after you have earned an addi-
tional six months of service credit as a member.
Combined service benefits
You may combine your service in PERA with
service in other covered Minnesota public pension
plans. This entitles you to a combined service
pension from each of the plans in which you have
service. Combined service pensions often provide
a higher overall level of retirement income.
How to learn more
As this pamphlet's name implies, this is a
very brief summary of your retirement plan
provisions. For a more comprehensive overview,
take a few minutes to visit our website at
www.mnpera.org. If you visit our website, you'll
find much more information about your retire-
ment plan and PERA itself.
Register as an online member
By clicking on the MY PERA button at www.
mnpera.org and registering as an online mem-
ber, you have instant access to your individual
data on file with PERA. This includes the indi-
viduals we have listed as your beneficiaries, your
payroll deductions and date of membership.
Check your account periodically for accuracy and
to inform us if corrections need to be made. An
improper delay in your PERA enrollment or an
incorrect salary amount may only be corrected
within a three-year period.
You can also create your own retirement, dis-
ability and survivor estimates, or register for one
of our educational programs
or conferences any time,
day or night, at MY PERA.
MY PERA—your 24/7
connection to PERA.
Public Employees Retirement
Association of Minnesota January 2015
PERA: Just the Basics
This publication is intended to provide general informa-
tion; the rights and obligations of PERA members are gov-
erned by state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
The Minnesota Legislature or the federal government
may change the statutes, rules and regulations govern-
ing PERA at any time. If there is a discrepancy between
the law governing PERA and the information contained in
this publication, the statutes and regulations shall govern.
This document is available in alternative formats
to individuals with disabilities by calling
(651) 296-7460 or 1 800 652-9026, or through the
Minnesota Relay Service at 1 800 627-3529.
Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota
60 Empire Drive, St. Paul MN 55103-2088
1 800 652-9026 (651) 296-7460 www.mnpera.org
Who we are;
what we do
For Coordinated
Plan Members
PRESORTED STANDARDU.S. POSTAGE PAIDTWIN CITIES MN PERMIT 171Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota 60 Empire Drive, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55103-2088Just the Basics
1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 9
STAFF ORGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
DATE OF WORK SESSION: October 2, 2023
TOPIC: Water Treatment Plant Architectural Design Committee
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The City Council authorized preparation of Plans and Specifications in August of 2022. WSB is
working through the floor plan and has reached a point to begin discussions on exterior design.
City staff will be working with Oertel Architects to develop the building’s exterior architectural
elements. To streamline the approval process staff would like to establish a design committee
that includes two council members. The first meeting is planned for the afternoon of Monday,
October 9. We anticipate 2 -3 meetings with the design team.
REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff is requesting that the City Council designate two members to serve on the design
committee.
ATTACHMENTS
1.None.