HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/2011 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Monday, March 7, 2011
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
5:30 P.M.
h CSAH 34 (Birch Street) Corridor Study
2. RCWD Watershed Management District
3. 49/J Development Proposal
• 7. Otter Lake Road extension request.
/ /Recreation Complex Update
(
•
Strategic Planning Update
Even Year Elections
Liquor License Fees (to follow on Friday)
Hodgson Road Speed Study request
Weekly Progress Report
Regular Council Agenda
Adjourn
•
•
•
WS — Item 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 1
Date: Council Work Session, March 7, 2011
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: CSAH 34 Corridor Study Update
Background
The 2008 -2009 Council Goals, Objectives and Management Action Plan included the
objective to "Initiate an Access Management Plan for Birch Street (CSAH 34) that
includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements ". Additionally, the
city received a petition in early 2008 requesting improvements to the Ware Road and
Birch Street intersection. In response the City Council approved Resolution No. 08 -34,
directing staff to work with Anoka County on a corridor study and incorporate the
Ware /Birch intersection. In April of 2009 the council passed Resolution No. 09 -21
entering into a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County to prepare a Corridor Study
for Birch Street.
In April of 2010 the council discussed the draft report and expressed concerns regarding
the ultimate plan which proposed a four lane divided (raised median) roadway. The
council noted that short term improvements that balanced safety with convenience would
be more appropriate.
Over the past year city staff has worked with Anoka County and SRF Consulting Group
to incorporate the City Council's comments into the final draft report. The project team
has worked to develop a staged approach to improvements that can be implemented as
conditions warrant. A decision on the implementation of raised medians will be deferred
by the county and city until the impact of other improvements are understood and actual
future needs are more defined.
A copy of the executive summary is attached which includes a table identifying proposed
improvements, triggers and estimated costs. An electronic copy of the entire draft report
is also being provided.
Representatives of Anoka County and SRF Consulting Group will be available to address
council questions and review the report at the work session.
1
Council Direction
Staff is requesting council direction to place the report on a city council meeting agenda
for city acceptance.
Attachments
1. CSAH 34 Corridor Study Executive Summary
2. Draft Final Report (CD)
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CSAH 34 CORRIDOR STUDY NEEDS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
A. Public Input
There were many opportunities for public participation throughout the study process. This input
was recorded, shared with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and incorporated into the
corridor improvement plan. The following list is a summary of the key public input received
early in the study process:
Consensus on Needs
• CSAH 34 is experiencing high levels of congestion during the peak periods.
• It can be difficult to access CSAH 34 from intersecting roadways (Ware Road, West
Shadow Lake Drive, CSAH 21, etc.).
• Vehicular safety is an important concern and there is a need for short-term improvements
(e.g., left turn lanes, traffic signals, bypass lanes).
• Pedestrian and bicycle safety is a concern; many residents feel that there should be more
pedestrian trails along and safe crossings of CSAH 34.
• There is support for minimizing impacts to natural resources within the corridor.
B. Recommended Corridor Improvements and Implementation Strategies
Four roadway and trail alternatives were prepared and evaluated during the course of the corridor
study. These alternatives were developed to accommodate projected future traffic volumes in
order to ensure mobility, improve safety, and coordinate improvements with development. The
recommended improvements address the needs and issues identified during the planning process
(see Figure 1 for plan recommendations).
Stakeholder in general, supported most of the TAC's corridor improvement recommendations,
including the following:
• Traffic signals should be constructed at Ware Road and West Shadow Lake Drive when
warranted. It is anticipated that future signals will also be needed at Black Duck Drive,
CSAH 21 and CSAH 54.
• Raised medians are appropriate at signalized locations with turn lanes.
• Turn lanes should be provided at major intersections to separate through and turning
traffic (painted or channelized, as appropriate).
• Modification or elimination of access should be considered as opportunities arise.
• The county's access and intersection spacing guidelines should be used in new
development areas and as property redevelops.
• Frontage and backage roads should be constructed as development occurs to support local
traffic and to manage access onto CSAH 34.
• A four -lane roadway on CSAH 34 between CSAH 49 and Black Duck Drive is needed to
accommodate both existing and future traffic volumes. A two -lane roadway between
Black Duck Drive and CSAH 54 will serve both existing and future traffic volumes if
access is managed according to county guidelines.
• A two -lane divided roadway (with raised medians) from CSAH 21 to CSAH 54 is
recommended, since the undeveloped nature of the area provides an opportunity to
incorporate county access spacing into future development.
• Trail system improvements on both sides of the CSAH 34 corridor are recommended
along with crossings of CSAH 34 at signalized intersections.
• Limited landscaping /streetscaping may be appropriate in select locations along the
corridor.
It should be noted that the Lino Lakes City Council expressed concern and a lack of support for a
four -lane divided roadway, due to potential property impacts. However, raised medians were
considered appropriate at some locations, such as signalized intersections.
Based on current and forecasted corridor conditions, it is recommended that any major
reconstruction of the CSAH 34 corridor consider raised medians in its design, if it is to achieve
maximum safety and mobility benefits. However, a decision on the implementation of raised
medians will be deferred by the county and city until the impact of other improvements are
understood and actual future needs (traffic and /or land use development) are more defined.
The recommended corridor improvements for CSAH 34 were developed based on projected
future (2030) conditions and it is likely that improvements will be implemented as safety and
operational needs dictate, and as funding becomes available. Therefore, the corridor
recommendations are framed as conceptual improvements that can be implemented over time, as
opportunities arise, and /or conditions along the corridor require.
As noted on Table 1, some of the proposed improvements have clear thresholds as to when they
should be implemented (e.g., traffic signals) and some are more subjective (e.g.,
bicycle /pedestrian and /or streetscape). Implementation of improvements without clear
thresholds to trigger the project will be based on apparent need, as mutually agreed upon
between the county and the city.
•
•
•
Table 1: Implementation of Corridor Improvement Projects
ESTIMATED COST
$250,000 to $ 1.0 million
per intersection
Minimal cost for roadway
section
a>
P
a,
0
0
Le—i
$100,000 to $500,000
per turn lane
Varies dependent on Access
Management Strategy
See costs above for traffic
signal and turn lane
improvements. Minimal cost
for roadway delineation
$160,000 per mile for trail,
$185,000 to $1.0 million for
pedestrian underpass
Varies depending on level of
streetscape desired
TRIGGER J
- Development
- Traffic /safety issues
- Minnesota Mannaul on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD)
Warrants
- Availability of Funding
- Mn /DOT sets speeds limits on state
and local roadways.
- Monitor speeds and request a
Mn /DOT speed study when the
difference between posted and the 85th
percentile speeds approach 10 mph.
- Consider additional lane in each
direction along CSAH 34 when traffic
volumes reach 10 to 12,000 vehicles per
day.
- Traffic volumes
- Safety /crash experience
- Sight distance
- Development /redevelopment
- Safety /crash experience
- Congestion
- Safety /crash experience
- Development
- In conjunction with other planned
roadway or trail improvements
- Availability of funding
- In conjunction with other planned
roadway or trail improvements
- Availability of funding
LOCATION
CSAH 34 Intersections with:
• CSAH 49
• Ware Road
• West Shadow Lake Drive
• Black Duck Drive
• CSAH 21
• CSAH 54
Western Segment of Corridor
(West of Black Duck Drive)
Western Segment of Corridor
(West of Black Duck Drive)
Major Intersections along Corridor as
Development Occurs
Entire Corridor
CSAH 34 Intersections with:
• CSAH 49
• Ware Road
• S -Curve (Deerwood Ln - E.
