The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/05/2007 Council Packet• WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday September 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Russian Baptist Church Update 2. Water System Plans /Studies Update a. Water Emergency and Conservation Plan b. Water Treatment Feasibility Report c. Update on Utility Rate Study 3. Compensation Study Proposal 4. 2008 Budget 5. Draft 77th Street Realignment Feasibility Study (to follow) 6. Request to Subdivide Property/Ordinance Amendment Inquiry 7. Anoka County EDA/HRA 8. VLAWMO (to follow) a. JPA Amendment b. 2008 Budget 9. 2007 Ballot Questions a. West Shadow Lake Dr. Reconstruction b. Shenandoah Area Reconstruction 10. CR J/Hodgson Traffic Signal Update 11. BUD Report 12. City Hall Access Policy (requested at 8 -27 -07 work session) 13. Regular Agenda Items Adjourn WS — Item 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 1 Date: Council Work Session, September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Russian Baptist Church Update Background On August 27, 2007 the City Council tabled consideration of extending the deadline for completion for the Russian Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit and Site Performance Agreement. The council requested an update of the status of construction and screening/landscaping along the westerly property line. Staff is in the process of reviewing the approvals and working with the Church on resolving outstanding issues. A status update will be provided at the Wednesday, September 5, 2007 Work Session. In the interim Council members may wish to view the site. The property is located at 5 Ash Street (CRJ). _ )!§ §§!!2 ; ■+\ \$\£ § §§ :002 81.3-,338.sio LeglZ/1:47 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT NORMAL SECTION •DESIGN 97 334ERICAN 6NIGiNEERING 0E51040. iNC I BENCHMARK 27:5 7:15. N :CU :0l2 Or 3.a2z 0c.002 2l MUNI- 3030 .•082.31u0 3.7055010 8.23. 2200' ,8500 3 330=‘, = 386 55; =Pi< 5 '03E. 801.0 LOC3-00 525 5080. 30 20250- 3050 2. 3AL:A1N 400 qCAD .052,5 OLE2 ,• 390 30 ,3RADIND TURF ESTABLISHMENT & EROSION CONTROL NOTES • L80 22089L-SI.E., t_ 02R 330331;0.0.E.- 2.80.. 30 30CCPCINC 4.000 2575 ANC S24, -003 0582,0 dol 71.114 • 0 • 2 •••S. 20 C0PPL=3"0.3 2-188297G 28088,C, • "0,9209_ 3.1•83C MR in ALL -9,-RIP 30205002 3.0 90 -309E =0 50,CEN1 <005011 00 NI0.00 4 .AINIMUM NC, 0030, ICOMP3C7071 M ALL 3152459E0 38E80. .0 70 SODDED OR 30E0E0 • 33003.84 ore L'Ra 30ND-3 30ED L•i% 3NAL.. 9E 0,002 269 8- 004 RER ACRE • 0000970 sL EL30, 10E3 Lox 0.3LL 30 00000, 208 -304 '07 3080 :ORMAN, 3002010 80 003 70'4E303E8 3" -.IC: 7.E NORMA, •,Ari: • MD 20C 30 30230050 2 N800 3673 • 3,3.373 3,01_13 338,3 00 .n00, -•00 2.88. 2.0,30 3E 380030 ,520b., '0,0000 50 '0.3 3E0 5270 8.0 45220900 38, NE7°.0 28 STRA.GN • ET3';LiZE8 20-0-.3 4.: ;004 .08 3080 • 28060. .2C17000L Al- F.10520N 23N '9C E,SORE3 8.7S- 30 07303L_E:2 33100 03 3.32407E500..- :If :RAGING 35E39 .05! 300 <9E,54'9,503 30010 st.'0822 287 302. 3E370800 33 319E3003 • 70-,2:ND 7:R5DING 5.81. 3E 3EZ32DINC 20 03000 205 'UOEO 22.95 r '250 E00881 .Sr.05: 203<205 3031, 9E 30.30020 °RCM 'Li. M.03 • 280;7081 30.1801 2-.C.083, 802335 AN 'ORGE4SON 3222 3240123 37 '<0 7:50 800110,.. 510 050, -53-,330032 CONSTRUCTION NOTES •23NE:2E0E CURB -WO 31.ir20R 01203E00 CURB AND ,M0TER 33131. 30 MNS,LiC:r° 802080010 00 3n002 2533 :2NC2E ZUNI 3.0 2'2 .■-■ At._ 3E 3-3:? 9n0.:35 0THER43SE NC-U.; .1,55 2 SHALL 00 0cE,0%..Z. 30'0'<C -,•;: 3803 70 ama • ARIN.; 3.2 09493In2 3.33 IRINC, <NO 30u363303 3.8L. 30 8233202.3 0n000 205 • 2PN 225022 200002 00'- 383,0E3 3 "IL" - ainE 0200,201 .ANU SUR,E • <2 .0000 10. '!'0,50 3041000'C:' 3' 2:0 -.• 5C'E•:22. 32502 NC 20N0MU:010N 2E0.30.70.0 20,0022C ; . 5004LL 09.0 70NCL 2 03 •S • .317. 2 2,ys :R120 Si.: -0 <4820<0! : 9021.7.05 3E04 2 'CC, 2355.8000 303_2372 2 0014 •!-• 36001C .20=3 7E0•, ,ARK.G +RE> 5 307 .220".! 062E5 AREA; ' 325, JURA 0ION 9CT --E0 GE 72 ,F-LA•C aE,E10 3, 082'2 32,3502 =5502,523. ;NC • .731 386.: C0lol' 2<003 18, /a" 7.2 396 990 30.- :1' a JJ .eral • , 90 { .1-,3 • „1 389.3 99 33 8 _ ,.• 0 962 / / ,,,,,„000 =020, 23428 032500 3-4518.5 3E3900 9 63392.22 g E.LE4411055 7n CURB 3100 ;CUTTER ARE 'WE 00P CURB 0LE 433008S ERE 392 12- 9(33 x • ,r.CO IL =399. 23 2:02 ;08 E.8 g5.,9 \ 7 • y 798 .1 ;RA I 30: 2,0 • 00.3 .830;ON _3/ 323 / 100 7CP .3132 0 00 3PC.100CMR ._ANS =-08 30,89. OF =2:205,9810 CURB 33 :BM.; 83.1 .9300: 002.0: 3,%001 032503 zaS,nc, 9E .202 '0 .s42; :4108NC 3. S V-3 32 205 7R 1•DR AL._ 29,,N 5ND0 A .7.7.LDN •32000 0000802 8.0 -20.500L,C° 3013E43" 2."83.02 300 7222280 0.5 21.0 RE8 01000 03250,0` IECP,REmE TS -2' 3C, .CL1 0 0 az -3:300040 74/3.1000 •0201 cavEa. 932503 80.89810 ;:E725:17: 838909 '26? i=0 -;5- 00. 3.2 - 000 095 2:1' 4ENCE / :SU 3008,, .0-1( 6(41,J Woltt--Secrt,"--, 9(612067 -24 7777- 2- '0,48 300.0.5 =33 3E92 005.3.085 8E. 41.37 3.393. :39 48 51t0re digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL. :a. Cities Area 351-454-0002 LIN 700 =re. -300-Z52 - :166- 8,88 : Oop ! 5 :3 ; 27 30 i 16 ;63 •2 I :8 O i .9 22 5 50 065 20 1 :0 363 i • 3 ! 3 2 z 1 7.3 I :1; I 32 9 80 I la.; 0500 2. lopc.F.N2f 7 ;20r, 1•N7,80,2ge• Of2C-E,D m rr. ,^0e1 7ur ;pa ' t__ 3.481.Er 0002.:180 5647 33000 3<0,002 50,71050 1-1 0E00E0.32 z 3.008 1-33. •■ 500.004 7-9 20E000E0 .0E3P.L5 080 ,OR .070 .1.3220 3.011-2,4020 qIN - RAP 0- 3 6L6033110! FLARED END SECTION RIPRAP 0NIMUM 003960 4029000 12 MINIMUM 800I1 /-• 7N: 7---.-3NC-c LEGEND ,0000500 - - - - 415 7i NC 011&I 4-5 -an • • "NC.< C •••., • • 21•4■C, OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE MOT TO SCALE - 390300,- ;_;310 .208 2000 DELNE,,,E.; 20-3NO 2500* 3* 200.30200. SENER,LIANNOLE 1.4802 202-"C' MPOCRAPPMAL 224000425 LiN0 2IREC0010 OF 305104302 21220 '2520 7.5131102 _00<03 Ju" 3.3139. 03EE 30 2 13 5- 03 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Julie Bartell To: Michael Kula Cc: Jim Studenski; Michael Grochala; Paul Bengtson Subject: RE: Russian Baptist Church Mr. Kula, I am sharing your request with other Lino Lakes city staff involved in this matter. We will provide information to you as it becomes available. Julie Bartell City Clerk City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651 - 982 -2406 651- 982 -2499 fax julie .bartell @ci.lino - lakes.mn.us Original Message From: Michael Kula [mailto :mkula @kula - associates.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:08 AM To: Julie Bartell Cc: 'Goertzen, Roland'; Gordon Heitke Subject: Russian Baptist Church Ms. Bartell: Your city council tabled the matter of the request for an extension of the development and site improvement agreements for the Russian Baptist Church at last night's meeting with no firm date established as to when the matter would be set back on for consideration. I would like to receive notice - a phone call, an email, or a letter - advising me of the date that this matter will be back on the agenda. At the same time, I would also like to receive copies of any staff report(s) and /or proposed resolutions that will be considered. Thank you. Mike Kula 6 Indian Hills Drive Circle Pines, MN 55014 (763) 780 -8284 Michael G. Kula Michael G. Kula & Associates, P.A. 1275 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 -2818 Phone: 651 - 699 -1499 Fax: 651- 699 -0134 Web: www.kula - associates.com IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax - related matter(s). This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you 1 Julie Bartell From: Gordon Heitke Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:48 AM To: Michael Kula; Julie Bartell Cc: 'Goertzen, Roland' Subject: RE: Russian Baptist Church For clarification, this issue will be on the Wednesday, September 5 council work session agenda. The work session begins at 5:30 p.m. The order of the agenda has not been finalized, but this item will be scheduled for the early portion of the session. The Council will receive an update on progress to date and answers to the questions raised last evening. The Council will then decide whether to place the extension on the September 10 regular meeting agenda for action. Per your request, you will receive additional information prior to the session. Original Message From: Michael Kula [mailto:mkula @kula- associates.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:08 AM To: Julie Bartell Cc: 'Goertzen, Roland'; Gordon Heitke Subject: Russian Baptist Church Ms. Bartell: Your city council tabled the matter of the request for an extension of the development and site improvement agreements for the Russian Baptist Church at last night's meeting with no firm date established as to when the matter would be set back on for consideration. I would like to receive notice - a phone call, an email, or a letter - advising me of the date that this matter will be back on the agenda. At the same time, I would also like to receive copies of any staff report(s) and /or proposed resolutions that will be considered. Thank you. Mike Kula 6 Indian Hills Drive Circle Pines, MN 55014 (763) 780 -8284 Michael G. Kula Michael G. Kula & Associates, P.A. 1275 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 -2818 Phone: 651- 699 -1499 Fax: 651 - 699 -0134 Web: www.kula - associates.com IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax - related matter(s). This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. 1 are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. 2 WS — Item 2a. WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 2a. Date: September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Bernie Bullert, TKDA Re: Water Emergency and Conservation Plan Background Public water suppliers that service more than 1,000 people are required to have a Water Emergency and Conservation Plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (Minnesota Statutes 103G.291). These plans were first required in 1996 and must be updated every ten years. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has prepared a schedule for each public water supplier, with a due date for the City of Lino Lakes of October 15, 2007. The plan must address supply and demand reduction measures and allocation priorities and must identify alternative sources of water for use in an emergency. The current Water Emergency and Conservation Plan was created by TKDA in 1997 and revised in 2004 to meet the requirements of a federal mandate of the USEPA, under the Homeland Security Act. That federal mandate required the City of Lino Lakes to prepare a Water System Vulnerability Assessment and amend and update the Water Emergency and Conservation Plan with the purpose of evaluating the existing security of the water system. Attached is a draft copy of the Water Emergency and Conservation Plan dated August 22, 2007. The Water Emergency and Conservation Plan submittal to the DNR requires the City to establish conservation goals for the benchmarks listed below. DNR permit approvals will be based on meeting the specified benchmarks. If water demands exceed Benchmarks for unaccounted water, residential per capita, and peak demands then permit approval will be contingent on implementation of one or all the listed Conservation Goals until the benchmark is achieved. Conservation Goals Unaccounted Wate Average years annu volume accounted water for the last 5 11,780,000 gallons 1 Average percent unaccounted water for the last 5 ye, 2.4 percent AWWA recommends that unaccounted water exceed 10 %. Describe goals to reduce unaccounted water if the average of the last 5 year exceeds 10% The City's unaccounted water falls below the recommended 10% unaccounted water. Residential Gallons Per Capita Demand (GPCD). Average residential GPCD use for the last 5 years. 86 GPCD In 2002, average residential GPCD use in the 'Twin Cities Metropolitan Area was 75' GPCD. Describe goals to reduce residential demand if the average for the last 5 years exceeds 75 GPCD. Phase 1 1. Prepare an ordinance requiring rain sensors to be installed with all automatic sprinkler systems. 2. Provide public education to consumers regarding information on how to reduce water usage indoors and outdoors. 50% of water consumed by a household is used outdoors. The remaining 50% is used indoors an d of that 75% is consumed in the bathroom. a. Water conservation section in the Lino Lakes Newsletter and at www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us, providing tips and information on water conservation. b. Monthly or bi- monthly billing encourages conservation by providing timely information on water usage which gives customers an opportunity to make modifications in water use practices or identify and repair costly leaks. Attachments and flyers with water bills can also be used to provide information on how to use water efficiently. Phase 2 1. Consumer surveys, feedback, and contact with high volume consumers. a. Contact consumers with high volumes of usage to provide conservation tips and potential cost saving ideas. b. Prepare a household water audit kit, which gathers consumer feedback on conservation measures, allows consumers to see first hand their water use and compare it to the average. c. Analyze consumer feedback through surveys and contact to identify reasons for high per capita usage. 2. Offer incentive programs including. a. Leaking faucet repair b. Offer soil moisture meters and rain gages for monitoring of sprinkling. Total Per Capita Demand: Is the trend in overall per capita demand over the past 10 years n increasing or ® decreasing? Ift otal GPCD is increasing, describe the goals to lower overall per capita demand or explain the reasons for the increase. The per capita demand average for the last 10 years was 89.9. Demand is irrigation related as three years the demand was less than 75gpcd for residential use. Prepare a time of day lawn watering ordinances that restricts lawn watering during the daytime hours of 10am to 6pm. Copy of Ordinance to follow. 2 Peak Demands Average ma average day ra 3.4 If peak demands exceed a ati of 2.6, describe the goals foi enng demands.' Phase 1 1. Conduct evaluation of the Lino Lakes water rate structure. 2. Revise water rate structure to encourage conservation. 3. Prepare a time of day lawn watering ordinance that restricts lawn watering during the midday hours of 10am to 6pm. The conservation goals listed above are a compilation of TKDA recommendations and other Metro Area municipality' s success in achieving the DNR Benchmarks. This item was discussed at the August 29, 2007 Environmental Board Meeting. Requested Council Direction We are requesting feedback from City Council on the proposed Conservation Goals. This item with any required revisions will be on the September 10, 2007 City Council meeting agenda. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - DIVISION OF WATERS and METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WATER EMERGENCY AND CONSERVATION PLANS These guidelines are divided into four parts. The first three parts, Water Supply System Description and Evaluation, Emergency Response Procedures and Water Conservation Planning apply statewide. Part IV, relates to comprehensive plan requirements that apply only to communities in the Seven - County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. If you have questions regarding water emergency and conservation plans, please call (651) 259 -5703 or (651) 259 -5647 or e-mail your question to wateruse @dnr.state.mn.us. Metro Communities can also direct questions to the Metropolitan Council at watersupply @metc.state.mn.us or (651) 602 -1066. DNR Water Appropriation Permit Number(s) 19856168 Name of Water Supplier City of Lino Lakes Address 600 Town Center Parkway Contact Person Tim Hillesheim Title Utility Supervisor Phone Number : " (651) 464 -5567 E- Mail Address PART I. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION The first step in any water supply analysis is to assess the current status of demand and supplies. Information in Part I, can be used in the development of Emergency Response Procedures and Conservation Plans. A. ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND. Fill . in Table 1 for the past 10 years water demand. If your customer categories are different than the ones listed in Table 1, please note the changes below. Irrigation accounts are listed rather than wholesale deliveries. 1 TABLE 1 Historic Water Demand Total gallons/ capita /day N 00 00 N an 0\ 'O 0, 00 00 N O L. L6 _ d: 00 O ti0 + 06 0.‘ r N O t-- 0, O TO .0 » 7 .. K a a ; 0) 76.3 83.7 N \0 .-r 00 .-, 00 In O� O1 � 00 82.3 1 ---+ 00 Maximum Demand (MGD) 2.76 2.81 N 3.52 O t- --+ M CT 4 4.82 4.43 O art Average Demand (MGD) I.0 00 00 LO'I Z0' I 01 1.43 1.30 M af) Percent Unmetered/ Unaccounted 5.7 3.2 o0 O 1.0 0, N 0, M 3.2 Total Water Pumped (MG) 242.7 292.1 294.5 372.6 390.7 357.7 523.0 '.O 494.6 O, N Total Water Sold (MG) 0, t)) .-- N M s 0, 0, N O N M 354.8 0, - kr) 460.0 M t d^ 0, aP) C7 0, O N O o0 0\ 00 ,ti 00 oo `p O N N N 30.2 C/1/I Water Sold' (MG) n.- ,x.-,00 38.0* 43.0 .:1- ■0 kr) Residential Water Sold (MG) 00 O an N N 209.2 316.0 352.2 300.0* 448.9 O 0, M 0, M N Total Connections 2237 2476 2665 2922 3175 3378 3580 3971 3825 4112 Population Served 7,538 8,362 9,000 9,935 10,954 V•) .--- an N lO. rr> 0, M 00 cr- Total Population O '.O 0 an O �t an — — 15,450 15,900 16,340 01 — %o 00 t` N . , \O ` t� 18,240 I 0 M h 00 r, .. °' > t� co Q\ 0, O, 01 .-r --I 0, O —, O, 0 0 U O O •--' N N N 0 O -O N M 0 N d- 0 O N v) 0 O N 0 O N 0) 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0) 0 O 0. 0) 0 a 0 bo 0 0 E ai U 0 'O 0 O. coi 0 y 0) 1 til T7 0 :11! 0 w e 2 a 00 o 0 0 0. C T7 0 y 0 = cri W a1 0 .d U o0 0 00 .4. C Y 0 CO a' en •b a P. 0 .� C y vi 'F y En m 0 a, .0 m 0 .0 O E.' en 'T:. 0 4. 0 01 a' .. 0 • V Tf 0 0 0 V) 0 O 7 UO V .4 et> 01. rzt al N 0 O O en g a by U 0 .= c 'tel. % G W CIO O N _ , P-, 0 by 0 0 G 4. .0 'c7 0 0 .-'.; 7 a 5 0 a err •e 0 v, 0 p. s00. 'O YO ... a) v o ° a 3 o .0 0) ai 0 . o v, .0 0 O 0 vi p .�•.. O 0 S U C il. 0 as s 0 0 0 a o 6 0 �o 0 o v a 0 en w C 0 y bbA • V a. 0 0 0 'LE m 0. 3 E Ts a ❑ a° 0 d w•5 d L o 0 H E a This Wholesale Deliveries. Bulk water sales to other public water suppliers. Unaccounted. Unaccounted for water is the volume of water withdrawn from all sources minus the volume sold. a, 0 P. O vcat 0 ,0 w p 0 0 0 d 0 0 o ai 0 0 a. O 0. cn 3 en 0 en 7 0 70 O .0 0 4. '3 0 o o 3 g 'm 0 o -. II to a, t 0 L o. a. as g o. 0 u o L 0 0. w 0 0 ad) 0 0) 0 V .0 m o F 0 d P.• P. b a N VC • m ..Y -0 0 0 F. O. 0, N 0 O at - b 0 0 0. O O 0 CI. 0 0, N ba m o O a) m Z 0 03 L 0) 0 d 0 It °m en 0 0 - 3 0 11 .0 o as 0 y Q W 0 0 . .4 0. a> c 0 a, 0 N m v 3 c L 0. 0 co "tz q ' = o o U 0 C Ta a en fi 0 0 Ts o 03 z0) 'w .0 bn a 2 8 Water Use Trends. Discuss factors that influence trends in water demand (i.e. growth, weather, industry, conservation). If appropriate, include a discussion of other factors that affect daily water use, such as use by non - resident commuter employees or large water consuming industry. During the recent 10 year period, the population served by the water system increased by 88 percent and represents approximately 6,650 additional people. The Metropolitan Council forecast for the City indicates that the City will have approximately 26,250 people and 9,000 households by the year 2020. All of the additional households and people are expected to be served by the water system. As current City residents are expected to connect to the water system, it is estimated that approximately 25,000 people will be served by the year 2020. ABLE 2 Large Volume Users - List the to 10 lar gest users. Customer Gallons per year % of total annual use Prison 13,373,000 2.43 ISD No. 12 3,149,000 0.57 AD Graphics 2,967,000 0.54 Target 2,545,000 0.46 Fastbreak 2,400,000 0.44 Bobby and Steven 1,977,000 0.36 Metro Survey 1,834,000 0.33 Forgerty Investments 1,776,000 0.32 Schawns 1,297,000 0.24 McDonalds 1,033,000 0.18 B. TREATMENT AND STORAGE CAPACITY. TABLE 3(A) Water Treatment Water Treatment Plant Capacity Gallons per day Describe the treatment process used (ie, softening, chlorination, fluoridation, Fe/Mn removal, reverse osmosis, coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, others). Also, describe the annual amount and method of disposal of treatment residuals, if any. City provides chlorination and fluoridation at each well. They also use polyphosphate to sequester iron and manganese at each well. TABLE 3(B) Storage Capacity - List all storage structures and capacities. Total Storage Capacity Average Day Demand (average of last 5 years) 2,000,000 Gallons 1,326,000 Gallons per day Type of Structure Number of Structures Gallons Elevated Storage 2 2,000,000 Ground Storage None Other. None 3 C. WATER SOURCES. List all groundwater, surface water and interconnections that supply water to the system. Add or delete lines to the tables as needed. TABLE 4(A) Total Water Source Capacity for System (excluding emergency connections Total Capacity of Sources 4,550 Gallons per minute Firm Capacity (largest pump out of service) 3,050 Gallons per minute TABLE 4(B) Groundwater Sources - Copies of water well records and well maintenance information should be included with the public water supplier's copy of the plan in Attachment A. Additional Well information can be found in Appendix B. Well or name Unique Well Number Year Installed Well & Casing Depth (ft) - Well Diameter (in) Capacity (GPM) Geologic Unit Status 1 240171 1971 306/152 20 700 Jordan Active 2 110471 1986 258/162 24 600 Jordan Active 3 559373 1995 283/118 20 1500 Jordan Active 4 554207 1995 338/204 20 750 Jordan Active 5 722629 2005 273/165 24 1000 Jordan Active Status: Active use, Emergency, Standby, Seasonal, Peak use, etc. Geologic Unit: Name of formation(s), which supplies water to the well TABLE 4© Surface Water Sources GPM — Gallons per Minute Intake ID Resource name Capacity (GPM/MGD) None TABLE 4 (D) Wholesale or Retail Interconnections - List interconnections with neighboring suppliers that are used to supply water on a regular basis either wholesale or retail. Water Supply System Capacity ( GPM/MGD) Wholesale or retail Lino Lakes to Hugo 13 MGY Wholesale (2006) Blaine to Lino Lakes 20 MGY Wholesale (2006) Hugo - 2 1400 GPM Emergency TABLE 4(E) Emergency Interconnections - List interconnections with neighboring suppliers or private sources that can be used to supply water on an emergency or occasional basis. Suppliers that serve less than 3,300 people can leave this section blank, but must provide this information in Section II C. Water Supply System Capacity ( GPM/MGD) Wholesale or retail Circle Pines 800 GPM Emergency Blaine 800 GPM Emergency Hugo - 2 1400 GPM Emergency Centerville 1400 GPM Emergency Shoreview 1400 GPM Emergency 4 D. DEMAND PROJECTIONS. TABLE 5 Ten Year Demand Projections Year Population Served Average Day . Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Projected Demand (MGY) 542.7 2007 15,018 1.49 4.86 2008 15,850 1.57 4.74 572.7 2009 16,682 1.65 4.79 602.8 2010 17,514 1.76 4.76 632.9 2011 18,346 1.82 4.73 662.9 2012 19,178 1.90 4.94 693.0 2013 20,010 1.98 515 723.1 2014 20.842 2.06 5.36 753.1 2015 21,674 2.15 5.59 783.2 2016 22,506 2.23 5.80 813.3 MGD - Million Gallons per Day MGY - MilIion Gallons per Year Projection Method. Describe how projections were made, (assumptions for per capita, per household, per acre or other methods used). Assume 260 households per year x 3.2 people = 832 people per year. Assume the total gallons/capita/day of 99 gallon - recent 10 year average which remains unchanged from prior 10 year average. Maximum day demand projected at 2.6 x average day after 2010. E. RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable water use: use of water to provide for the needs of society, now and in the future, without unacceptable social, economic, or environmental consequences. Monitoring. Records of water levels should be maintained for all production wells and source water reservoirs/basins. Water level readings should be taken monthly for a production well or observation well that is representative of the wells completed in each water source formation. If water levels are not currently measured each year, a monitoring plan that includes a schedule for water lever readings must be submitted as Attachment A. TABLE 6 Monitonng Wells - List all wells being measured. (Pro Unique well number ;- Type of well (production, observation) Frequency of Measurement (daily, monthly etc.) Method of Measurement (steel tape, SCADA etc.) 240171 Production Monthly Tape 110471 Production Monthly Tape 559378 Production Monthly Tape 554207 Production Monthly Tape 722629 Production Monthly Tape 5 Water Level Data. Summarize water level data including seasonal and long- term trends for each ground and/or surface water source. If water levels are not measured and recorded on a routine basis then provide the static water level . (SWL) when the well was constructed and a current water level measurement for each production well Also include all water level data taken during well and pump maintenance. Static water levels and pumping water levels remain unchanged in the production wells over time. Attachment A: Provide monitoring data (graph or table) for as many years as possible. Ground Water Level Monitoring — DNR Waters in conjunction with federal and local units of government maintain and measure approximately 750 observation wells around the state. Ground water level data are available online www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters. Information is also available by contacting the Ground Water Level Monitoring Manager, DNR Waters, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155 -4032 or call (651) 259 -5700. Natural Resource Impacts. 'Indicate any natural resource features such as calcareous fens, wetlands, trout streams, rivers or surface water basins that are or could be influenced by water withdrawals from municipal production wells. Also indicate if resource protection thresholds have been established and if mitigation measures or management plans have been developed. There are no known natural resources which are being affected by the water supply wells. Sustainability. Evaluate the adequacy of the resource to sustain current and projected demands. Describe any modeling conducted to determine impacts of projected demands on the resource. From review of the monitoring information, the wells are sustainable and will continue to be the source of water supply for the City. Source Water Protection Plans The emergency procedures in this plan are intended to comply with the contingency plan provisions required in the Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH) Wellhead Protection (WHP) Plan and Surface Water Protection (SWP) Plan. Date WHP Plan. Adopted: ID number 1020023 - Completed by MDH Date for Next WHP Update: 2015 SWP Plant ❑ In Process /1 Completed ❑ Not Applicable 6 F. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Adequacy of Water Supply System. Are water supply installations, treatment facilities and distribution systems adequate to sustain current and projected demands? ❑ Yes ® No If no, describe any potential capital improvements over the next ten years and state the reasons for the proposed changes. CIP Attachment (B) The current water supply wells, treatments and storage will require additions during the next ten year period. (See CIP Attachment B) Proposed Water Sources. Does your current CIP include the addition of new wells or intakes? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, list the number of new installations and projected water demands from each for the next ten years. Plans for new production wells must include the geologic source formation, well location, and proposed pumping capacity. The City's current CIP for the next 10 years include wells, storage facilities, and a water treatment plant. Well locations are shown on water system plan. (See Attachment B) Water Source Alternatives.