Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/2010 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday, August 11, 2010 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Health Care policy (per request of Rafferty & Roeser) 2. Police Department Interim Reorganization (postponed at council mtg of 7- 26 -10) 3. Comprehensive Plan Review 4. Housing Goals, LCA 5. KI Auto - Variance 6. Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination Ordinance 7. Redevelopment Task Force 8. Legacy Update 9. September Work Session Schedule Adjourn WS -1 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Al Rolek Date: August 11, 2010 Re: Health Care policy cc: The City Council has requested an update on our current employee health care options and benefits and a review of past procedures. The City uses the firm of Johnson McCann in securing the employee health care providers and benefits. Staff has asked Ms. Gayle McCann, President of the firm, to attend the work session to explain our current benefits and the process and procedures used, past and present, to secure a cost - effective health benefit plan for city employees. Ms. McCann will provide a Powerpoint hand out to help explain where the city is currently with this benefit and the process to be employed in the future to maintain good health care benefits for employees at a reasonable cost. Any further direction relative to this issue can be discussed following Ms. McCann's presentation. Page 1 benefits that stand out in the crowd City of Vadnais Heights City of Waconia City of Eau Claire, WI �Clssirrr INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION C City of Lino Lake North Siar Bank ,. A Few of our Clients... ellho St. Cloud Medical Group, PA GIf in AMERICAN BANK DiaSorin : -:m. C3 W -- SECOND HARVEST =SOO ok- )ce.Scof Saint Lloud 1 IEARTLAND IIUPR PATER - rand Itasca .: Resources for Child Caring �, �• Raisin the standard of care or children �' / I _ are Q. 1 Ul 1A.IREGIONAL kleaandria Clinic P.A. L CE N 1' F. R krrImg ner co m•u,i,1ime r '1sr, Eye Care ���.CiLI1ril.Wed 70 )0a CENTER. Iard paw • or O LS E N TH I E LE N 1-172..\ CEr!'ifind Pubic Arccuntants k laonsulfarfs x \`,. I THE 1MAGEM . '-,'',1 0(9 GE Commercial Finance CuninghamGroup" Fleet Services i c�lORr. l�a>UCA1'lC)N E T (i......i Catholic Charities NETWORK LAKES 1 . I uiVi li. INTEGRITY ek4 C I T Y O F EXPERTISE THE M' INNEAPOLIS CLINIC OF NEUROL(L\. LID. 4/40 , SUMMIT NDOVER ` ORTHOPEDICS INNOVATION u 4—) C73 Our Essentia B in- U al .• 1724 4-0 r� 0 b4 N 0 O •9 O O .0 0 O CA Ct E O O -4-' U CCi 0 U • O "C . 04 O CA cid O • 8 • + i O 4 C• A 0 74 U; O .- •-, I 4 Ca � U Service: Acting in ways that help, assist, and /or benefit others Professionalism: Upholding professional methods, character, or standards v] 1) czs w C 0 V mt az tO F; w 4) to s-' 1 at to o w .� U 0 bA va bA • . ct O .0 � • � 0 ' 0 al O 0 bA N .� c4714 r) Z .PM et immi -1=1 .- cC Chi 'V acA x Begin true or correct in attention to detail v u itt ( cc -0 a) :.=, Eca)- U (o 'O O U D a) a) L- U a) to Lr • rJ) a) 0 c ▪ 0 0 C c al � o aco(6•E = el • c EN m ` a) E To NO) O o LO • C L > c .c • C 0N 2 °3V D m• a)� �r u a) c a) • a co cn -°'t 7) m.�_E��NUa) Q 4) 6- _ .� ca co "O C1 0 C (o L C X c 0 E O 7 U a) D (o N (o 0 0 C • • I E (o c • a) _U co • 7- m O it c U '-• c a) 2 co 0 ui C (o - U ') a (0 D) V) a) 0) C a co O N U L• °o C o aE°'C O N N L O L. 4O i imb CD 06 O O O C (o cA • U .0 N w O 0 O a) ..'fir V . 00 .� _• 2(1) N Q. "'' C MMir to a) 'C C D 0,5. cn ` L C O) •Li a) c co E yi E= '� Y C V)- co aui = 3 CD -0 O E O -O c 0 co . C N 7 2 y C 0 -0 C -0 ... L N Cus d C 0' C •C a) a) co (o U 0 m L m N (o a INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION L CE >coOa) Q 8 ° c Z c 0 o t O O V N O 4- O 0 V) O 0 Q. C C (o a) CO U • C ` in 01 a) .4. 2 o D a°)2 c.c ° aa)) c2� a> te:C• coaoT�T`wrnL°) °- uoo 0—cc ▪ S°co a)E co0='ai mN N. c.a c"' • v o c c O • 0 � to c c L c� ao (0 E < CO a) aim m.c.�m 0) ,J) cs r 4= T h co ;d L Z c c° a) — c N to V � c "- O C L C O O O O O a) (o O aj m C V% (o L U O _L 3 _O _" l CD (o C O to 'O O a) m Qy L O •- c U L U> c E �. co ° N U '2 . 0 CD co_ m Q 0 co ( w 3 a ` < 10 -1" q 2 « = a 5 \ / U § 3 L 7 } ■ o m m 2 c 7g =�'a.)- « \g o c 2& f 2� - c= co o 0 o a %2k2 °k��� c q: / 0 7 7 022/22%2/ G o o e g_. p o\ / 2 2 2 5 §= UB=g»©o- / £ a) $ 2 o = > / £ $xon /$ \\ ■ c CO o czt _ ®/ E A ® c e%-S1 £2 co �' m R \ / al • 7« n o o I g E 2 0 q 2 0 2 2 = a) a 2 « _ 2�&2f/2§ 2 om (0m \k INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION If) ova SG c2�� p->, omn <ut ages • = 5 2 _® % _ / c & to 7> o E k$ o$ k 3ofkEt= -= r 7 : ° 1) _ _ ■ c % 2 2 CO § § L _ �6, o�o= go== o■c — � wo = =7 @ { § (7)>..2 § = oaf D E G c c >/(0 o'V g o 0) E c G o- m e Cr4 *MN : £ 0 ®5 2 / § § E g ■ - _ 1;7. _ Value -Added Services b�A 4) U 0 ° a) 4E4 cl 4:4 O t7▪ 4 r I) O .-0 U cid O .5 ct +▪ � U ct cn a) O a a) o Cii U CU o • CA o aA " • Ct CA 0 -I- •- `) 4 cciu l U , O 4-+ O cu a' 0 b4 • vA U Q 1 0 0 N O .. 0 Pct U >,•O'� > b4 p,'� o'O 2 O .0 O 1 U .4) f) ; . . 4c ) el oc") , 71 5 • . c� bA U c, O b�A O • 0 >, O b4 4-+ "-, 0 rz., g ,. --, ....e c., 0 H •.._ ..5 0:1 GA E cnci) 0 8 czt aa Co aa 0. E -I P4 0 d U dA c eet v 0 N .- ,, 'O N tu 00 CI Z > vj • + •� 0 v E to 0 O - v) to cu o ▪ A U V 0 Ct0 v 0 0 ° .v a . C") 4.) 14 ci) ) • •� ' v al cA O W U U Z• • • ■ • ■ ■ 1--I Administration • Human Resources performance Measurement Systems c� O x O a, o o O N bA O v c tu cu � U �--+ •a U O O O v U_ •� v v OD O 0 • • 14 C4 0 0 bA x O CD Clo CU v 8 • o gso cu cts C • Tu U >We also offer a number of J J ZW O~ (/) V cg N W r 1 Nr� Q Q W i z Z 0 ci4 ,a; W O ilia V1 Ce U 6 O W LL w 44 ou -150 'PS al .N 0 °' N nma AS a) con le � .4-1 bOA a) � O c 4 : 0 Poi 0 czt o a) U 4c, c0 8 o ff" U � 44� ,� O • E E .� o t CC Collaboration Center 41 5 INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION 4.1 2/18/2004 12:02 7 /2004 11:18 7/2004 10:00 7/2004 08:09 7/2004 08:09 7/2004 08:00 7/2004 05:08 7/2004 00:00 N N N fJ fJ f1 2/1.4/2004 15:37 6/2004 15:30 N Sales Incentive Plan teen Ciapp.nell i becky Smith 5 5 5 5 V U yy 4 V .i V v u e o 4' iD 0 40 N :et re 4 4 4 4 4 1EEEE CanwUe Mares MSA Contrybutton PISA tentr/buUOn PISA Contrybutton Sion Expense 4 cc 0 stage WIN* I.st td re F Y 4 Ak it J.. rz. "->cl g rn z N o ,- a N V N as 0 O O O o .O v) O •5 0 to D INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION U • O e) 4) .O v 5 5 cu ral• U 3 rct iI 'L, W •v • cid • s. E O U - a) $ U • O a) „ l+ U U U -07-▪ 4) . ,▪ 4 c17))3 °"4 o E 40, ,4 .,-■ 0 § 0 ▪ • 0 U W O CA O U O 0 CA U U 0 - O • 0 a) c73 a) W ''Cs • • • E !DO U O 0 E E 0 •I" czs b�A v �0 N • ,4 0 • .- c7, c • •w Ti • w • Cq �~ O • 147.: • 44- P-4 O � U too O -4—) O 0 44 t aw: w) 0 0 "TZ •� We communicate this to our clients via broadcast email. INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION Benchmarking ;5 F n x }w r tU Pg WJ V1 ' 6 g 4.y •^I O O o O '6 o a4 6 ,c wl 614U ett 0 44 a, p4 � • ••• 10 E Ole CJ a4 E CCU CIJ 43.4 C CI 'RI INSZ C prj 6 C E et 5 0 a, ° co too 44 6 rM INTEGRIT Y EXPERTISE INNOVATION O "7' 0 ;-4 r-Fd ,i •c) w O O 1) °E Health Partners PreferredOne z z tti) ct: 4 p4 CJ . CO 40•4 CA CI Lo 0 O V ^� V V O V asses a balance of the following: The strategy of plan design encomw oImmediate claim cost control _ oLong term claim cost control oCurrent employee satisfaction oAttracting new employees oPhilosophy of management oCulture of the company INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION oHolistic benefits strategy edical Benefit Summary hoice 25 -80° , v 0 Z Annual Deductible 100% coverage Preventive Care 0 0 U U in in Office Visits/Urgent Care Emergency Room 80% Coverage Hospital Services $2,000 Single, $6,000 Family Maximum out of pocket ci c1 cd f:14 ta4 f:14 0 0 0 U U U N O rn b4 69 b4 Prescription Drugs y >, U >, czt bO al • CAA., ,Zw V1 w O O Co O O 00 C> C> 0,, 0 Annual Deductible HSA Employer Contribution Maximum out of pocket 100% coverage Preventive Care 0 0 Coverage after deductible *please refer to your detail of coverage for the complete list and your out of network benefits (V a 2 a0 O PreferredOne a) $ E O L- U C m C. C $j § L as CO G as ` u) O � � O in O co of d n N o o 0) c o 0 O C t' L a g O Nd d U R 10 73 E g 2 z E o a Q °��- 'C . .. as o E (Ts o c a m 2 H'u 5 y (n U m a) a c rn c r) c e c m cn — c c m N � � E o 0 Y L H O 4[9 O U C i O U N 0 N o • >.. . c0 ,-- U m m m d V v L c c U�•E w of °a R 0 c g c m Eo y E = L o a) y c ; c c c e. o _a ca c a., o _ .c _ _ :% Ts N 0 4 ILl C.) O. = l0 d rn E c c E C c-g .ca E o 0 2.5 X 0 co O. a 0 v 0 0 0 O O O O O O a a a a) 0) E '50 00 lace at renewal c c c0 a PreferredOne $15- 100% (Choice /Elect) m U a) 2 No increase to rates. HealthPartners N a 0 v 0 L t °O o a _ U L o o O E o s =" w N o 8 V i co y °y o O CO a) a� c6 L 11 y �� v o�vn E U c 2 d L L O O r0 C = ; oo = U a) CO O O C ccoo w° c c E y ao 2 o 5'1n`r a'0C Co v E o o ° °o 0 c~ °-, aio° $o9u v 1:151: o o 1 cc) °y�L �v► u� o o � o CIO a U C 0 0 c7 U oo a) CD 7 m °��' cE o$�o ° Eo c o Lo E mr'Q0,.- Ts aU° L °° `' a) m E U O a (NI E. of ° o c c a c m (°n O (A 1 L U C_ N 10 9_ 0 o ■d m a E o d ._ g f C 15 c L i j . O 0 (� .c-640 . C O n 0 N E U Q ci at i E 5 0 co c o< 5 R N O a) r 0. = 1 0) C co = d Ti O (N6 (Si �+ C y ; .� X O� c y a E E Z `t -°' R m c E n co 0 cC E v 2 O E 2 X 8-5 re 1 1 1 N tg :4,0 0 0 0 0 — 0 O a o a? o 0 CD 'V 0' E DO °oo DO O0o (Oo oo (no 60 (no -o �- ,, e- M _c.) c- C7 00 A a .1. (j} ffl co w- e6 O 0 e-o e-0 —0 —0 0O 0 ' Lo a— in M 0— TU�O r 0r iR (R C> O 20 . to gco 0 �(n _ 0 o 0 U t 2 U Q 0 2 0 0 = HSA $1,500/$3,000 -80% HealthPartners 0 0 O O O M O O 0 0 c[) a) U U 0 x HSA $3,000/$6,000 - 100% 0 0 0 CO 0 0 W CD 0 O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N e- N- 1- O O Q) O) c- l- a- Choice 25-80% 11.5% - 80/20 Plan H R V 2 C U 14.9% - HSA Plan C=. r•-• ra. 00 C-0 •at CNI te) 41) 01-1111r (•) /UN (A) oti 1111 (0)Tiri Nt YID Nurtivr to-AoN 01.13:4 10-1111. I. LO-A"IN to-tiv .13;4 tqrpii (10-A 11/kj 00-J 1!IAI kn 1114 CO-drIS Coln r k,f.r.woj 111r ?ION PirdiS PO-1n r po-ANAJ 1,0-.11gAi ro-twr 11/ r t /JOIN 1.),311AJ 7-0-A0 N ZO-(13N F.0-A"IN 70.truf 1,) N I 0-daS R-1111 10-X"IN 1., i 14. i fit N !Arlin:4 Rolling 6 Month Average PMPM Incurred Claims V, E U tn w L = O 0_ ▪ a > W • to c0 O 'U. 0 U 2_ 2 a 0 O O O O 4 O O O 4 0 0 d c rc 0 g0 • 10 0 0 0 Q 0 0 d d C7 (r! N EA EA EA EA 40 40 40 40 0 10 4' rr) -r 04 fn r1 'O - r (A r r1 ■r) rti 'O r, r1 N) Grl r1 (A O OD r un r-1 GTel OD )A -r 'r3 rJ 'O C3 r1 r un r- 1 -- a wri r� Sri Q +O ✓ ! Sin OD t- oy r1 On yrs U) r1 ton O*. rf Lel M rr) r1 r4 b - r-1 (Jr) r1 r1 -r -t r-1 ■ Premium SPMPM • Claims SP\IP'I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co CO •Ct N O CO CO ' - N r e- CO CO CO CO CO CO to CO CO 41 (0 1�1 I. Q a 0 94 O r. o Professional N CO rl N •r1 CiD •I1 fA U1 -r r^; CO CO .-y F- r 111 r• 0 CO ao a1 117/1.,18 - 61'30/09 0. "4 -r C191117 - 6.�'30i'08 Thank You 742fr1L You/ INTEGRITY EXPERTISE INNOVATION )R-1--)4(ouctt a vw To : Regular Full Time Employees From: Finance Department Re: 2010 Health Rates Monthly Employee Annual Monthly City Monthly City H.S.A. Rate Contribution Cost Contribution Health Partners Choice 25 -80% - Single 549.96 549.96 0.00 Health Partners Choice 25 -80% - Family 1,542.79 1,018.23 524.56 Health Partners HSA $3,000/100% - Single 338.16 338.16 0.00 750.00 Health Partners HSA $3,000/100 % - Family 949.61 880.33 69.28 1,500.00 I would like to waive coverage and receive a cash option of $507.88/Mo. (Certain rules pertain to this option. Please see Paula to get a waiver form.) Choice 25 -80% Plan - Rates good January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 HSA Plan - Rates good January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 City HSA contribution, half on January 4, 2010, remainder on July 1, 2010 • • • WS — Item 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 2 Date: August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Kent Strege Acting Public Safety Director Re: Police Department Interim Reorganization Background The Lino Lakes Police Department is requesting council to authorize increasing the Community Relations Coordinator Position from 3/4 to full time. Volunteer involvement in the police department began in the 1980's with a few police reserve officers. In 2004 the city of Lino Lakes was awarded a grant from the Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management that funded the creation of a Volunteer Coordinator position within the police department. In September of 2004 Karen Anderson was hired to fill that position and has successfully grown both the number and involvement of the volunteer program. In 2009 128 volunteers donated over 10,000 hours in support of the Lino Lakes Police Department mission. Community members have volunteered their time through the Reserves, Chaplains, Explorers, Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), office volunteers, interns and the Public Safety Citizens Commission. The interaction between volunteers and staff continues to strengthen the community partnerships that are instrumental in providing for a safe community. The volunteer program has been hugely successful. The Community Relations Coordinator was elevated to a command level position within the police department because of the importance of volunteers in the delivery of public safety services. Managing this growing program and its ongoing integration into the organization requires an increasing investment of time. Continued success will come from identifying new areas of volunteer involvement, ensuring volunteer retention, finding new sources for volunteer recruitment as well as developing and enhancing police / community partnerships. 