Shadow Lk. Court)
Entire Corridor
Entire Corridor
(with emphasis areas at Ware Road and
CSAH 21)
DESCRIPTION
Traffic Signal Improvements
(Includes new and revised signals)
Posted Speed Limit Modifications
Capacity Improvements:
Additional Lanes (Through Lanes)
Turn Lanes (Left and Right)
Improvements
Access Management Strategies
Safety Improvement Strategies
• Traffic Signal Improvements
• Turn Lane Improvements
• Improved Roadway Delineation
Bicycle /Pedestrian Trail Improvements
Streetscape Improvements
n
•
ci)
ueId aopiaa00 papuauauaoaaN
.F11Ans166261nVdAFeureaWeva01 RamlmlendedCortldorPlenmzd
•
•
1 l r i r
• (ODE_ Li 0
�°c8�v v.�
O��ncND �D
Q N 0-7(11: to
s• tn0_ aG1
�I• ODeLfa g 9-0
N a� 7O .- O) -i
O N N n,
fD O 5 cn i1-
0) .-. "CC
N CD — (.0 CC)
(A .+ . CD
O (n O 6 C� u = Q.
. C0) • j
N N•cn �•Q CD Ad
Q) j
•
•
•
WS — Item 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 2
Date: Council Work Session, March 7, 2011
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Rice Creek Watershed District - Water Management District
Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32
Background
Phil Belfiori, Administrator for the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), discussed the
request with the Council at the February 7, 2011 work session. The Council directed staff to
place the item on the March works session agenda for further discussion. A question was asked
regarding whether the City Charter limited the City's ability to concur with the request. The City
Attorney has responded that Section 1.02 of the City Charter reserves all power to the City
unless otherwise stated, and there is nothing within the document that would restrict the
council's authority with respect to this issue.
Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 10 -22 -32 is located in the NW corner of Lino Lakes with portions
of the system and /or contributing area extending into both Blaine and Columbus. The RCWD,
the ditch authority for 10- 22 -32, is working on a repair report for the ditch system. The report is
part of a systematic effort by the RCWD to inspect, maintain & repair all public drainage
systems.
Under state law the Rice Creek Watershed District may undertake proceedings related to the
drainage system in accordance with the Watershed Law (Minnesota Statute Chapter 103D) rather
than the Drainage Code (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E) subject to concurrence by the city
council where the system is located. This alternative authority was created by the state
legislature to simplify the improvement and repair process to more adequately and economically
improve and repair drainage systems in the metropolitan area.
The RCWD is requesting City consideration of a resolution consenting to their proposal to use its
watershed law and metropolitan surface water management authorities to finance the repairs. If
they do not get concurrence from each of the City's, they are forced to stay within the antiquated
and narrow confines of ditch law. The cities of Blaine and Columbus have previously consented
to this approach.
The Environmental Board reviewed the request in June of 2010 and recommended approval.
The RCWD previously provided an overview of the ditch system and this request to the city
council in June of 2010. No action was taken by the council. Concurrence with the use of
1
alternative authority is not an endorsement of any project. A separate legally established
procedure is required for any future project.
Representatives from the watershed district will be present to answer any questions the council
may have.
Council Direction
Staff is requesting council consideration to place the RCWD request and attached draft
resolution on the March 14, 2011 city council meeting agenda for consideration.
Attachments
1. Draft Resolution No. 11 -XX
2. 10 -22 -32 Estimated Repair Costs Pie Chart
•
•
•
•
•
Council Member
adoption:
introduced the following resolution and moved its
DRAFT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
RESOLUTION NO. 11 -XX
APPROVAL TO CONDUCT DRAINAGE PROCEEDINGS FOR
ANOKA COUNTY DITCH 10 -22 -32 UNDER THE WATERSHED LAW
WHEREAS, Rice Creek Watershed District ( "RCWD ") is the drainage authority for
Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32 (the "Drainage System "); and
WHEREAS, RCWD is proceeding on a petition to repair the Drainage Systems; and
WHEREAS, the RCWD Engineer is preparing a repair report recommending a repair
option that balances the drainage function of the Drainage Systems with ecological concerns in
the watershed; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 103D.621 Subd. 4, grants RCWD the authority to
undertake proceedings related to the Drainage Systems in accordance with the Watershed Law
(Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D) rather than the Drainage Code (Minnesota Statutes
Chapterl 03E), subject to concurrence by city councils and town boards where the Drainage
Systems are located; and
WHEREAS, RCWD has requested concurrence from the City of Lino Lakes to conduct
the necessary proceedings related to the Drainage Systems under the Watershed Law and the
Drainage Code; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of conducting proceedings under the Watershed Law is to
provide consistent management of all drainage systems under RCWD management,
comprehensive wetland management, and appropriate administration of resource management
plans; and
WHEREAS, conducting the proceedings under the Watershed Law will facilitate
flexibility in financing the recommended repair option.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lino Lakes City Council, in
accordance with Minnesota Statute 103D.621 Subd. 4., the City of Lino consents to the Rice
Creek Watershed District's request to conduct proceedings for Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32
under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D.
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
3
ATTEST:
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2011.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
76"
D.
a)
N
r
N
N
0
R-4
V
♦ i
0
0
Estimated Cost Breakdown
Estimated Total Cost= $1,39.5,925
■ Future Maintenance
• Wetland Mitigation and impact Avoidance
Construction and Easements
a Project Management and Engineering
Administrative
Estimated Repair Cost
it No Wetland
Conservation Att
Mitigation Required
u1
rd Cost of
Agitation for
strutted and
potently
1 Condition
cF+
DJ
+-1
K,
in
1 R
Afr
dot
Ntb
IC
VI
P,
Recommended
Alternative Wetland
Mitigation and Impart
Avoidance
SSW ,5DD
Estimated Total project
Repair Cost for
Recommended
Alternative
M1
01
ui
a,
in
try
stribv.I-ect 10
2c v49 C 3171 i 1 vMK sit 6 n
T32N -R23W
lttt
T31N -R23W
Water Control
Structure 3
Water Control
Structure 2
m
12
1
ITIST ITS
13
Loch
Ness
Lake
Water Control
Structure 1
T31N -R23W
1
Lower Culvert
Cala
r
29
Lower Culvert
14
32
T32N -R22W
T31N -R22W
0`a
SST
a
g
a
AVE NS
lH
33
ST
Erosion Area
Repairs
23
9
Sources: TLG, NWI, MNDNR
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
r Remove Beaver Dams
Eliminate Field X-ing (By Owner)
JodreN S1 Culvert
Replace/Modify Culvert
+ Flow Direction
Repair Public Ditch to Functional Profile
Current Private System
Maintain Public Ditch
RCWD Boundary (2010)
E:3 Hydrologic Boundary
{...,,� Section Lines
Township/Range
• Install Water Control Structure
Rice Creek Watershed District
ACD 10 -22 -32
Addendum to the Repair Report
Figure A -1 ACD 10.22-32 Revised Engineers Recommended Alternative
AS SHOWN 'Dawn SMW Checked by: IPr1 0.10 I�124)2011 ISh1 of 1
Houston
* Engineering Inc. P
Maple Grove
P: 763.493.4522
r 759 4935572
Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32 Addendum to the Repair Report
,
.0
Preliminary Allocation of Cost for Revised Engineer's Recommended Alternative
Responsibility
Ad valorem Levy
Ecological and
Irrigation
0.0%
8
co
�R
a
°4
§
0$
%
�I
k
ie
k
~
$183,727.14
r $702,727.14 11
72.4%
-~
N.
_ 0.
- La
_ eZ
Water Management District
uncipa u ure
Developed and
Redeveloped
33.3%
k
%0'0
f
$f
°
8.3%
•
§
§
K
_
$267,376.95
~
33.3%
\
k
- VI
Currently
Developed
33.3%
$68,711.52 I
£
S
4.
2
§
§
33.3%
\
ca
$13,323.95
Undeveloped
33.3%
ev
e.
co CO
44
'ax.'
f
8
K�
44
CI
44
$89,125.65
cv
oi
33.3%
\
44
$13,323.95
Engineer's Recommended
Alternative
-
V)
>
b
-
8
2
S
2
k
#
k
2
°
- tt
«f
2J
)
a.
)
/
■
\�j
4
G
E
S
2
Category Percentages1
Funding Dollars
Funding Percentages
Base Dollar Amount
Percent
Dollar Amount
Description
Core Agricultural and Stormwater Drainage Functions
Subtotal
I °Separation of Irrigation and Drainage Functions 1
k
IlEcological (Wetland Impact Avoidance)
k 4
E
§
/
c
)
w.
k
IL Allocation of Estimated Total Project Cost
11Pre-Project Minor Maintenance
Subtotal
IlContingency
(PROJECT TOTAL COST WITH CONTIGENCY
Excluding Contingency
CO
00
)/
0.