` If new water sources are being proposed,` describe alternative sources that were considered and any possibilities of joint efforts with neighboring communities for development of supplies The conjunctive use of surface and groundwater is not feasible for Lino Lakes as there are no rivers within the City limits. Standards for using surface water for municipal water supply would require a complex water treatment plant to meet the regulations. There are no alternative sources to ground water available for use by the City. Preventative' Maintenance. Long- term preventative programs and measures will help reduce the risk of emergency situations. Identify sections of the system that are prone to failure due to age, materials or other problems. This information should be used to prioritize capital improvements, preventative maintenance, and to determine the types of materials (pipes, valves, couplings, etc.) to have in stock to reduce repair time The City has an annual well inspection on all production wells and provides system maintenance as required to keep system at full operating capacity as required to meet the water demands. 7 PART II. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCECURES Water emergencies can occur as a result of vandalism, sabotage, accidental contamination, mechanical problems, power failures, drought, flooding, and other natural disasters. The purpose of emergency planning is to develop emergency response procedures and to identify actions needed to improve emergency preparedness. In the case of a municipality, these procedures should be in support of, and part of, an all- hazard emergency operations plan. If your community already has written procedures dealing with water emergencies we recommend that you use these guidelines to review and update existing procedures and water supply protection measures. Federal Emergency Response Plan Section 1433(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Public Law 107 -188, Title IV — Drinking Water Security and Safety) requires community water suppliers serving over 3,300 people to prepare an Emergency Response Plan. Community water suppliers that have completed the Federal Emergency Response Plan and submitted the required certification to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have satisfied Part II, Sections A, B, and C of these guidelines and need only provide the information below regarding the emergency response plan and source water protection plan and complete Sections D (Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures), and E (Enforcement). Provide the following information regarding your completed Federal Emergency Response Plan: Eme 1 en Res , onse- Plan " Contact Person Contact Number Emer_enc Res s onse Lead Tim Hillesheim 651 982 -2452 Alternate;Emer_en Response Lead Rick De_ardner 651 982 -2440 Emer_en Ressouse Plan Certification Date Operational Contingency Plan. An operational contingency plan that describes measures to be taken for water supply mainline breaks and other common system failures as well as routine maintenance is recommended for all utilities. Check here ® if the utility has an operational contingency plan. At a minimum a contact list for contractors and supplies should be included in a water emergency telephone list. Communities that have completed Federal Emergency Response Plans should skip to Section D. 8 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES A. Emergency Telephone List. A telephone list of emergency contacts must be included as Attachment to the plan (complete template or use your own list). The list should include key utility and community personnel, contacts in adjacent communities, and appropriate local, state and federal emergency contacts. Please be sure to verify and update the contacts on the emergency telephone list on a regular basis (once each year recommended). In the case of a municipality, this information should be contained in a notification and warning standard operating procedure maintained by the warning point for that community. Responsibilities and services for each contact should be defined. B. Current Water Sources and Service Area. Quick access to concise and detailed information on water sources, water treatment, and the distribution system may be needed in an emergency. System operation, water well and maintenance records should be maintained in a central secured location so that the records are accessible for emergency purposes and preventative maintenance. A detailed map of the system showing the treatment plants, water sources, storage facilities, supply lines, interconnections, and other information that would be useful in an emergency should also be readily available. Check here n if these records and maps exist and staff can access the documents in the event of an emergency. C. Procedure for Augmenting Water Supplies. List all available sources of water that can be used to augment or replace existing sources in an emergency. In the case of a municipality, this information should be contained in a notification and warning standard operating procedure maintained by the warning point for that community. Copies of cooperative agreements should be maintained with your copy of the plan and include in Attachment . Be sure to include information on any physical or chemical problems that may limit interconnections to other sources of water. Approvals from the MN Department of Health are required for interconnections and reuse of water. TABLE 7 (A) Public Water Supply Systems — List interconnections with other public water supply systems that can suuuly water in an emergency. Water Supply System Capacity (GPM/MGD) Note any limitations on use Circle Pines Blaine 800 GPM 800 GPM Emergency use Hugo 1400 GPM Emergency use Centerville Shoreview 1400 GPM 800 GPM Emergency use GPM — Gallons per Minute MGD — Million Gallons per Day TABLE 7 (B) - Private Water Sources — List other sources of water available in an emergency. Name Capacity (GPM/MGD) Note any limitations on use Minnesota Correctional Facility 800 Emergency use GPM — Gallons per Minute MGD — Million Gallons per Day 9 D. Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures. The plan must include procedures to address gradual decreases in water supply as well as emergencies and the sudden loss of water due to line breaks, power failures, sabotage, etc. During periods of limited water supplies public water suppliers are required to allocate water based on the priorities established in Minnesota Statutes 103G.261. Water Use Priorities (Minnesota Statutes 103G.261) First Priority. Domestic water supply, excluding industrial and commercial uses of municipal water supply, and use for power production that meets contingency requirements. NOTE: Domestic use is defined (MN Rules 6115.0630, Subp. 9), as use for general household purposes for human needs such as cooking, cleaning, drinking, washing, and waste disposal, and uses for on -farm livestock watering excluding commercial livestock operations which use more than 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year. Second Priority. Water uses involving consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day. Third Priority. Agricultural irrigation and processing of agricultural products. Fourth Priority. Power production in excess of the use provided for in the contingency plan under first priority. Fifth Priority. Uses, other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural products, and power production. Sixth Priority. Non - essential uses. These uses are defined by Minnesota Statutes 103G.291 as lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation, and other non - essential uses. List the statutory water use priorities along with any local priorities (hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) in Table 8. Water used for human needs at hospitals, nursing homes and similar types of facilities should be designated as a high priority to be maintained in an emergency. Local allocation priorities will need to address water used for human needs at other types of facilities such as hotels, office buildings, and manufacturing plants. The volume of water and other types of water uses at these facilities must be carefully considered. After reviewing the data, common sense should dictate local allocation priorities to protect domestic requirements over certain types of economic needs. In Table 8, list the priority ranking, average day demand and demand reduction potential for each customer category (modify customer categories if necessary). Table 8 Water Use Priorities Customer Category Allocation Priority Average Day Demand (GPD) Demand Reduction Potential (GPD) Residential 1 1,260,000 150,000 Institutional Commercial Industrial 160,300 0 Irrigation 82,700 82,700 Wholesale Non - essential 6 TOTALS - 1,503,000 482,700 GPD — Gallons per Day 10 Demand Reduction Potential. The demand reduction potential for residential use will typically be the base demand during the winter months when water use for non - essential uses such as lawn watering do not occur. The difference between summer and winter demands typically defines the demand reduction that can be achieved by eliminating non - essential uses. In extreme emergency situations lower priority water uses must be restricted or eliminated to protect first priority domestic water requirements. Short-term demand reduction potential should be based on average day demands for customer categories within each priority class. Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions. Triggering levels must be defined for implementing emergency responses, including supply augmentation, demand reduction, and water allocation. Examples of triggers include: water demand >100% of storage, water level in well(s) below a certain elevation, treatment capacity reduced 10% etc. Each trigger should have a quantifiable indicator and actions can have multiple stages such as mild, moderate and severe responses. Check each trigger below that is used for implementing emergency responses and for each trigger indicate the actions to be taken at various levels or stages of severity in Table 9. Water Demand Treatment Capacity Storage Capacity Groundwater Levels Surface Water Flows or Levels ❑ Pump, Booster Station or Well Out of Service (1 Governor's Executive Order — Critical Water Deficiency (required by statute) Water Main Break Loss of Production Security Breach Contamination Other (list in Table 9) Table 9 Demand Reduction Procedures Condition Trigger(s) Actions Stage 1 (Mild) * May 15th to September 15 Alternate day (odd/even) sprinkling restriction sprinkling restriction 10:00 am to 6:00 pm Stage 2 (Moderate) * May 15th to September 15 Alternate day (odd/even) sprinkling restriction sprinkling restriction 10:00 am to 6:00 pm Stage 3 (Severe) Peak use exceeds total well supply capacity. Water storage unable to recover within 24 hours Total ban on lawn watering and other non - essential uses. Critical Water Deficiency (M.S. 103G.291) Executive Order by Govemor & as provided in above triggers Stage 1: Restrict lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation and other nonessential uses Stage 2: Suspend lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation and other nonessential uses Note: The potential for water availability problems during the onset of a drought are almost impossible to predict. Significant increases in demand should be balanced with preventative measures to conserve supplies in the event of prolonged drought conditions. * 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Ordinance to limit sprinkling to follow. 11 Notification Procedures. List methods that will be used to inform customers regarding conservation requests, water use restrictions, and suspensions. Customers should be aware of emergency procedures and responses that they may need to implement Public service announcements, City web page, postings, newspaper E. Enforcement. Minnesota Statutes require public water supply authorities to adopt and enforce water conservation restrictions during periods of critical water shortages. Public Water Supply Appropriation During Deficiency. Minnesota Statutes 103G.291, Subdivision 1. Declaration and conservation. (a) If the governor determines and declares by executive order that there is a critical water deficiency, public water supply authorities appropriating water must adopt and enforce water conservation restrictions within their jurisdiction that are consistent with rules adopted by the commissioner. (b) The restrictions must limit lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation, and other nonessential uses, and have appropriate penalties for failure to comply with the restrictions. An ordinance that has been adopted or a draft ordinance that can be quickly adopted to comply with the critical water deficiency declaration must be included in the plan (include with other ordinances in Attachment 7 for Part III, Item 4). Enforcement responsibilities and penalties for non - compliance should be addressed in the critical water deficiency ordinance. Sample regulations are available at www.dnr.state.mn.us /waters Authority to Implement Water Emergency Responses. Emergency responses could be delayed if city council or utility board actions are required. Standing authority for utility or city managers to implement water restrictions can improve response times for dealing with emergencies. Who has authority to implement water use restrictions in an emergency? ❑ Utility Manager ❑ City Manager ❑ City Council or Utility Board ® Other (describe): Public Works Director Emergency Preparedness. If city or utility managers do not have standing authority to implement water emergency responses, please indicate any intentions to delegate that authority. Also indicate any other measures that are being considered to reduce delays for implementing emergency responses. 12 PART III. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Water conservation programs are intended to reduce demand for water, improve the efficiency in use and reduce losses and waste of water. Long -term conservation measures that improve overall water use efficiencies can help reduce the need for short-term conservation measures. Water conservation is an important part of water resource management and can also help utility managers satisfy the ever - increasing demands being placed on water resources. Minnesota Statutes 103G.291, requires public water suppliers to implement demand reduction measures before seeking approvals to construct new wells or increases in authorized volumes of water. Minnesota Rules 6115.0770, require water users to employ the best available means and practices to promote the efficient use of water. Conservation programs can be cost effective when compared to the generally higher costs of developing new sources of supply or expanding water and/or wastewater treatment plant capacities_ A. Conservation Goals. The following section establishes goals for various measures of water demand. The programs necessary to achieve the goals will be described in the following section. Unaccounted Water (calculate five year averages with data from Table 1 Average residential GPCD use for the last 5 years use data from Table 1) : 86 GPCD Average annual volume unaccounted water for the last 5 years 11,780,000 gallons Average percent unaccounted water for the last 5 years 2.4 percent AWWA recommends that unaccounted water not exceed 10 %. Describe goals to reduce unaccounted water if the average of the last 5 years exceeds 10 %. The City's unaccounted water falls below the recommended 10% unaccounted water. Residential Gallons Per Capita Demand (GPCD) Average residential GPCD use for the last 5 years use data from Table 1) : 86 GPCD In 2002, average residential GPCD use in the Twin Metropolitan Area was 75 GPCD. Describe goals to reduce residential demand if the average for the last 5 years exceeds 75 GPCD. Phase 1 1. Prepare an ordinance requiring rain sensors to be installed with all automatic sprinkler systems. 2. Provide public education to consumers regarding information on how to reduce water usage indoors and outdoors. 50% of water consumed by a household is used outdoors. The remaining 50% is used indoors and of that 75% is consumed in the bathroom. a. Water conservation section in the Lino Lakes Newsletter and at www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us, providing tips and information on water conservation. b. Monthly or bi- monthly billing encourages conservation by providing timely information on water usage which gives customers an opportunity to make modifications in water use practices or identify and repair costly leaks. Attachments and flyers with water bills can also be used to provide information on how to use water efficiently. Phase 2 1. Consumer surveys, feedback, and contact with high volume consumers. a. Contact consumers with high volumes of usage to provide conservation tips and potential cost saving ideas. b. Prepare a household water audit kit, which gathers consumer feedback on conservation 13 measures, allows consumers to see first hand their water use and compare it to the average. c Analyze consumer feedback through surveys and contact to identify reasons for high per capita usage. 2. Offer incentive programs including. a. Leaking faucet repair b. Offer soil moisture meters and rain gages for monitoring of sprinkling. Total Per Capita Demand: From Table 1, is the trend in overall per capita demand over the past 10 years C increasing or ® decreasing? If total GPCD is increasing, describe the goals to lower overall per capita demand or explain the reasons for the increase. The per capita demand average for the last 10 years was 89.9. Demand is irrigation related as three years the demand was less than 75gpcd for residential use. Prepare a time of day lawn watering ordinances that restricts lawn watering during the daytime hours of 10am to 6pm. Copy of Ordinance to follow. Peak Demands (calculate average ratio for last five years using data from Table 1) Average maximum day to average day ratio 1 3.4 If peak demands exceed a ratio of 2.6 describe the goals for lowering peak demands. Phase 1 1. Conduct evaluation of the Lino Lakes water rate structure. 2. Revise water rate structure to encourage conservation. 3. Prepare a time of day lawn watering ordinance that restricts lawn watering during the midday hours of loam to 6pm. B. Water Conservation Programs. Describe all short-term conservation measures that are available for use in an emergency and long -term measures to improve water use efficiencies for each of the six conservation program elements listed below. Short-term demand reduction measures must be included in the emergency response procedures and must be in support of, and part of, a community all - hazard emergency operation plan. 1. Metering. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that every water utility meter all water taken into its system and all water distributed from its system at its customer's point of service. An effective metering program relies upon periodic performance testing, repair, repair and maintenance of all meters. AWWA also recommends that utilities conduct regular water audits to ensure accountability. Complete Table 10 (A) regarding the number and maintenance of customer meters. TABLE 10 (A) Customer Meters 14 Number of Connections Number of Metered Connections Meter testing schedule (years) Average age /meter replacement schedule (years) Residential 4,184 4,184 As Needed Replaced at 1,000,000 gallons Institutional 19 19 Replaced at 10,000.000 14 Unmetered Systems. Provide an estimate of the cost to install meters and the projected water savings from metering water use Also indicate any plans to install meters. Fully metered system TABLE 10 (B) Water Source Meters Number of Meters Meter testing schedule (years) Average age /meter. replacement schedule (years) gallons Commercial 59 59 Replaced at 10,000,000 gallons Industrial 25 25 Replaced at 10,000,000 gallons Public Facilities ' With institutional Other Irrigation 19 19 Replaced at 1,000,000- 10,000,000 gallons TOTALS Unmetered Systems. Provide an estimate of the cost to install meters and the projected water savings from metering water use Also indicate any plans to install meters. Fully metered system TABLE 10 (B) Water Source Meters 15 Number of Meters Meter testing schedule (years) Average age /meter. replacement schedule (years) Water Source (wells /intakes) 5 5 As required 15 2. Unaccounted Water. Water audits are intended to identify, quantify, and verify water and revenue losses. The volume of unaccounted -for water should be evaluated each billing cycle. The AWWA recommends a goal of ten percent or less for unaccounted -for water. Water audit procedures are available from the AWWA and MN Rural Water Association. Frequency of water audits: each billing cycle ® yearly ® other: Conducted when a leak is suspected but not apparent. Leak detection and survey: ❑every year ❑ every other year ® periodic as needed Year last leak detection survey completed: Partial survey in 2006 Reducing Unaccounted Water. List potential sources and efforts being taken to reduce unaccounted water. If unaccounted water exceeds 10% of total withdrawals, include the timeframe for completing work to reduce unaccounted water to 10% or less. 3. Conservation Water Rates. Plans must include the current rate structure for all customers and provide information on any proposed rate changes. Discuss the basis for current price levels and rates, including cost of service data, and the impact current rates have on conservation. Billing Frequency: [ Monthly ❑ Bimonthly ❑ Other (describe): Volume included in base rate or service charge: ® Quarterly Conservation Rate Structures ® Increasing block rate: rate per unit increases as water use increases ❑ Seasonal rate: higher rates in summer to reduce peak demands ❑ Service charge or base fee that does not include a water volume Conservation Neutral Rate Structure ❑ Uniform rate: rate per unit is the same regardless of volume Non - conserving Rate Structures ❑ Service charge or base fee that includes a large volume of water n Declining block rate: rate per unit decreases as water use increases ❑ Flat rate: one fee regardless of how much water is used (unmetered) Other (describe): Water Rates Evaluated: ® every year ❑ every years ❑ no schedule Date of last rate change: February 2006 16 Declining block (the more water used, the cheaper the rate) and flat (one fee for an unlimited volume of water) rates should be phased out and replaced with conservation rates. Incorporating a seasonal rate structure and the benefits of a monthly billing cycle should also be considered along with the development of an emergency rate structure that could be quickly implemented to encourage conservation in an emergency. Current Water Rates. Include a copy of the actual rate structure in Attachment or list current water rates including base /service fees and volume charges below. 0- 30,000 gallons - $1.77 per 1000 gallons Over 30,000 gallons - $2.07 per 1000 gallons Non - conserving Rate Structures. Provide justification for the rate structure and its impact on reducing demands or indicate intentions including the timeframe for adopting a conservation rate structure. Proposed water rate schedule to follow 4. Regulation. Plans should include regulations for short-term reductions in demand and long -term improvements in water efficiencies. Sample regulations are available from DNR Waters. Copies of adopted regulations or proposed restrictions should be included in Attachment D of the plan. Indicate any of the items below that are required by local regulations and also indicate if the requirement is applied each year or just in emergencies. ® Time of Day: no watering between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm (reduces evaporation) n year around ® seasonal n emergency only ® Odd/Even: (helps reduce peak demand) n year around ® seasonal n emergency only n Water waste prohibited (no runoff from irrigation systems) Describe ordinance: ❑ Limitations on turf areas for landscaping (reduces high water use turf areas) Describe ordinance: n Soil preparation (such as 4 " -6" of organic soil on new turf areas with sandy soil) Describe ordinance: E Tree ratios (plant one tree for every square feet to reduce turf evapotranspiration) Describe ordinance: ❑ Prohibit irrigation of medians or areas less than 8 feet wide Describe ordinance: ❑ Permit required to fill swimming pool n every year n emergency only ❑ Other (describe): A sprinkler ban is currently in the works. 17 State and Federal Regulations (mandated) ® Rainfall sensors on landscape irrigation systems. Minnesota statute 103G.298 requires "All automatically operated landscape irrigation systems shall have furnished and installed technology that inhibits or interrupts operation of the landscape irrigation system during periods of sufficient moisture. The technology must be adjustable either by the end user or the professional practitioner of landscape irrigation services." ® Water Efficient Plumbing Fixtures. The 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act established manufacturing standards for water efficient plumbing fixtures, including toilets, urinals, faucets, and aerators. Enforcement. Are ordinances enforced? ® Yes No If yes, indicate how ordinances are enforced along with any penalties for non-compliance. 18 5. Education and Information Programs. Customers should be provided information on how to improve water use efficiencies a minimum of two times per year. Information should be provided at appropriate times to address peak demands. Emergency notices and educational materials on how to reduce water use should be available for quick distribution during an emergency. If any of the methods listed in the table below are used to provide water conservation tips, indicate the number of times that information is provided each year and attach a list of education efforts used for the last three years. Current Education Programs Times/Year Billing inserts or tips printed on the actual bill Consumer Confidence Reports 1 Local news papers Community news letters 1 Direct mailings (water audit/retrofit kits, showerheads, brochures) Information at utility and public buildings Public Service Announcements Cable TV Programs Demonstration projects (landscaping or plumbing) K -12 Education programs (Project Wet, Drinking Water Institute) School presentations Events (children's water festivals, environmental fairs) Community education Water Week promotions Information provided to groups that tour the water facilities Website (include address: http: / /ci.lino- lakes.rnn.us) X Targeted efforts (large volume users, users with large increases) Notices of ordinances (include tips with notices) Emergency conservation notices (recommended) Other: Street Signs Continuous List education efforts for the last three years in Attachment C of the plan. Be sure to indicate whether educational efforts are on -going and which efforts were initiated as an emergency or drought management effort. Proposed Education Programs. Describe any additional efforts planned to provide conservation information to customers a minimum of twice per year (required if there are no current efforts). See Page 13 A packet of conservation tips and information can be obtained by contacting DNR Waters or the Minnesota Rural Water Association (MRWA). The American Water Works Association (AWWA) www.awwa.org or www.waterwiser.org also has excellent materials on water conservation that are available in a number of formats. You can contact the MRWA 800/367. 6792, the AWWA bookstore 800/926 -7337 or DNR Waters 651/259 -5703 for information regarding educational materials and formats that are available. 