1 Increasing the Community Relations Coordinator position to full -time will support the momentum of this program and directly impact its continued growth within the city. The increase in hours for the time period of August 1st to December 31st of 2010 equates to a $10,615 salary and benefits increase. Requested Council Direction With the direction of the council, staff will place the matter of Approve full -time status for the Community Resource Coordinator position on a future city council agenda. 2 • • WS — Item 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 3 Date: Council Work Session, August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Comprehensive Plan Review Background The City Council reviewed proposed changes to Land Use and Housing chapters of the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan at the July 6, 2010 work session. Based on the discussion and in accordance with council direction, staff has developed text changes for consideration. These changes are summarized as follows: • Chapter 3, Land Use Plan (pages 26 -27). Modification of the proposed statement within the Growth Management Policy establishing an annual average of 230 new residential dwelling units per year. The proposed language now reads: "The City will plan to accommodate an annual average of 230 units per year over each 5 year phasing period not to exceed 460 units in any one year. At the end of the 5 year phasing period unallocated units will be averaged out over the next five year phase." • Chapter 4, Housing Plan (pages 10 -11). No additional changes were proposed. The proposed Land Use Plan changes are intended to address council concerns regarding establishment of hard growth cap, providing development flexibility, managing pace of growth, and maintaining even grow from year to year while still accommodating the growth forecasts. Upon final approval of the Comprehensive Plan the city's existing Growth Management ordinance would be amended to incorporate these changes. Additionally, as discussed at the July 6 meeting, there are generally several other criteria that must be satisfied before a project can be approved. These criteria include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Land Use Plan. The proposed use of land must be consistent with the plan i.e., a commercial use on land guided commercial. 1 2. Land Use Plan. The proposed density of the project must be consistent with the land use plan, i.e., in a low density district the project density is between 1.5 and 3.5 units per acre. 3. Staging Plan. The proposed use must be located within Phase 1A of Stage 1. 4. Sanitary Sewer infrastructure must be available to service the development. 5. Sanitary Sewer infrastructure must have the capacity to service the property. 6. Water infrastructure must be available to service the property. 7. Water infrastructure must have the capacity to service the property. 8. The proposed development must be consistent with the Resource Management Plan including the surface water management and parks plan. 9. The proposed development must be consistent with the Growth Management Policy. 10. Roads adjacent to the development must have the capacity to service the property. 11. The proposed development must meet the performance standards established in the City's Official Controls including: a. Zoning Ordinance b. Subdivision Ordinance c. Shoreland Ordinance d. Floodplain Ordinance If a proposed development does not meet any of the above referenced criteria the City has the discretion to deny approval. Council Direction 1. Staff is requesting council direction regarding the proposed text amendments. 2. Staff is requesting council direction to seek Metropolitan Council concurrence with the proposed changes. Attachments 1. Chapter 3, Land Use, proposed amendment 2. Chapter 4, Housing, proposed amendment 2 • • • Growth Management Policy In addition to the tools described above, the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee discussed the development of a revised Growth Management Policy for the city. The Growth Management Policy should provide a clear basis for efficient development staging as well as flexibility to respond to market conditions. The new policy must work in conjunction with the staging plan to establish the criteria for moving from one staging area to another. The z.t }(t Growth Management Policy will include the following elements: 1. The City will create a fully integrated Comprehensive Plan and keep it up to date with biannual reviews. The City will perform an intensive review at least once every five years to ensure the plan addresses changing needs and conditions. 2, The Comprehensive Plan will include a staging plan defining development staging areas sized to accommodate forecasted growth. 3. The City will monitor the ten -year staging areas and annually determine if adequate land remains available. 4. All development must be located within the current ten -year staging area unless a Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved that redefines the current ten -year staging area. 5. All development must be phased within each ten -year staging area in accordance with the staging plan unless the City Council determines, by resolution, to redefine the location of the current five -year phase. 6. Prior to reaching the time threshold for the next ten -year staging area, or five -year phase within a ten -year staging area, depicted on the staging plan, the City Council will determine by resolution if the next area is to be opened to development. The following criteria will be used to determine where and when to open up the next ten -year staging area, or five -year phase within a staging area, in accordance with the timing indicated on the staging plan: a. Adequate infrastructure must be available to support development. Appropriate analysis will determine if adequate infrastructure is available and what utility extensions and transportation improvements are required to support new development. If infrastructure is not available and cannot be made available in a timely manner to support expanding into the next ten -year staging area or five year phase within a staging area, the city may refrain from opening up the next staging area, or portions thereof. b. Different areas of the city can be considered independently. A decision to open one area of the city to development does not automatically open a different area of the city. Decisions to open new areas to development should clearly define and map the area being opened. c. This process does not require a comprehensive plan amendment because it is in accordance with the timing indicated on staging plan. 7. The following criteria will be used to determine if the city should allow a specific development project to occur early in a ten -year staging area, or five -year phase within a staging area, prior to the timing indicated on the staging plan. • • a. The proposed development must be located within both the current and the next ten - year staging area, or five -year phase, or located adjacent to the current staging area. b. The proposed development must be master planned. Small, piecemeal developments do not justify redefining the ten -year staging area, or five -year phase. c. The proposed, master planned project must provide discernable public values. d. Adequate infrastructure must be available to support development. Appropriate analysis will determine if adequate infrastructure is available and what utility extensions and transportation improvements are required to support new development. e. There must be a commitment that the development will pay its proportionate share of infrastructure improvement costs associated with development. 8. AD development must adhere to the Resource Management System Plan, including all its components, as this plan provides a conservation design framework for growth within the city. 99 Include standards in subsequent ordinance updates to ensure quality development that minimizes negative impacts on natural and cultural features of the community. 10. The City will plan to accommodate an annual average of 230 units per year over each 5 year phasing period not to exceed 460 units in any one year. At the end of the 5 year phasing period unallocated units will be averaged out over the next five year phase. Relationship to Met Council Development Framework In addition to guiding Lino Lakes' future growth, the land use plan also relates to growth and development in the region as a whole. As part of the seven -county metropolitan area, Lino Lakes must accommodate its share of the region's growth. The Comprehensive Plan must demonstrate the City's capacity to absorb this growth and that the regional infrastructure, including the transportation and sewer systems, will be used efficiently. The Metropolitan Council has developed objectives and policies for cities in the metropolitan area to ensure efficient use of the region's infrastructure, including the following policies: 1) Policy 1: Work with local communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. 2) Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices, based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs. 3) Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities. 4) Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to reclaim, conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. The City has prepared a plan that responds to community goals and to the Met Council's strategies for developing communities, as outlined in the Regional Development Framework. Lino • • Based on its analysis, the Metropolitan Council's new affordable housing goal for Lino Lakes is to create 560 new affordable housing units between 2011 and 2020, which represents 35 percent of forecasted household growth. Based on the 2030 future land use map and the minimum proposed residential densities (i.e., 7 units per acre for high density and 8 units per acre for selected mixed use areas), the City has the capacity to accommodate the affordable housing goal. The level of affordability is important to understand when assessing the amount of current affordable housing and the price point for new units to meet this goal. According to Metropolitan Council 2007 Affordability Limits, the area median income for the seven -county Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) area adjusted by HUD to be applicable to a family of four is $78,500 in 2007. Eighty percent of the median household income is $62,800; 60 percent is $47,100 and 50 percent is $39,250. Applying an interest rate on a 30 -year fixed -rate home loan of 6.2 percent for 2007 and other payment factors to the 80 percent area median income, yields an affordable purchase price of $206,800 in 2007. According to Anoka County Assessor's data there are 779 homesteads, or 13 percent of total 2007 households, that fall under this 80 percent purchase price limit in Lino Lakes. The price point for an affordable home at 60 percent of area median income drops to $152,000. There are currently only 82 existing homesteads, or 1 percent of total 2007 households, in Lino Lakes at or below $152,000 (Anoka County assessor's data /GIS). It is the new 60 percent measurement that will be required for the potential affordable housing units anticipated between 2011 -2020 in Lino Lakes. Achieving this new affordability goal will be very difficult without the funding tools that have in the past been offered by the Metropolitan Council and other agencies. Future Affordable Housing To provide opportunities for affordable housing in the community, the City is taking the appropriate regulatory measures within the Comprehensive Plan by guiding areas for higher density housing and including policies to promote- integrate affordable housing in all residential land use districts. These regulatory measures represent one of the City's most effective tools to enceurage -for the development of affordable housing. To meet affordable housing goals, the City has planned for potential new growth with a variety of residential land use types and densities for te- promote the development of life -cycle and affordable housing across the city. The city's future land use plan provide a opportunity a can accommodate the goal of 560 High Density and Mixed Use units at a minimum density of 7 units per net acre by 2020;, whieli wi}} : - . - - - e#erdable - li€eetele- heusing4e-# e ity. While the City is doing its part in creating a regulatory land use plan to guide areas for higher density housing, which is where most affordable housing will likely occur, barriers to development of affordable housing still exist in Lino Lakes and the region. Some of these barriers are beyond the City's control, including the following: • Steady increases in land prices and construction costs. • Physical limitations of land due to wetlands, poor access, poor soils that would increase the cost of land development or construction. • State, county and local tax structures. There are some significant barriers to construction of new affordable housing, and the above list includes just a few of these barriers. Despite these difficulties, the provision of affordable housing is an important effort that cities undertake. The most effective role Lino Lakes will have in the provision of affordable housing is its regulatory tools, including land use and zoning regulations that do not impede the construction of affordable housing. Many of these tools can be used to 1 encourage developers. Flexibility through the use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) • • process, may be provided to encourage the construction of affordable housing., s ;cla g :. :. inereasingiziensity,erfedueing fccs. Acknowledging the regional housing goals established by the Metropolitan Council does not commit the City of Lino Lakes to provide funding for housing. The City will continue to investigate means to pursue the goals in its comprehensive plan. However, this should not be interpreted as a commitment to use City funds to overcome the financial obstacles to life cycle and affordable housing. Housing Implementation Strategies and Recommendations The following Housing Action Plan identifies efforts Lino Lakes will pursue to create opportunities to maintain the existing housing stock, and to provide increased housing options for future residents. These strategies are based on goals and strategies for Community, Neighborhood and Residential development developed by the Citizen Vision Committee. The strategies are designed as a resource tool for specific measures the City can effectively undertake and enforce while others are designed as tools to encourage developers to incorporate affordable housing into future development. As future subdivisions are proposed, the City will use these resources and implement the strategies in working with developers to create new affordable housing opportunities. Many of these items are things the City itself can do, while others will occur through partnerships the City will seek to provide for and maintain housing quality and increase affordable housing opportunities. To ensure housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses and provides accessibility to key community features and natural amenities (Goal 3), the City will: • Offer incentives to developers who provide for affordable housing units while conserving environmentally sensitive sites, such as density bonuses, expedited permitting processes, or reduced fees. • Pursue funding opportunities to increase the affordability of housing units within conservation subdivisions. • Pursue funding opportunities to incorporate green building techniques within affordable housing developments. • Encourage innovative low impact development to preserve open space or natural features. • Ensure that all new housing, including high density, adheres to the highest possible standards of planning, design and construction feasible. • Promote development of neighborhoods that incorporate housing in a range of densities and affordability limits in close proximity to shopping, services, daycare, and medical services. Safe access to parks and schools, and the ability to walk, bike or have access to transit should be part of the design. To improve the availability of affordable housing and enhance opportunities for senior housing (Goals 5 and 6), the City will: • Seek housing developers to work cooperatively with the City to construct affordable units. • Create an incentive based program or Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance that includes density bonuses for construction of affordable housing. This allows an increase in density, beyond the underlying zoning, if the development includes affordable housing. WS — Item 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item Date: August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Jeff Smyser Re: Livable Communities Program Background The Minnesota Legislature adopted the Livable Communities Act (LCA) in 1995. This law assigned the program to the Metropolitan Council and created several accounts for funding specified activities. Through the use of competitive grants as incentives, the various funds provide assistance for housing, development, and redevelopment. In order to be eligible for these funding programs, a city must participate in the Local Housing Initiatives Account Program under the LCA. Lino Lakes has participated in this program since 1995 and has benefited from four grants totaling $1,645,000. Under the law, participation includes the adoption of goals for life -cycle and affordable housing. The initial goal period ran 1996 -2010. If the City decides to continue to participate in the LCA program, it must establish new goals for the next ten years (2011- 2020). The previous and new goals are compared below. New goals are to be adopted by September 1. City staff is in discussions with Met Council staff to get a little bit of flexibility on that date. In addition to the goals, LCA participation requires a Housing Action Plan outlining the steps the City will take to help meet the goals. Much or all of the Action Plan can be taken from the housing section of the draft new comprehensive plan. If the City Council chooses to continue LCA participation, staff will prepare the Housing Action Plan, which is due December 1. LCA Grant Funds and Grants to Lino Lakes The LCA created the Metropolitan Livable Communities fund, which includes the following funding accounts. Eligibility for grants from these funds is an incentive for 1 participating in the program. Municipalities that elect not to participate in the LCA are not eligible for these grants, nor are they eligible to apply for funds under the Department of Employment and Economic Development's polluted sites clean -up program. In addition, the Metropolitan Council is required by the LCA to consider a municipality's participation in the LCA when making other discretionary funding decisions. Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA): This fund helps cities clean up contaminated urban land for subsequent commercial and industrial development, thus restoring tax base and jobs near existing housing and services. This program is conducted in coordination with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA): This account funds development and redevelopment projects with development patterns that link housing, jobs and services, and that maximize the development potential of existing infrastructure and regional facilities. There are two grant categories. Development grants provide funding for basic public infrastructure and site assembly. Pre - Development grants assist with activities such as detailed redevelopment designs and economic feasibility analyses to prepare projects to compete for grants in the Development category. Local Housing Incentive Account (LHIA): This fund helps expand lifecycle and affordable housing development and preservation in the region. Grants awarded from this account must be matched by the recipient community with local dollars for affordable housing activities. Grants may be used for costs associated with projects that help municipalities meet their negotiated LCA housing goals. Inclusionary Housing Account (IHA): This fund supported affordable housing developments in which the reduction of local controls and regulations resulted in reduced development costs. It was funded in 1999 by a one -time legislative appropriation from which 11 grants totaling $4.2 million were awarded to 8 communities. The account is currently unfunded. Lino Lakes has benefited from the following LCA grants: 1997 $220,000 Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant, for the master plan of the Village area, including a market analysis and the design guidelines that were adopted with the approval of the Legacy at Woods Edge planned unit development. 2000 $450,000 Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant for land write down and infrastructure improvements to support mixed income housing components in Legacy at Woods Edge 2004 $225,000 Local Housing Incentives Grant to fill financing gap for Lakewood Apartments in Legacy at Woods Edge 2 • • • • • 2004 $750,000 Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant for $750,000 for land write down and infrastructure improvements for Legacy at Woods Edge total $1,645,000 Goals The previous LCA goals included six categories expressed in percentages of the total of new dwelling units in the city over the goal period. The Met Council notified us of the proposed new goals. The new goals include two categories, expressed as a range of the number of units. There is a goal for affordable housing, and a goal for lifecycle housing. Definitions: The term "affordable housing" often is misunderstood. For 2010, affordable means a purchase price ceiling or target maximum price for a new owner - occupied home based upon what a family of four with an income at or below 80% of area median income (AMI) can afford at prevailing interest rates. At the 80% threshold, an affordable house in 2010 would cost no more than $233,100. These percentage threshold are adjusted over time and the price thresholds changed accordingly. In fact, beginning in year 2011, the affordability standard for owner- occupied units will be 60% of AMI. In 2010, this would translate to a house price of $179,100, though this price level may change next year depending on market forces. For affordable rental units, the Met Council uses the maximum monthly rents permitted in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan statistical area for the federal low- income housing tax credits to rental housing serving households at 50% of AMI. This translates to affordable monthly rents ranging from $735 for an efficiency unit to $1,218 for a four - bedroom unit. "Lifecycle housing" means varied housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all of life's stages, providing a balance of single - family homes, apartments, condominiums, townhomes, and senior housing for independent living or with a range of assisted - living services. Affordability Goal: As discussed previously and as described in the draft new comprehensive plan, the affordable housing need in Lino Lakes established by the Met Council is 560 units over the next 10 years. The Met Council states that it acknowledges the reality of limited funding and asks Lino Lakes to establish a new housing goal as