\§
as
co
co
j\
Lc) CI
cl
\\
(\
)\
\
3
(13 Cri
\ \\
3. Pre - Project Minor Maintenance includes culvert replacements and beaver dam removals upstream of Pine St.
Including Contingency
0)
•
•
WS — Item 3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 3
Date: March 7, 2011
To: City Council
From: Mary Alice Divine
Re: 49/J Development Proposal
Background
Oppidan has met with staff on several occasions regarding a development proposal for a
grocer on a portion of the 17 -acre site on the west side of Hodgson Road north of the
County Road J intersection. Representatives from Oppidan are bringing the concept to
the Council for comments.
A number of issues make development of the Hodgson Road /County Road J intersection
challenging. Much of the area has existing businesses that affect both short term and long
term planning. Anoka County has an interim plan for improvements to the intersection
area and an ultimate improvement plan. Significant road improvements and extension of
utilities to the area will be needed for any development to occur.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is seeking direction from Council regarding its interest in pursuing development of
a grocer at this location near the 49/J intersection.
Attachments:
None
APPROX. 1100'
TO ASH STREET
HODGSON ROAD
CD
CD Of
.O.
1 Z
O 3
CD
x 70
co
x
y
NV1d 1d30N00
CI)
CD
CD
CD
0
C7
0
r_
CD
Z Z
v
31101S A}13001:J9
-v
co
O
-lO
m = _
o
zoo
A -0 -0
0mm
73 pa
11 11 11
N A
N l0 W
V W 01
00N N
W 0110
T , T
0 01 i-
?'vD
n
n n
73 73 m
V) N
_ 9NIN21Vd 03SOd021d
Sl1V1S LSE
= 000T 213d S 1V 4 3 211110 3 21 SllVlS 1V101
D Iz
pa paG N
o O D IT7
m rn D 0
m m
0 0 D
Co Co
S11V1S SLZ
NV1d 1d30N00
C1
CD
CD
:D.
CD
3
3
CD
00
O
r
0
0
o'
_
31:101S A11330119
a.
0
CD
3
0
z
2
o
S
z
D
000
m = _
CD
ZOO
z v v
Q m
N A
W 77," V Ol
00 F
Wm
W D
V N
T T T N
O N
A V O
xi mm A m
_ DNDRlVd 03SOdONd
Sl1V1S LSE
TOTAL STALLS REQUIRED AT 5 PER 1000 =
Sl1VIS SLZ
CD Cg.
CD
=
Wc
0
_
cst
C)
0
311OIS AMONJ
O.
CD
0
CD
_
•
•
•
WS — Item 4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 4
Date: March 7, 2011
To: City Council
From: Mary Alice Divine
Re: Otter Lake Road North extension request
Background
Bruce Miller, owner and developer of property on the northeast quadrant of 35E /County
Road 14, has been working with a fast food chain restaurant to develop a portion of his
site. Mr. Miller will be attending the work session to present his project.
This project requires an extension of Otter Lake Road north on County Road 14 (Main
Street). A number of issues arise when considering development on the north side of
County Road 14:
Road Extension
Extending Otter Lake Road has been a long term city goal to begin development of
commercial and industrial properties to the north of Main Street, and is in Anoka
County's long range plans to ultimately serve as an arterial road. Mr. Miller is proposing
construction of the first 330 feet of road to accommodate the first development, which
also would require signalization at the north side of the intersection. Construction of this
first phase of roadway would require dedication of right -of -way from his property and
acquisition of right -of -way from the neighboring property to the west.
Utility Extension
Public utilities will eventually have to be brought to the site from Elmcrest on the eastern
border of the City. For this first project, the restaurant could be hooked up to the existing
utilities. However, any additional development will require bringing the trunk line from
the east and it is likely more expedient for future development to extend trunk utilities as
a part of the first phase of this project. This would be paid through trunk charges to
benefitting property owners.
Public Assistance
In 2010 the State Legislature added some flexibility into the TIF law as part of the Jobs
Bill that allows the creation of 10 -year TIF districts for commercial development. That
provision is likely to be extended to 2013. While a project of this scope would not
generate a substantial amount of tax increment, the City would have that tool available to
assist with development of infrastructure to get this first phase underway.
EDAC comments
EDAC members heard Mr. Miller's proposal and are supportive of this project as a
catalyst to extend utilities, to spur further development and to create tax base and jobs in
conjunction with the completion of the 35E interchange. EDAC noted that its
recommendations to Council include the City's use of economic development tools and
that the City should take advantage of a window of opportunity to use TIF to spur
commercial development.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is seeking direction from Council as to whether this is a course of action the Council
would like to pursue to begin development along the northern extension of Otter Lake
Road.
Attachments:
1. Aerial View of Site
2. Site Plan
3. Road extension plan
4. Engineer's Estimate of Construction (provided by Mr. Miller)
•
•
•
- ,
_ -- -- , —
l- , -'• .'''' ,* .-4.'' k1. -
'fi' .i •1,-„ 'e 0,2'; -. ' '.';-1, ' te . e' .." '' --" '' ,e .., 4-e:, i .," .- : ' 4-;. ..
.1+'. ,: -e.'''+t.'t..'•: . ''."' ' .".' ' a '1' `, .'
-.' '.',4.'.. — 'w--1 ;'1"—;1J. '"" ' 1*.' -.• '.1- "' --.'' , '1„'';'-"!1 ,'" '.. ."- 1' 9,'.. .'- '..*"" '" ".,' 0-' ' *' . 44*' 0 ' 04 . 1.0"-,44--1','4". '
.0 1.. .
W , ' - - e , . 4 '' . ' ' . , ' - . :, • .!- '-.-+ ,- ,-,,_ - ' l, 4':i , - ' t , .,-4.. ' : '...-' -
J'
';`...
#:, ` ,•-
.'. : :1,' e:,- '14 - , ,',-' 4.,,-, % ;.°*„, ? .' .e..''-‘.« -..1!.',..' ›:".' . .- .- ''42-'.'.•'• * '"''e,.• ' , :it: '-.1•' * • . . '4
i1---
t
—. iI . .."-:A,. - . . • '" ■,- ' ,- ;.' 7
.
r
" 1 4 -.r• `. :• .:.0 4 ..T-.„„:. ..- " ., ,-„ ,.-'--,;^-, ' .T ,"7 `. , , : .' 1 .' ,-. ,-. : ' '' + . „ ., ' . , ,-' , . , • l • ''' 'N_ ,'-.' ' A.
"• .W :4". .,1 .:, ,- - . i . ".r_ , . ,t-l..i' '.; . 'e, f ' ':- ',r , ,' ' , -,- . ''' e,' 'P+''— ,',' , 2.7' 7 ', '1-- .' .' „' ,-.r,'".', 4' " 7 ,e,,.' 'W,,,- ;,er6. s,, , J -,.::_.t.:e.• 4."■ T ',::. -::. . r ? ''-:,. • .., .,.-; .."
, ' . '' ,, > 1 .•. . ..• ' , ,
, e
-, :
•..„-.' F j x — - -. . ., ' e ,e ...,
o,.. ' •
.e , , . . •
-,-.-.„, ., .„ '-,. , -4_ .• ,.• ff ,"4,. , .
oC. .
, , • -
., -s, , t•1.. -.-, .. 4 - 2 -„+o, , '
0.‘• ." ", - y2 '. - ', - + o .,' . -_ . .-k - , i...... .
-
A , , Ember'sP1 wlntc:c:7nge-
. • -
•
..,
',..." .,.T .,..
'e" e•-• 4.7,„ • - -
• • -.
.',.' _.
1r111-
... . ' . . ,
. . . , ,...„ 45, .,. !.
. ..-. ,.- . ;/ f - . . ' / 14
. .. .
,..,, ...:
e
.. _.....-.--. . - ,.
.:.,
' • V. A -,-.1.--'
. ..,„„ ,...