19 6. Retrofitting Programs. Education and incentive programs aimed at replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures and appliances can help reduce per capita water use as well as energy costs. It is recommended that communities develop a long -term plan to retrofit public buildings with water efficient plumbing fixtures and that the benefits of retrofitting be included in public education programs. You may also want to contact local electric or gas suppliers to see if they are interested in developing a showerhead distribution program for customers in your service area. A study by the AWWA Research Foundation (Residential End Uses of Water, 1999) found that the average indoor water use for a non - conserving home is 69.3 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The average indoor water use in a conserving home is 45.2 gpcd and most of the decrease in water use is related to water efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances that can reduce water, sewer and energy costs. In Minnesota, certain electric and gas providers are required (Minnesota Statute 216B.241) to fund programs that will conserve energy resources and some utilities have distributed water efficient showerheads to customers to help reduce energy demands required to supply hot water. Retrofitting Programs. Describe any education or incentive programs to encourage the retrofitting of inefficient plumbing fixtures (toilets, showerheads, faucets, and aerators) or appliances (washing machines). None - Service area is primarily new homes. Plan Approval. Water Emergency and Conservation Plans must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) every ten years. Please submit plans for approval to the following address: DNR Waters Water Permit Programs Supervisor 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 -4032 or Submit electronically to wateruse @dnr.state.mn.us. Adoption of Plan. All DNR plan approvals are contingent on the formal adoption of the plan by the city council or utility board. Please submit a certificate of adoption (example available) or other action adopting the plan. 20 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PART IV. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC SUPPLIERS Minnesota Statute 473.859 requires water supply plans to be completed for all local units of government in the seven - county Metropolitan Area as part of the local comprehensive planning process. Much of the required information is contained in Parts I -III of these guidelines. However, the following additional information is necessary to make the water supply plans consistent with the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act upon which local comprehensive plans are based. Communities should use the information collected in the development of their plans to evaluate whether or not their water supplies are being developed consistent with the Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan. Policies. Provide a statement(s) on the principles that will dictate operation of the water supply utility: for example, "It is the policy of the city to provide good quality water at an affordable rate, while assuring this use does not have a long -term negative resource impact" It is the policy of the City of Lino Lakes Water Utility to provide potable water to all customers within the water service area defined by City Council resolution. Sufficient quantities of potable water to meet consumption and fire flow requirements shall be supplied. All water supplied shall conform to requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and other State and Federal regulations pertaining to water system operation. Impact on the Local Comprehensive Plan. Identify the impact that the adoption of this water supply plan has on the rest of the local comprehensive plan, including implications for future growth of the community, economic impact on the community and changes to the comprehensive plan that might result. The water supply plan provided within the document should not change or affect the current City comprehensive plan. Demand Projections Year Total Community Population Population - Served Average Day Demand (MGD) Mamum'Day Demand (MGD) `:Projected Demand (MGY) 2010 21,500 17,514 1.73 4.76 632.9 2020 26,500 23,000 2.28 5.93 832.2 2030 31,000 29,000 2.87 7.46 1047.6 Ultimate 43,000 42,000 4.16 10.82 1518.4 Population projections should be consistent with those in the Metropolitan Council's 2030 Regional Development Framework or the Communities 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. If to other communities, not complete service within community etc.) Not all residents are connected to the City water system. Maximum day demand projected at 2.6 x average day after 2010. 21 PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW OF THE PLAN The plan be reviewed by the Council according to the sequence outlined in Minnesota Statutes 473.175. Prior to submittal to the Council, the plan must be submitted to adjacent governmental units for a 60 -day review period. Following submittal, The Council determines Reviews Coordinator Metropolitan Council 230 E 5th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 electronically to: watersupply@metc.state.mn.us 22 ATTACHMENT A: WELL MONITORING INFORMATION Monitoring of Wells Well #1 Date 11/10/71 12/20/82 06/06/83 08/22/85 03/23/93 09/15/93 Jan 1994 Mar 1994 April 1994 May 1994 June 1994 July 1994 Aug 1994 Sept 1994 Oct 1994 Dec 1994 09/19/95 Jan 1995 Feb 1995 03/01/95 04/05/95 05/02/95 05/31/95 July 1995 Aug 1995 09/15/95 Oct 1995 Nov 1995 Dec 1995 Jan 1996 Feb 1996 Mar 1996 Well 1 Blue data is from our annual well inspections Pumping Static (ft) Level (it) 8' 2" 21' 2" 13' 12' 52' 40' 11' 25' 5" 14' 6" 12'2" 31'5" 19'3" 11' 31' 20' 10' 23' 13' raw Down (t Measured By Keys Well Drillers McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. City McCarthy Well Co. 12' 12' 10' 10' 12' 16' 14' 11' 11' 12' 7' 11' 11.5' 11.5' 11' 11' 11' 11' 17' 12' 11' 12' 8' 9' 11' 11' April 1996 10' May 1996 10' June 1996 10' July 1996 11.5' Aug 1996 Not recorded 11' 13' 13' 9' 9' 8' 11' 8' Sept 1996 10/17/96 Nov 1996 Dec 1996 Feb 1997 Mar 1997 April 1997 May 1997 31' 19' City 30' 18' City 30' 20' City 32' 22' City 31' 19' City 32' 16' City 34' 20' City 24' 13' City 30' 19' City 30' 18' City 20' 6" 13' 6" McCarthy Well C 31.5' 20.5' CIy 31.5' 20' City 32' 20.5' City 27' 16' City 28' 17' City 32' 21' City 31.5' 20.5' City 33' 16' City 20' 8' City 28' 17' City 27' 16' City 27' 19' City 28' 19' City 27' 16' City 24' 13' City 27' 17' City 28' 18' City 28' 18' City Not recorded slot recordec City 31' 27' 22' 33' 27' 27' 23' 27' 28' performed by McCarthy well Reason Drilling of Well Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement o. Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement slot recorder City 16' City 9' McCarthy Well Co. 10' City 18' 18' 15' 16' 20' City City City City City Page 1 June 1997 July 1997 Aug 1997 Sept 1997 Oct 1997 10/23/97 Nov 1997 Dec 1997 09/22/98 Jan 1998 Feb 1998 Mar 1998 April 1998 May 1998 June 1998 July 1998 Aug 1998 Sept 1998 Oct 1998 Nov 1998 Dec 1998 Jan 1999 Feb 1999 Mar 1999 April 1999 May 1999 June 1999 06/09/99 July 1999 Aug 1999 Sept 1999 Oct 1999 Nov 1999 Dec 1999 Jan 2000 Feb 2000 Mar 2000 April 2000 05/11/00 June 2000 July 2000 Aug 2000 Sept 2000 03/26/01 Not June 2001 Not July 2001 Not 09/19/01 02/18/03 02/19/04 Not 02/01/05 Not Feb 2005 Well 1 13' 30' 17' City 12' 30' 18' City 11' 31' 20' City 10' 28' 18' City 9' 27' 18' City 10' 25' 15' McCarthy Well Co. 8' 26' 18' City 7.5' 27' 19.5' City 24' 34' 10' McCarthy Well Co. 8' 25' 17' City 8.5' 28' 19.5' City 8' 273' 19.5' City 7' 23' 16' City 10' 30' 20' City 10' 29' 19' City 7.5' 283' 21' City 12' 32' 20' City 10' 31' 21' City 11' 32.5' 21.5' City 10' 30.5' 20.5' City 9.5' 27' 17.5' City 8.5' Not recorded got recorder City 8.5' 30.5' 22' City 8' Not recorded got recorder City 8' 30' 22' City 9.5' 29' 19.5' City 10' 28' 18.5' City 21' 31' 10' McCarthy Well Co. 9.5' 29' 18.5' City 11' 32' 21' City 10.5' 31' 20.5' City 11' Not recorded got recordec City 10' Not recorded got recordec City 12' 30' 18' City 10' 28' 18' City 8.5' 27' 18.5' City 8' Not recorded got recorder City 8.5' 29' 20.5' City 10.5' 32' 21.5' McCarthy Well Co 10.5' 32' 21.5' City 10.5' 32.5' 22' City 13' 36.5' 23.5' City 13.5' Not recorded got recorder City recorded Not recorded got recordecMcCarthy Well Co. recorded 29' got recorder City recorded 35' got recordec City 14' 45.4' 31.4' EH Renner 11' 30' 19' McCarthy Well Co. recorded Not recorded got recordec McCarthy Well Co. recorded Not recorded got recordec McCarthy Well Co. 11' Not recorded got recorder City Page 2 Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Pump replacement/VFD install Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Well 1 02/22/06 12' 25' 13' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection 02/21/07 Not recorded Not recorded got recordec McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection Page 3 Well 2 Monitoring of Wells Well #2 Blue data is from our annual well inspections performed by McCarthy well( Pumping Date Static (ft) Level (ft) Draw Down (ft) Measured By Reason 10/19/88 9' 33' 24' 01/06/93 20' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement 02/02/93 20' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement April 1993 20' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement May 1993 20' 31' 11' City Monthly Measurement June 1993 Not recorded 31' Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Aug 1993 Not recorded 30' Not recorded City Monthly Measurement 09/15/93 18' 29' 11' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection Dec 1993 18' 32' 14' City Monthly Measurement Mar 1994 18' 28' 10' City Monthly Measurement April 1994 17' 30' 13' Clay Monthly Measurement 05/31/94 20' 33' 13' City Monthly Measurement Aug 1994 22' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Sept 1994 17.5' 26.5' 9' City Monthly Measurement Jan 1995 18' 30.5' 12.5' City Monthly Measurement Feb 1995 21' 32' 11' City Monthly Measurement Mar 1995 19.5' 31' 11.5' City Monthly Measurement 03/01/95 19.75' 31' 11.25' City Monthly Measurement 03/02/95 18.75' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement 03/05/95 18' 28' 10' City Monthly Measurement April 1995 18' 28' 10' City Monthly Measurement May 1995 18' 30' 12' City Monthly Measurement June 1995 18' 30' 12' City Monthly Measurement July 1995 21' 33' 12' City Monthly Measurement Aug 1995 21' 34' 13' City Monthly Measurement Sept 1995 23' 32' 9' City Monthly Measurement Oct 1995 19' 30' 11' City Monthly Measurement Nov 1995 20' 32' 12' City Monthly Measurement Nov 1995 21' 27' 6' City Monthly Measurement Dec 1995 17' 28' 11' City Monthly Measurement 09/19/95 17' 24.5' 6.5' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection Jan 1996 17' 27.5' 10' City Monthly Measurement Feb 1996 18' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Mar 1996 17' 28' 11' City Monthly Measurement April 1996 17' 29' 12' City Monthly Measurement May 1996 17' 28' 11' City Monthly Measurement June 1996 19.5' 33' 13.5' City Monthly Measurement July 1996 23' 35' 12' City Monthly Measurement Aug 1996 26' 38' 12' City Monthly Measurement Sept 1996 26' 37' 11' City Monthly Measurement Oct 1996 21' 31' 10' City Monthly Measurement 10/17/96 22' 31' 9' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection Nov 1996 21' 31' 10' City Monthly Measurement Dec 1996 17' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Jan 1997 20' 29' 9' City Monthly Measurement Feb 1997 17.5' 29' 11.5' City Monthly Measurement Page 1 Mar 1997 April 1997 May 1997 June 1997 July 1997 Aug 1997 Sept 1997 Oct 1997 10/23/97 Nov 1997 Dec 1997 Jan 1998 Feb 1998 Mar 1998 April 1998 May 1998 June 1998 July 1998 Aug 1998 Sept 1998 09/22/98 Oct 1998 Nov 1998 Dec 1998 Jan 1999 Feb 1999 Mar 1999 April 1999 May 1999 June 1999 06/09/99 July 1999 Aug 1999 Oct 1999 Nov '1999 Dec 1999 Feb 2000 April 2000 May 2000 05/11/00 03/26/01 05/24/01 D9/19/01 02/18/03 02/19/04 02/01/05 02/22/06 02/21/07 17.5' 16 1T 25' 22' 21' 19' 20' 20' 18' 18' 18' 17.5' 17.5' 17' 21' 20.5' 19' 23' 21.5 31' 20.5' 19' 18.5' 17.5' 18' 18' 17.5' 20' 21' 21' 24' 22' 19' 20' 18.5' 18' 19.5' 22.5' 25' Not recorded 20.5' 9' 21' Not recorded 21' 18' 18' Not recorded 29' 29' 34' 33' 30' 30' 30' 29' 28' 26' 28' 28' 26.5' 31' 30.5' 32.5' 31' 37' 33' 38' Not recorded 27.5' Not recorded Not recorded 30' 30' 28' 31' 30.5' 32' 34' 33' 32.5' 32.5' 31' 30' Not recorded 32' 32' Not recorded 29.5' 42' 32' Not recorded 33' 26' 28' Well 2 Not recorded 13' 12' 9' 11' 9' 11' 10' 9' 10' 8' 10' 10.5' 9' 14' 9.5' 12' 12' 14' 11.5' 7' Not recorded 8.5' Not recorded Not recorded 12' 12' 10.5 11' 9.5' 11' 10' 11' 13.5' 12.5' 12.5' 12' Not recorded 9.5' Not recorded 9' 33' 11' Not recorded 12' 8' 10' Page 2 City City City City City City City City McCarthy Well Co. City City City City City City City City City City City McCarthy Well Co. City City City City City City City City City McCarthy Well Co. City City City City City City City City McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. EH Renner EH Renner McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well inspection Annual Well Inspection Well inspection Pump replacementNFD inst Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Well 3 Monitoring of Wells Well #3 Blue data is from our annual well inspections performed by McCarthy we Pumping Date Static (ft) Level (ft) Draw Down (ft) Measured By Reason 10/17/96 18' 22' 4' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection Oct 1996 18' 22' 4' City Monthly Measurement Dec 1996 13' 18' 5' City Monthly Measurement Jan 1997 12' 18' 6' City Monthly Measurement Feb 1997 13' 19' 6' City Monthly Measurement Mar 1997 12' 19' 7' City Monthly Measurement April 1997 14' 16' 2' City Monthly Measurement May 1997 12.5' 19' 6.5' City Monthly Measurement June 1997 15' 25' 10' City Monthly Measurement July 1997 13' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Aug 1997 13' 20' 7' City Monthly Measurement Sept 1997 13' 20' 7' City Monthly Measurement Oct 1997 13' 19' 6' City Monthly Measurement 10/23/97 15' 21' 6' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection Nov 1997 13' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Dec 1997 13' 20.5' 7.5' City Monthly Measurement Jan 1998 12.5' 20' 7.5' City Monthly Measurement Feb 1998 13' 20' 7' City Monthly Measurement Mar 1998 11.5' 19.5' 8' City Monthly Measurement April 1998 11' 19' 8' City Monthly Measurement May 1998 12.5' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement June 1998 13.5' 20' 6.5' City Monthly Measurement July 1998 13' 24' 11 City Monthly Measurement Aug 1998 14' 21' 7' City Monthly Measurement Sept 1998 14' 21' 7' City Monthly Measurement 09/22/98 20' 23' 3' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well inspection Oct 1998 17' 21' 4' City Monthly Measurement Nov 1998 14' 19' 5' City Monthly Measurement Dec 1998 12' 19.5' 7' City Monthly Measurement Jan 1999 12' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Feb 1999 12' 22.5' 10.5' City Monthly Measurement Mar 1999 12.5' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement April 1999 12' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement May 1999 13' 19.5' 6.5' Clty Monthly Measurement June 1999 12' 19.5' 7.5' City Monthly Measurement 06/09/99 16' 21' 5' McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well inspection July 1999 12.5' 22' 9.5' City Monthty Measurement Aug 1999 16' 23.5' 7.5' City Monthly Measurement Sept 1999 14' 22.5' 8.5' City Monthly Measurement Oct 1999 13' 20.5' 7.5' City Monthly Measurement Nov 1999 13' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Dec 1999 12.5' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Jan 2000 14' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement Feb 2000 13' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement April 2000 12' Not recorded Not recorded City Monthly Measurement May 2000 14' 21' 7' City Monthly Measurement Page 1 Well 3 05/11/00 16' 21' 5' July 2000 17' 21.5' 4.5' Aug 2000 18' 24' 6' Sept 2000 17' 23.5' 6.5' Oct 2000 16.5' 23.5' 7' Nov 2000 14' 21' 7' Feb 2001 17.5' Not recorded Not recorded 03/26/01 Not recorded Not recorded Not recorded May 2001 10.5' 19.5' 9' July 2001 17.5' 25' 7.5' Aug 2001 17.5' 23' 5.5' Sept 2001 Not recorded 24.5' Not recorded Jan 2002 18' 22.5' 4.5' Feb 2002 12.5' 22.5' 10' 02/26/02 12' 20' 8' June 2002 Not recorded 18.5' Not recorded 02/18/03 13' 19.5' 6.5' Aug 2003 Not recorded 30' Not recorded 02/19/04 Not recorded Not recorded Not recorded 02/01/05 Not recorded Not recorded Not recorded 02122/06 16' 21' 5' 02/21/07 18' 23' 5' Page 2 McCarthy Well Co. City City City City City City McCarthy Well Co. City City City City City City McCarthy Well Co. City McCarthy Well Co. City McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well inspection Well 4 Monitoring of Wells Well #4 Blue data is from our annual well inspections performed by McCarthy well Cr Pumping Date 11/09/95 1995 04/15/96 10/17/96 Feb 1997 10/23/97 09/22/98 06/09/99 05/11/00 03/26/01 02/26/02 02/18/03 02/19/04 02/01 /05 02/22/06 02/21/07 Static (ft) 17' 20' 17' 19' 18' 18' 45' 135' 150' 19' 35' 35' 50' Not recorded Jot recorder 22' 36' 20' 34' 35' 48' 24' 37' 20' 38' 23' 40' Level (ft) Draw Down (ft) Measured By 54' 37' Keys Well Drilling 51' 31' 46' 29' 36' 17' Jot recorder Not recorded 27' 15' 16' 15' Not recorded 14' 14' 13' 13' 18' 17' EH Renner McCarthy Well Co. City McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. McCarthy Well Co. Page 1 Reason MDH Well Record New Wells Pump Install Annual Well Inspection Monthly Measurement Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well Inspection Annual Well inspection Well 5 Monitoring of Wells Well #5 Blue data is from our annual well inspections performed by McCart The only monitoring reports are in the well log Proposed Plan Monthly measurement of all production wells by tape. ATTACHMENT B: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DRAFT 8 -17 -07 XIV. FUTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM TABLE 10 Item No. Description Year Cost 1 Construction of Well No. 6 and Pumphouse No. 6 with water main 2008 - 2009 $800,000 2 Strengthen Trunk Watermain (Phase 1) 2008 $750,000 3 Construction of a 1.5 MG Ground Storage Tank, Booster Station, and Well No. 7 2010 - 2012 $3,000,000 Storage 1.5 million gallons $1 ,050,000 Booster Station $1,500,000 Well No. 7 $450,000 Optional Alternate Storage 2.0 million gallons $1,250,000 4 Complete Raw Water Mains from Wells No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 5, and No. 6 to reservoirs including revision to well pumps 2012 $1,425,000 5 Strengthen Trunk Water Main (Phase 2) 2011 $790,000 6 Strengthen Trunk Water Main (Phase 3) 2015 $175,000 7 Construction of Treatment Plant 2017 $9,050,000 8 Strengthen Trunk Water Main (Phase 41 2020 + $570,000 9 Improve Distribution Water Main - Southwest Comer (Phase 5) 2025 + $1,200,000 10 Construction of Well No. 8 with Pumphouse $800,000 2029 + $1,800,000 Including Raw Water Main for Wells No. 4, No. 8, and No. 9 $1,000,000 11 Construction Well No. 9 with Pumphouse and Raw Water Main 2035 $800,000 osts are in 1UU I dollars Water Treatment Plant Study 29 13843.000 ATTACHMENT C: EDUCATION INFORMATION PROGRAMS seeded, sodded areas and for new There are exceptions for newly 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 If the last digit of your house 0 on the odd numbered days in the daly .8upiuz.I p p4- "t cr `ti c' • CD y y O O pP C y rt- �' CD y ▪ tD * o 'Li y fiL e w cs C 0 io z Upicr jnuoJJVN rea�f gora S T iaquiai.das ban in 2004 which is effective May 15 to The City of Lino Lakes initiated a sprinkling FIRST -CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID Circle Pines, MN Permit No. 33 Sprinkling Ordinance In Effect This Summer The City of Lino Lakes has always taken pride in its efforts to conserve our precious natural resources. In past years, the city has had the luxury of being able to meet the peak water consumption demands of residents without imposing formal restrictions. Odd/even and night time watering has been merely encouraged. The dry conditions we experienced last summer, however, put an extreme burden on our water supply. Peak water demand exceeded production, while overnight demand allowed water tower levels to only slightly recover. This much water use can potentially compromise our public safety and fire protection capabilities. The Insurance Services Organization recommends that our system be capable of a sustained flow of 3,500 gallons per minute for a four -hour duration. The ability of our system to meet this criterion while also supplying peak household demand is doubtful. The average consumption for Lino Lakes in the winter months of 2003 was approximately 650,000 gallons per day. During August 2003, consumption peaked to more than four million gallons in a single day, which is attributed to watering lawns and other nondomestic uses. For these reasons, the city is in the process of adopting an ordinance related to water use. • From May 15 through September 15 odd number property addresses may water on odd - number days, and even number property addresses may water on even -number days. • In the event the city administrator determines that a severe water shortage exists that could jeopardize adequate fire protection and public safety, the city administrator is authorized to further restrict the sprinkling of lawns and gardens. • Watering of new sod and new seed for the first 12 weeks is permitted. • The fist violation shall result in a $25 citation and a $50 subsequent citation to those individuals who repeat violations. • This ordinance applies only to those individuals drawing water for sprinkling from the public water system. The adoption of seasonal water restrictions is a necessary and reasonable measure to control water consumption during periods of peak demand. Also, sprinkling restrictions will delay the need for additional well houses that are costly to build and maintain. Information about the new ordinance will be placed in future water bills and the local newspaper. Plans are also underway to place informational signage near the entrances of residential developments. inzen Task Force reviews iiy Chatter Inge 4 National Night Our in August page 5 Recycle Day is May 5 page 9 Citizens undertake long -term plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan update will be ongoing over the next 18 months. This citizen- driven plan outlines policies and guidelines intended to implement the citizens' 2030 Vision Plan. Cities are required to submit a Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council every 10 years. See Page 3 for the latest information and visit the city website at wwwciiino-lakes.mn.us for continuous updates. Lino Lakes volunteers monitor aquatic invertebrates (bugs) in Hardwood Creek within the Rice Creek Watershed District as pan of a Stream Health Evalua- tion Program (SHEP). These volunteers received training in both field and lab work to provide valuable data that regulatory agencies can use to appraise water quality. Road Construction Ahead See Page 8 for details. S P Q, T, L I G H T ON City is award finalist for Green Development Minnesota Environmental Initiative annually honors innovative projects that have achieved extraordinary environmental outcomes by harnessing the power of partnerships. The City of Lino I -akes is a finalist in the 2007 awards competition in the category of Green Building and Development for its proactive, citizen - driven environmental review process of the I -35E Corridor. The Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) assessed the impact of development on sensitive natural resource areas and provided a mitigation plan for pro- tecting these areas, as well as documenting and planning for infrastructure needs and improve- ments. Other public agencies were invited into the process from the onset, making a smooth approval process with positive results. The winners will be selected in May. CITY',, Y :UF LN• x KES Public Services Sprinkling restrictions begin May 15 The City of Lino Lakes Sprinkling Ordinance will be in effect again this year from May 15 through September 15. Odd - number property addresses may water on odd - number days, and even- number property addresses may water on even - number days. The adoption of seasonal water restrictions is a necessary and reasonable measure to control water consumption during periods of peak demand. The ordinance applies only to those individuals drawing water for sprinkling from the public water system. Watering of new sod and new seed for the first 12 weeks is permitted. The first violation shall result in a $25 citation and a $50 subsequent citation to those individuals who repeat violations. Mayor's Column Continued from Page 2 Plan for and implement needed local regional transporta- tion improvements. Construct improvements on Lake Drive and the I -35W interchange, County Roads 49 and J, including the, installation of traffic signals. Begin planning for intersection improvements at Lake Drive and Main Street Continue planning a northerly bypass connecting 35W and 35E, and the possibility of a four -lane highway on I -35W to its junction with I -35E. Prepare an access management plan for Birch Street. Complete citizens' review of city charter requirements related to road reconstruction. Receive citizen task force report in June 2007, rake appropriate action based on recommendations contained in the report which may be: 1) placing a charter amendment question or 2) a specific street reconstruction question on the ballot Complete Update of city's Comprehensive Plan. Complete draft comprehensive plan, hold public forums, submit draft plan for agency reviews and adopt updated plan. Review and update city's recreation projects and priorities. Review park dedication ordinance and park dedication needs, complete Legacy Trail segment, pursue possible East -Birch Street Trail crossing, and redevelop Lino Park. Review and revise current plan for the development of the future recreation complex located at Birch Street and Centerville Road. Don't prune oak gees in May or June Diversify, expand, and enhance the city's tax base. Under- take and complete an analysis of economic development opportunities for expansion of the city's tax base; develop economic development marketing plan; provide for align- ment of comprehensive plan and the economic develop- ment plan. Establish an appropriate revenue generation and allocation policy for the city. Increase citizen input opportunities as to how funds are allocated; review infrastructure financing policies; complete a utility rate study, and review storm water utility study. Maintain safe neighborhoods and community areas. Promote security throughout the community through community programs and citizen involvement; adopt a crime free multi- housing ordinance; adopt public safety radio system ordinance; update emergency plan and conduct exercise of plan; consider task forces pertaining to gangs, drugs, violent offenders. Address projected housing needs for the City of Lino Lakes. Provide life cycle /affordable housing within the commu- nity; provide land use areas in comprehensive plan with densities that make affordable housing possible; evaluate incentives that will encourage the private sector to supply affordable housing; and develop ordinances and policies to keep housing affordable, safe, and attractive. WS — Item 2b. WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 2b. Date: September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Bernie Bullert, TKDA Re: Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study Background Lino Lakes water supply is provided by the Jordan sandstone aquifer. This source is considered abundant and meets all health requirements. The City does not treat its water for iron and /or manganese removal, softening, or any other conventional treatment processes. The City does provide chemical additions including disinfection and fluoridation at the wellheads. Blending of raw well water with treated water on peak days has been evaluated to reduce treatment plant size. Blending is accomplished on peak days by sending 75 to 80 percent of the raw water supply through the treatment plant and using a bypass line to allow 20 to 25 percent of the raw water to go directly to the water storage for blending. The proposed water treatment plant is an ideal candidate for blending because the raw water supplied to the treatment plant from the wells does not carry contaminants which cause health related issues. During recent years several metro communities have begun to use blending to reduce water treatment plant capacity. By using the blending of raw well water with treated water, the City can be served by a single treatment plant. The treatment feasibility study utilizes two types of treatment technology and proposes two different plant layouts, based on the space needs that each technology requires. The acreage needed at the two proposed site locations was determined based on those plant layouts. At this time health requirements and resident complaints do not warrant treatment. However, due to the complexities of a water treatment facility and efficient integration of a facility into the City's system of pipes, wells and storage, advanced planning is necessary. The study addresses water quality, future water demands, site selection, plant floor plan options, future infrastructure needs, and financing / funding alternatives. Attached is the Draft Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study, dated August 17, 2007. 