— ' '"h; ■ Akt A. .: ; f P,.':'''. - '' ,.• , ..- ... -, -; , .- . .,.',: ., .. .. . 0 1.1 i - f --'.+ .rl` e.t-
'
.• . .., ' o'- r. I 1 :... / •- • ,- .'' ' e
• 16's
: ' , ' / .-'• i
40 ,,,,411411-4S 11-11 4'i 6, T
...,-:.-
Ottee.
,:. ,• ,
lry,, , ,, , V • - , - '' ; ''?* ' '''' '''llr ' '',1 ,-....7,„*. 'I ''''''•t, ' :::'4'; l'e.e:
'-'''
e
., , ..
V.: • 4 -„,.• .,
. ,
- • i - AA '10: _ ' '',.....,, ''..E.4 -It: - - -
.. , .. 4.•■••'
t 4 +'•-• --ifoi.,11r,', S' - - - ar,,,,15 l',„,,..-::::' ' '1. ' ' — lial..7.'''"""".+++,..
O'ira -'• , '--, k4!" „•:- '''' ''''''' , , .-4.. la Ilk ' - . - 7,- ,- '. -- • .., ,... 4e.age---
„,,.
.. , . .
'"''''.........„. A ' 4 ■
:: ...: .
. ..
--- , .
. ......,
-- -- 0. -: ' . tali- ' - ...- ' ' ''` - ' -.7"-'7'..+: ' ( --:4-,,,,..; - e• ; ' 1 -..:,,” -
,
„,.• . ,'. , '4,74", 'Mt -,b,„„'t!''''''',•-+:'- ''' IA* .
ii-
',..,,, ..1P,.. ,/111,,:lirrr 41*.-' ' • IV + </4-' ' ' -"'"-Ilca ''-' ' ''
‘ ''''-'-'-' 'c - .:'. -.'",, • ."'"- ' - • - , r 0 if' T
. — .-9 - 'e ' ' . 4... ' it, .•,k„ , +1 , ,.r .--+ . ., ,. • 4,..- •••,,
-, • ,
,, '' , - ' . . ' . • . , . „, • 'A-., ._
'
• 1 .
- V.--a-- l ' '.”' A ''. 6 I •
. ,
0. 7:',';'42'4 / r-14,410
,,bis
. ;ow, , .... „:7 r • ,.,, ,e ' l' ,- , „.
lb it CI t -- . .
4' ' '4C .4.-' ' ir co ir- 11.- in se.. „...„
'1.6'-
a .• - ,*-.. 1 ,
-r:1 - - .., • 4r-,..%4: ,....,- -,-,.. -
''' .. .. Bordner Aerials -#090826-B-26.
... - .
Architectural Consortium, L.LC. 201
if
LI
!
4r�
a
LINO LAKES MFC
LINO LAKES, MN
Z
a
F
SCALE: 1" = 60'
e
r
- - - -- - -- (}aaJTs wow) qL tDMgEH -- --
/ \
II11111111111I11I1I11111111111111PF4llllll
91
-y
IL h
� O
SUVO L89
4s
J LL LL
Q V$i bj
- - - -- 0110d
l
1'
J
701
BUILDINGS AREA
SUPERMARKET 68,860 SF
RETAIL 10,500 SF
RETAIL 30,000 SF
RESTAURANT 4,600 SF
BANK 6,000 SF
RESTAURANT 5,000 SF
C
a
y
H
i
z®
Wetland Line from Miller Delineation
Proposed Watermain
Proposed Sanitary Sewer
E
Surface Water Managment
1
Existing Watermain
Existing Sanitary Sewer
w
z
0
FUTURE STREET ALIGNMENT
CENTERLINE
E
o a
I -35E InterchangeWetland Delineation
NVVI Wetlands
0
0
N
N
N
EH
1
1 inch equals 125 feet
•
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
OTTER LAKE ROAD EXTENSION • FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
TI <DA PROJECT NO. 14563.005
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
DIVISION 1 . GENERAL
1
MOBILIZATION
1.00
LS
ICi%CX "r
af 7002;
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
1.00
LS
/ 5 '
) O " " '
3
SILT FENCE
1,200.00
LF
r' � ) / •
,2 5.700 --
4
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
0.50
AC
5, C',:xi
:::).;.a....„,...,--
qe0,.,r
5
INLET PROTECTION
4.00
EA
i
3> pG-')
6
SEEDING AND MULCH
0.80
AC
,"...,247.., c7
90s, "
7
EROISION CONTROL BLANKET
1,200.00
SY
/ 1 /
1 7406-
8
4" TOPSOIL BORROW
420.00
CY
)4.()„,;:72/
61-1(3 :--'
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 1
DIVISION 2 - SANITARY SEWER
37, <e05.--
9
CONNECT TO EXISTING MET COUNCIL GRAVITY MAIN
1.00
LS
7.4/,,'"K,--^".
/51e 7
7/./ ,-
� 7 / 7`t
10
27" PVC SOR 26, SANITARY SEWER (AVG. 20 DEPTH)
1,650.00
LF
11
48" DIAMETER SAN. MANHOLE EXTRA DEPTH (6 - MANHOLES AVG.
20' DEPTH)
120.00
LF
!' ^�
04 J 2-T1
? �/ r<
... ik Ljry
12
8" ON 27" PVC, SCH 40 WYE BRANCH
4,00
EA
'30,25..c,--
/`- I /cS("� ' "
13
8" PVC, SCH 40 LATERAL
290.00
LF
�1
;V.20
_
7/CI CI"-
14
TRENCH STABILIZATION ROCK
1,650.00
LF
/ ::?c, l/5
c'.2„240.,,
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 2
DIVISION 3 - WATERMANN
15
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN
1.00
EA
/ -7/ (3.., --'/7
-,"
16
16" DIP, CLASS 52
390.00
LF
9?
Ts y, 276
17
16" GATE VALVE
1.00
EA
Z?6, ----
C 66, /0"'
�/5`
18
8" RES, SEAT GATE VALVE & BOX
1.00
EA
i7 • --
,,. '^
4).--.:15:, '-'
19
6" HYDRANT ASSEMBLY (8'-6" BURY)
1.00
EA
}J
Y 2 )n
20
6" DIP WATER SERVICE
290.00
LF
?6,.Y c„,
'
/0 6, -7
21
6" GATE VALVE
4.00
EA
l/ /e^.�
1.7/ 60„,'"
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 3
67, q5 , ---- 1
HEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
DIVISION 4 - STORM SEWER
UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
22
18" RCP CL. 5 STORM SEWER PIPE
80.00
LF
36,30
,/.�7 .-
23
18•' RCP FES WITH TRASH GUARD
1.00
EA
r
�,.J�
30
24
OVERFLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE ON POND
1.00
EA
3360--
31
25
OVERFLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE ON INFILTRATION AREA
1.00
EA
,--
S> /05,--
2 Z3� </
32
26
CATCH BASIN, TYPE 404
2.00
EA
/3.C.0 •
-jar
27
CL. 3RIPRAPW /GEO7CXTILE FILTER FABRIC
10.00
CY
?(Per
<66C� ,'r
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 4
DIVISION 5 'STREETS & RESTORATION
)c2 41LJ l
28
REMOVE AND REINSTALL BARRICADES
70.00
LF
•
f • ,).
#713-5;,---
3,67.5,,--
29
SAWCUT, REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,
BIKE TRAIL
1,470.00
SY
r
�,.J�
30
SAWCUT, REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,
STREETS
120.00
SY
r
2 &
3360--
31
COMMON EXCAVATION (POND AND INFILTRATION)
1,000.00
CY
90 ) 0
,--
S> /05,--
2 Z3� </
32
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
3.70
RS
l /
33
SUBGRADE CORRECTION
100.00
CY
�r,
t cv -
/ P "
34
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)
1,590.00
CY
I0070
/7%7.2,,,.--
)
/'7 70„-''
<•-,c) /1/60,7
)) e• 5�• .✓
35
11" CL.5 AGGREGATE BASE, 100% CRUSHED STONE AGG.,
STREET
1,590.00
7N
,� r
1l0
36
6" CL.5 AGGREGATE BASE, 100 % CRUSHED STONE AGG., BIKE
TRAIL
540.00
TN
C
No 7,
j/". .z-c.-3
37
8518 CONCRETE CURB &GUTTER
810.00
LF
38
CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
90.00
LF
r-7 / Gk
•
��, --1-/- � -5-•
39
8" CONCRETE ENTRANCE
115.00
SY
�7K "
7/ 765,---
40
LVNW3 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 2.5 ", BIKE TRAIL
220.00
TN
41
MVNW2 BITUMINOUS NON - WEARING COURSE 8"
1,200.00
TN
77 25
s,6 7c.r -), .
42
MVNW3 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 1.5"
220.00
TN
7 7 •
< ) II � (/ ". •
43
MVNW4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 1.5"
220.00
TN
-7('
44
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
240.00
GA
.9
C? 5, ----
45
INSTALL SIGN PANELS, TYPE C (INCLUDING POSTS & ASSEMBLY)
5 .00
EA
�"- I .-'
46
24" STOP BAR
40.00
300.0D
LF
LF
.4/ . k.43
/ / 7,2 J M
' 7); -.-.-
47
4' SINGLE WHITE EPDXY STRIPPING
48
4" DOUBLE YELLOW EPDXY STRIPPING
330.00
LF
c. :, c
%) C/1:5',. -
49
SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION
1.0D
LS
$ 23,600.00
$ 23,600.00
SUBTOTAL DIVISION 5
10254%1 / @ _--
c
TOTAL ESTIMATE COSTS
7. 11 3 ` ,.>
•
•
Baseball /Softball
p�fr- ba r -eei .k_ Sess co 3-7-0
by C ,rL1 - Levc° (Rowe "-'
Ideas for 72 Acre Lino Lakes Recreation Park
March 2011
Soccer
American Football
Dog Park (2 to 10 acres, wood chip based, fenced, free with LL dog licensed pet)
Skate Park (ice, roller and skate board)
Traditional Playgrounds
s
Park Course Fitness Trails
Frisbee
Family Picnic Areas
Walking Trails
Issue:
Lino Lakes has owned a 72 acre parcel of land that was purchased to be park area. The land has been sitting idle
at the taxpayer's expense for over a decade. The land is rented out, but for a fraction of the debt service it costs
the city every year.
A park proposal totally nearly $9.5 million was presented to taxpayers in 2002 and defeated. I don't believe the
taxpayers taste for higher taxes will change anytime soon. Being a Charter City, the only traditional way the
park will be funded is with a city wide referendum, which is highly unlikely.
Strategy:
It was a wonderful vision of a previous city council and staff to see the need for a future park and set aside the
land. It would be tragic for the city to sell the land and never realize the vision. It is even more tragic for the city
to sit on the land losing revenue and paying an interfund loan each year with no benefit for the residents.
It is clear the city cannot afford a $9.5 million park, but it is clear that the city should open the land for use by
residents. The solution may be some untraditional ideas about parks, untraditional uses and finding untraditional
revenue sources to build and maintain parks in the future.
Here are some of those ideas;
• Proposing a low environment impact park, using the natural terrain to our cost advantage.
• Establish "friend of the park" groups for each of the various uses
• Find business sponsorship to build and maintain the different park uses
• Keep the construction within the tradition of Lino Lakes, with reasonable not expensive structures,
family orientated, animal friendly spaces and lots of open spaces. This park does not have to have big
pavilions, permanent rest rooms, stadium seating, and paved parking lots. Those could be added in the
future as revenue sources appear.
• Involve all the city boards, Park, Environmental, P &Z, and EDAC.
• Involve our local businesses, churches, schools and volunteer groups.
Business Sponsor examples (none have been contacted, purely hypothetical)
• Target Field — baseball diamonds
• Medtronic Soccer Field
• PetSmart Dog Park
• Life Time Fitness Trail
• Menards Playground
• 3M Skate Park
• Gander Mountain Cross Country Ski Trail
• Eric's Bike Trail
• Horticultural Society Nature Walk
To keep it family friendly, sponsors would be limited to businesses whose products could be purchased by
minors.
t
•
Lino Lakes Public Services Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
•
•
March 2, 2011
TO: Mayor Reinert and City Council Members
FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
SUBJECT: Recreation Complex Update
At last month's Work Session, Mayor Reinert requested information related to the
phasing plan for the Recreation Complex property located at the southeast corner of
Birch Street and Centerville Road.
In 2002, a City Referendum consisting of development of the Recreation Complex,
improvements to 16 neighborhood parks, and the construction of 2.5 miles of trails was
defeated. A copy of the Recreation Complex plan is attached.
In 2007, a phasing plan was developed for the Recreation Complex property (See
attached). Development of Phase 1 will provide useable recreation space to the
community and also provide more exposure to the remaining undeveloped portion of the
site.
The purchase of the land was financed through an interfund loan from the Area and Unit
Fund. In 2007, the City established a repayment plan utilizing excess general fund
balances and Dedicated Parks funds.
Options to secure funding for development of the Recreation Complex include:
• General Fund Levy - Requires tax rate increase.
• City Referendum - Requires successful city wide referendum election.
• Dedicated Parks Funds - Acquired through residential, commercial, and industrial
development. Only marginal undesignated funds are currently in place.
•
•DE 1L C►i iLN'T F="LAl,1
LINO LAKES RECREATION COMPLEX
FLOATING
—
BOARDWALK
PARKING LOT
(136 CARS)
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
AREA
REGIONAL
TRAIL
PREMIUM
FULL-SIZE
SOCCER /
FOOTBALL
FIELD
PREMIUM
FULL -SIZE
SOCCER /
FOOTBALL
FIELD
FULL -
SOCCE
FOOTBAL
FIELD
• 8 • 8!
-00 0-ep9 H8ci -0 ‘0 _o-o_9
O FT BA LILT
(17B) j
EXISTING
FARMSITE
(10 ...cites)
WELL HOUSE/
MAINTENANCE
STORAGE
BUILDING
(2) TENNIS
COURTS
`—PARKING LOT
(47 CARS)
BB COURT
- - -(2) ICE HOCKEY
RINKS / IN-LINE
SKATE PARK
MULTIPURPOSE
BUILDING
(CONCESSION,
RESTROOM,
WARMING
HOUSE, OFFICE,
ETC. )
CURVILINEAR
PARKWAY -
ACCESS DRIVE
PARKING LOT.
(349 CARS WITII
97 OVERFLOW'"
SPACES)
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
AREA
DROP -OFF
AREA
PLAY AREA
PREPARED FOR:
— SEPTIC AREA
OD Ale
FULL -SIZE
SOCCER /
FOOTBALL
FIELD
ATION
BALLFIELD„
(300)
FULL -SIZE
SOCCER /
FOOTBALL
FIELD
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
PH. 651-982-2440
You TH.'S;
BASE BAL
(275')
L
NORTH
100 100 200 300
GRAPHIC SCALE
50' DIA
"OPEN AIR"
SHELTER
BUILDING
PREPARED BY:
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
SUITE NUMBER ONE
HoPKINs, MN 55343
PH. 952-238-0831 FX. 952-238 -0833
DATE: JANUARY 21, 2002
B &A PROJECT 401 -25
•
RECREATION :'01\41PL EX
fill Et et or it ra es slot is it Ili "is 011-111
N
2,
PRE MUM
FULL-SIZE
1 SOCCER
FOOT CALL.
F'1EL
PREP•iium
F ULL-SIZEI
SOCCER /
FOOTBALL
FULL-SIZE
rOOT BAL L
1- $ LP
1
/ .1. td
S Sl•I
- 8 8
W
•
Note: well house
costs not included
in this recreational
development cost
estimate
-+.1)
• 41: ,
sr
w wow or WW1, W 14.1
I ma la as as, lora' W-111 WillIWIL*
'4.■ 5 s
1
!
1-
E t=1
F
2
,v •
ar••7 411 *).