1 Financing/Funding: Water treatment plant capital costs (including engineering, administrative, and financing costs) are estimated at $12,050,000, the additional wells and associated distribution system improvements are estimated to cost $4,825,000. This gives a grand total for the water treatment plant and associated well and distribution system improvements of $16,875,000. As the water treatment plant would provide substantial benefit for the existing water customers, water rate increases could be utilized to fund a portion of the project. The remainder of the costs could be funded by a water availability charge for new connections. Capital Improvement Program: The capital improvement program phases in the wells and watermains as needed for population growth. It also shows the centralized storage reservoir and booster station being built in the 2010 to 2012 time period when more storage is necessary. Using the capital improvement program and system layout, the treatment plant can be added in the future and is shown in 2017. The detailed capital improvement program can be found on page 26 of the attached water treatment plant feasibility study. Requested Council Direction We are requesting feedback from City Council as we continue to finalize the Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study. This item with any required revisions will be on the September 10, 2007 City Council meeting agenda. DRAFT 8 -17 -07 WATER TREATMENT PLANT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA TKDA ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS Date: August 17, 2007 Project No. 13843.000 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS DRAFT 8 -17-07 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA FEASIBILITY STUDY WATER TREATMENT PLANT CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 13843.000 August 17, 2007 I hereby certify that this Feasibility Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Bernie R. Bullert, P.E. License No. 11208 i 13843.000 WATER TREATMENT PLANT CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 13843.000 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT 8 -17 -07 PAGE NO. SECTION I. PURPOSE OF STUDY 1 SECTION II. SECTION III. SECTION IV. SECTION V. SECTION VI. SECTION VII. SECTION VIII. SECTION IX. SECTION X. SECTION XI. SECTION XII. SECTION XIII. SECTION XIV. TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE 6 TABLE 7 TABLE 8 TABLE 9 TABLE 10 WATER QUALITY INFORMATION AND COMPLAINTS 2 FUTURE WATER DEMANDS FOR LINO LAKES 4 POTENTIAL TREATMENT PLANT SITES 6 FUTURE WATER STORAGE NEEDS AND OPTIONS 7 FUTURE BOOSTER STATION NEEDS 8 FUTURE WATER PLANT SIZE (BLENDING) 10 WATER PLANT OPTIONAL PROCESSES 12 FLOOR PLAN OPTIONS, SECTIONAL VIEW OF PLANT, AND SITE PLAN 15 WATERMAIN AND FUTURE WELL NEEDS FOR EACH OPTION 16 COST ESTIMATE FOR EACH OPTION 17 POSSIBLE FUNDING OPTIONS 22 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 23 FUTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM 26 WELL WATER AND MANGANESE DATA 3 ULTIMATE WATER USE CALCULATIONS 5 HIGH SERVICE PUMPS 8 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 11 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 17 COST ESTIMATE FOR RAW WATERMAIN TO WEST SITE 18 COST ESTIMATE FOR RAW WATERMAIN TO EAST SITE 19 COST ESTIMATE FOR GRAVITY FILTERS 20 COST ESTIMATE FOR PRESSURE FILTERS 21 FUTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM 26 ii 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 APPENDIX CONCEPT FLOOR PLAN /ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING - GRAVITY FILTERS FIGURE 1 CONCEPT FLOOR PLAN /ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING - PRESSURE FILTERS FIGURE 2 CONCEPT SITE PLAN - WEST SITE FIGURE 3 CONCEPT SITE PLAN - EAST SITE FIGURE 4 FUTURE SYSTEM MAP FIGURE 5 iii 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 WATER TREATMENT PLANT CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 13843.000 L PURPOSE OF STUDY TKDA has been authorized to conduct a water treatment feasibility study for the City of Lino Lakes. As part of this study TKDA has reviewed the water quality information on the existing wells to determine; the existing quality, the levels of iron and manganese in the water, what constituents should be removed by treatment, and levels of removal. As part of a separate study, TKDA had estimated the water demands for the future based on the DNR policies for appropriating water and based on the ultimate population projection for Lino Lakes. Using these demand projections, a plant capacity was determined. Blending of raw well water with the treated water on peak days was evaluated to reduce the treatment plant size. With a smaller plant size, Lino Lakes' ultimate service area could be served by a single water treatment plant. Two potential future water treatment plant sites were studied and were used to determine the best possible plant location and costs were developed for both sites. A review of future storage needs, water supply, high service pumping needs, and treatment plant sizing was performed based on ultimate population projections. In addition, TKDA reviewed the available treatment technology and selected two types of process equipment for iron and manganese removal. Two different plant layouts were developed based on the space needs for this equipment. Preliminary floor plans were developed and the plant site plans were developed. From this, the acreage needed for a future plant site was determined. After determining the plant size, locations, and layouts, cost estimates were made for the two types of equipment at the two site locations. Included in these cost estimates, are the raw watermains and treated water distribution mains needed for each option. From this data, four cost estimates were prepared. Funding options and final recommendations for these options are at the end of the report. Water Treatment Plant Study 1 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 II. WATER QUALITY INFORMATION AND COMPLAINTS The City of Lino Lakes provides drinking water to their consumers from five wells which range in depth from 258 feet to 338 feet. These ground water sources provide water to the residents and are in compliance with the current Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Water at the source and in the distribution system are sampled and analyzed on a regular basis by City staff and the Minnesota Department of Health. Contaminants included in the testing program include microbial, inorganic, pesticides, herbicides, organic chemicals, radioactive material, nitrate, nitrate nitrogen, trihalomethanes, and secondary contaminates. Secondary contaminates do not have maximum contaminant levels established as they are non health related. In general, maximum contaminant levels are established because the regulated substances represent hazards to health. In setting the maximum contaminant level, the total environmental exposure to humans of a specific contaminant has been considered by the regulating agency and an attempt has been made to set lifetime limits at the lowest practical level in order to minimize the amount of contaminant consumed in drinking water. From a review of the Minnesota Health Department regulations and well water sample results, the City's water supply currently meets the health related regulations. In addition to the state regulations, the Safe Drinking Water Act included non - enforceable guidelines for contaminants that may adversely affect the aesthetic quality of drinking water. Among these contaminants are iron, 0.3 mg /I (milligrams per liter), manganese, 0.05 mg/I, and pH in range 6.5 -8.5. Of these contaminants, iron and manganese, found in local ground water supplies, generate the most complaints from customers. Aesthetic components of drinking water include taste, odor, color, hardness and staining. Taste problems in water derive in part from salts and the presence of specific metals such as iron, copper, manganese, and zinc. Staining of laundry and house hold fixtures occur from water containing iron and manganese. The iron and manganese data for Lino Lakes' wells is shown on Table 1. Water Treatment Plant Study 2 13843.000 DRAFT 8-17-07 Table 1 Well Water Iron and Manganese Data In order to minimize customer complaints and improve aesthetic quality of water supplied to customers, many communities in our region install and operate water treatment plants which remove the iron and manganese from their ground water supply. Although the City of Lino Lakes currently is in compliance with the Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the construction of a Water Treatment Plant would allow the City to supply finished water which meets both the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. The current level of water quality complaints is not perceived as sufficient in numbers to justify water treatment at this time. As the customer base continues to expand, the City should expect the number of water quality complaints to increase. The City should also anticipate and be prepared to provide water treatment to remove iron and manganese as the customer base expands and the water system financial capabilities increase. Water treatment will improve consumer satisfaction with the City's water supply. Water Treatment Plant Study 3 13843.000 Well No. 1 Well No. 2 Well No. 3 Well No. 4 Well No. 5 Maximum Secondary Contaminant Level (mg /I) Iron (mg /L) 0.71 0.46 0.03 0.18 1.15 0.30 Manganese (mg /L) 0.11 0.40 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.05 In order to minimize customer complaints and improve aesthetic quality of water supplied to customers, many communities in our region install and operate water treatment plants which remove the iron and manganese from their ground water supply. Although the City of Lino Lakes currently is in compliance with the Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the construction of a Water Treatment Plant would allow the City to supply finished water which meets both the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. The current level of water quality complaints is not perceived as sufficient in numbers to justify water treatment at this time. As the customer base continues to expand, the City should expect the number of water quality complaints to increase. The City should also anticipate and be prepared to provide water treatment to remove iron and manganese as the customer base expands and the water system financial capabilities increase. Water treatment will improve consumer satisfaction with the City's water supply. Water Treatment Plant Study 3 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 III. FUTURE WATER DEMANDS FOR LINO LAKES As the seven county metro area continues to add households and increase in population, the ability of ground water aquifers to supply and meet the future water demands of the area at the current rate of water use (gallons per person) is a major concern. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Metropolitan Council are both currently looking at the future water demand of the metro area and how best to serve the projected demands. Water conservation and wise use of the available water resources will provide considerable benefit to the growing communities and the region in future years. Every ten years, all metro communities must complete and submit their Water Emergency and Conservation plans to the DNR and the Metropolitan Council for approval. Permits by the DNR for increases in water appropriations and for new wells will require that the communities meet specific benchmarks and conservation measures regarding water use in their service area. These conservation measures will allow our existing ground water supplies to serve a larger regional population. These DNR required benchmarks and conservation measures were used in projecting the future water demands for the City of Lino Lakes. As a result, the future water demand projections used in this study are Tess than water demands used in prior studies. The ultimate population, used in this study, for the City of Lino Lakes is estimated to be 43,000 people of whom 42,000 people will be served by the City water system. The rest of the population will continue to be served by private wells. Currently the City has an average residential gallons per capita per day (gpcd) water use of 86 gallons and a total per capita per day water use of 102 gallons which includes the commercial, industrial and institutional water uses. The current maximum day to average day ratio is 3.4 to 1. By using the ultimate served population, current water use and future water use estimates, one can estimate the future ultimate water demands for the City. Using the recent 5 -year average of 102 gpcd, the future average daily water demand will be 4.3 MGD (million gallons per day). Then by applying the DNR Benchmark for the maximum day to average day ratio of 2.6 to 1, the future maximum day demand will be 11.1 MGD for the City system. Water Treatment Plant Study 4 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 Alternately, using the DNR benchmark of 75 gallons per capita per day for residential use and then adding the estimated commercial, industrial, and institutional water use, the average daily water demand would be 3.15 MGD for residential use and 0.45 MGD for commercial, industrial, and institutional use which results in a total average day water demand of 3.6 MGD. Then by applying the DNR benchmark for the maximum day to average day ratio of 2.6 to 1, the future maximum day demand would be 9.4 MGD for the City system. Assuming that the DNR and Metropolitan Council policies regarding conservation and efficient use of metro water supply resources are enforced, we estimate that the future average day water demands for Lino Lakes will not exceed 4.0 MGD and that the future maximum day water demand will be approximately 10.4 MGD. We believe that these water demand projections provide a conservative estimate regarding the ultimate water demands for the City of Lino Lakes based upon providing water service to approximately 42,000 people. These ultimate water use calculations are shown in Table 2. Table No. 2 Ultimate Water Use Calculations Water Treatment Plant Study 5 13843.000 Average Day Peak Day Calculated using ultimate population, with DNR benchmarks for average day water use and the DNR average to peak ratio. 3.6 MGD 9.4 MGD Calculated using ultimate population, current average day rates, and the DNR average to peak ratio. 4.3 MGD 11.1 MGD Assumed Maximum Future Ultimate Use for Study 4.0 MGD 10.4 MGD Water Treatment Plant Study 5 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 IV. POTENTIAL TREATMENT PLANT SITES In meeting with Lino Lakes staff, three potential sites were offered by staff for a water treatment plant. All three sites were along Birch Street where most of the City's wells will be drilled. The construction of the water treatment and storage facilities in close proximity to the wells will lower the raw watermain construction costs. The site at Wellhouse No. 3 looked like a costly and difficult site for construction of a water treatment plant and water storage tank because of the limited area to build upon and it is surrounded by water and low areas. Therefore, only two sites were used as potential future plant sites. One site is along Centerville Road at Birch Street. The other site is School District property along Birch Street, West of Timberlake Trail. Soil borings were taken at each site to determine structural foundation needs, water table depth, and maximum foundation depth for a future reservoir. These sites were then used to develop a site plan, raw watermain requirements and a cost estimate to build a water plant at each site. Water Treatment Plant Study 6 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17-07 V. FUTURE WATER STORAGE NEEDS AND OPTIONS There are generally two types of treated water storage that can be considered in a municipal water supply. Elevated tanks are one option. The City of Lino Lakes currently has two elevated tanks. A second option is ground storage. Ground storage works well near a water treatment plant and operates as a clearwell to receive the treated water. High service pumps transfer water from the clearwell reservoir to the elevated tanks as needed. Ground storage is less costly to build and to maintain than an elevated storage tower and is recommended. The City of Lino Lakes currently has 2.0 million gallons (MG) of elevated water storage available to the system. In reviewing the April 2004 Comprehensive Water System Plan as prepared by TKDA, the plan calls for two additional 0.5 MG gallon ground storage reservoirs at the proposed two treatment plant sites. The needed storage in 2030 is shown as 2,576 MG. The ultimate needed storage based on the ultimate population calculation is 3.3 MG. In addition, as the City grows, and as conservation measures are implemented, consumption patterns may change, and the peaking equalization needs may be reduced. However, based on the Ten States Standards storage guidelines, the recommended storage is equal to average day usage which is projected to be 4 MG at ultimate population. Therefore, we are recommending a single treatment plant with a single finished -water ground service reservoir of 1.5 MG. The cost for a 2 MG reservoir is also shown. This will bring the City's total storage to 3.5 or 4 MG. A larger reservoir will provide more flexibility and may delay the need for wells. An alternate would be to build a 1 MG reservoir first and a second 1 MG reservoir later on the same site. Water Treatment Plant Study 7 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 VI. FUTURE BOOSTER STATION NEEDS In the existing water system, the wells pump water directly into the distribution system and into the two elevated water tanks which provide the desired static pressure for the distribution system. The elevated water towers have an overflow elevation 1,054.5 feet. All chemical additions for the water system are made at each welihouse. The construction of a water treatment plant or central storage will require the well pumps to instead supply the proposed plant site, and they will need to be modified to pump water at lower heads. Well water will be pumped directly to the water treatment plant without chemical addition at the welihouse. To deliver water to the distribution system and the two elevated water tanks, a new high service pump station will need to be constructed at the water treatment plant. The finished water reservoir will provide water by gravity to the pump suction header and five high service pumps will supply the finished water to the distribution system and elevated storage tanks. The preliminary selection of the high service pumps are shown in Table 3: Table No. 3 High Service Pumps Number of Pumps Individual Capacity (GPM) Total Head (ft) Estimated HP Required 2 7,500 150 350 1 5,000 150 250 2 3,000 150 150 Firm pumping capacity for the high service pump station should be 18,500 GPM or 26.6 MGD. The pump capacity selected will provide peak hourly flow discharge of 2.5 times the estimated maximum daily water demand of 7,300 GPM or 10.4 MG. To effectively utilize electrical energy and minimize electrical demand and costs, three pump sizes were selected to match the various daily water demands anticipated on the system. The standby generator provided should be sized to provide standby power for the Water Treatment Plant Study 8 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17-07 two largest high service pumps and the water treatment plant during electrical power outages. The standby generator will also allow the City to obtain electrical service on the load management rate schedules. The electric utility provider allows the City to operate the generator during peak electrical demand periods and offers lower electrical rates for compensation. Water Treatment Plant Study 9 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 VII. FUTURE WATER PLANT SIZE (BLENDING) Many water treatment plants are designed and constructed to treat the projected peak day demands and depending upon process design selection, the plants may be constructed in phases to meet growing community water needs. However, during recent years, several metro communities are using a blending process to decrease the required water treatment plant capacity and reduce construction costs. Blending is accomplished on peak days by sending 75 -80 percent of the well water supply through the treatment plant and using a bypass line to allow 20 -25 percent of the well water supply to go directly to the finished water reservoir. Blending allows the community to supply their peak water demands with a smaller water treatment plant. Water treatment plants which remove iron and manganese from ground water well supply systems are ideal candidates for blending. This is because the raw water supplied to the treatment plant from wells normally does not cause health related issues in the finished water. This process method would allow the City to supply peak day finished water that is still low in iron and manganese, and to fully remove the iron and manganese from the finished water during non -peak water demand periods. Assuming that the City of Lino Lakes plans to follow the DNR and Metropolitan Council policies regarding water conservation, the average daily water demand is expected to be approximately 4 MG and the ultimate peak day water demand will be approximately 10.4 MG. Based upon the estimated population projections for the City of Lino Lakes, the average day, maximum day, and projected yearly water demands are listed in Table 4. Water Treatment Plant Study 10 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 Table No. 4 Water Demand Projections Year Total Community Population Population Served By Water System Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Projected Annual Demand (MGY) 2010 21,500 17,514 1.73 4.76 632.9 2020 26,500 23,000 2.28 5.93 832.2 2030 31,000 29,000 2.87 7.46 1047.6 Ultimate 43,000 42,000 4.16 10.82 1518.4 Based upon the estimated ultimate population to be served by the City water system and the water treatment plant requirements, we recommend that the City use the blending process to meet the estimated ultimate maximum day water demand of 10.4 -10.8 MG. The water treatment plant with a 1.5 or 2.0 MG finished water reservoir should be designed to process 8.4 MGD through the treatment plant and to allow bypass of 2.1 MGD direct to the finished water reservoir. A water treatment plant designed and constructed to provide 8.4 MGD of finished water will likely provide fully treated finished water for all of the City of Lino Lakes needs through the year 2040. The blending process should allow the City to meet the ultimate peak day water demands. Water Treatment Plant Study 11 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 VIII. WATER PLANT OPTIONAL PROCESSES The 2004 City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Water System Plan as prepared by TKDA had a section regarding water treatment for Lino Lakes. As Lino Lakes water supply is from the Jordan aquifer, recommending it has iron and manganese levels that exceed the secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL) of the safe Drinking Water Act as discussed in Section II of this report. There are three typical types of water treatment plants built for iron and manganese removal. They include a gravity open filter type plant, manufactured gravity filters in closed units and pressure filters. For this study we chose to do a preliminary layout and cost estimate for the manufactured gravity filters and the pressure filters. The manufactured gravity filters and pressure filters are modular in nature and are delivered with most of the internal components and piping attached. These processes are described below in more detail. A. MANUFACTURED GRAVITY FILTERS Gravity filtration is one of the oldest, most basic processes for water treatment. It involves allowing water to flow through a media, such as sand, to remove particulate matter in the water. Initially filters were large basins made of concrete with several feet of sand media that had limited capacity and required frequent cleaning. Advances in filtration technology have resulted in filters that are more compact with automated operation. For the proposed Lino Lakes treatment plant, we used manufactured filters that use silica sand and anthracite (granular coal) media for the preliminary layout of the gravity filter facility. The iron and manganese are oxidized by chemical addition forming a precipitant, which is removed in the filters. Different types of media and chemicals can be used to oxidize and filter the iron and manganese. The optimum approach is generally determined by pilot testing during the actual design. Figure 1 shows the preliminary layout for the gravity filter facility. Each filter is approximately 10 feet wide by 34 feet long and has the capacity to treat approximately 1.5 MGD of water per day (MGD). To meet the projected year 2030 peak demand of 6.0 MGD, four filters would be required with a fifth filter for redundancy. Ten State Standards require the system to meet the maximum day demand with one filter out of service. This allows the plant to maintain full capacity while one filter is backwashing or out Water Treatment Plant Study 12 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 for maintenance. To meet the projected Lino Lakes ultimate peak demand of 8.4 MGD a sixth filter would be required. The building would be sized to allow the sixth filter to be installed when needed without expanding the structure. To meet the ultimate peak demand with one filter out of service the remaining five filters would be operated at a rate of 3.4 gpm /sf. This filter loading rate is within the filters design capacity. The proposed plant includes a small storage tank for treated water ( clearwell) beneath the filters. Due to the groundwater conditions at the proposed site, the clearwell cannot be constructed deep enough to provide the projected 1 MG of treated water storage. The Minnesota Department of Health requires a 3 foot separation between the clearwell and the seasonal high groundwater level. The groundwater at the proposed plant sites would limit the depth of the clearwell to about 4 feet. To provide 1 MG of storage, a 4 foot deep clearwell would be about 0.75 acres in area. Thus, a separate ground storage tank is proposed. A disadvantage of having a separate ground storage tank is that the treated water from the filters would have to be pumped into the storage tank. An additional small clearwell beneath the filters is required to provide a basin for the transfer pump to withdraw water. The filtered water would discharge directly into the clearwell thus reducing the amount of piping required to convey the water to the transfer pump. In order to reduce the amount of wastewater discharged to the sewer, and the sewer cost to the City, the water from backwashing the filters is captured in a tank called a reclaim tank. The solids in the backwash water are allowed to settle out and the majority of the water is pumped back to the head of the plant for treatment. The remaining water and solids in the reclaim tank are pumped to the sanitary sewer. To provide good solids settling conditions the reclaim tanks should have a minimum depth of 10 feet. The reclaim tanks are also required have 3 feet of separation from the groundwater which means they must be constructed adjacent to the plant building instead of beneath the building. To allow maximum settling time, two reclaim tanks are normally provided with each tank having a capacity for the volume from one filter backwash cycle. This allows one tank to remain undisturbed while the other tank receives backwash water. Each of the two reclaim tanks would need to hold about 140,000 gallons which would require a tank Water Treatment Plant Study 13 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 44x84x10 feet deep with a dividing wall. The tanks will be partially above ground and insulated or soil could be mounded around the tanks to cover them. Examples of a modular style gravity filters include the plants in the City of Forest Lake. We chose not to recommend the gravity open style filters, because of the shallow ground water table and the construction costs associated with a treatment plant of this type. B. PRESSURE FILTERS Pressure filters function in the same fashion as gravity filters except that the filters are constructed from horizontal, cylindrical pressure vessels. Pressure filters from most manufacturers use the same chemicals and media described above for gravity filters, and the remainder of that section applies except that intermediate pumping is not required. The well pump can provide the pressure required to pump the water through the filter and into the ground storage reservoir. Some manufacturers (e.g. Filtronics) utilize a proprietary media that can be operated at a higher hydraulic loading. The advantage of this is that the filters and building can be smaller. The actual filter rate is determined through pilot testing, but is typically 10 gpm/ft. These plants also require shorter backwash times, thereby reducing the volume of backwash water generated, and correspondingly, results in a smaller backwash reclaim tank. Several cities in the vicinity utilize Filtronics plants including Coon Rapids, Moundsview, Blaine, and Anoka. Water Treatment Plant Study 14 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 IX. FLOOR PLAN OPTIONS, SECTIONAL VIEW OF PLANT, AND SITE PLAN Separate floor plans were created for the two different types of filters, since each filter uses a different amount of space. Therefore, the cost of the structures will be different for the two options. The layouts are shown in the following figures. The floor plans include space for all the additional features needed at a water treatment plant including chemical rooms, mechanical rooms, laboratory, office, and storage room, etc. Because the buildings are similar in size, only one site plan for each site was created showing the treatment plant, a single 1 MG storage reservoir, driveways, and a possible garage facility. This site plan was created to show how the facilities would fit together on a site and to determine the approximate area needed for the complex. An architectural rendering was prepared to provide the City with an idea of what a water treatment plant may look like. These views of a potential plant design will give an idea of the size, height, and potential look of the water treatment plant in a neighborhood and assist in consideration of a final location. These drawings are shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. (See Appendix) Figure 1 - Concept Floor Plan /Architectural Rendering - Gravity Filters Figure 2 - Concept Floor Plan /Architectural Rendering - Pressure Filters Figure 3 - Concept Site Plan - West Site Figure 4 - Concept Site Plan - East Site Water Treatment Plant Study 15 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 X. WATERMAIN AND FUTURE WELL NEEDS FOR EACH OPTION For each of the two potential water treatment plant sites, the raw watermain needs were determined. The costs for the east site are somewhat higher than for the west site. This is because the existing wells are closer to the west site. The raw water mains are designed to bring all the water from the wells to the treatment plant site and then larger water mains would convey the water from a central booster station into the distribution system throughout the City (See Figure 5 in the Appendix). This report calls for 9 wells rather than 8 because the proposed plant is designed for the ultimate population rather than for the 2030 time period used in the 2004 Comprehensive Water System Plan. The future wells are shown in the proposed capital program. Water Treatment Plant Study 16 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 XI. COST ESTIMATE FOR EACH OPTION The cost estimates for the four options are shown in the following tables. They break down into the cost estimate for each filter type at each location. Supporting tables are included after this page. The summary for all the options is as follows: Table 5 Lino Lakes WTP Feasibility Report Cost Estimate Summary No. Description 1 Gravity Filters at the West Plant Site $10,700,000 Raw Watermain $2,425,000 Total $13,125,000 2 Gravity Filters at the East Plant Site $10,700,000 Raw Watermain $2,800,000 Total $13,500,000 3 Pressure Filters at the West Plant Site $9,050,000 Raw Watermain $2,425,000 $11,475,000 4 Pressure Filters at the East Plant Site $5,050,000 Raw Watermain $2,800,000 $11,850,000 Water Treatment Plant Study 17 13843.000 Table 6 Lino Lakes WTP Feasibility Report Cost Estimate for Raw Watermain to West Site No Description Cost 1 8" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 24,321 LF $ 851,235 2 10" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 2,052 LF $ 92,340 3 16" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 6,343 LF $ 475,725 4 24" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 2,757 LF $ 358,410 5 Hydrant Assemblies 11 EA $ 49,500 Construction Subtotal $ 1,827,210 Construction Contingency $ 182,721 Total Construction Cost $ 2,009,931 Administration, Engineering and Financing $ 401,986 *Total Capital Cost $ 2,411,917 Final Estimated Cost $ 2,425,000 * Cost does not include right of way acquisition or restoration. Water Treatment Plant Study 18 13843.000 Table 7 Lino Lakes WTP Feasibility Report Cost Estimate for Raw Watermain to East Site No. Description Cost 1 8" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 24,321 LF $ 851,235 2 10" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 2,052 LF $ 92,340 3 16" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 906 LF $ 67,950 4 24" HDPE Watermain (directionally drilled) 8,194 LF $ 1,065,220 5 Hydrant Assemblies 11 EA $ 49,500 Construction Subtotal $ 2,126,245 Construction Contingency $ 212,625 Total Construction Cost $ 2,338,870 Administration, Engineering and Financing $ 467,774 *Total Capital Cost $ 2,806,643 Final Estimated Cost $ 2,800,000 * Cost does not include right of way acquisition or restoration. Water Treatment Plant Study 19 13843.000 Table 8 Lino Lakes WTP Feasibility Report Cost Estimate for Gravity Filters Estimated No. Description Cost 1 Mobilization, Bonds, Insurance $ 825,000 2 Site Work $ 350,000 3 Backwash Reclaim Tanks $ 180,000 4 Treatment Plant Foundation and Building $ 1,700,000 5 Coatings $ 150,000 6 Dual -media Gravity Filters $ 2,500,000 7 Backwash Pump $ 20,000 8 Transfer Pump $ 60,000 9 Backwash Reclaim/Waste Pumps $ 10,000 10 Chemical Feed and Storage Equipment $ 100,000 11 Process Piping and Valves $ 750,000 12 Plumbing and HVAC $ 400,000 13 Electrical, Controls and Instrumentation $ 800,000 14 Standby Power Generation $ 260,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,105,000 Construction Contingency $ 810,500 Total Construction Cost $ 8,915,500 Administration, Engineering and Financing $ 1,783,100 *Total Capital Cost $ 10,698,600 Final Estimated Cost $ 10,700,000 Cost does not include purchase of land for a water treatment plant site. Water Treatment Plant Study 20 13843.000 Table 9 Lino Lakes WTP Feasibility Report Cost Estimate for Pressure Filters Estimated No Description Cost 1 Mobilization, Bonds, Insurance $ 675,000 2 Site Work $ 345,000 3 Backwash Reclaim Tanks $ 135,000 4 Treatment Plant Foundation and Building $ 1,500,000 5 Coatings $ 150,000 6 Hi -Rate Pressure Filters $ 1,800,000 7 Backwash Pump $ 20,000 8 Backwash Reclaim/Waste Pumps $ 10,000 9 Chemical Feed and Storage Equipment $ 100,000 10 Process Piping and Valves $ 750,000 11 Plumbing and HVAC $ 360,000 12 Electrical, Controls and Instrumentation $ 750,000 13 Standby Power Generation $ 260,000 Construction Subtotal $ 6,855,000 Construction Contingency $ 685,500 Total Construction Cost $ 7,540,500 Administration, Engineering and Financing $ 1,508,100 *Total Capital Cost $ 9,048,600 Final Estimated Cost $ 9,050,000 * Cost does not include purchase of land for a water treatment plant site. Water Treatment Plant Study 21 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 XII. POSSIBLE FUNDING OPTIONS Water utility operations should be self - supporting from revenue received by providing service to the customers. Due to the substantial population growth and the water quality issues caused by the iron and manganese found in the supply wells, the City is investigating the feasibility of providing treatment of the well water. The water treatment plant complex and additional supply wells will cost approximately $16,875,000 based upon 2007 construction costs. This estimated cost includes engineering, administrative, and construction costs. We anticipate that the City of Lino Lakes will use General Obligation or Revenue bonds to fund the water system improvements as it is unlikely that state revolving fund loans would be available for these water system improvements. State revolving funds are generally utilized to fund community projects where regulatory compliance issues are of concern. Projects selected for state funding are ranked based on a priority system each year by the Minnesota Department of Health. The water treatment complex capital cost (including engineering, administrative, and construction costs) is estimated at $12,050,000, and the wells and associated distribution system improvements are estimated to cost $4,825,000. As the water treatment plant would provide substantial benefit for the existing water customers, which is 1/3 of the ultimate population, water rate increases could be utilized to fund 1/3 of the $12,050,000 water treatment plant cost. The remaining 2/3 of the water treatment plant cost and the cost of additional well supplies should be recovered from water availability charges for new connections to the system. The Lino Lakes City Council has authorized a more in depth study for funding the treatment plant and associated facilities which will be completed separately from this study. Water Treatment Plant Study 22 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 XIII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS TKDA was authorized to conduct a water treatment feasibility study for the City of Lino Lakes. As part of this study, the water quality information on each well was reviewed. Lino Lakes' water supply meets all primary drinking water regulations. There are two contaminates in the water that are of concern, iron and manganese. The maximum secondary contaminate level for iron is 0.03 mg /I and for manganese is 0.05 mg /I. The secondary contaminant levels are voluntary as they are there for aesthetics reasons. High iron causes red staining and high manganese causes black staining in laundry and household fixtures. Three of the existing wells are above the recommended secondary contaminant levels for iron, and four are above the recommended levels for manganese. The actual levels are on page 5. The levels are not extremely high and are not generating a large number of complaints. In order to determine a plant size and cost, we next estimated what the ultimate future demand for water will be in Lino Lakes. This demand level was determined using current trends, Minnesota DNR future requirements for conservation, and ultimate population projections. The Table on page 7 shows three scenarios. The ultimate peak day demand used for this study is 10.4 MGD. TKDA reviewed three (3) potential future water treatment plant sites. Of these, the two most viable were studied and soil borings were taken. The two (2) sites are a school district parcel at Birch Street, west of Timberlake Trail, and property the City owns on the Southeast corner of Centerville Road and Birch Street. Costs for developing a plant at each site were determined with the school district site being the lower cost alternative. A further look was taken at future storage needs. In 2004, a Comprehensive Water Study was completed by TKDA. This study projected to the year 2030 and recommended 1 MG of additional storage for a population of 32,000. In this study we have a total population of 42,000, about 1/3 more. Therefore, we are recommending 1.5 MG or 2.0 MG storage. A ground storage tank with raw water supply is planned for the central part of the City, whether there is a treatment plant there or not. The ground storage tank will require a booster station to boost the water from the ground reservoirs to the two elevated water towers. The booster station was sized in Chapter IV. Water Treatment Plant Study 23 13843.000 Filter Type Site Estimated Cost Gravity Filters East Site 13,500,000 Gravity Filters West Site 13,125,000 Pressure Filters East Site 11,850,000 Pressure Filters West Site 11,475,000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 TKDA recommends the City use blending in their water system. A blending option is used by many cities. This provides for blending some raw water with treated water on peak days. This allows the treatment plant to be smaller while a few days a year the iron and manganese levels will be slightly higher. We propose a 20% blend of raw water. This lowers the plant capacity from 10.4 million gallons /day to 8.4 million gallons /day. TKDA looked at 3 types of filter designs to remove the iron and manganese. Two of these three were determined to be viable options for Lino Lakes, manufactured gravity filters and pressure filters. Floor layouts were determined for both types of filters and costs of the filters were also reviewed. The floor area needs and filter costs were used to determine the cost of the estimated treatment plant. The site plan at each site was prepared. The proposed site plant shows the City needs a minimum 3 acre site, and depending on spacing and screening, it could be 4 acres. A plant rendering was made to show what a plant may look like on a future plant site in a neighborhood. In order to obtain all the costs for a treatment plant option, the raw water main costs were determined to bring water from all wells to the two treatment plant sites. This will help determine which site is the most cost effective. Based on all this data, 4 estimates were made. These are estimates for each of the two filter types at each of the locations for a total of 4 estimates. They are as follows: There is some discussion of funding issues in Chapter XIII. We showed funding coming from current residents and through the future developments. Actual funding can come through water rates, building a reserve, or selling revenue bonds. Water Treatment Plant Study 24 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 As a final task, TKDA prepared a proposed capital improvement plan in the following chapter. This plan leaves an option on storage size but does provide for a central storage site and booster station site. It also shows the plant being built in 2017 and how it affects the plan if delayed. The plan as shown, has the booster station and Well No. 7 in the treatment plant building. If the plant is delayed, the booster station and Well No. 7 should be built with the reservoir. This would mean the treatment plant would be smaller and somewhat less expensive to build at a later date. All facilities on the list are needed as the City grows, except the plant is optional, based on present regulations. The City's water demand is following the projection from the 2004 water study prepared by TKDA. A slow down in development and conservation measures may slow the growth pace. Therefore, timing may need to be adjusted based on actual growth. There was a question raised at the Council workshop about home water softeners and the back wash water adding to the total water used in the City of Lino Lakes. In addition, there was a follow -up question regarding the efficiency of home water softening versus softening water at a City water treatment plant. It is a part of a home water softener cycle to backwash the resin with salt water multiple times per week which does use water and add to wastewater costs. It is also true that there is an economy of scale for a City wide water softening plant. However, most cities that start City wide water softening do so early before there are many thousands of houses with home water softeners. As there are millions of dollars already invested in home softeners, a City water softening plant was not considered. Water Treatment Plant Study 25 13843.000 DRAFT 8 -17 -07 XIV. FUTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM TABLE 10 Item No. Description Year Cost 1 Construction of Well No. 6 and Pumphouse No. 6 with water main 2008 - 2009 $800,000 / 2 Strengthen Trunk Watermain (Phase 1) 2008 $750,000 t; 3 Construction of a 1.5 MG Ground Storage Tank, Booster Station, and Well No. 7 2010 - 2012 $3,000,000 Storage 1.5 million gallons $1,050,000 Booster Station $1,500,000 Well No. 7 $450,000 Optional Altemate Storage 2.0 million gallons $1,250,000 4 Complete Raw Water Mains from Wells No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 5, and No. 6 to reservoirs including revision to well pumps 2012 $1,425,000 5 Strengthen Trunk Water Main (Phase 2) 2011 $790,000 6 Strengthen Trunk Water Main (Phase 3) 2015 $175,000 7 Construction of Treatment Plant 2017 $9,050,000 8 Strengthen Trunk Water Main (Phase 4) 2020 + $570,000 9 Improve Distribution Water Main - Southwest Corner (Phase 5) 2025 + $1,200,000 10 Construction of Well No. 8 with Pumphouse $800,000 2029 + $1,800,000 Including Raw Water Main for Wells No. 4, No. 8, and No. 9 $1,000,000 11 Construction Well No. 9 with Pumphouse and Raw Water Main 2035 $800,000 *AII Costs are in 2007 dollars Water Treatment Plant Study 26 13843.000 .1-11171— i • – i I --I / 0 1 w o----1 't4D-44-T1 t-t Litti U.) LL rid cr31 -741. 1 1-07-4 1.--1 rfir-a)-.1 7-- -11- ct 1 Z L1J LL1 cr) L tt I r ! --, ,p, .- r-It / ------r ---1 at.`“_11-41------..----_-1 r- - ir-- p_._ii.---,4 , /? _.1 11. a J • • __--_-+ '•-•.- \A I 1 P-1- -- 1-1-' ' -1.777:1,-II. 1, , „,,,,t-c-7-'•<- • r- I jL I .I--...:L 1,3.11 C-_-.:' _a_ __L._ ,____, _ _ _C_, • ___ - •.._•.--::- — - ' ,IL i ■ 1 t ■ 1.--- ,' ....t t ' ' --- I il . I . . t : I I I 1, x.„,••• ••••N„...„. -r--7-; —f--. . 1_4. _ I , - „..:_ ..,...._ 4 „,.. -,... , )1 3111 LiJi N ( • I w 00 Lt uj ./ 0 4., -,--,-,r----,„ i 11 ---1------_,._--- \ - , i , 1 ------ --r I i \ 1 !.1 .1=--- - MIMMIM MIMIMOIM Mil. MOMMMIMM IMMIM, r .____ 1 - \;\ _ 7 / i T-- 0 L _.1 I I(_, 1 ______\•• 1-1 1 1 1 , 1 1 I ■ ■ - i o -cj-e-'------- - ,K I "37-5- 1 IF-------- 1 — —1 ----1, Ti m 1> I , , r _i_li J ----I --0-e„_7.-_:_ L___;________ _i i ----a, itli 1 ! I Halt-, !_________IL_______1_ , i j____i I L_____ 1 i 1p IH i 1 II I i 1-.---CI------T--T FT r — -- -- . ! , , , i ! _1 it I .__ • I • ; t ft, . • - solo 000 Sp ngsted August 29, 2007 Mr. Gordon Heitke City Administrator City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2887 Tel: 651 - 223 -3000 Fax: 651 - 223 -3002 www.springsted.com Re: Proposal for Development of a Performance Evaluation System for the City of Lino Lakes Dear Mr. Heitke: The City of Lino Lakes is interested in establishing a performance component to their compensation system. To implement a performance based compensation system, a fair and objective performance evaluation system must be created. Development of an objective performance evaluation system, tailored to each job classification, will allow the City to ensure that employees are evaluated consistently and fairly and provide the basis for employee performance improvement. As discussed during the City Council work session on August 6, Springsted would be pleased to develop a performance evaluation system for the City and provide training to City Administration, Department Heads, supervisors and employees in use of the system. As set forth in this Proposal, the following services will be performed in accordance with our discussions. Performance Evaluation System Development Scope of Work Springsted will: 1. Develop individualized performance evaluation forms for each of the City's forty (40) current job classifications. Each form will be specific to each position and allow for the employees supervisors to evaluate the employee's performance based upon essential job duties and responsibilities, other performance factors, previously established employee performance goals and to establish new goals for future employee performance. The forms will be made available electronically and in hard copy and will provide for self calculating scoring of each rated job function and established goal. Public Sector Advisors 2. Provide training sessions for supervisors on how to conduct an objective employee evaluation utilizing the new performance evaluation system and for employees in what to expect from and how to actively participate in their performance evaluation. We would recommend that one supervisor and that two employee training /orientation sessions be held to reach as many supervisors and employees as possible. 3. Provide a performance evaluation system manual and a number of copies to be determined by the City. The Manual will be developed for utilization by supervisors and will provide guidance in use of the system, preparation for employee evaluations, goal setting and scheduling of evaluations. Timeline This project would be completed in conjunction with the Compensation Study if the City chooses to conduct both studies. If the City chooses to proceed with only the performance evaluation system development, the project would be completed within ninety (90) days. Compensation Compensation for development of a Performance Evaluation System for Lino Lakes will be based upon a fixed fee as outlined in this letter proposal in the amount of $7,500.00, plus out of pocket expenses. Compensation for Additional Work Items Other projects or services requested by the City, beyond the identified services outlined above, would be billed in accordance with our current hourly rates. Springsted's 2007 fee schedule: Hourly Rates Senior Officer $210 Officer $180 Analytical Support $150 Staff Support $ 60 Respectfully submitted, Ann Antonsen, Vice President Consultant WS — Item 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 6 Date: Council Work Session, September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Request to Subdivide Property /Ordinance Amendment Inquiry Background At the Open Mike portion of the August 13, 2007 Council meeting Mr. John DeHaven, requested city assistance in his attempt to secure a reverse mortgage on a 15 acre property located at 1612 Birch Street. Mr. DeHaven stated that the reverse mortgage option was only available to properties that are three acres or less in size. The council directed staff to review the issue and report at a future work session. This issue was previously before the City in 2004. At that time the property owners had requested approval of a minor subdivision requiring variances for both minimum lot area and lot width. The variance request was recommended by denial by the Planning & Zoning Board. The City Council denied the request on April 26, 2004. A copy of the P & Z minutes and Council minutes are attached to this report. Analysis. The property is currently guided Medium Density Residential within a Stage 2 growth area (2010 — 2020) by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The property lies outside of the City's Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The property is zoned R, Rural. The minimum lot size within the Rural Zoning District is 10 acres. Additionally, the City's Zoning Ordinance, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, requires that all unsewered lots, within any zoning district, be a minimum of 10 acres in size. The only exception to this requirement is where there exists a habitable single family home constructed prior to July 13, 1992. In this instance a minimum one acre lot size applies subject to several provisions of the ordinance. The 10 acre minimum lot requirement dates back to the City's 1990 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the 1992 Zoning 1 Ordinance Amendment to implement a rural service policy of one unit per 10 acres consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines. Subdivision of this property, as proposed, is clearly inconsistent, with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Opinion City staff had discussed this issue with the both property owners prior to Mr. Dehaven's appearance at the August 17 City Council meetings. Development of the property as requested would require likely require both a comprehensive plan amendment and an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance. After discussion with the City Attorney staff is not in a position to recommend changes to these policy documents to accommodate a specific property request based on a financial institutions requirements. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting direction on how the Council wishes to proceed. Attachments 1. April 14, 2004 P & Z minutes 2. April 26, 2004 City Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 26, 2004 APPROVED 1 2 City Engineer Studenski stated the developer had put together a Letter of Credit for $1,037,500.00, 3 representing 150 percent of the development improvement costs, and a Letter of Credit in the amount 4 of $88,150.00 representing 35 percent of the City improvement costs to insure completion of the 5 project in accordance with the approved plans. 6 7 City Engineer Studenski stated it was Staff's recommendation to the Council to authorize execution 8 of the Development Agreement and continue on with the process. 9 10 Councilmember Stoltz made a motion to adopt Resolution 04-47, Resolution Authorizing Execution 11 of Development Agreement, Century Farm North 2nd Addition. Councilmember Reinert seconded 12 the motion. 13 14 Councilmember Carlson noted that the park dedication fees are a part of the Development 15 Agreement. 16 17 The motion carried, with a vote of 3 -2. Reinert, Stoltz and Bergeson voted ave. Carlson and Dahl 18 voted nay. 19 20 Resolution No. 04 -47 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 21 22 C. Consideration of Resolution No. 04 -50, Approving Variance from Lot Area, Lot Width 23 and Road Frontage Requirements, St. Paul Regional Water Services, Jeff Smyser 24 25 City Planner Smyser stated that St. Paul Regional Water Services owns numerous pieces of property 26 on and near lakes in Lino Lakes and Centerville, and that one of those parcels includes the dam 27 between Peltier Lake and George Watch Lake. He stated St. Paul Water wishes to divide this parcel, 28 keep the part with the dam, and sell the rest to Anoka County to include in the regional park. He 29 stated that because the parcel has no frontage and is shaped very oddly, several variances are needed. 30 He also stated that no development will occur on the site. 31 32 City Planner Smyser stated the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the 33 variances, and that City Staff also recommend approval of Resolution 04 -50. 34 35 Councilmember Dahl made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 04 -50, Approving Variance from Lot 36 Area, Lot Width and Road Frontage Requirements, and for the St. Paul Regional Water Services, as 37 outlined in the staff report. Councilmember Stoltz seconded the motion. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 42 Resolution No. 04 -50 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 43 44 D. Consideration of Resolution No. 04 -51, Denying Variance from Lot Area and Lot Width 45 Requirements, Martha Houle and John DeHaven (1612 Birch St.), Jeff Smyser 46 6 COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 26, 2004 APPROVED 1 City Planner Smyser indicated there was an error in the Staff Report, and that the Planning and 2 Zoning Commission had actually recommended denial of the variances, not approval. 3 4 City Planner Smyser stated Martha Houle and John DeHaven have submitted a request for variances 5 from requirements for minimum lot area and lot width. Their property at 1612 Birch St. comprises 6 15 acres. They wish to divide the property into two parcels. This would be a minor subdivision and 7 does not require public review; it is done administratively. However, the subdivision proposal does 8 not meet lot dimension requirements. The property owners have requested the variances from those 9 requirements. 