• '24'1;4
sis
,e•
= el at 1, 11,1 w • • .0„" -
t'
*
•LE''' RE, 1,4 06 .1
Pr
Area #4
1
1
Tlf-• f
1
F F !-CC: `c.' t, • Sk-
Page 4 of 4
I.
F
P A
1u. 7 '3107
S i Fi C' t
Hot- t 1-"1,
I
•
•
•
Updated Cost Estimate - Development of Recreation Complex
City of Lino Lakes
Date: September 13, 2007
To: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
City of Lino Lakes
From: Jason Amberg, Vice President
Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
This updated estimate is based on the Lino Lakes Recreation Complex Development Plan that was prepared for the City of Lino Lakes
in 2002. Since there is not a detailed topographical survey of the existing conditions for this property, many costs indicated are based
on comparisons with similar developments that we have been involved in. We suggest that the City have a detailed topographical
survey prepared prior to moving ahead with any of the proposed development on this site to refine the estimate once again and to
eliminate any guesswork. This survey will also be necessary to prepare construction plans and specifications for implementation of the
various proposed improvements.
The attached graphic indicates the approximate boundaries of the 4 development areas described below.
Base Development
Area #I Development (Three North Soccer Fields & related items)
Item
Description:
estimated cost
I
Site Removals and Grading
$ 1 65,000.00
2
Stormwater Utilities and Ponding
$50,000.00
3
Asphalt pavement for parking lot & roadways (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$164,375.00
4
Concrete Curb & Gutter for parking lot & roadways
$28,920.00
5
Parking lot striping and h.c. signage
$2,500.00
6
Asphalt Trails (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$21,625.00
7
Boardwalk
$18,500.00
8
Misc. Site Amenities: trash recept., bike racks, benches, etc.
$5,000.00
9
soccer field irrigation
$45,000.00
I 0
soccer seeding
$36,250.00
11
soccer goals
$ 1 2,000.00
12
drinking fountain
$12,500.00
13
Wetland Mitigation
$35,000.00
14
Landscaping: tree and shrub plantings
$25,000.00
15
General seeding outside of soccer fields
$10,000.00
Area #I Development - Estimated Subtotal:
$631,670.00
Professional Fees for Design, Engineering, Surveying, etc. (15 %):
Contingency (10 %):
Area #I Development - Estimated Total:
$94,750.50
$63,167.00
$789,587.50
Area #2 Development (Four 300' Ballfields and related items)
Item
Description:
estimated cost
1
Site Removals and Grading
$250,000.00
2
Stormwater Utilities and Ponding
$75,000.00
3
Asphalt pavement for parking lot & roadways (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$338,750.00
4
Concrete Curb & Gutter for parking lot & roadways
$53,220.00
5
Parking lot striping and h.c. signage
$5,000.00
6
Asphalt Trails & common gathering spaces (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$126,875.00
7
Misc. Site Amenities: trash recept., bike racks, benches, etc.
$20,000.00
8
ballfield fencing
$118,000.00
Page 1 of 4
•
410
•
9
ballfield backstops
$38,640.00
10
concrete mow strip for ballfield fencing
$61,800.00
11
dugouts: benches, ball & bat racks
$20,000.00
12
bleachers for ballfields
$28,000.00
13
ballfield irrigation
$135,000.00
14
ballfield seeding
$30,000.00
15
agg -lime infields & warning tracks
$65,600.00
16
backstop netting
$20,000.00
17
concrete pavement for bleachers and dugouts
$17,500.00
18
drinking fountain
$12,500.00
19
Wetland Mitigation
$50,000.00
20
Landscaping: tree and shrub plantings
$65,000.00
21
General seedin &outside of ballfields
$24,000.00
Area #2 Development - Estimated Subtotal:
$1,554,885.00
Professional Fees for Design, Engineering, Surveying, etc. (15 %):
Contingency (10 %):
Area #2 Development - Estimated Total:
$155,488.50
$1,943,606.25
Area #3 Development (Two 200' Ballfields, Tennis Courts, Basketball Court, Hockey Rinks, and related items)
Item
Description:
estimated cost
I
Site Removals and Grading
$140,000.01
2
Stormwater Utilities and Ponding
$75,000.01
3
Asphalt pavement for parking lot & roadways (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$234,750.01
4
Concrete Curb & Gutter for parking lot & roadways
$45,360.01
5
Parking lot striping and h.c. signage
$3,250.01
6
Asphalt Trails & common gathering spaces (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$75,000.01
7
Misc. Site Amenities: trash recept., bike racks, benches, etc.
$10,000.01
8
ballfield fencing
$42,000.01
9
ballfield backstops
$1 1,500.01
10
concrete mow strip for ballfield fencing
$24,000.01
11
dugouts: benches, ball & bat racks
$10,000.01
12
bleachers for ballfields
$14,000.01
13
ballfield irrigation
$35,000.01
14
ballfield seeding
$5,000.01
15
agg -lime infields & warning tracks
$17,600.01
16
backstop netting
$10,000.01
17
concrete pavement for bleachers and dugouts
$8,750.01
18
drinking fountain
$12,500.01
19
basketball court (3" asphalt over 6" class 5, basketball goals, line striping)
$25,000.01
20
2 tennis courts (3" asphalt over 6" class 5, line striping, chainlink fencing with gates, tennis nets, etc.)
$58,500.04
21
lightings system for tennis courts
$52,000.01
22
2 asphalt hockey rinks with dasher boards (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$220,000.04
23
lightings system for hockey rinks
$65,000.01
24
Wetland Mitigation
$25,000.01
25
Landscaping: tree and shrub plantings
$35,000.04
26
General seeding outside of ballfields
$14,000.01
$1,268,210.01
Area #3 Development - Estimated Subtotal:
Professional Fees for Design, Engineering, Surveying, etc. (15%):
Contingency (I 0 %):
Area #3 Development - Estimated Total:
$126,821.00
$1,585,262.50
Area #4 Development (Two South Soccer Fields, Two 200' Ballfields, One 275' Ballfield, and related items)
Item
Description:
estimated cost
I
Site Removals and Grading
$185,000.0
2
Stormwater Utilities and Ponding
$25,000.0
3
Asphalt Trails & common gathering spaces (3" asphalt over 6" class 5)
$88,750.0
Page 2 of 4
•
•
•
4
Misc. Site Amenities: trash recept., bike racks, benches, etc.
$15,000.00
5
ballfield fencing
$68,400.00
6
ballfield backstops
$21,160.00
7
concrete mow strip for ballfield fencing
$25,590.00
8
dugouts: benches, ball & bat racks
$15,000.00
9
bleachers for ballfields
$21,000.00
I 0
ballfield & soccer irrigation
$125,000.00
1 I
ballfield & soccer seeding
$33,750.00
12
soccer goals
$8,000.00
13
sod for infields
$5,700.00
14
agg -lime infields & warning tracks
$31,800.00
15
backstop netting
$ 1 5,000.00
16
concrete pavement for bleachers and dugouts
$13,125.00
17
drinking fountain
$12,500.00
18
Wetland Mitigation
$25,000.00
19
Landscaping: tree and shrub plantings
$35,000.00
20
General seeding outside of ball-fields and soccer fields
$14,000.00
17
Area #4 Development - Estimated Subtotal:
$783,775.00
Professional Fees for Design, Engineering, Surveying, etc. (15 %): $1 17,566.
Contingency (10 %): $78,377.50
Area #4 Development - Estimated Total:
Base Development - Areas I, 2, 3 & 4 - Estimated Total:
$979,718.75
$5,298,175.001
"Add -on" Development Items:
Item
Description:
estimated cost
1
Lighting for three soccer fields
$ 1 80,000.00
2
Lighting for four 300' ballfields
$360,000.00
3
Lighting for five 200' to 275' ballfields
$375,000.00
4
Parking lot lighting
$125,000.00
5
Two 50' diameter 'open air' shelters on concrete slab
$170,000.00
6
Small restroom building
$250,000.00
7
Multi- purpose building (shelter, warming house, restrooms, etc)
$600,000.00
8
Water service & septic drainfields for 2 buildings with restrooms
$75,000.00
9
Bleachers on concrete pads for 2 premium soccer fields
$28,000.00
10
Draintile system for 5 soccer fields
$175,000.00
I 1
Upgrade to sand based topsoil for 2 premium soccer fields
$350,000.00
12
Scoreboards for 9 ballfields
$130,500.00
13
Scoreboards for 5 soccer fields
$72,500.00
14
Draintile system for 9 ballfields
$121,500.00
15
Children's play area
$115,000.00
16
Eight bif enclosures
$36,000.00
17
Two dumpster enclosures
$17,000.00
18
Two entry/identification signs
$ 1 8,500.00
19
Four athletic informational signs
$16,500.00
20
5 sets of soccer field comer markers
$6,750.00
21
Additional landscaping/buffering
$75,000.00
22
Fencing at goal ends of soccer fields
$62,500.00
"Add -on" Items - Estimated Subtotal:
53,359,750.00
rofessional Fees for Design, tngineenng, Surveying, etc. :
Contin•en 10% :
$335,975.00
"Add -on" Items - Estimated Total:
Full Development - Areas I, 2, 3 & 4 plus "Add -on" Items - Estimated Total:
$4,199,687.50
$9,497,862.501
Page 3 of 4
•
•
WS — Item 6
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 6
Date: March 7, 2011
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator
Re: Strategic Planning Update
Background
During the work session on February 7, the Council expressed support for a strategic
planning session and for hiring a facilitator to conduct the meeting.
After considering a few facilitators, I am recommending that we use Dave Unmacht,
Senior Vice President and Consultant from Springsted. Dave has 26 years of experience
in local government and has facilitated a number of the City /County /School District
Collaboration meetings that I have participated in. He is highly regarded and would do a
great job for us. I have not contacted him yet.
Before I contact Mr. Unmacht, I think it is important that the Council determine what it
hopes to gain from the strategic planning session. Consultants generally like to know
specifically what an organization hopes to accomplish so they can provide direction that
will help us achieve our goals.
Because of this ongoing recession, it is hard to predict where we'll be in one year, let
alone five years. With so many pressing issues facing us right now, the best course of
action during the strategic planning session might be to assess where we're at today and
then map out a strategy for addressing the City's current needs one to five years into the
future. A few of these issues include: Legacy at Woods Edge, public works
facility /Anoka Co. salt/sand storage shed, road reconstruction, park land development,
ECFE lease, organizational restructuring, and 2012 budget outlook.
Requested Council Direction
Authorize staff to contact Dave Unmacht for a price quote to conduct a one -day strategic
planning session.
•
WS — Item 7
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item #7
Date: March 7, 2011
To: City Council
From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Jean Viger, Deputy Clerk/Election Liaison
Re: Even Year Elections
Background
In October of last year, the council discussed the idea of changing the municipal election
from odd to even year to correspond with state and federal level elections and therefore
save on the costs of administering an election. The proposed budget for the city's cost of
the 2011 election is $14,060. A change to even year would save the actual expense
biyearly. A change would also mean that the staff time devoted to elections during those
odd years could be directed to other work.
Of note also is that any change to the municipal election year would result in a question
regarding the terms of office for the council members and mayor. Changing the election
year may result in either the addition or loss of one year to the terms, possibly impacting
both sitting council members and those individuals who are up for election/reelection.
Since accomplishing a change in election year would require an amendment to the city
charter, the council forwarded the matter to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission for their
review. The Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting on January 13, 2011 and
has forwarded the attached comments. It appears that the commission is not supportive
of a change at this time.
The council could still pursue an amendment to the charter. The amendment process is
governed by state statute which provides more than one method by which a home rule
charter can be amended:
1) Petition — a petition meeting the requirements of state law can be submitted by
citizens and the question would be brought to the voters;
2) Amendment proposed by the council — the council may propose an
amendment by ordinance and, after review by the charter commission, may present it to
the voters;
3) Upon receiving a recommendation from the charter commission, the council
may enact a charter amendment by ordinance with an affirmative vote of all council
members (with a post approval waiting period of 90 days).
Requested Council Direction
Staff is presenting the response of the Charter Commission and requesting further council
direction.
Attachments
Charter Commission letter
•
•
•
February 9, 2011
Honorable Mayor Jeff Reinert
Councilmember O'Donnell
Councilmember Gallup
Councilmember Rafferty
Councilmember Roeser
After reviewing the documentation of the Council's discussion on the issue of odd /even election
years, the Charter Commission concurs with the opinion provided by the Honorable Jeff Reinert,
Mayor of Lino Lakes, in his comments of the October 4, 2010 work session approved minutes,
lines 136 through 141:
136 The mayor remarked that municipal officials are at the bottom of the totem pole and the
137 reason he sees for having off year elections is to give necessary attention to local
138 questions. Joining with the larger election world would also mean some loss of the non -
139 partisan nature of the municipal elections perhaps just by association (campaign signs
140 displayed together). He also noted that the savings are not extensive and they are
141 actually saved only biyearly.
Therefore the Charter Commission will not take any further action on this issue of odd /even
election years.
Respectfully,
/
Caroline Dahl Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission
CC: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Jeff Karlson, City Administrator
•
WS — Item 8
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item #8
Date: March 7, 2010
To: City Council
From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Re: Liquor License Fees
Background
Liquor License Fees. All liquor licenses issued by the City of Lino Lakes expire on
June 30 each year. Renewal information will be sent to current license holders beginning
in April. The council has expressed an interest in reviewing the city's liquor license fees
and staff is providing the follow information as an update.
The city's current schedule of fees for sale of alcoholic beverages is as follows:
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
3.2 Beer Investigation $250.00 (1 or 2); $450.00 (3 +)
3.2 Beer Off -Sale $200.00/Year
3.2 Beer On -Sale $300.00 /Year
3.2 Beer On -Sale Temporary $50.00 + $5.00/Day
Club License $300.00
Liquor License Investigation Fee $250.00 (1 or 2); $450.00 (3 +)
Liquor On -Sale License $4,500.00 /Year
Liquor Off -Sale $200.00
Liquor Temporary Permit $50.00
Temporary Set -Up License $25.00
Wine License Investigation Fee $250.00 (1 or 2); $450.00 (3 +)
Wine $500.00 /Year
Sunday Liquor $200.00 /Year
Staff has prepared the attached table comparing this city's on -sale, off -sale and wine
license fees to neighboring communities and also with those of Minnesota cities of
comparable size.
Limitations on Fees - Per Minnesota Statutes, the license fee is intended to cover the
costs of issuing and inspecting and other directly related costs of enforcement only. The
following limits are also imposed by state law:
Club License — limits based on membership (MN Statute 340A.408)
Sunday Sales - Maximum fee $200 (MN Statute 340A.504)
Off Sale - $380 (MN Statute 340A.408)
Hearing Requirement - State statute also dictates that local fees may not be increased
except after notice and hearing on the proposed increase. Notice of the proposed increase
must be mailed to all affected licensees at least 30 days before the date set for the
hearing.
Special Fees — Note also that on -sale license holders have the option to apply for a
special license that allows liquor sales until 2:00 a.m. The state charges a fee for the
license; the city currently does not. The cost of a background investigation prior
issuance of a license is another special fee and is discussed below.
Liquor License Investigation Fees
The council has had several discussions in the past two years regarding liquor license
investigation fees and in particular the fee that is charged annually upon license renewal.
In July of 2010 the council heard the recommendation of the police department that the
city continue its practice of conducting a background investigation with each license
renewal and passed a resolution ratifying the practice. The council also discussed the fee
that is charged for the renewal investigation but did not make any change. There was
direction for staff to return for further discussion prior to the next license renewal period.
Comparison to other cities — A comparison of what other cities are charging for their
initial new license investigation fee and for investigations on renewals is attached.
Cost of investigation — The Lino Lakes Police Department conducts the city's
background investigations. An estimate of the cost of the background process for liquor
licensing was requested from the department. Of course each investigation is different so
it is not possible to pinpoint the exact amount of police time that it takes to accomplish an
investigation. With that understanding, the department has reviewed the current charge,
which is $250 for one or two applicants and $450 for three or more applicants. The
police department reports that those charges are appropriate according to an average
police officer rate (that includes benefits and overhead).