10 11 City Planner Smyser stated the site is in a stage 2 growth area, which is intended for development 12 after year 2010. The site is not in the current MUSA, and the site is zoned Rural. In the Rural zoning 13 district the following requirements apply: the minimum lot area (unsewered lot) is 10 acres; the 14 minimum lot width is 330 feet. 15 16 City Planner Smyser stated the intent of the staged growth area is to guide land for future 17 development, but to prevent it from being subdivided so as to interfere with future development. He 18 stated the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance require the ten acres for rural areas. He 19 stated a rural clustering alternative is offered for areas outside of the staged growth areas, but it 20 specifically prohibited within staged growth areas. The other Rural zone option, a one -acre lot, 21 applies only where a habitable single family home existed prior to 1992. The building permit for the 22 existing house was issued in 1998. 23 24 City Planner Smyser stated the property was 40 acres at that time. In 2000, the City Council 25 approved a minor subdivision to split the 40 acres into the present two parcels of 15 and 25 acres. 26 27 City Planner Smyser stated that City Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 04 -51, denying 28 the variances. 29 30 Councilmember Carlson asked what the vote was at the Planning and Zoning Commission. 31 32 City Planner Smyser indicated it was unanimous. 33 34 The Council discussed this item. 35 36 Councilmember Reinert made a motion to adopt Resolution 04 -51, Denying Variances from Lot Area 37 and Lot Width Requirements for 1612 Birch St. Mayor Bergeson seconded the motion. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 Resolution No. 04 -51 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 42 43 E. Consideration of Resolution No. 04 -49, Approving Lake Drive/I -35W Interchange Study, 44 Michael Grochala 45 7 Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2004 Page 9 and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Mr. Root made a friendly amendment to add a condition 17: To add screening along the south side of the duplex 3 -4 evergreen trees, 6 feet tall. Mr. Tralle did not accept the friendly amendment. Motion carried 5 -0. Vice Chair Rafferty recessed the hearing at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. C. Variance for St. Paul Water Services, Peltier Lake dam site Staff stated St. Paul Regional Water Services owns numerous pieces of property on and near lakes in Lino Lakes and Centerville. One of these parcels includes the dam between Peltier Lake and George Watch Lake. St. Paul Water wishes to divide this parcel, keep the part with the dam, and sell the rest of Anoka County to include in the regional park. Because the parcel has no road frontage and is shaped very oddly, several variances are needed. No development will occur on the site. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of the requested variances for lot area, lot width, and lack of road frontage, subject to the following conditions: 1. Anoka County shall grant an access easement to the dam parcel from CSAH 14. 2. Anoka County shall combine the land that does not include the same with an existing parcel to avoid creating a completely new parcel. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend the variance request for lot area, lot width and road frontage subject to the conditions as noted in staffs April 14, 2004 report and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0. D. Variance for 1612 Birch Street Staff stated applicants have submitted a request for variances from requirements for minimum lot area and lot width. Their property at 1612 Birch St. comprises of 15 acres. They wish to divide the property into two parcels. This would be a minor subdivision and does not require public review: it is done administratively. However, the subdivision proposal does not meet lot dimension requirements. The property owners have requested the variances from those requirements. Staff presented its analysis and recommended denying the request because the proposed variances would provide for a minor subdivision that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan strategy. A new lot would exceed the allowable growth under the growth management policy. The variance requested is based on economic considerations. Mr. Hyden asked which acreage was the home sitting on. Mr. Smyser replied it was on the proposed Parcel B on the survey. APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2004 Page 10 Vice Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. John DeHaven, 1612 Birch Street, stated the reason they wanted to do this was so they could get a reverse mortgage to supplement their income. He stated they were on social security and they could no longer survive on their social security. He pointed out that there was a City sign indicating that there would be a road eventually cutting across their property. He stated this was a hardship for them and he believed this request fit into the hardship. He noted they had done a lot to beautify the property by planting over 2,000 trees. Mr. Hyden asked before they paid the $250.00, did staff inform them that this request would not apply. Mr. DeHaven stated staff had given them the rules which showed hardship and he believed their request fit under the hardship. He indicated this was their "only out ". Mr. Tralle asked why couldn't they reverse mortgage the entire 15 acres. Ms. Houle stated they wanted to leave the rest of the land for their children. She noted with a reserve mortgage, once they died, the home would go to the bank. She indicated it was very important that they plan their estate now. Mr. Rafferty asked if they could put the reverse mortgage on their house and barn only. Ms. Houle replied they needed a legal description and the legal description as it was today, included the whole parcel. She noted they could not sell the land either because of the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Vice Chair Rafferty asked if they realized that there was a 10 -acre minimum and that a five -acre parcel was not standard. Ms. Houle replied their entire parcel was originally 38 acres. She noted this was farmland and if they wanted to they could raise pigs, but she did not believe their neighbors would appreciate that. Ms. Houle stated their intent was to avoid a mess with their estate planning. Vice Chair Rafferty stated it was not the intent of the City to avoid or make messes of people's estates. He stated they had seen hardships when it came to dollars and cents, but this did not follow the guidelines. Ms. Houle stated breaking off their small parcel of land did not affect the City. Vice Chair Rafferty stated it did affect the City because it would set a precedent. Mr. DeHaven stated the City should get rid of the hardship requirement then because they were coming before the Board with this requirement. Mr. Smyser stated the hardship could not be due to economic considerations alone, according to the State legislature. He noted an economic hardship was not the type of hardship the variance was based on. He stated this was a difficult concept to understand, but the law did not say that economics was a hardship and the City was required to follow State law. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to deny the variance request for 1612 Birch Street, Martha Houle/DeHaven, because the proposed variances would provide for a minor subdivision that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan strategy. A new lot would exceed the APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2004 Page 11 allowable growth under the growth management policy. The variance requested is based on economic considerations and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. DeHaven requested the City sign stating a road would go through their property be removed. He stated they would not sell their property to the City for a road. E. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Preliminary Plat and MUSA Reserve Allocation for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, land east of Fox Road (dead end) Staff stated applicant has requested approval of a single family residential development called Fox Den acres. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low- density residential use and it is zoned R -1. The request also includes an amendment of the comprehensive plan and MUSA reserve allocation. This would allow the development to extend beyond the boundary of the area currently guided for development to provide for an additional eight lots. Staff noted there are several challenging design issues including a "ponding and flowage" easement, single access point due to past development design, the growth management policies, and wetlands. The City must consider these issues in the project design while acknowledging that that property is guided and zoned for development, and has been for some years. Staff stated the public hearing is for the comprehensive plan amendment and the preliminary plat. The allocation of MUSA reserve does not require a public hearing because such allocation must be in areas already designed for it under the comprehensive plan. Staff presented its analysis and recommended continuing this item for further information including the proposed plat extends beyond the stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area, the MUSA, the Low Density Sewered Residential land use area, and the R -1 zone. It would also require the vacation of a ponding and flowage easement. The proposed requested amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map to accommodate the extra 3-4 acres of development. There is not clear justification other than to increase developable area. Staff does not yet know if water service is adequate. The traffic study is based on outdated road information and should be revised. A ghost plat must be created for property north of the proposed northern road stub. Staff stated this should have been noticed as a public hearing and he apologized to the applicant that this had not been done. He stated, however, that there were issues that needed to be resolved and he believed the outcome would still be the same. He indicated the proper notice would be sent out and this would be on the May agenda. Mr. Tralle inquired about the roadways crossing wetlands. He asked how would the water flowage through the wetlands would be addressed. Mr. Smyser replied this was a tough site and they wanted to fill various areas and they would need the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed to do that, but they would also mitigate the site. APPROVED MINUTES 1)1 s-h- d o J c u.)0-114_ `1s 1,_ „7 Excerpts from Zoning Ordinance Regarding Required Screening. Section 5. Rural Districts Subd. 1.G. Conditional Uses 8. Public, Educational and Religious Buildings. Public or semi - public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers; public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools; and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples, mosques and synagogues provided that: a. Side yard setbacks shall not be Tess than fifty (50) feet. b. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q of this Ordinance. c. Adequate off - street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting directly across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 5 of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q of this Ordinance. Section 3, Subd. 4.Q Required Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards. 1. Screening. Where any business or industrial use (i.e., structure, parking or storage) abuts property zoned for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front (as determined by the Zoning Administrator). All the fencing and screening specifically required by this Ordinance shall be subject to Section 3, Subd. 4.Q. and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting strip as provided for below: a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of vegetation and plants and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective visual screen. This planting strip shall be designed to provide eighty (80) percent opacity to a minimum height of six (6) feet at time of planting. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall not be used to achieve more than three (3) feet of the required screen. In such cases when planting strips are used in conjunction with berms designed to support plant growth, plant height may be reduced accordingly such that an eighty (80) percent visual screen of not Tess than six (6) feet in height is maintained. The planting plan and type of plantings shall require the approval of the City Council. b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or metal. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect six (6) feet in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. Fences in excess of six (6) feet in height shall require approval of the Building Official. Plantings shall be included in the design of any screening fence except as otherwise approved by the City Council due to grade constraints. 1Uts1-1,e e W (A--c-Gzr ell /S110 k Nadig Chiropractic Clinic 2780 SNELLING AVE. NORTH • SUITE 301 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 TELEPHONE 651/633 -9667 DR. BEN A. NADIG DR. MARK R. JOHNSON September 5, 2007 To Whom It May 'Concern: Martha DeHaven has been treated by me since 1979 for degenerative joint disease, herniated discs, and stenosis of the spine. She has come to me on several occasions with excruciating sciatic pain, hardly able to walk. Her pain level, on a scale of 1 -10, would be rated from 8 -10. I have been able to manage this, but as of late, her pain has intensified due to the amount of heavy, physical work she is still trying to do. I have advised her to considerably reduce this heavy work load. In addition, she also cares for elderly people in their homes in the evenings. Having treated many cases such as hers over my 28 years in practice, I consider Ms. DeHaven's condition serious and likely to deteriorate further with time. A change in her lifestyle is necessary at this time to prevent further impairment and subsequent disability. Sincerely, Ben A. Nadig, BAN:ksk WS — Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 7 Date: Council Work Session, September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Mary Divine Re: Anoka County EDA /HRA Background Anoka County has added economic development authority (EDA) responsibilities to its Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The main goals of the Anoka County EDA, based on a study completed by an exploratory committee, will be assisting cities with tax base growth and job creation. Cities that participate in the EDA have additional resources available for economic development activities, including the use of the County's bonding capacity and staff resources. Anoka County is giving each city within its jurisdiction an opportunity to participate in the County EDA. An Anoka County HRA Board meeting will be held on September 11, 2007 to set the preliminary levy for the EDA. If the Lino Lakes City Council opts to participate, action in the form of a resolution will be placed the September 10 council meeting. How it Works Every Anoka County city has the option to participate in either the Anoka County HRA or the EDA, or both. The maximum tax rate for cities belonging to the County HRA is 0.0144% of taxable market value. Cities opting into the new EDA could be levied a maximum tax rate of 0.01813 %. In Lino Lakes, that means the maximum amount the Anoka County EDA could levy is $349,511, which would amount to $39.87 per year per household based on an average value ($216,000) home. However, Karen Skepper, Anoka County Community Development Manager, indicated at a recent council work session that the HRA has historically only levied the amount budgeted for the upcoming year, never the entire levy increase allowed by statute. Ms. Skepper indicated that the budget for 2008 would be $75,000 for a county -wide feasibility study for high speed interne. The study would inventory what is available within the county, where it is, and what areas of the county are most in need of upgrades. 1 Lino Lakes' 2008 levy would be $0.56 per household (on an average value $216,000 home), for a total of $4,997. This amount assumes full participation from Anoka County cities. If fewer cities participate, the levy amount would go up, or the cost of the study would be reduced. Ms. Skepper also noted that some cities may participate in the internet study, but not opt in to the EDA this year. One other possible future activity being discussed is HRA purchase of foreclosed homes that could be resold in conjunction with a first time home buyer's program. Cities could benefit from this type of county -wide program, ensuring upkeep of housing stock and providing low - interest loans to make home - ownership more affordable to first time buyers. To date, the Cities of Lexington, St. Francis, Columbus, Hilltop, Columbia Heights and Burns Township have approved participation in the EDA. Andover, Ramsey and East Bethel have declined. Other cities have either placed it on a future agenda or have declined to consider it at this time. Local Voice There are still a number of issues to be determined as the new EDA moves forward. The Board of Directors of the Anoka County HRA will take on the additional role of EDA. There is discussion of establishing an advisory committee to the board, comprised of representatives of participating cities. Generally, a city council of a participating city determines how its levied money is spent within its city, and the HRA/EDA Board of Directors determines whether a project meets statutory requirements. But the Board of Directors could initiate a project, such as the internet study, without each city's approval. Council Options: 1. A city can chose to participate either this year, or any year in the future. However, it must opt in before the levy is set for the upcoming year. 2. If a city opts in to the EDA or HRA, it is obligated to stay in for five years. 3. A city can opt in to the EDA, the HRA, or both. However, because the EDA tax levy rate is higher than the HRA rate, it makes sense that if a city opts into the EDA, it would also participate in the HRA. It would not be a greater cost to the taxpayer, and it would provide greater flexibility in using funds for either housing or economic development. The council resolution must indicate in its resolution if it is participating in the HRA as well as the EDA. 4. The city could ask to be included in the County's proposed levy, and then delay its decision on whether to participate until December, when the final levy must be set. Participating in the Anoka County EDA does not preclude a city from having its own EDA or HRA. 2 Requested Council Direction Determine if council would like to consider participation this year. If so, an action item will be included on the September 10 council agenda. ATTACHMENTS 1. Estimated Levy for Anoka County EDA (2008) 2. Estimated Maximum Levy ESTIMATED LEVY FOR ANOKA COUNTY EDA CO • O N CO O O N N O N )- a W N • ro O Lit EL w a Z/Z d M M v CO M N O M O 001.00 M O g "Q_ N co ° • aD O f- co r N O N t` N tomtnOvtnddOM G �MMd.CO CO1`NN000<- N }. a .1-37 Ch 'Q7 Oi T r- N- CJ lfJ U W J t O <a 0 ▪ W a a • O J o Y O 2 } W < a 42 ---2 � a~OL()N-�NNrn Cc) CO r LO O M CO to 0 v. CO M M M M tO • r 000000000 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MI-Ntv-0001`tn tnCIO OtnNMOMMON- mt�tn MtGi��m�N NO,OMtnOI.N to M d O O N c O CO In <- Q) c�pp '7 M CO O 6) O NOmOrn O‘-mtn d-dNM N- M O c) O m N c N n CD 1- O Mtn 1` .^ N N M O CO M O O M M W O C O N M Ct V' M cr O CO rr N NT-V) rtotV E w _J J z W CO Q = W 0 o cc a ogww O z Ill o0CCw >V11 Z z�=1-=cn -1ZYV'ti ooz M cZ WW° Q- _Iwa <i— zzJ * COMMUOw =S 1OXcn <QM E861 ON 0 O O to N O O M M 0 ti Cn N is A$216,000 home would pay an additional 5 NINuV AlN11O3 OONV Adf7l:t7 t00Z'6 Tih ESTIMATED LEVY FOR ANOKA COUNTY EDA V I- M N O) (0 CO N (0 V (0 N O V (D O) V M V O O W 0) M N- M O M U) N O) O D) U) N OD I- CO N- 0) N U) O Q CO 7- 0 7— O CO N- M N r M CO r r- O CO O N O U) (0 C6(6,-- 7- V CO- O V CO N CO- I` N CO- I` M O O I' Q M U) N O N O) N D) V c) O 4t U _ Z N W > W J N O .-- 1- N U) M co CO V CD 0) V M V O 7- O O N 0) 00 <- -- O M U) N I� I` N CO I- (D N- O) N U) e CO N V W<- O r 00 — U) I, O (n O N O U) (D } M U) (O V CCD M U) 4 M (f) N (D N- I- N N I. M O O) I- r CO 00 CO OD CO 0) N V 0) D) O V V I� V' U) r- V 0) W <- N .- M U) N O N O V M J O 00 V (0 0) N (0 M W 0) U) (0 O O OD N- t` M W — O V 04 U) V n Z> 06 () M N Q) V M D) O O O O 0 M C.- V V CO r O W N 7- N N H J Q a a = CL Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO U) CO (0 0) try Total Local Net Tax Capacity) x T 0)) J U) O o M w M OD .Q (O r to CO CO M (f) O a n.: r- N M 00 CO U %, CO N CO ! h Q) r N 00 M CO Q) O 0) r "l Q CO O N M Q) M 00 V O N n 00 CO N( H EA r r r r r N N M 0) of a CO A J Eft &?: EA EA EA 69 EA EA 4Ia 69 EA EA 60 (0 Q a Z E) 0 0 3 H j o 0 To a Q m (0 u) m O o o 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O :.O O O (U E U Y W O O O OO O O J 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O r- V 7- (0 O) O N- (n U) 6) U) co (n N M O M O) U) I,- .- co- 1.6 M V co- (.5 r V 0O , - - N N O CO M U) O N N M O U) M V (fl CD N V O (O U) 7- (T (O 7- V M O O O O 7- M Q ec N U) M N 0) O 7- 0D U) V C) V V V N M I- .- V N CO U) N M V U) I� V O N (V 7- O U) O O co Cfl M N CO N N co- I` } W N- CO M U) I,- .- N N M O CO M O (O 0) M (O U) O) N M (fl CO C.. E Q J V V CO V O _ CO co CO CO N _ N W O x Efl a m = 4 M O o N W.0 0 O N co j a) t` r- O O w O > > ~ i O O o- w Q' (NI a w w �a wio Li et >, �3 J= J(n= Z> = Z d (n w JN J CL wmu' e LL E u O U2 0 w E a U 3pw�gO 0J< 3 j w- Z J - E -= U Z_i—Di_ Hz co O z UDzJ - Z ZJ(n2 -) Y2 LL oO- - ,000E- t 2XSw Z > >zwwO < <J< <H zz("OOoZ Q 3=21,1-,:* 2 CO 0Uw ==JOCC cn QQm5UUtL7n l- Q* : 2 0 W h O O 0 000N" V O N Et 5 CO CO CD N a 00 M tO tO CO N a CO M Q L) 0D r M tf) et N L) 00 r M N et N O 04 C4 N 0) <1. 04 04 N 0) of (3 = 5; r R V! 6I• to U') EA EA EA 6!) EA. 69 to 6R EA X o '- w/o HRA Levy • • (-GNCE CITY OF LINO LAKES WATER TREATMENT PLANT LINO LAKES 4M Cedar Seat Sale '500 SI. Pant. NM 5511/1-2143 KEW 2$31m ww ]kdaeoe` TKDg 0 1 2 SITE PLAN East Site • • CONCEPT CITY OF LINO LAKES WATER TREATMENT PLANT TKDA 0 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT CITY OF LINO LAKES WATE_IILATEREATME,NITALANT ELEVATION FROM BIRCH STREET 444 Catiar Saegt. Wks ISM Plot MN 531Di-2140 -0051)2i0,4100 0551)211,0003 Pug irlIw-ik00.0003 TKDA BOWERS- ARCHITMTS -PLIONIERS ENTRY ELEVATION 0 4 n(-f ALTERNATIVE FLOOR PLAN Pressure FBI= ELEMTION FROM EINICIS SWEET 1 CONCEPT CITY OF LINO LAKES WATE_LZ.LATEFSEATMEKNIsfALANT ELEVATION FROM BIRCH STREET BITRY ElEVM1011 ENTRY ELEVATION GIDERATCR t 10L-C- ti4. @ Wvv e SS 1 OVi -S -ac +IDE^ s. (_ 1 T Y t O F [IN ' KES ../11_ AIL llti1'- 'L.1__r ,.Er*CrE 44d R:H LAYS 1 11 11/111/1411 VI %ENTER -IL LE IAhE 1� r PELTIER l:' , t 1* 2 J1it el 84 • �r rte' ■Z - 1. - `i M i aY�l! L.I1i1E i1il MlaN1i11\14614,1101!!N•1 11■I11a1y 711 ■11 ■11 77TH STREET REALIGNMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY LOCATION MAP SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 LEGEND 77TH STREET AND TURN LANE PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED POND AREA MOW //. TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN = = ° a EXISTING WATERMAIN DRAFT TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS rialrAYAWEA 0 CC t0 !60 ji01�1 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) \ EXIST. 30' WIDE (BIT. CURB) SAWCUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) GWcST -� / % g /N /N /INIA I p i WATER SER OSA EXIST. 24' WIDE (NO CURB) REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SAWCUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) REMOVE & DISPOSE CONCRLIt CURB 'ER i ro li / TKDA ENGINEERS- ARCHITECTS- PLANNERS PROJ. NO. 13849.006 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DATE: SEPTEMBER 5. 2007 LEGEND REMOVE EXIST. PAVEMENT DRAFT - s )007- I I 1 0 50 100 150 SCALE IN FEET FEASIBILITY STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALS co to 7 160120W 17// / / ///1, ' ' ' / EXIST. 30' WIDE (Brr. CURB) " PROPOSED C/L PROFILE PROPOSED SAN. MH SALVAGE EXIST. HYD. rCONNECT NEW WTR. TO EXIST. WTR. ADow EXIST. GATE VALVE 0 WATER SALVAGED EXIST. 24' WIDE (NO CURB) 25'R. TYP. I1ROP. 8 DIP WATEPIRMAIN CONSTRUCT NEW CATCH BASIN OVER EXIST. PIPE PROPOSED CB'S (TYP.) ADJUST EXIST. MANHOLE CASTING CLEANCAr WATER SR' 410e. 7 /// LEGEND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION RIGHT—OF—WAY PROPERTY UNE SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN STORM SEWER MANHOLE CATCHBASIN BITUMINOUS SURFACING DRAFT q (2, 033- 1 100 150 SCALE-IN FEET TKDA ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS C I T 0 F !NIX_ KES PROW NO. 13849.006 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 FEASIBILITY STUDY 77TH ST. RE-ALIGNMENT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS PROJ. NO. 13849.006 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 FEASIBILITY STUDY 77TH ST. RE- ALIGNMENT RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION WS — Item 9 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 9 Date: Council Work Session, September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Ballot Questions Background The 60 day petitioning period for the proposed West Shadow Lake Drive and Shenandoah Area Street Improvement projects ends on September 5th, 2007. If the City does not receive a petition against the improvements the City Council will need to take action on September 10th to approve the ballot question(s). The City's Bond Counsel, Kennedy & Graven, is in the process of drafting proposed questions regarding the improvements. Pending receipt of a petition against the proposed improvements, staff will have available the proposed ballot questions for council review at the September 5th meeting. With the possibility of two projects being forwarded to the voters for consideration the Council will need to consider two ballot options: 1. One question with both projects combined; or 2. A separate question for each specific project Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting Council direction regarding the form of the ballot question(s). 1 WS — Item 10 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 10 Date: Council Work Session, September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: CR J/Hodgson Road Traffic Signal Update Background During the past year city staff has been working with the City of Shoreview, Ramsey County and Anoka County to install traffic signals at the intersection of County Road J and Hodgson Road. This intersection is currently a four way stop and experiences significant congestion during week day peak periods. Congestion issues have caused increased traffic in the surrounding Shoreview residential neighborhoods as vehicles try to by pass the intersection. As a result of these discussions the group has prepared plans for the improvements with every effort being made to install them prior to the end of the year. The project involves some minor widening, milling and bituminous overlay of the intersection and approaches, restriping to include left turn lanes, and the signal installation. All improvements are being constructed within the existing right -of -way. The City of Shoreview is the lead agency for the signal installation. Ramsey County will be completing the roadway improvements (mill and overlay, striping) and providing signal system components. Anoka County prepared the road and signal design and is also providing signal system components. Lino Lakes will likely be responsible for 50% of the ongoing cost for electrical power to the signal in accordance with Anoka County cost share policy. It should be noted that the improvements to the intersection do not include additional capacity. The improvements are solely intended to ease congestion in the area. Future development in Lino Lakes will likely create the need for additional improvements to the intersection. These costs will be the responsibility of Lino Lakes and Anoka County. Ramsey County will be preparing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) addressing these issues as well as identifying each parties responsibilities regarding the project. 1 Council Direction None Required. Attachments 1. Improvement Layout PRELIMINARY DESIGN LAYOUT PROPOSED ROADWAY NMSTAGE 1 CONSTRUCTION MinSTAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROPOSED GEOMETRY SOY/ rear OESION 0€51. rtjORAWN OTIIIEVISED I J., .103/29/2807 11.17.38 AM 11r4/41/■•• WS — Item ll WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 11 Date: Council Work Session, September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Report on Blue Heron Days /Special Events Background Following the 2006 Blue Heron Days and the Miller's on Main special event, the city received correspondence regarding noise levels. This information was presented and discussed by the council at the April 2, 2007 work session in preparation for consideration of the special event permit application from Miller's on Main, to be held in conjunction with the 2007 Blue Heron Days festival. Based on the comments and direction from this meeting, staff will provide an update on this year's festival and events from a permitting perspective. The only comment that administrative staff has received is the attached, unsigned letter. Requested Council Direction This item is for the purpose of sharing information. Staff is not seeking any direction or action at this time. Attachment 1. August 19, 2007 unsigned letter 1 August 19, 2007 City of Lino Lakes To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter because I am a resident of Lino Lakes and I live very near Millers On Main. I feel that us as the residents that live near by that have never been asked our opinion regard the outdoor concerts that happen there during Blue Heron Days. We have never been asked if this would be okay with us and it is very bother some. We have to put up with loud thumping music until 12:00 -12:30 in the morning and when you have little kids this is very inconsiderate even if we do not have little kids this still is very inconsiderate. Why should we have to put up with the loud music and the trash that ends up in our yards, mail boxes ect. The only person who benefits from the outdoor concerts is Chad the owner of Millers On Main us as the residents who leave nearby benefit by no way and I feel that a city should not let there residents have to deal with this loudness even though it only happens one weekend out of the year. WS — Item 12 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 12 Date: Council Work Session, September 5, 2007 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: City Hall Security and Access Policy Background During the August 27, 2007 council work session, council members Reinert and Carlson requested that the current City Hall security and access policy be placed on the work session agenda. The issue of level of access was discussed at the June 5, 2006 work session and the council acted at its June 12, 2006 meeting to have a policy developed to allow council members 24 hour /7 days per week access to the outside doors and library, but not the interior secured office area. Building operating policies and procedures were modified, reviewed with staff and implemented. In May, 2007, council member Reinert requested information on what other cities have for a policy regarding council member access to city halls. Clerk Bartell contacted some cities and the information that was obtained is attached. Requested Council Direction The Council needs to discuss and decide whether or not any change in the existing policy is desired and direct staff as needed. Attachments 1. Council work session minutes of June 5, 2006 2. Regular council meeting minutes of June 12, 2006 3. Access Control System Policies and Procedures for City Hall 4. Information on city hall access policies CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 5, 2006 APPROVED 1 anticipating this will be brought to the Council for consideration in early July. Appraisals 2 will be completed and/or updated on each parcel and reviewed with the property owner. 3 Staff is working with Dan Wilson of Wilson Development Services on the property 4 acquisition. Staff is attempting to make offers on all the properties by mid July. The 5 primary goal is to acquire all the properties by direct purchase. However, if a settlement 6 cannot be reached with all parties it may be necessary to commence eminent domain 7 proceedings. Such proceedings cannot be initiated until 60 days have elapsed from the 8 date of the original offer. 9 10 Community Development Director Grochala noted in light of the recent media coverage 11 and state legislation regarding eminent domain, that the parcel acquisition is for a public 12 purpose to improve safety and mobility along Lake Drive. Additionally, the City needs to 13 have possession of the necessary right -of -way and easements before County and State 14 approval of the plans and allocation for funding. Based on the existing project schedule 15 staff is anticipating bidding the project in late January or early February. Any delays in 16 parcel acquisition may negatively impact feasibility of the project. 17 18 LINO LAKES VISIONING PROJECT 19 20 City Administrator Heitke advised the Council committed to underwriting a community 21 visioning project in its 2006 goals and provided funding for this activity in its 2006 22 budget. 23 24 Staff sought proposals for four consultants who have a record of conducting community 25 visioning. DSU and the Hoisington Group have responded that they are unable to 26 undertake this project within the next few months due to heavy workloads. Carl Neu and 27 Assoc. and Springsted Inc. have submitted proposals for Council consideration. 28 29 City Administrator Heitke outlined the proposals noting the proposal and alternatives 30 within the Springsted proposal provide for differing numbers of meetings and numbers of 31 participating groups which influences the costs of the services. Mr. Neu included with 32 his proposal examples of visioning products from three communities which resulted from 33 processes ranging from being more inclusive and expensive to less inclusive and 34 expensive that the process used in his proposal, should Council wish to expand or reduce 35 the process and project cost. 36 37 The Council determined the City would move forward with a community approach and 38 Mr. Neu's proposal, provided there is a cap on the cost of the project in the amount of 39 $30,000. 40 41 CITY HALL ACCESS — SECURED AREAS 42 43 City Administrator Heitke stated during the discussions related to installing a new 44 security system for the Lino Lakes Civic Center Complex and staff office area, questions 45 were raised as to who needs to access to secured areas. 5 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 5, 2006 APPROVED 11 2 After some discussion, Council directed staff to place this item on the regular Council 3 agenda for action. 4 5 This item will appear on the regular Council agenda Monday, June 12, 2006, 6:30 p.m. 6 7 The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. 8 9 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 10 June 26, 2006. 11 12 13 14 �-Le 15 Juli e Bartell Ci C1erlc P46; n Bergeson, Mayor 16 17 Transcribed by: 18 Kim Points 19 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 20 6 COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 12, 2006 APPROVED originally scheduled for June 9, has been delayed due to a number of factors to a tentative closing date of July 24. Finance Director Rolek stated staff has deliberated with bond counsel relative to the timing of the sale of the Tax Abatement bonds, originally set for June 26, and has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to postpone the sale of these bonds until after the closing on the conduit bonds. It is possible that the closing on the conduit bonds may be pushed back beyond the July 24 date, thereby requiring some flexibility in resetting the sale date of the Tax Abatement bonds. Finance Director Rolek advised staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the Finance Director to determine the date for a public hearing, publish notice of the hearing, and set the sale date of the Tax Abatement bonds to a date which follows the closing on the conduit bonds. Councilmember Reinert moved to approve Resolution No. 06 -96 and Resolution No. 06 -97, as presented. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH City Hall Security and Access Policy, Gordon Heitke — City Administrator Heitke advised the Council recently approved the installation of an improved access control system to increase security for City Hall. The new security system utilizes programmed cards and card readers, providing better access management than the former key system. As part of the discussions regarding security improvements, the Council has had discussions during two work sessions as to whether Councilmembers need access to the secured staff office area outside of regular business hours. Upon the decision of the Council, staff will complete the updating of the City Hall security policies and procedures. Councilmember O'Donnell moved to develop a City Hall access policy that allows Councilmembers 24/7 access to the outside doors and library but does not include access to the secured areas within City Hall. Councilmember Stoltz seconded the motion. After much discussion, Council directed staff to explore options regarding Councilmember access to mail boxes before fully implementing the new policy. Motion carried with Councilmember Carlson voting no. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA There was no report from the Public Safety Department. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER There was no report from the Public Service Department. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT CIT IN Lino Lakes Public Services Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY HALL The purpose of this document is to effectively manage and maintain the Access Control System and to provide a secure environment for city staff while protecting capital equipment and important documents. Eligibility of Access Cards - All full time city staff (including off -site employees such as Public Works, Utilities, and Parks) are eligible to possess an access card. Eligibility of part time staff (ie. custodial help, seasonal public works, etc) will be made at the discretion of the Public Services Director. Police Department staff will have their existing access cards programmed to access City Hall. The Centennial Fire Department Chief and Fire inspector will also be issued an access card. Council members will be issued access cards for the exterior doors and library. Advisory board members, committee members, and members of similar groups are not eligible to possess an access card. Distribution of Access Cards - The Public Services Office Manager will be responsible for the distribution and retrieval of all access cards. All access card holders will be required to sign an agreement confirming that he /she will abide by all policies set forth in this document. Times of Operation - The exterior doors to city hall (by council chambers and concourse door by the community room) will be open (access card not required) from 7:30am - 5:OOpm. If a meeting is scheduled after 5:OOpm on a work day in the council chambers, council work room, or library (meeting room #2), the exterior doors will remain open until all meetings have concluded. The custodian will be responsible to secure the exterior doors. Any meetings that last beyond 10:30pm will require communication with the custodian to ensure that city hall is secure after the meeting. The interior doors leading to the employee work area will be secured (requiring access card) at all times. Use of Access Cards /Buttons - During normal business hours, non - access card holders (ie. consultants, service technicians, etc.) may be granted access to the employee work area by accompanying an authorized access card holder or by a city employee permitting access via a door release button located at each reception area (Administration, Community Development, Parks and Recreation). In addition to the 1 three window areas, door release buttons are also located at the desks of the Deputy City Clerk, Community Development Secretary, and Public Services Office Manager. Access card holders are not permitted to allow others to use their access cards. Failure to comply with this policy will result in immediate termination of access card privileges. Any approved meetings scheduled during the weekend or on holidays will require that an exterior door access card be checked out from the Public Services Office Manager during regular City Hall hours. A $25 deposit is required. In the event a city employee needs access to city hall outside of normal business hours and doesn't have an access card (ie. card lost or left at home), please call Anoka County Dispatch at 763- 427 -1212 and request that a Lino Lakes police officer meet you at City Hall. Receiving of Visitors - Any person visiting City Hall shall be received by the general or department receptionist. If the visitor is in need of speaking to a city employee, the receptionist will take their name and contact the employee. The employee being visited shall come to the counter or door to greet the visitor. If the visitor is to access the employee office area, they are to be escorted to the meeting area and back to the lobby area by the employee. The receptionist may grant access to the visitor and escort them to the meeting location if requested by the employee being visited. No access card holders shall admit non - access card holders to the employee office area (except for consultants, service technicians, etc.) without the permission of the employee being visited and visitors are to be escorted within the office area. Conditions for Deactivation of Access Cards - Violation of any provisions set forth in this document are grounds for suspension /termination of access card privileges as determined by the Public Services Director. Access card holders are expected to return their access card immediately to the Public Services Office Manager should they no longer be an authorized access card holder (ie. no longer an employee, privileges terminated, etc.) June, 2006 2 Updated May 24, 2007 City Access Policy Access to City Hall Access to City Offices White Bear Lake No written policy CMs can "stop in" anytime during business hours — no keys; no access to public safety area CMs have access to office area but don't go into individual offices unless meeting with occupant Northfield No written policy CMs have access during business hours except Mayor has key for 24 access Mayor's key works on nearly all office doors (not administrator); Council has it's own office space Hugo No written policy CMs do not have key to City Hall but stop into city hall during the day CM's sometimes visit office areas during business hours Blaine No written policy CMs have badges that allow them the same access as all employees (24 hours); PD has record of all access times Access badges do not work on office doors Forest Lake No written policy CMs have key to city hall CMs can access areas without individual keys New Hope No written policy CMs have access keys to city hall but usually come in only during business hours n/a Vadnais Heights No written policy CMs have a key to side door of city hall (council chambers, workshop room) but normally door is left open for meetings so they don't use the key CMs have code for security door into office area but no keys to individual offices Mounds View No written policy CMs have electronic pass to city hall allowing 24 hour access CMs have key to staff area (they also have an office of their own); Some offices are locked to protect sensitive material VJOrk Se SS( i 1542,007 Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651- 784 -7472 MEMO Date: September 5, 2007 To: Lino Lakes City Council Members From: Milo Bennett, Fire Chief Subject: Blue Heron Special Event This year a special event permit was issued for Millers on Main to hold an outdoor event on both Friday and Saturday night during Blue Heron Days. Mr. Wagner obtained a special variance for the location of the tent because his plan did not meet the requirements of the Minn. Fire Code. This variance was obtained from the State Fire Marshals office with our help. On Friday the tent was erected on the site and we made a visit and had some minor corrections that needed to be made. We returned about 5pm to make sure the corrections were made and they were except for one item. Again we returned at 7 pm and the item was taken care of. A visit was made on Saturday in the afternoon and we noticed that the No Smoking signs were down and we instructed the manager on duty that they must put the signs back up. I returned later before the Saturday night event started and the signs were up. Other than the items above that were corrected before each nights activity, we did not have any issues. If this event is to happen again in 2008, Mr. Wagner will again need to get a variance from the State Fire Marshal. w N 7 C▪ I) 00 0 N its -a O CD ▪ N N 43 CD 0) CO a) U a) a) w 0 N a) "0 U O a) a) TIER 2 - Continue Outsour Revenue Adiustments a) U 0) a) 0 D a) N 0) a) N O O 0 Revenue Adjustments O O O t() Engineering /Planning Charges O O O to T O O O O O O O co (0 tC) Building Permit Revenue Total Revenue Adjustments 0 O O (0 T Total Revenue Adjustments enditure Adiustments x w enditure Adiustments O CO M M N N O O O O O M O CO N Engineering Dept** Total Expenditure Adjustments CO LC; O Amount needed to balance General Fund Reserve " Proposed reduced by feasibility study adjusted in Tier 1. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O LID t() O O O O to 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 O O 0) _ d_ T C_ 14 O to 16 T T T- T t_ o (0 Q_ T N T T II, to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 t() 0 0 0 O O co O O O O CD O to O T In 0 N Nt to LS O I` If) - (O r- (D to te) T T T T T N N N T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O 0 CO O 0 O LO 0 0 0 0 0 O O O T t[) 0 0 0 O T O to O T 0 0 0 0 O O (0 co. N T O O N O N N O N co. 0 0 (O O O T N N N N T N V- co O (f) T- Codification Other Services >, C c 3 a Cr) O L 2 to N E N O (Lp c f0 N C N U CO U p N N • T 4 us) N E O • _ N c CD U �U 13 • FD c O �. U U n U O O a.O@ U rnCU O w N 0) N CD a) C co .t' .� (n co Cn6 (n6 C N .� L C CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O curl .F2 O N O O Q Q CL O D U w 0 H c/) O D U Capital Equipment Transfer** > L 0) Q O_ N CA a) C to U _ rf) L C C 0 t 0 0 .� C E O C C N p U M L L 3 E U m to p c •Ep E •5 2 0) .= a) ( a) a) w c0 Qwoiiwawow�°mmwinao0 0 Total Expenditure Adjustments " "Certificates to be issued is increased by this amount e) s 6 LUoti 1 c—Izoo WS -10 To: From: Date: WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM City Council Al Rolek August 6, 2007 Updated 9/5/07 Re: 2008 Budget — Outside Funding Requests Each year the City receives funding requests from outside entities. The City council has requested a listing of these requests received for the 2007 and 2008 budget years. As of today, I have received the following requests: Anoka County Sesquicentennial Celebration Anoka County Mediation Services Forest Lake Youth Services Bureau Alexandra House Blue Heron Days 35W Coalition Assn. of Metropolitan Municipalities Total funding requested to date Page 1 2008 Requests $ -0- No request 5,150 6,613 6,000 No request 6,503 $24,266 2007 Requests $1,000 1,970 5,000 5,993 No specific $ 6,101 5,777 $25,841 Alexandra House, Inc. P.O. Box 49039 Blaine, MN 55449 Phone: 763.780.2332 Crisis /TTY: 763.780.2330 Fax: 763.780.9696 www.alexandrahouse.org Board of Directors Vicki Reece, Chair Terri Neely Tinklenberg, Vice Chair Diane Fischer, Treasurer Connie Nelson, Secretary Cindy Arndt Kirsten Gorsuch Rev. Dr. Margaret Guelker Don Ilse Andre Koen Lynn Littlejohn Dave Sallman Laurie Wolfe Connie Moore, Executive Director Ending domestic violence for women, families and communities. July 5, 2007 Gordon Heitke, City Administrator City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pky Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Mr. Heitke: Alexandra House respectfully requests that the City of Lino Lakes allocate $6,613.00 for services provided to Lino Lakes residents by the Alexandra House Community Program. In 2006, a total of 20,046 advocacy and support services were provided to victims of domestic violence by our Community Program. Lino Lakes residents received 507 support and advocacy services. This was an increase of 126 services from the previous year. I have included a budget that details the major services provided to Lino Lakes' residents, the total cost of providing those services, and the portion of those costs for which we are requesting financial support from the City of Lino Lakes. Community Program services include: assistance in filing protection orders, accompaniment to subsequent hearings, crime victim advocacy immediately following a domestic assault and throughout the criminal court process, follow -up provided to patients at Mercy and Unity Hospitals and clinics, safety planning, information and referral services. Additionally, community support groups are held each week in various locations throughout the county. Monthly Legal Clinic services and Family Law sessions are also offered to assist victims in understanding their legal options. Domestic violence is a serious crime that impacts the public health and safety of every community in this country. The negative consequences of domestic violence reach beyond family and friends into the workplace and to society as a whole. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that health - related costs of domestic violence exceeded $5.8 billion each year in the United State. Nearly half of all battered women report some type of injury as a result of their victimization. Three out of ten women murdered in the U.S. are the victims of intimate partner violence. A domestic violence situation is of the most dangerous calls responded to by law enforcement. It is critical that law enforcement professionals develop and implement programs, policies and practices that both safe and effective in meeting the serious and unique challenges of domestic violence cases. Research shows a well- coordinated and multidisciplinary approach is on of the more effective means of reducing domestic violence. Strategies that emphasize victim safety, while holding offenders accountable, have proven to be one of the most successful means of intervention. Alexandra House partners with nearly all law enforcement agencies in the county, including the Lino Lakes Police Department and city prosecutors to create this kind of response to domestic violence in Lino Lakes while ensuring the safety of victims and holding offenders accountable. I trust that the City of Lino Lakes will find merit in our request for funding and partner with us to ensure that these critical services are available to your city residents. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and would be pleased to meet with you to further discuss this funding request. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Connie Moore Executive Director Cc: John J. Bergeson, Mayor David Pecchia, Police Chief City Council Members: Jeff O'Donnell, Daniel Stoltz, Jeff Reinert, Donna M. Carlson ALEXANDRA HOUSE, INC. City of Lino Lakes Budget 1 -1 -2008 TO 12 -31 -2008 Services Provided # of Services Provided Protection Order Filings 6 Civil Legal Information Advocacy 129 Child Support Advocacy 27 Civil Court Hearings 11 Crisis Line 79 Legal Representation on OFP's 11 Family Law Info Sessions / Legal Clinics 2 Arrest/Non- Arrest Victim Follow up 13 Criminal Court Information & Advocacy 142 Criminal Court Hearings Attended 29 Safety Planning 30 Violence Prevention 28 TOTAL 507 Total services provided by Alexandra House, Inc. Community Program 20046 Lino Lakes percent of total services provided 3% Community Program Budget $ 747,000 Amount charged to City of Lino Lakes $ 18,893 Amount paid by other sources (60 %) $ 12,280 AMOUNT REQUESTED 1 $ 6,613 WS — Item 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 3 Date: Council Work Session, July 2, 2007 To: City Council From: Mary Alice Divine Re: Blue Heron Days Update and Request Background Blue Heron Days representatives have requested an opportunity to update the council on events and costs associated with the festival, plus the activities the Lino Lakes Ambassadors participate in while representing the city. Requested Council Direction No direction is required at this time. The festival committee will be asking the council to consider providing financial support to continue Blue Heron Days programs in the upcoming budget year. Attachment(s) None 1 Ensuring the success of youth for over 30 Years! Lakes Area Youth Service Bureau Main Office: 244 North Lake Street Forest Lake, MN 55025 Phone: 651- 464 -3685 . Fax: 651- 464 -3687 www.ysblakesarea.org The following is a brief report on Lakes Area Youth Service Bureau's programs that directly affect the residents of your community. If you have any questions about this report, please call Jeanne Walz, Executive Director at 651 - 464 -3685 City of LINO LAKES Report Period: January 1 2006 to December 31, 2006 Contract for Services 2006 $5,000 Total market value of all services through December 31: $27,850 (Please note that these numbers represent the market value of services provided, not what YSB charges for these services. Because of your collaboration with YSB, many of these services are offered at less cost or on a sliding fee scale based on income.) Services Provided: Community Justice /Diversion Services Restitution Services Community Service Hours Youth Counseling Services Prevention Programs /Activities Parenting Services /Adult Volunteers Other Parents /Community Youth Community Events /Activities Market Value $13,860 included included $750 $5,280 $7,560 $400 included # Served Hours of Service 21 252 1 10 33 132 42 168 10 10 15 Suggested Contract for Service Amount 2008: $5,150 (3% increase) Ensuring the success of youth for over 30 Years! Lakes Area Youth Service Bureau MEMO To: Dave Pecchia, Chief of Police City of Lino Lakes 640 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 From: Jeanne Walz, Executive Director Jeanne.walz @ysblakesarea.org Main Office: 244 North Lake Street Forest Lake, MN 55025 Phone: 651- 464 -3685. Fax: 651- 464 -3687 www.ysblakesarea.org RE: 2006 Market Value of Service Provided Dave: Attached is something I developed for all cities, counties and townships. It shows the amount of service provided to the entity and the market value. This may be helpful to you in lobbying for additional dollars for YSB. I would like to take you to lunch to check in. just e-mail me some dates and times. Thanks again for all your help. We deeply appreciate it. METRO CITIES Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044 Phone: (651) 215 -4000 Fax: (651) 281 -1299 Website: www.amm145.org p 1-itilivt n/1-€ Av-9 C/I4 METRO CITIES 'WR JeCyGOffJd etett pdibbs Ten Good Reasons tobea Metro Cities Member ♦ 86 Metropolitan Area member cities means we deliver a comprehensive and uniquely Metro area message to the legislature, the Governor's Office and the Metropolitan Council. ♦ Metro Cities covers a comprehensive list of Metro issues from transporta- tion to levy limits to housing to wastewater treatment — 60 issues in all. That means greater influence on a wider variety of issues. ♦ Committee members from the core cities, developed suburbs and develop- ing cities, create Metro Cities' advocacy positions through an inclusive consensus process. ♦ Created in 1974, Metro Cities is the only municipal advocacy organization to monitor and influence Metropolitan Council issues before the Council makes final decisions. ♦ A 19- member Board comprised of a mix of elected officials and profes- sional managers means balance between important political and practical management solutions to Metro Area problems. ♦ Ten TAB and eight TAC appointments means influence on regional trans- portation spending exceeding $100 million per year. ♦ Close ties with LMC means coordinated and cooperative legislative plat- forms and lobbying efforts. ♦ Low overhead means affordable dues, full attention to important member issues and concerns, and maximum return on investment. ♦ Important services including the License & Permit Fee Survey and the 2006 MN Local Government Salary & Benefits Survey means added value for your membership dues. ♦ Laurie, Louie, Patty and Sarah have over 70 years of combined legislative, local government, community development, and association management experience and are loyal, trustworthy, courteous, kind, cheerful and thrifty. 