Options for change —
- Incorporate investigation cost into license fee — As indicated in our survey, some
cities do not charge separately for renewal investigations. That may be because
the cost is considered to be included in the regular license fee. If the council were
to increase license fees to include investigation costs, a notice to license holders
and a hearing would be required. Also, as discussed earlier, there is a cap on the
amount that can be charged for some types of licenses.
Change amount of investigation fee — The council could change the standard
charge for investigations.
Requested Council Direction
Staff seeks the council's direction on any changes to either license fees or the charge for
background investigations. If a change is sought for the upcoming liquor licensing
period (commencing July 1), a direction is needed soon since renewal information will be
sent to license holders in April.
Liquors
City
License
Population
Annual Fees
On -Sale
(On -Sale, Off -Sale,
Off -Sale
Wine)
Wine
Lino Lakes
20,305
$4,500
Mac)
$500
Blaine
54,927
$5,500.00
$200
$200
$1,000 - $2,000 (seating)
$500
Andover
30,598
$5,250.00
Centerville
3,839
$2,500 - $4,000 (sq ft)
($3,250 average)
$3,200
$100
$200
$300
White Bear Lake
24,776
Vadnais Heights
13,038
$3,350 - $6,350 (sq ft)
($4,850 average)
$6,000
$380
$240
$400
$3,000
Columbus
4,120
Shoreview
26,159
$5,000 ($4,000 train)
($4,500 average)
$5,000
$200
$100
$1,000
$300
Circle Pines
5,250
Forest Lake
17,494
$3,000
$200
$500
North Oaks
4,554
$1,000
$100
$250
Hugo
12,022
$2,300
$100
$200
Average
City
Population
$4,029
City's of similar
On -Sale
$185
size
Off -Sale
$768
Wine
Lino Lakes
20305
$4 500
$200
$500
Rosemount
20,917
$3,000- $4,500 (class)
($3,750 average)
$200
$550
Farmington
18,589
$3,500
municipal
$300
Savage
25,293
$5,250
municipal
$850
Prior Lake
22,111
$6,300
$200
$1,250
Ramsey
22,408
$5,000
$380
$1,000
Forest Lake
17,494
$3,000
$200
$500
White Bear Lake
24,776
$3,200
$200
Shoreview
26,159
$5,000/$4,000
($4,500 average)
$200
$1,000
Average
$4,312
$230
$778
•
Liquor
License Investigation
Fees
City
Pop.
Initial In -state Investigation Fee
Renewal
Lino Lakes
20,305
$250 (1 or 2), $450 (3 or more)
$250 (1 or 2), $450 (3 or more)
Andover
30,598
no charge
no charge
Vadnais Heights
13,038
$200
no charge
Columbus
4,120
$500
$500
Shoreview
26,159
$200
no charge
Forest Lake
17,494
$500
no charge
Minnetonka
51,519
$500
no charge
Isanti
5,206
$300/$100
no charge
Bloomington
85,852
$500 ($150 in state)
$100
Osseo
2,459
$200
no charge
Circle Pines
5,153
$500 deposit (unused
portion is returned)
no charge
Northfield
19,413
$200
$200
Belie Plaine
6,595
$100
no charge
Golden Valley
20,355
$3,000 Dep / $500 non
refundable
$100
Buffalo
13,776
$300
no charge
Plymouth
70,676
$500
no charge
Oakdale
27,249
Single, $350/$500
no charge
Robbinsdale
13,698
$500
$250
St. Peter
10,887
$250
$150
Burnsville
61,355
varies ($1500 -$500)
$50
Stillwater
22,532
$300
$150
•
•
•
WS — Item 9
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 9
Date: Council Work Session, March 7, 2011
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: CSAH 34 Corridor Study Final Report
Background
The City recently received correspondence from a resident expressing concern over
vehicle accidents along Hodgson Road near Egret Street. Egret Street is located
immediately west of the Rice Creek Bridge. The resident requested that the city consider
initiating a speed study of the corridor to have the speed limit reduced.
Analysis
Hodgson Road (CSAH 49) is under the jurisdiction of Anoka County. The speed limit
along Hodgson Road between Lake Drive and Birch Street is 50 mph. Speed limits can
only be adjusted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( Mn/DOT) following
completion of a speed study. The local road authority (Anoka County) can request an
investigation by Mn/DOT. However, Anoka County as a matter of policy, requires a
resolution from the city prior to forwarding a request to Mn/DOT.
The speed study includes collecting vehicle speed data over a period of time under ideal
driving conditions. The speed limit is set based on the 85th percentile, i.e., the speed at
which 85 percent of vehicles are traveling under. Speed limits posted near this number
have been shown to be the maximum safe and reasonable speed. One concern over
requesting a speed study is that the speed limit can get adjusted upward. It is very
possible that a speed study on this corridor could result in the speed limit increasing to 55
mph.
Accordingly, staff recommends a preliminary review be conducted internally before a
formal speed study request is made. Public Safety is in the process of assembling crash
data for the specified location over the last 10 years. Preliminary results do not indicate
an increase in the crash rate for this location. However a more specific review will
provide us with a better understanding of the rate, type of crashes, and likely cause.
Speed may be only one factor. Sight distance may also play a roll. Additionally, upon
improved weather conditions (late spring), staff is proposing to collect additional speed
and traffic data using the Public Safety speed trailer. Once this information is compiled
1
we will be in a better position to determine whether a speed study would be successful in
lowering the limit.
Council Direction
Staff is requesting council direction regarding the above referenced request.
Attachments
1. General Location Map
7
•
•
•
13
Lake Drive
♦ )
i
N
0
70
0..
16
1
2
3
3 sa �e
6�. 6 1 2 1 OA\ 38
7 7
8
9
3 (` 37
4 �O 36
�. 35 13
,J 3334161514 A 121'
32
X31,- 17 6 SC 109
30 .. 18 5 7 8 cP 8
29' 19 4 9 A 7
� 6
28 20 21 3 2 101 RCN 5
27
26 25 2423 22 1 15 14 13 12 1 2 3 4
Egret La(`e
131 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 114 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 16
J
14 p�0
\O 24 23
13 25
26�
12 28 27
11, pj\03
10
17
18
9
4.
8 5
7
6
5 Ja' 10
9
- .j) 11
3 ° Q 12,
13
2 c 1. 1
14
1 Birch St
0.4 14
se
15
r 21
39 f,.., a 2 18 218 1
38 O 1 34 57 4 5734
37 , 4 Ojibwa',
r `Birch Street
1
Proposed Speed
Study Area
50 100 200 300
400
Albers Projection
Central Meridian: -06
1st Std Parallel: 20
2nd Std Parallel: 60
Latitude of Origin: 40
Miles
WS — Item 10
MANAGEMENT TEAM'S
Weekly Progress Report
March 7, 2011
them
Last Act Taken
Staff `.
Status,'
Police Chief Replacement
Process
1/4/11 Staff provided update on the
search process
Dan
Three finalists took a pre-
employment assessment. We
should have results in a week.
Organizational Review
10/4/10 City Administrator directed to
begin preparing plan for an internal
analysis
Jeff
Interviews with city hall
employees have been
completed; public works next
Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
1/4/1 1Council revised residential density
numbers
Mike
Revised update was sent to
adjacent jurisdictions for
comments and approval
RFP's for Contracted
Services
10/4/10 Staff was directed to put together
a list of contracts and time schedule for
reviewing contracts
Jeff
The City received six RFP's,
which are being reviewed by
staff
Sign Ordinance
10 /4/10 Staff asked to change sign
ordinance to coincide with absentee
voting
Mike
P & Z recommended approval;
ordinance amendment is on
March 14 agenda
Motorsports Facility Race
Track Proposal
2/15/1 1 Staff met with Columbus
representatives to share information
Mike
IMDEC has not submitted a
formal proposal to either city
Local Surface Water
Management Plan
1/24/1 1 Council asked for a presentation
& directed staff to solicit proposals for
plan preparation from other firms
Mike
Staff will present more
detailed information at a
future work session