145 University Ave W, Saint Paul, MN 55103 -2044 Telephone: (651) 215 -4000 Fax: (651) 281 -1299 www.amm145.org METRO CITIES Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 1. Albertville* 2. Andover 3. Anoka 4. Apple Valley 5. Arden Hills 6. Bayport 7. Blaine 8. Bloomington 9. Brooklyn Center 10. Brooklyn Park 11. Burnsville 12. Carver 13. Champlin 14. Chanhassen 15. Chaska 16. Circle Pines 17. Columbia Heights 18. Coon Rapids 19. Cottage Grove 20. Crystal 21. Dayton 22. Eagan 23. Eden Prairie 24. Edina 25. Elko New Market 26. Excelsior 27. Falcon Heights 28. Farmington 29. Forest Lake Metro Cities Membership 2007 30. Fridley 31. Golden Valley 32. Hastings 33. Hopkins 34. Hugo 35. Independence 36. Inver Grove Heights 37. Jordan 38. Lake Elmo 39. Lake St. Croix Beach 40. Lakeland 41. Lakeville 42. Lauderdale 43. Long Lake 44. Mahtomedi 45. Maple Plain 46. Maplewood 47. Medicine Lake 48. Mendota Heights 49. Minneapolis 50. Minnetonka 51. Minnetrista 52. New Brighton 53. Newport 54. North St. Paul 55. Oak Grove 56. Oak Park Heights 57. Oakdale 58. Orono 59. Osseo 60. Plymouth 61. Prior Lake 62. Ramsey 63. Richfield 64. Robbinsdale 65. Rosemount 66. St. Anthony Village 67. St. Francis 68. St. Louis Park 69. St. Michael* 70. St. Paul 71. St. Paul Park 72. Savage 73. Shakopee 74. Shoreview 75. Shorewood 76. South St. Paul 77. Spring Park 78. Sunfish Lake 79. Three Rivers Park Dist.* 80. Victoria 81. Waconia 82. Wayzata 83. West St. Paul 84. White Bear Lake 85. Woodbury 86. Woodland * Affiliate members THE METRO CITIES MISSION is to represent the collective interests of all metropolitan area cities on metropolitan issues and statewide issues with metropolitan significance ABOUT METRO CITIES Metro Cities is the only metro -wide service and lobbying organization representing cities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Our membership currently consists of 86 cities from all 7 metro counties, that make up more than 85% of the metro area's population. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Metro Cities is governed by a 19- member Board of Directors and served by a four - person staff. Board membership is comprised of local elected and appointed officials representing each class of city, and is geographically distributed to reflect the composition of our membership. MAJOR FUNCTIONS Metro Cities represents metropolitan cities before the Metropolitan Council on issues such as comprehensive land planning, zoning, transportation, growth, housing, wastewater and water resources, and livable communities. Metro Cities represents metropolitan cities before the Legislature on transportation funding, economic development, housing, LGA and other state aids, property taxes, tax increment financing and other issues with metro and statewide significance. Metro Cities provides a forum for policy development with four committees (Municipal Revenues, Metro Agencies, Housing /Economic Development and Transportation /General Government) comprised of local officials and staff that meet annually to develop policies that guide Metro Cities in its representation of city interests before the Legislature and Met Council. Metro Cities provides important services to its membership, including the License and Permit Fee Survey, Salary Survey, and staff support for the Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA). POLICY DEVELOPMENT A vital function of Metro Cities is to provide a forum for policy development and consensus building that allows city officials to deepen their awareness and understanding of other communities, collaboratively problem solve, and develop consensus based policies. As the only general purpose metro -wide city organization, and with membership that includes the central cities, inner ring and developing suburbs as well as freestanding communities, Metro Cities is uniquely suited for this task. METRO CITIES RELATIONSHIPS WITH LMC AND MET COUNCIL While Metro Cities is affiliated with the LMC and routinely cooperates on important issues, our mission is separate. A key distinction is Metro Cities' work with the Metropolitan Council. Metro Cities, created subsequent to the Council, coordinates with and monitors the Council's work on a range of issues and responds as appropriate to protect the interests of metro cities. Although, Metro Cities and LMC work collaboratively on a wide array of city issues with metro and statewide importance, there have been and likely will be issues where our metro focus will dictate a different approach. METRO CITIES Assoclaeon of Met opoetBn MunkpaPobc PRESIDENT Tom Goodwin* Councilmember Apple Valley BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 2007 - June 2008 VICE PRESIDENT Janis Callison* Mayor Minnetonka PAST PRESIDENT Steve Larson* Mayor New Brighton DIRECTORS Douglas Anderson Mayor Dayton Paul Anderson Councilmember North St. Paul Myron Bailey* Councilmember Cottage Grove Mark Bernhardson Manager Bloomington Walt Fehst* Manager Columbia Heights Marcia Glick Manager Robbinsdale Chuck Haas* Councilmember Hugo Diane Hofstede* Councilmember Minneapolis Dave Kelso Councilmember Circle Pines Mark McNeill Administrator Shakopee Mike Maguire Mayor Eagan Linda Masica Councilmember Edina Dave Osberg Administrator Hastings Dave Pokorney Administrator Chaska Wendy Underwood Leg-is. Liaison St. Paul Pierre Willette Gov't Relations Rep. Minneapolis * Executive Board Updated 5/19/07 (iETRO CITIES Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Metro Cities Legislative Policy Committees The following committees annually develop policy based on input from member city representatives. The committees submit their policy recommendations to the Board for review, modification and distribution to the general membership. The membership meets in November before each legislative session to debate and adopt the Metro Cities' policies. Metropolitan Agencies Considers legislative issues and other policies related to the Met Council and metro agencies. It monitors the structure and relationship between the regional and local units of government and reviews amendments to the Metro Development Guide Policy Chapters. It has previously developed policy on land use planning, solid waste management and the Met Council selection process. It reviews the council's yearly budget and this year will monitor the policies and plans being developed to implement the Growth Management plan. Municipal Revenues Considers any matter concerning city revenues, property taxes and city expenditures, including state aid formulas and dollars, levy limits, property tax assessments and fiscal disparities. Housing & Economic Development Considers all issues related to economic development and housing, including affordable housing and activities of the metro HRA (Housing and Redevelopment Authority). It also reviews all amendments to the Met Council's Housing Guide Policy Chapter and develops policy dealing with economic development issues, HRAs, TIF (Tax Increment Financing) and development authorities. Transportation & General Government Considers all major issues related to air and surface transportation, including funding sources at all government levels, and issues which have impact on metropolitan area cities outside the scope of other Metro Cities committees. Metro Cities' members of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) are encouraged to join, along with other city officials. This committee has developed policy on issues such as municipal consolidation, pensions, PELRA, comparable worth, data privacy, contractor licensing and local control/authority. 145 University Ave W., St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 215 -4000 Fax: (651) 281 -1299 www.amm145.org METRO CITIES Association or MetropoUten Munidpaftes 2007 LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE SIGN -UP FORM Name: Title: City: (Street Address or P.O. Box) (ZIP code) (Daytime Phone) (Fax) (E -mail) Committee Choices: Transportation & General Govt. (Mondays: 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.) Meeting dates are: July 16, Aug. 6, Aug. 27 and Sept. 17 Municipal Revenue and Taxation (Tuesdays: 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.) Meeting dates are: July 17, Aug. 14, Aug. 28 and Sept. 18 Metropolitan Agencies (Wednesdays: 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.) Meeting dates are: July 18, Aug. 15, Aug. 29 and Sept. 19 Housing & Economic Develop. (Fridays: 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.) Meetings dates are: July 20, Aug. 10, Aug. 31 and Sept. 28 Issues which should be studied: Please mail or fax completed form to: ATTN: Laurie Jennings, Metro Cities, Assoc. of Metro. Municipalities 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 Fax: 651- 281 -1299 • Phone: 651- 215 -4000 L\s \policycommittees2007\sign up form -2007 METRO CITIES Association of Metropolitan Municipalities President Steve Larson Mayor New Brighton Vice - President Tom Goodwin Councilmember Apple Valley Past- President Beverly Aplikowski Mayor Arden Hills Directors Douglas Anderson Mayor Dayton Metro Cities Paul Anderson Councilmember North St. Paul Myron Bailey Councilmember Cottage Grove Mark Bernhardson City Manager Bloomington Janis Callison Mayor Minnetonka Walt Fehst City Manager Columbia Heights Annual Report May 2007 Prepared for the Annual Meeting Board of Directors 2006 -07 Marcia Glick City Manager Robbinsdale Chuck Haas Councilmember Hugo Diane Hofstede Councilmember Minneapolis Dave Kelso Councilmember Circle Pines Mark McNeill City Administrator Shakopee Mike Maguire Mayor Eagan Linda Masica Councilmember Edina Dave Osberg City Administrator Hastings Dave Pokorney City Administrator Chaska Wendy Underwood Legislative Liaison St. Paul Pierre Willette Gov't Relations Rep. Minneapolis Metro Cities Mission: "Represent the collective interests of all Metropolitan cities on both metropolitan and statewide issues with Metropolitan significance." New Brand In 2006, The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities embarked on an effort to rebrand itself Our full name is very long, our acronym was often Iost in the endless list of advocacy organization acronyms, and our logo screamed 1975. Yet our history is very important to us and to many, we will always be AMM. With an eye on both cost and continu- ity, we concluded that we should retain our "corporate" name, but create a brand that was more distinctive and descriptive. After considering many options, we went with Metro Cities. We hope you bite it. Policy Adoption Meeting For the second consecutive year, Metro Cities collaborated with the Metropolitan Area Management Association and LMC to conduct a joint MAMA/LMC Regional Meeting/ Metro Cities 2007 Policy Adoption Meeting. The result was an outstanding turnout and an outstanding event. We hope to replicate this successful recipe for our 2008 Policy Adoption Meeting. Please mark your calendars for Thursday, November 29, 2007. Metropolitan Council Over 30 years ago, the Association of Metropolitan Munici- palities was created to represent a municipal perspective at the Metropolitan Council. That original purpose is as impor- tant today as it was then. In the past year, your Metro Cities team has been intricately involved in many issues being debated at the Council. While there are some areas where we don't agree, our relationship with the Council is generally very professional and respectful. We work cooperatively where we can. Council management and staff will often seek our reaction and advice as they contemplate a prospective issue or action. We appreciate their consideration and recognition that the size and membership makeup of our association makes us a significant player in Metropolitan affairs. Density Metro Cities staff; and several City Planners and Community Development Directors have been negotiating a proposal to create additional flexibility in the Council's density require- ments. Council policy states, "The city's overall residential density for development since 2000 must be a minimum of three units per developable acre. Determination of this density will be based on constructed residential units, and the lowest allowable units on remaining residential guided land." The result of the Council's policy, in our opinion, is that cities would be forced to guide more land to medium and high density development than is practical in the current market. 1 Revmve — - Ezpevdihvrel We also feared that the Council would use the policy to micro manage small comprehensive plan amendments. Metro Cities countered with a proposal that, "on remaining guided land, density will be calculated based on verified historical develop- ment patterns since 2000 or the middle of the density range, whichever is less." Council staff have forwarded a proposal to provide additional flexibility, based on the concept of "density credits" for cities that have a development track record since 2000. At the time this report went to print, we have not yet reached an agree- ment. We are certain it won't be the Council's original position. 5600.000 5500,000 5400,000 5300,000 5200.000 5100,000 Metro Cities Revenue 1997 through 2006 IN DUES IOTHERI Livable Communities In response to criticism of the use of Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) by some Council Members, the Metropolitan Council voted to reduce the LCDA levy by $1.0 million and to seek legislation to transfer up to $4.0 million from the LCDA to local Comprehensive Planning grants and into the Tax Base Revitalization Program. Metro Cities couldn't stop the levy reduction vote and, while planning grants and contamination cleanup are very valuable, the connotation was that the LCDA was not a worthwhile program. In conversations with many legislators and staff and in testimony before House and Senate committees, we were able to convey the value of the LCDA and derail the transfer of funds to TBRA. Consequently, there will be a regular LCDA grant round this year. We were able to keep a very popular and useful program alive this year, but the LCDA debate at the Council is not over. Metro Cities members and staff will need to work with the Council this summer to address some of the Council's concerns. The program's long term future will depend on how well we can articulate support for it, while concurrently working with the Met Council and staff to improve it Housekeeping For the 2007 session, the Council sought our support for a variety of minor technical "housekeeping" amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act Metro Cities supported the Council's effort. We also identified an opportunity to suggest a noncontroversial amendment to allow Council staff to waive the adjacent review and comment requirements for minor comprehensive plan amendments. It was our contention that both the Council and city staff were wasting time and energy on a distribution and comment process that exceeded the importance of many local amendments. The Council concurred with our assessment of the issue and our recommendation. Water Supply Advisory Committee In 2005, the Legislature created the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee to undertake planning activities to address water supply needs in the metropolitan area, including the preparation of a Twin Cities Area Water Supply Master Plan. The advisory committee met monthly throughout most of 2006 and focused on assessing water supply availabil- ity, examining water supply permit approval processes, and evaluating water supply safety and security. Metro Cities staff provided support to the committee's city appointees through- out this process. The Met Council delivered a report to the 2007 Legislature of the committee's Phase I activities that included several amendments recommended by Metro Cities. The report contained two specific recommendations: (1) clarify agency roles in water supply plan review, consolidate into one statute the requirements of community water supply plans, and link water supply planning to comprehensive planning, and (2) support a State appropriation for the Minneapolis -Saint Paul interconnection, and support for state funding for intercon- nections upon the request of local government units (the local government request clause was recommended by Metro Cities). The first recommendation is moving through the Legislature this year. Later this year, the committee will begin to delve into the development of an actual Master Plan which will address projections of water use by community, options for those areas with limitations, a process for on -going data collection and sharing, additional monitoring and assessment, regional and local roles in safety and security, a conservation toolbox, and a process for evaluating the cost/benefrt of local and regional projects. Consistent with Metro Cities' recommenda- tions, the second phase of this work will include input by technical experts. We will work to make sure that this group includes expertise from the municipal side. Metro Cities' policies oppose the Met Council becoming another water supply regulator. Staff will continue to closely monitor the activities of this committee as well as provide assistance to our city advisory committee members on an as- needed basis. Metro Cities Revenues & Expenditures 1997 through 2006 5500.000 5450,000 5400,000 5350.000 5300,000 Mil I Elected Met Council Every few years, proposals surface in the Legislature requiring the election of the Met CounciL This year bills calling for an elected Council with four year, staggered terms were intro- duced. The Senate bill was defeated on a 36-26 floor vote. Supporters argued that an unelected Council is taxation without representation. Many legislators think the Council needs to do more around transportation and transit. Their concerns gave the idea new life this year, and Met Council issues in general were higher on the legislative radar screen this session. Metro Cities' policies support staggered terms for Met Council members, but are silent on an elected CounciL 5250,000 5200,000 5150,000 5100,000 550,000 so Metro Cities Fund Balances 1997 through 2006 ,_7 If9f 19f! mn 211191 Inn¢ mio vn9 n15 >s.c ® FUND BALANCE Legislation Clean Water At the time this publication went to print, a Metro Cities initiative to expand the PCA's project priority list point system to include storm water projects was proceeding through both the House and Senate. The bills are the culmination of a cooperative effort to allow important storm water projects to compete on equal footing with wastewater projects for the state's primary financing programs. Metro Cities staff have been working with staff from the PCA, the MPFA and the LMC on this initiative. The initiative is intended to create funding options in anticipation of stiffer clean water require- ments that will undoubtedly be triggered by the pending completion of the Lake Pepin Total Maximum Daily Load (TM DL) analysis. Access to the state's clean water funding mechanisms for storm water projects will assure that the Metro Area will be allowed to continue to develop. Capital improvement funding to comply with Clean Water Act standards will be requested in the 2008 Legislative session. Significant funding for assessment of impaired waters and the completion of TMDL's is expected to pass this session. Economic Development Throughout the summer and fall, Metro Cities staff worked with city staff and other municipal organizations, including Minnesota Solutions and LMC, to expand tax increment financing (in-) flexibility and modify the state's Redevelop- ment Grant Program statute to allow Metro Area cities to qualify for funding. At the time this publication went to print, bills to do both were proceeding on course for passage. If passed, cities will have up to four years after approval of the '1 IF plan to start receiving increment. The legislature passed statutory amendments to equally divide future appropriations to the Redevelopment Grant Program between the Metro Area and Greater Minnesota. Taxes Property tax relief was a key goal for the House and Senate majorities this session and both bodies proposed to achieve it through a variety of mechanisms including the property tax refimd (PTR) program, as well as aids for cities, counties and schools. Metro Cities' stag along with the NMMA, cities of Minne- apolis, Saint Paul, and AFSCME, put forth legislation this year to address disparities in the distribution of LGA through a "metro need aid" that targets aid to older, fully developed cities using socio-economic criteria. Many metro cities were cut off the LGA formula in 2003 when funding reductions were made. Since then, LGA for many rural Minnesota cities has been restored, but the same cannot be said for many metro cities. Although the `metro need aid' was not included in either the House or Senate tax bills, our proposal has reso- nated with many legislators. The Legislature is poised to put additional money into LGA this year. If distributional dispari- ties are not addressed, all the new money in the world won't help those cities that need LGA but don't receive it. As of this date, we continue to advocate for the metro need aid as a compromise position. The Market Value Homestead Credit, cut several years ago and scheduled to be restored this year, was the recipient of some creative legislative energy this year. The House phases out the MVHC and repeals the PTR, replacing both with a new "homestead credit state refund" based on income and property taxes. Their direction is consistent with Metro Cities' policies that support credits being paid directly to individuals. The Senate enhanced the MVHC, but doesn't change the structure of the program. Levy Iimits (Governor's proposal) and a turbo- charge "light" truth in taxation proposal have also been part of the 2007 legislative mix. Consistent with our policies, we continue to oppose legislation that would diminish local control over the local budgeting process. Between the House and Senate tax bills, there are proposed studies in the areas of local government aid, fiscal disparities, sales and use taxes and the truth in taxation program. So, your Metro Cities staff is likely to have its hands full this summer. Transportation The end of the 2006 session left your Metro Cities staff disappointed about the lack of a comprehensive transporta- tion funding bill. However, we quickly set our sights on promoting the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) amendment. The effort paid oft, with the metro area showing the strongest support in the state for the amendment. Overwhelming public support for the MVST amendment created a spi iugboard for transportation advocates to press a transportation friendly agenda in tare 2007 session. A change 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Albertville* Andover Anoka Apple Valley Arden Hills Bayport Blaine Bloomington Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Burnsville Carver Champlin Chanhassen Chaska Circle Pines Columbia Heights Coon Rapids Cottage Grove Crystal Dayton Eagan Eden Prairie Edina Elko New Market Excelsior Falcon Heights Farmington Forest Lake Fridley Golden Valley 32. Hastings 33. Hopkins 34. Hugo 35. Independence 36. Inver Grove Heights 37. Jordan 38. Lake Elmo 39. Lake St Croix Beach 40. Lakeland 41 Lakeville 42. Lauderdale 43. Long Lake 44. Mahtomedi 90 so 70 60 s0 40 30 210 i0 0 45. Maple Plain 46. Maplewood 47. Medicine Lake 48. Mendota Heights 49. Minneapolis 50. Minnetonka 51. Minnetrista 52. New Brighton 53. Newport 54. North St. Paul 55. Oak Grove 56. Oak Park Heights 57. Oakdale Metro Cities Membership 1998 through 2007 1- ■. • • • • • ■ • ■ 'I i';■ • • • • • • IN • 1 ■■ • ■ ■ >■ • • • • • • II ■ • ■.■ • ■ • ■'■ ■ ■;■ • ■I 1.,■ ■■ ■ .■ • • ■ • 1 M 19" ZAN SIRS ® MEMBERS 58. Orono 59. Osseo 60. Plymouth 61. Prior -Lake 62. Ramsey 63. Richfield 64. Robbinsdale 65. Rosemount 66. St Anthony Village 67. St Francis 68. St. Louis Park 69. St. Michael* 70. St. Paul 71. St Paul Park 72. Savage 73. Shakopee 74. Shoreview 75. Shorewood 76. South St. Paul 77. Spring Park 78. Sunfish Lake 79. Three Rivers Park District* 80. Victoria 81. Waconia 82. Wayzata 83. West St Paul 84. White Bear Lake 85. Woodbury 86. Woodland *Associate Members in statute was needed to dedicate the MVST funds between Metro Transit and Greater Minnesota Transit. Legislation to split the proceeds 38% metro and 2% greater Minnesota was introduced and included in the `lights on' transportation bills. Our other focus was on the half cent Metro wide sales tax. Last fall we met with stakeholders incbiding the Chamber of Commerce, the MN Business Partnership, transit groups, organizations representing road interests, the Regional Council of Mayors and the Metro Ways Transit Development Board. Metro sales tax legislation was introduced by Sen. Dan Larson (DFL- Bloomington) and Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL- Brooklyn Park). To kick off the bills, Metro Cities held a press conference with several Metro Area mayors and the bill's authors that yielded multiple news stories. To our delight, metro sales tax language was included in the House and Senate omnibus transportation bills. We then began working with stakeholders to negotiate details of a governance structure for the tax. As of this date, the sales tax language is alive and trucking along in the Transportation Conference Committee. Graphics The graphics on pages 2, 3 and 4 provide a snap shot of Metro Cities' membership and financial status. Metro Cities Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044 Phone: 651 - 215 -4000 Fax: 651 - 281 -1299 Website: www.amm145.org Staff members: Louis Jambois Executive Director 651 -215 -4001 Louis@amm145.org Patricia Nauman Government Relations Rep. 651 - 215 -4002 Patricia@amm145.org Sarah Erickson Government Relations Rep. 65 1 - 215 -4003 Sarah @amm145.org Laurie Jennings Office Manager 651- 215 -4004 Laurie @arnm145.org Gordon Heitke �iSfYcl��,c �c� or_ _Jess ( A From: ROBERT WARWICK [RWARWICK @CI.SHOREVIEW.MN.US] 41-2-"77 Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:36 AM To: Gordon Heitke Subject: Thank you. Mr. Heitke - I apologize for the my delay in getting to you this brief note of thanks after the City responded so promptly to the conditions on Iverson Court and elsewhere in the City. I trust that you are aware that Public Works crews were on Iverson Court yesterday morning about 7.30AM, and removed the debris the residents had piled on the curbside on Tuesday. The decision by the City to provide assistance helped to ease the burden of getting some degree of normalcy back - at least from the street it appears so. Later in the day yesterday, the Ellis' house had the large tree thru the roof removed by a crane, and today construction workers arrived to begin to repair the significant damage to the house. They have major repairs necessary, and I know their focus is on that. But Dave and Jane are happy that their house and yard look good from the street, and that makes a difference. I can speak for the 8 or 9 households whose members worked together all day Tuesday to clean up - the debris removal by the City made a big difference and is greatly appreciated. I will try to follow -up with something more formal from all of us - but also felt it important to let you know that we worked hard together and were impressed with the response and follow -up by the City. I have not yet made it thru the West Oaks neighborhood, but I heard that the damage there was more widespread than on Iverson Ct. I am sure that those residents also appreciate the aid. I hope that you can forward this note on to the Mayor on our behalf. Rob Warwick 2319 Iverson Court 651 429 -4167 (Home) 651 490 -4681 (Work) 1