a range of 364 to 560 units. The low end of the range represents the number of units that can be accomplished at currently available funding levels region wide. Lifecycle Goal: For the purpose of this goal, lifecycle means units other than single family detached. The Met Council asks Lino Lakes to establish a new lifecycle housing goal as a range of 560 to 1,860 units for the next ten -year period. The low end is the affordable housing need. The high end is the potential number of units permitted by the 3 land use guiding for the high and mixed land use categories in the draft new comprehensive plan. Comparing Old and New Goals: Table 1 lists the previous goals (1996 -2010) and short explanations of what each goal means. Note that the unit count in the last column was not part of the goals: the goals were expressed in percentages . The unit calculation is included in the table to allow a comparison to the new goals, which are expressed in unit numbers. Table 1: 1996 -2010 LCA Goals, Lino Lakes Met Cncl. calculations using 1996 and 2006 forecasts of 3000 new housing units Type (non - single family detached) 35% of all new housing will be attached units 1052 Owner /Renter Mix 85/15% 85% of all new housing will be owner- occupied, 15% of all new housing will be rental 2554 451 Ownership 65% of new owner units will meet affordability test 1660 Rental 25% of new rental units will meet affordability test Single Family Detached 2.3 /acre SF detached units to be 2.3 units /acre 113 Multiple Family 10 -12 /acre attached units to be 10- 12 units /acre Table 2 lists the proposed new LCA goals and compares them to the previous goals. The categories have been reduced to only two, and the goals are expressed in ranges. The goals are not directly comparable because the they are for 10 -year versus a 15 -year goal period. To provide a better comparison, Table 2 shows annual averages for each goal period. 4 • • Table 2: 2011 -2020 LCA Goals Compared to Previous Goals Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking direction from City Council regarding continuing Lino Lakes' participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program: thereby continuing our eligibility for grants available under the Livable Communities Act. This would require a council resolution adopting the new LCA goals. The resolution would be put on the agenda for the August 23 meeting. 5 1996 -2010 goals as unit numbers (15 years) 2011 — 2020 goals unit range (10 years) Lifecycle (attached units) 1052 560 to 1,860 annual average 70 56 to 186 Affordability 1660 + 113 =1773 364 to 560 annual average 118 36 to 56 Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking direction from City Council regarding continuing Lino Lakes' participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program: thereby continuing our eligibility for grants available under the Livable Communities Act. This would require a council resolution adopting the new LCA goals. The resolution would be put on the agenda for the August 23 meeting. 5 • • • WS — Item 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 5 Date: August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Paul Bengtson Re: KI Auto Variance Request Background On July 26, 2010 the City Council acted on a portion of the applicant's request, denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit to allow automobile sales at 909 Maple Street. The Variance requests, for expansion of a non- conforming building and front setback reductions were continued to the August 11, 2010 work session agenda for further discussion of the new case law on variances and the impact on this request. As the issue at hand is the new case law briefly discussed by the City Attorney at the July 26, 2010 work session, staff has asked the City Attorney to explain in more detail the case law and the impact it should have on not only this request, but also future applications. (memorandum from City Attorney to follow) The application was extended to the full 120 days, so the Council has until October 9, 2010 to take action. (Note: the last regularly scheduled City Council meeting before that date would be September 27, 2010.) Requested Council Direction A resolution in necessary to either approve or deny the request, and staff has assembled a denial resolution based on findings made prior to the new case law information. Staff is seeking direction from the council on if an approval resolution should be assembled, and if so what findings will be made to support said resolution. Attachment(s) 1. July 26, 2010 staff report, condensed to focus only on the Variance requests. 1 AGENDA ITEM 6.A. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson CC MEETING DATE: July 26, 2010 TOPIC: i. Resolution No. 10 6/1, Denying a Comprchcnsivc for Outdoor Sales Lot (Auto) ii. Resolution No. 10 -65, Denying a Variance to allow expansion of a non - conforming structure and a reduced front setback for an addition to the existing structure at 909 Maple Street. BACKGROUND The property at 909 Maple is 13,393 square foot in area and is currently developed with a 3,057 square foot building that is occupied by an Auto Body Repair Shop. The metal building on the site was approved via a Conditional Use Permit in 1983. This Conditional Use Permit was then amended in 1991 to allow the operation of an automotive body shop in the existing building. Salcs Lot Conditional Use Permit be approved by the City Council. This is a similar request to that made by the applicant in February of 2009, and withdrawn before City Council action; the difference being the inclusion of a Variance request to allow expansion of the non - conforming structure. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Site Auto Body Shop Low Density Sewered Residential Rural North Residential Sand Blasting Low Density Sewered Residential Rural General Business South Residential Low Density Sewered Residential Rural East Vacant Low Density Sewered Residential Rural West Residential Low Density Sewered Residential Rural 2 • • • Section 1 Comprehensive Plan Section 2 Zoning The applicant received approval to attach an `eyebrow' roof structure on the building that does not have support posts and therefore is essentially just a roof overhang and not an expansion of the building. At that time the applicant also partially installed an enclosed entry feature on the building. This was done without a permit and after the Building Official informed the applicant that a permit was required. The current installation does not meet building code requirements. The attached `Reference Plan', sheet S1, depicts the location of the 'new entry'. The notes on the plan were written by the Building Official prior to issuing the permit for the eyebrow roof addition to the `pole barn building'. The building (and site) is considered non - conforming because it is setback 24.8 feet from Maple Street, where 30 feet is required and it is 1.4 feet from the rear property line where 30 feet is required. Additionally, the building itself does not conform to the architectural standards for Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Buildings. According to the ordinance, the structure is allowed to remain on the site but may not be expanded. The non - conforming section of the ordinance is depicted below: Subd. 2. Non - Conforming Uses and Structures. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the regulation of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances, and conditions under which non - conforming buildings, structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The Zoning Ordinance establishes separate districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that non - conforming buildings, structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all non- conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity. 3 B. Provisions. 1. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of and or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: a. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or b. Any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the City may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. 1. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. The City may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit the City from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults -only bookstores, adults -only theaters, or similar adults -only businesses, as defined by ordinance. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the City shall regulate the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. Staff has made an official determination that the proposed entrance addition is above the ordinance limits in regards to expansion of a non - conforming structure. If the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council agree with this determination, a Variance would be required in order to allow this expansion. The findings required in order to approve a Variance are as follows: Findings of Fact. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing building has been operating as an auto body repair shop for a number of years without the proposed addition. The 4 • • • • • • addition is tied to the desire to serve customers of the proposed auto sales lot, which according to staff recommendations should be denied. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The land owner's desire to expand his non - conforming building on a standard, rectangular lot is what is creating the inability to meet the ordinance requirements. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Staff considers reasonable use of the property to be continued use of the site as an auto body repair shop. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The ordinance does not allow expansion of non - conforming structures anywhere in the city, and approving an expansion of this non - conforming structure would grant a special privilege to this applicant. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the non- conforming section of the ordinance is to bring all non - conforming uses and buildings into conformance with the ordinance over time. Allowing expansion of non- conforming uses or structures will only serve to prolong the timeline for conformity. 5 Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 10 -65 DENYING VARIANCES TO THE NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING AND TO THE STREET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RURAL ZONING DISCTRICT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 909 MAPLE STREET. WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City for the approval of a variance at 909 Maple Street, and WHEREAS, review and approvals of variances are governed by state statutes and City ordinances, and WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council makes the following findings: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing building has been operating as an auto body repair shop for a number of years without the proposed addition. The addition is tied to the desire to serve customers of the proposed auto sales lot, which according to staff recommendations should be denied. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The land owner's desire to expand his non - conforming building on a standard, rectangular lot is what is creating the inability to meet the ordinance requirements. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Staff considers reasonable use of the property to be continued use of the site as an auto body repair shop. 6 • • • • • 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The ordinance does not allow expansion of non - conforming structures anywhere in the city, and approving an expansion of this non - conforming structure would grant a special privilege to this applicant. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the non - conforming section of the ordinance is to bring all non - conforming uses and buildings into conformance with the ordinance over time. Allowing expansion of non- conforming uses or structures will only serve to prolong the timeline for conformity. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby denies the variances for expansion of a non - conforming structure and front setback reduction. Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this th day of 2010. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 a. P. 31, RNG. 2 0 } R ■ 2 ) \ /11 m -- k • • • SCOPE REVIEW OF AN EXISTING EYEBROW ROOF CONSTRUCTED ONTO THE SIDE OF A TIMBER POLE BUILDING, AS WELL AS DESIGN OF A SIMILAR ROOF SYSTEM ONTO THE ADJACENT CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK BUILDING, WITH THE POTENTIAL TO CONNECT THE TWO LOW ROOF ELEMENTS. CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS, STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. NOTES 1. THESE DOCUMENTS APPLY TO STRUCTURAL ONLY. ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS INCLUDING FLASHING, MATERIAL PROTECTION, AND INSULATION ARE BY OTHERS, AS WELL AS REVIEW OF PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS THAT COULD PREVENT THE CONNECTING OF ROOF ELEMENTS BETWEEN BUILDINGS. 2. A SITE VISIT WAS PERFORMED BY TREVOR AXNER, PE SE OF ULTEIG ON MAY 19, 2010 TO REVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS. ONLY EXPOSED ELEMENTS AND THOSE WHERE FINISHED MATERIALS HAD BEEN REMOVED WERE OBSERVED DURING THIS VISIT. CONTACT ULTEIG IF CONDITIONS VARY FROM THOSE SPECIFIED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT. 3. ADEQUATE SHORING DURING CONSTRUCTION 1S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. MATERIALS LUMBER: SPRUCE - PINE -FIR #2 GRADE (SPF) LOADS ROOF SNOW LOAD: 35 PSF ROOF DEAD LOAD: 10 PSF CODES 2007 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE ' w/ AMENDED 2006 IBC EXISTING EYEBROW ROOF THIS END POLE BARN BUILDING fvQ L EYEBROW. CONNECTING ELEMENT TO BE CONSTRUCTED SIMILAR TO 1/S3 w/ 9Y2" LVL VERTICAL BEAM AND (2) 2 x 10 HORIZONTAL BEAMS END POST SUPPORT TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON APPROVAL TO CONNECT BUILDINGS ck CMU BUILDING u C iv c� 3' -0" REFERENCE PLAN AT EYEBROW ROOF LOCATIONS RECEIVED JL i 204® CITY OF LINO -LAKES Rev Date Eyebrow Roof Addition 909 Maple Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Project: I hereby certity that this plan, specification or 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. Date: 6 -2 -10 License Number. 45470 Designed By: Ryan Mack K. I. Auto 909 Maple Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 © COPYRIGHT ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC. 2010 Client: Signed: Print Name: Trevor\Axner Project Number: Drawing Date: Sheet: 10.01163 June 2, 2010 S 1 of 3 v 5201 East River Rd Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55421 Tel 763-571-2500 Fax 763 - 571.1168 www.ultelg.com C+1 tb Lae JO CS( . Sess(ov) MEMORANDUM TO: Lino Lakes City Council FROM: Joe Langel, City Attorney DATE: August 10, 2010 RE: Variance Standard — Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka On June 24, 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision that redefines or clarifies the standard to be used when cities review applications for variances. The decision changes a longstanding interpretation of the law by the Court of Appeals and effectively makes it more difficult for a property owner to successfully argue in favor of a variance. It is anticipated that this decision will result in fewer variances being granted. To understand the application of the decision, it is useful to review the facts of the case. A property owner, Liebeler, owns a detached garage that was built in the 1940s. The garage is considered to be a nonconforming structure because it does not meet the current setback requirements. Nevertheless, it is deemed a permissible structure because it existed long before the setback requirements came into effect. The garage has a flat roof that purportedly leaks. Liebeler wants to replace it with a pitched roof, which would not only cure the leaks but also provide a usable living space above the garage. The proposed roof would meet existing height requirements. The rest of the garage would not be enlarged, so the only expansion is upward. Because expansion of a nonconforming structure is not allowed without a variance, Liebeler applied for a variance. Liebeler's neighbor, Krummenacher, objected to the proposed variance (the new roof would block his view). The City Planning Commission approved the variance, finding that there was an undue hardship given the nature of the site (there is no where else the garage can go). Krummenacher appealed to the City Council, which upheld the approval. Krummenacher then brought suit in District Court, which upheld the variance. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the variance. Relying on a decision it issued in 1989, the Court of Appeals held that proving undue hardship simply means that the property owner can show that he or she would like to use the property in a reasonable manner. Expanding the garage upward is reasonable, as it does not violate any other City ordinance. It is not as if Liebeler is trying to reduce the setbacks even further or somehow make the structure even more nonconforming than it already is. The nonconforming setbacks would remain unchanged, while the proposed roof height is allowed by ordinance. Unsatisfied with the Court of Appeals' decision, Krummenacher appealed the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals' hardship standard, which has been used by that court for 20 years, is not consistent with the language in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subdivision 6. That statute states that in order to prove undue hardship, the property owner must show that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. It is not enough that the proposed use is generally reasonable; rather, the variance must be necessary in order to put the property to a reasonable use under conditions allowed by the official controls. The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the City to analyze the facts under the proper standard. Krummenacher will no doubt argue that Liebeler can use the garage without a variance. After all, it has been used as a garage since the 1940s. It is unlikely, therefore, that Liebeler will be able to get the variance. How much of an impact this case will have on the practices of individual cities depends on how the cities historically interpreted the statute. Note that Lino Lakes' zoning ordinance follows the statutory language in terms of setting forth the variance hardship standard: Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2): "'Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls...." City Zoning Ord. § 2, subd. 4(A)(1): "In considering all requests for [a] variance... the City shall make a finding of fact... that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." If Lino Lakes typically follows the literal meaning of the statute and its own ordinance, then the Krummenacher decision may have little impact. If, on the other hand, the City has sometimes allowed variances when they were not necessary in order for the property owner to reasonably use the property, then this decision will necessitate a change in practice. Variances are not to be granted unless the applicant establishes that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use without the variance. In the context of the current issue involving KI Auto, it does not appear that a variance is appropriate. The property has been in use for many years without needing a variance and it can continue to be used in the same manner without a variance. There is, therefore, no hardship as defined in the statute and the City Code. RRM: 144142 • • • WS — Item #6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item #6 Date: August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Marty Asleson Re: Ordinance No. 10 -10, Regulating Discharges into the Stormwater Sewer system of the City of Lino Lakes Background Illicit Discharge control measures is one of the 6 minimum control measure requirements of operators of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm water sewer system (MS4). The City of Lino Lakes is an MS4. Federal regulations define an illicit discharge as "any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater ". Illicit discharges are considered "illicit" because MS4's are not designed to accept, process, or discharge such non - stormwater- wastes. Required of MS4s is an ordinance on non -storm water discharges into the MS4, and appropriate enforcement procedures and actions. The Lino Lakes Environmental Board reviewed a draft Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) ordinance at the June 30`h Environmental Board meeting. Suggested ordinance changes were made and reviewed again at the July 28th Environmental Board meeting. The Environmental Board recommended that the IDDE ordinance move on to the City Council. Requested Council Direction Place on the City Council Agenda for consideration. 1 Attachment(s) 1. Draft ordinance 10 -10, an ordinance regulating discharges into the stormwater sewer system of the City of Lino Lakes. 2. EPA Stormwater Phase II Final Rule; "Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measures. • • • • 1St Reading: Publication: 2 "d Reading: Effective: Council Member moved for adoption of the following ordinance: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 10 -10 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING DISCHARGES INTO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES IIIThe City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby ordains: • Section 1. Chapter 405 of the City Code is hereby established as follows: REGULATION OF DISCHARGES INTO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM § 405.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this subdivision is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources with the city and protect them from adverse effects occasioned by non -storm water discharges into the stormwater system of the city by regulating discharges that would have an adverse and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and environmentally sensitive land. § 405.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP). Erosion and sediment control, water quality, and permanent storm water management practices that are the most effective and practicable means of controlling, preventing, and minimizing the degradation of surface water, including construction - phasing, minimizing the length of time soil areas are exposed, prohibitions, and other management practices published by state or designated area -wide planning agencies. DISCHARGE. Adding, introducing, releasing, leaking, spilling, casting, throwing, emitting any pollutant, or placing any pollutant in a location where it is likely to pollute waters of the state in the city. EROSION. The process by which ground surface is worn away by action of wind, water, ice, or gravity. GROUNDWATER. Water contained below the surface of the earth in the saturated zone including, without limitation, all waters whether under confined, unconfined, or perched conditions, in near surface unconsolidated sediment or regolith, or rock formations deeper underground. MPCA. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4). The system of conveyances (including sidewalks, roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man -made channels, or storm drains) owned and operated by the city and designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water, and which is not used for collecting or conveying sewage. NPDES. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; the program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits under the Clean Water Act ( §§ 301, 318, 402 and 405) and 33 C.F.R. §§ 1317, 1328, 1342 and 1345 authorizing the discharge of pollutants to water of the United States. PERSON. Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, franchise, association or governmental entity. POLLUTANT. Any substance which, when discharged has potential to or does: interfere with state designated water uses; obstruct or cause damage to waters of the state; change water color, odor, or usability as a drinking water source through causes not attributable to natural stream processes affecting surface water or subsurface processes affecting groundwater; add an unnatural surface film on the water; adversely change other chemical, biological, thermal, or physical conditions, in any surface water or stream channel; degrade the quality of ground water; or harm human life, aquatic life, or terrestrial plant and wildlife. POLLUTANT includes, but is not limited to, dredged soil, construction waste,_solid waste, incinerator residue, garbage, wastewater, wastewater sludge, chemical waste, biological materials, radioactive materials, rock, sand, dust, industrial waste, sediment, nutrients, toxic substance, pesticide, herbicide, trace metal, automotive fluid, petroleum -based substance, and oxygen- demanding material. POLLUTE. To discharge pollutants into.waters of the state. • • • • • • POLLUTION. The direct or indirect distribution of pollutants into waters of the state. PROHIBITED CONNECTION. Either of the following: (1) Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows an illegal discharge to enter the storm drain system including any non -storm water discharge including sewage, process wastewater, and wash water and any connections to the storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by an authorized enforcement agency; or (2) Any drain or conveyance connected from a residential, commercial or industrial land use to the storm drain system, which has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by an authorized enforcement agency. STATE. The State of Minnesota. STATE DESIGNATED WATER USES. Uses specified in state water quality standards. STORM SEWER SYSTEM. A conveyance or system of conveyances that is owned and operated by the city or other entity and designated or used for collecting or conveying storm water. STORM WATER. Precipitation runoff, storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and any other surface runoff and drainage as defined under Minn. Rule 7077.0105, subpart 41(b). SURFACE WATERS. All waters of the state other than ground waters, which include ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, tidal and nontidal wetlands, public ditches, tax ditches, and public drainage systems except those designed and used to collect, convey, or dispose of sanitary sewage. UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE. (1) A non -storm water discharge into the storm water system or a natural water, including but not limited to: (a) Debris or other materials such as grass clippings, vegetative materials, tree branches, earth fill, rocks, concrete chunks, metal, other demolition or construction materials, or structures; (b) The disposal or misuse of chemicals or any other materials that would degrade the quality of waters within the system, including, but not limited to chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and the like) or petroleum based products (gasoline, oil, fuels, solvents, paints, and the like); (c) Erosion and sediment originating from a property and deposited onto city streets, private properties or into the storm water conveyance system, including those areas not specifically covered under an approved storm water management plan or storm water permit; and /or (d) Failure to remove sediments transported or tracked onto city streets by vehicles or construction traffic within 24 hours of it being deposited on the street. (2) For the purposes of this section, UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES do not include the following, unless information is available to indicate otherwise: water line flushing; landscape irrigation; diverted stream flows; rising ground water; uncontaminated ground water infiltration; uncontaminated pumped ground water; discharges from potable water sources; foundation drains; air conditioning condensate; irrigation water; springs; water from crawl space pumps; footing drains; lawn watering; individual residential car washing; flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; de- chlorinated swimming pool discharges and street wash water. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) § 405.03 PROHIBITIONS. (1) No person shall throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, or keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left, maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles, or accumulations, in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, business place, or upon any public or private plot of land in the city, so that the same might be or become a pollutant, except in containers, recycling bags, or other lawfully established waste disposal facility. (2) No person shall intentionally dispose of grass, leaves, dirt, or other landscape debris into a water resource buffer, street, road, alley, catch basin, culvert, curb, gutter, inlet, ditch, natural watercourse, wetland, flood control channel, canal, storm drain or any fabricated natural conveyance. (3) No person shall cause any unlawful discharge to enter the municipal storm water system unless such discharge: (a) Consists of non -storm water that is authorized by an NPDES point source permit obtained from the MPCA; or (b) Is associated with fire fighting activities. (4) No person shall use any unlawful connection to intentionally convey non -storm water to the city storm water system. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) • • • • • § 405.04 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. All owners or occupants of property within the city shall comply with the following good housekeeping requirements: (1) No person shall leave, deposit, discharge, dump, or otherwise expose any chemical or septic waste in an area where discharge to streets or the storm drain system may occur. This section shall apply to both actual and potential discharges. (2) No person shall store objects, such as motor vehicle parts, containing grease, oil or other hazardous substances, and unsealed receptacles containing hazardous materials, in areas susceptible to runoff or discharge to a storm water system. (3) No person shall place any machinery or equipment that is to be repaired or maintained in areas susceptible to runoff. Said machinery and equipment shall be placed in a confined area to contain or collect leaks, spills, or discharges without discharge to the storm water system. (4) Debris and residue shall be removed, as follows: (a) Fuel and chemical residue or other types of potentially harmful material, such as animal waste, garbage or batteries, which are located in an area susceptible to runoff, shall be removed as soon as possible and disposed of in an appropriate manner. (b) Household hazardous waste shall be delivered to an approved collection site for disposal. (5) Water from swimming pools shall not be discharged into the storm water system until a minimum of seven days has passed since the addition of chemicals to the water. (6) Runoff of water from residential property shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff of water from the washing down of paved areas in commercial or industrial property is prohibited unless necessary for health or safety purposes and not in violation of any other provisions of the city code. (7) Mobile washing companies (carpet cleaning, mobile vehicle washing, etc.) shall dispose of wastewater to the sanitary sewer. Wastewater shall not be discharged where drainage to streets or the storm sewer system may occur. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) § 405.05 NPDES PERMITS COMPLIANCE. Any person subject to an industrial activity NPDES storm water discharge permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance with said permit may be required in a form acceptable to the city prior to allowing discharges to the storm sewer system. All facilities that have storm water discharges associated with industrial activity which are, or may be, the source of an unlawful discharge shall be required to implement, at their expense, additional structural and nonstructural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the storm sewer system. Such BMPs shall be part of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) § 405.06 PROHIBITED DISCHARGE, ACTION REQUIRED. Not withstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has information of any known or suspected unlawful discharge into the storm sewer system or waters of the state, said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of the release of hazardous materials said person shall immediately notify emergency response agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services. In the event of a release of non - hazardous materials, said person shall notify the city no later than the next business day. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) § 405.07 ENTRY UPON PRIVATE PROPERTY. (1) The city engineer and other duly authorized employees of the city, bearing proper credentials and identification, shall at reasonable times be permitted to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspection, observation, measurement, sampling and testing in connection with the operation of the municipal storm sewer system. Except in emergency situations, no inspection shall occur without the permission of the owner. (2) If the city has been refused access to any part of the premises from which storm water is discharged, and is able to demonstrate probable cause to believe that there may be a violation of this section, or that there is a need to inspect and /or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to verify compliance with this section or any order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall public health, safety, and welfare of the community, the provisions of § 101.14 governing administrative search and seizure warrants shall be followed. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) § 405.08 SUSPENSION OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM ACCESS. (1) Suspension due to unlawful discharges in emergency situations. The city may, without prior notice, suspend storm sewer system discharge access to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent or substantial danger to the environment, or to the health or welfare of • • • • • • persons, or to the storm sewer system or waters of the state. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the city may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the storm sewer system or waters of the state, or to minimize danger to persons. (2) Any person discharging to the storm sewer system in violation of this chapter may have the person's storm sewer system access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an unlawful discharge. A person commits an offense if the person reinstates storm sewer system access to premises terminated pursuant to this section, without the prior approval of the city. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) § 405.09 ENFORCEMENT. (1) Notice of violation. Whenever the city finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this section, the city may order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require without limitation: (a) The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting; (b) The elimination of unlawful connections or discharges; (c) That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and desist; (d) The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; (e) Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; and (f) The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. (2) If abatement of a violation and /or restoration of affected property are required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. Said notice shall further advise that should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline the work will be done by a designated governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator. (3) If the invoice received for abatement and /or restoration is not paid within 30 days, the city may draw the amount of the bill from any financial guarantees the city may hold or may assess the property from which the offense originated. After notice and hearing as provided pursuant to M.S. § 429.061, the City Council may then spread the charges against the property benefitted as a special assessment under M.S. § 429.101 for certification to the county auditor and collection along with the current taxes the following year or in annual installments not exceeding ten as the Council may determine in each case. (Ord. XX -10, passed x -x -xxxx) Section 2. Effective Date This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Jeff Reinert, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2010. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. • • • • &EPA • • Stormwater Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Stormwater Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Stormwater Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post - Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention /Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State - Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1- Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity United States Office of Water EPA 833 -F -00 -007 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 (revised December 2005) Agency Fact Sheet 2.5 Stormwater Phase 11 Final Rule Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure his fact sheet profiles the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination minimum control 1 measure, one of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its stormwater management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. What Is An "Illicit Discharge "? Federal regulations define an illicit discharge as "...any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed entirely of Stormwater...'' with some exceptions. These exceptions include discharges from NPDES - permitted industrial sources and discharges from fire - fighting activities. Illicit discharges (see Table 1) are considered "illicit" because MS4s are not designed to accept, process. or discharge such non - stormwater wastes. Why Are Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Efforts Necessary? Discharges from MS4s often include wastes and wastewater from non - stormwater sources. A study conducted in 1987 in Sacramento. California. found that almost one -half of the water discharged from a local MS4 was not directly attributable to precipitation runoff. A significant portion of these dry weather flows were from illicit and /or inappropriate discharges and connections to the MS4. Table 1 Sources of Illicit Discharges Sanitary wastewater Effluent from septic tanks Car wash wastewaters Improper oil disposal Radiator flushing disposal Laundry wastewaters Spills from roadway accidents Improper disposal of auto and household toxics Illicit discharges enter the system through either direct connections (e.g., wastewater piping either mistakenly or deliberately connected to the storm drains) or indirect connections (e.g., infiltration into the MS4 from cracked sanitary systems. spills collected by drain outlets. or paint or used oil dumped directly into a drain). The result is untreated discharges that contribute high levels of pollutants, including heavy metals, toxics. oil and grease. solvents, nutrients, viruses, and bacteria to receiving waterbodies. Pollutant levels from these illicit discharges have been shown in EPA studies to be high enough to significantly degrade receiving water quality and threaten aquatic. wildlife, and human health. Fact Sheet 2.5 — Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Is Required? Recognizing the adverse effects illicit discharges can have on receiving waters. the Phase II Final Rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement and enforce an illicit discharge detection and elimination program. This program must include the following: ❑ A storm sewer system map. showing the location of all outfalls and the names and location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges from those outfalls; ❑ Through an ordinance, or other regulatory mechanism, a prohibition (to the extent allowable under State, Tribal. or local law) on non - stormwater discharges into the MS4. and appropriate enforcement procedures and actions: ❑ A plan to detect and address non - stormwater discharges. including illegal dumping, into the MS4; ❑ The education of public employees, businesses, and the general public about the hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste; and ❑ The determination of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program actions /activities), and measurable goals are suggested below. Does This Measure Need to Address All Illicit Discharges? No. The illicit discharge detection and elimination program does not need to address the following categories of non - stormwater discharges or flows unless the operator of the regulated small MS4 identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to its MS4: ❑ Water line flushing; ❑ Landscape irrigation; ❑ Diverted stream flows; ❑ Rising ground waters; ❑ Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; ❑ Uncontaminated pumped ground water; ❑ Discharges from potable water sources; ❑ Foundation drains; ❑ Air conditioning condensation; ❑ Irrigation water; ❑ Springs; ❑ Water from crawl space pumps; ❑ Footing drains; ❑ Lawn watering; ❑ Individual residential car washing; ❑ Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; ❑ Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; and ❑ Street wash water. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? The objective of the illicit discharge detection and elimination minimum control measure is to have regulated small MS4 operators gain a thorough awareness of their systems. This awareness allows them to determine the types and sources of illicit discharges entering their system; and establish the legal. technical. and educational means needed to eliminate these discharges. Permittees could meet these objectives in a variety of ways depending on their individual needs and abilities, but some general guidance for each requirement is provided below. The Map The storm sewer system map is meant to demonstrate a basic awareness of the intake and discharge areas of the system. It is needed to help determine the extent of discharged dry weather flows, the possible sources of the dry weather flows, and the particular waterbodies these flows may be affecting. An existing map, such as a topographical map, on which the location of major pipes and outfalls can be clearly presented demonstrates such awareness. EPA recommends collecting all existing information on outfall locations (e.g., review city records. drainage maps, storm drain maps), and then conducting field surveys to verify locations. It probably will be necessary to walk (i.e., wade through small receiving waters or use a boat for larger waters) the streambanks and shorelines for visual observation. More than one trip may be needed to locate all outfalls. Legal Prohibition and Enforcement EPA recognizes that some permittees may have limited authority under State, Tribal or local law to establish and enforce an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism prohibiting illicit discharges. In such a case, the permittee is encouraged to obtain the necessary authority, if possible. The Plan The plan to detect and address illicit discharges is the central component of this minimum control measure. The plan is dependant upon several factors, including the permittee's available resources, size of staff and degree and character of its illicit discharges. As guidance only. the four steps of a recommended plan are outlined below: • • • Fact Sheet 2.5— Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure O Locate Problem Areas EPA recommends that priority areas be identified for detailed screening of the system based on the likelihood of illicit connections (e.g.. areas with older sanitary sewer lines). Methods that can locate problem areas include: visual screening; water sampling from manholes and outfalls during dry weather; the use of infrared and thermal photography. cross - training field staff to detect illicit discharges. and public complaints. O Find the Source Once a problem area or discharge is found. additional efforts usually are necessary to determine the source of the problem. Methods that can find the source of the illicit discharge include: dye- testing buildings in problem areas; dye- or smoke - testing buildings at the time of sale; tracing the discharge upstream in the storm sewer: employing a certification program that shows that buildings have been checked for illicit connections; implementing an inspection program of existing septic systems; and using video to inspect the storm sewers. O Remove /Correct Illicit Connections Once the source is identified. the offending discharger should be notified and directed to correct the problem. Education efforts and working with the discharger can be effective in resolving the problem before taking legal action. O Document Actions Taken As a final step, all actions taken under the plan should be documented. This illustrates that progress is being made to eliminate illicit connections and discharges. Documented actions should be included in annual reports and include information such as: the number of outfalls screened; any complaints received and corrected; the number of discharges and quantities of flow eliminated; and the number of dye or smoke tests conducted. Educational Outreach The Center for Watershed Protection and Robert Pitt (2004) researched the most cost - effective and efficient techniques that can be employed to identify and correct inappropriate discharges. Data from Montgomery County, Maryland, was analyzed and it was determined that staff identify and correct about six inappropriate discharges per year as a result of regular screening. By contrast. over 185 inappropriate discharges are corrected each year in Montgomery County as a direct result of citizen complaints and calls to a storm water compliant hotline. Public education and labeling of outfalls and other storm drain infrastructure is an important element of establishing a successful citizen hotline. Outreach to public employees, businesses. property owners. the general public, and elected officials regarding ways to detect and eliminate illicit discharges is an integral part of this minimum measure. Suggested educational outreach efforts include: Page 3 • Developing informative brochures, and guidances for specific audiences (e.g.. carpet cleaning businesses) and school curricula; • Designing a program to publicize and facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges; • Coordinating volunteers for locating. and visually inspecting, outfalls or to stencil storm drains; and • Initiating recycling programs for commonly dumped wastes, such as motor oil, antifreeze. and pesticides. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals. which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs. should reflect the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore. they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. EPA has developed a Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II MS4s that is designed to help program managers comply with the requirement to develop measurable goals. The guidance presents an approach for MS4 operators to develop measurable goals as part of their stormwater management plan. For example, an MS4 could establish a measurable goal of responding to all complaints received by the citizen complaint hotline within 24 hours to minimize water quality impacts or recurrent dumping. A complaint tracking system could be used to log response and enforcement activity. The educational outreach measurable goals for this minimum control measure could be combined with the measurable goals for the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure (see Fact Sheet 2.3). Sources Center for Watershed Protection and R. Pitt. 2004. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City. MD. and University of Alabama. Birmingham. AL. Fact Sheet 2.5 — Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Maryland Department of the Environment. Water Management Administration. 1997. Dry Weather Flow and Illicit Discharges in Maryland Storm Drain Systems. Baltimore, Maryland. U.S. EPA Office of Water. 1993. Investigation of Inappropriate Pollutant Entries into Storm Drainage Systems: .4 User's Guide. EPA /600/R- 92/238. Washington, D.C. Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 1997. Guidance for Preparing a Program for the Elimination of Illicit Discharges. Wayne County. Michigan. Page 4 For Additional Information Contacts U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management http://www.epa.govinncles/stormwater Phone: 202-564-9545 Your NPDES Permitting Authority. Most States and Territories are authorized to administer the NPDES Program, except the following, for which EPA is the permitting authority: Alaska District of Columbia Idaho Massachusetts New Hampshire New Mexico American Samoa Guam Johnston Atoll Midway and Wake Islands Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico Trust Territories A list of names and telephone numbers for each EPA Region and State is located at http: / /www.epa.gov/ npdes /stormwater (click on "Contacts "). Reference Documents EPA's Stormwater Web Site httn://www.ena.gov/nndes/stormwater • Stormwater Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Stormwater Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) • National Menu of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Phase II • Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase I1 Small MS4s • Stormwater Case Studies • And many others Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments http: / /www.cwp.org/idde verifv.htm • • • • • WS — Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 7 Date: August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Mary Alice Divine Re: Redevelopment Task Force Background At the July 26 council meeting the city council requested that a work session item be added to consider a task force to look at issues regarding nonconforming and blighted properties in the city. There are a number of different reasons why a building and /or property is nonconforming. It could be because of land use, zoning, availability of utilities or structural issues. Staff is looking for direction regarding: • Identification of the issue • Purpose and role of a Redevelopment Task Force • The Composition of the Task Force • The role the city wants to play in addressing the issues of nonconformity In April EDAC reviewed issues regarding planning and redevelopment of sites with nonconforming uses and concluded they had no recommendation to change existing policies and ordinances. While transitioning empty, blighted properties into new redevelopment is difficult in the short term, they concluded that long term redevelopment to higher and better uses has been the city's planning goal. Requested Council Direction (See above) Attachment(s) None 1 • • WS — Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 8 Date: August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Mary Alice Divine Re: Legacy Update Background Earlier this Spring city staff reviewed the status of the Legacy project with the city council and a proposal to Anoka County to purchase the land that was due to be forfeited in July 2010. The goal was to by -pass the extended repurchase process and attempt to get the property back into private ownership in the timeliest manner. The city made the case that the value of the property was essentially the amount equal to the delinquent taxes that the County would have received absent forfeiture. The city also requested that the purchase be paid for as panels were sold to private parties. The County responded that it was unable to follow the process the city requested. The County is required to sell the property for the appraised value. The County does not take into account the assessments attached to the property, and therefore has placed a significantly higher value on the property. The County also does not statutory process that would allow the City to pay the County on an installment method that the city had requested. Alternatively, staff was working with the loan servicer to come to an agreement to sign over the deed to the city before forfeiture. The banks concluded they wanted to be paid for the property and the properties have been forfeited. Since the property is now in the repurchase phase of the process, staff and consultants have considered other options available. Legislation passed this session which now allows a County to sell property for less than the appraised value for the purpose of redevelopment of blighted properties and affordable housing. The consulting attorney 1 believes that a case could be made for this, since a Redevelopment TIF District was created and affordable housing is a part of this incomplete redevelopment. Staff will continue to keep lines of communication open with the banks as well, since there is potential if the market shows signs of recovery that the banks may be willing to exercise their repurchase option. Staff will continue to explore the potential for a public /private partnership while working cooperatively to find a buyer. Another avenue that staff is exploring is special legislation in 2010 that would extend TIF District 1 -10 (Panattoni development) to assist with payments of the bonds. Requested Council Direction None needed at this time. Attachment(s) None 2 • • • • • • WS — Item 9 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item #9 Date: August 11, 2010 To: City Council From: Julie Bartell Re: September Work Session Schedule Background No first Monday of the month council work session was set for September when the 2010 council schedule was established because the first Monday falls on Labor Day. Requested Council Direction If the council wishes to schedule a work session for September, staff requests that the date be determined so that proper notice and staff preparations can occur. Attachment(s) 2010 City Council Meeting Calendar 1 Lino Lakes City Council - 2010 Meeting Calendar = City Council Meeting, 6:30 p.m. (2 "d & 4th Monday), Council Chambers = Council Work Session, 5:30 p.m. (1St Monday), Community Room = Work Session, 5:30 p.m.; Council Meeting, 6:30 p.m. (4th Monday), Council Chambers = Packets for Work Session and /or Council Meeting are distributed January 10 x_1':1 12 13 17 2 31 April Jul Fr Sa 2 3 10 16 17 23 24 30 31 October Fr S 1 8 14 15 16 21 2223 28 29 ' 30 February May August Fr Sa 3 4 5 6 I 7 1213 14 19$20121 22 x"'24! 25 26 27 28 November March • Th Fr E Sa 4 56 11 18 19f20 June September Th Fr 2 3 9 10 11 16117 18 23124[25; 30 5 6 7 12 13 15 19 20 21 26 28 December Th Fr Sa 4 9 10 11 1718 23 24 1 25 30 31 12 13" "141 15 16 19 1 26 • • WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday, August 11, 2010 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Health Care policy (per request of Rafferty & Roeser) 2. Police Department Interim Reorganization (postponed at council mtg of 7- 26 -10) 3. Comprehensive Plan Review 4. Housing Goals, LCA 5. KI Auto - Variance 6. Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination Ordinance 7. Redevelopment Task Force 8. Legacy Update 9. September Work Session Schedule Adjourn http://www.startribune.com/local/north/27230094.html?page=2&c=y StarTribu ne,com Page 1 of 3 Point your to .ite browser to 1 ttp tartribunc L urn Developer's plan: A $200 million NASCAR -ready track in Big Lake A state -of -the -art motorsports track complex, envisioned to attract the biggest names in racing, is being proposed for 400 acres in the Big Lake area. The $200 million facility would be built for 90,000 fans and could expand to more than 150,000, said the developer, International Motorsports Entertainment and Development Corp. of Coon Rapids. The complex would be financed privately by partners whom corporation president Jim Farnum declined to divulge. "We're not asking for a dime" of public money, he said, adding that he hopes to attract funding from Minnesota corporations. Government officials in Big Lake and neighboring Big Lake Township said they are aware of the proposal, but no formal presentations have been made. Also no hearings have been scheduled. Farnum said he expects to go before city and township officials sometime this year. As conceived, the complex would have a - mile -high banked paved oval, a 1 -mile flat paved oval, a quarter -mile drag strip, a 3/8- mile oval dirt track and a 100,000- square- foot exhibition and convention center. Open space, rail line If financing is secured, bureaucratic requirements are met and races lined up. the facility could have its first full season by 2011, said Farnum, adding that the International Motorsports Entertainment and Development Corp. was formed in 2006 for the sole purpose of building this complex. As for the land, situated in Big Lake Township about 40 miles northwest of Minneapolis, Farnum said, "I have a purchase agreement for that already." The Big Lake area was attractive, developers and government officials agree, because of the open space and the Northstar commuter rail line, which will run from Big Lake to Minneapolis and make it easy for fans from the Twin Cities metro area to attend races. The line is scheduled to open by the end of 2009. Farnum, 54, said it's his intent for the complex to attract "at the highest levels possible" drivers in stock, road race, drag racing and open wheel (Indy style). Advertisement Ka e Security System! $850 Value! li -i By http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?1282320402962 8/20/2010 http://www.startribune.com/local/north/27230094.html?page=2&c=y StarTribune,com Page 2 of 3 P &Ir ut {I€ ov_-r t rtnbun} .£tjrn NASCAR spokesman Kerry Tharp, while unfamiliar with the corporation's proposal, said the nation's largest sanctioning body of stock -car racing is always looking for opportunities to run its races in new locations. As an example, Tharp said, the 7/8 -mile oval in Newton, Iowa, will get its first NASCAR national touring event in 2009. Tom Ryan, owner of Elko Speedway for the past eight years, said he was approached to buy shares in the project and declined. "I don't think it's viable," said Ryan, whose track hosts races in NASCAR's fifth- ranked series. "I don't know what kind of races they would ever expect to get there. ... I don't think there is the interest [in this part of the country] to support a race track for real hard -core racing." Economy kills venture In 1991, Farnum founded Pro Motorsports out of his Brooklyn Park basement. The racing merchandise business grew into a multimillion- dollar venture that also sponsored racers and counted a spot in the Mall of America among its 13 stores in the Midwest. Swings in the economy roiled the business, and it eventually filed for Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy last fall. Even though the complex would be in Big Lake Township, the neighboring city of Big Lake would most likely provide sewer and water services, said City Planner Katie Larsen. "This project is in such infancy," she said. "There's been no formal application with the city. ... We've seen ideas, concepts." Larsen said the city has had "some internal meetings" with the developers and anticipates "we're going to have numerous public hearings." Traffic, noise are key issues The two leading issues to address, Larsen said, "right off the bat are traffic and noise. How are we going to get people there ?" Township Chairman Jim Sanford said, "We have to get our public hearing with our residents" as part of the approval process. "They haven't presented anything to us [including] if they're going to do something about the traffic and the noise." Larsen said a complex of this magnitude would redefine the Big Lake area and give it a Advertisement F rin http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?1282320402962 D By 8/20/2010 http://www.startribune.com/local/north/27230094.html?page=2&c=y StarTribu necom Page 3 of 3 national profile. "If you were to tell me that my Big Lake would become associated with Daytona 500, I would tip over," she said. Paul Walsh • 612- 673 -4482 Advertisement 11;0071 A A Jrl' OMAHA STEAKS 91.7 SAVE g 64% Plus, get L Gifts To Order: ,+tn or coil -877-586-4455 Print Powered E. By http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?1282320402962 8/20/2010 1.. •THER EVENT otorsports related events 0) a) u) .c 0 0 0 0 v .O v 0 v Q U '0 v .> w U 13 a C:_13 v > co U c -o E E. cn 412 > CO a) c u) v to c c a) = Ca O. O O M co E 0 co 0 L.... u) u) ci) "4= E = a -" U > v c 0 ....cpccDoccou, .15 in .2 c o E " " L.. co al O U '> �� . > co -}-, O X X X X 0 2 < 6 a3<o>- 2 0 x x x x �r� 011114:11Mank • i X X X X X X w o a) • • • 1 immill■EMM■ Accommodate Top Tier Motorsports Venues Columbus 1 S -I- 4 L)alt. a 6 Wk. S-e s s (ovN (2:3 J2.LijO E RDA Vir 140 53 C w I- - uJ z 1 AP 0 DR 153 77TH ST E o: a MAIN ST 1 The appropriate design of CSAH 34 will be determined by a special study being conducted by the city and county (currently underway). Center vi J_ U.' cowry V, 84 rc C`1 HOLLY DR E 62ND S 84 Shore levy Future Roadway System (2030) City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan ® Existing Full Access Interchange Recommended Lanes* Existing Partial Access Interchange Six -Lane Divided Four -Lane Divided Two -Lane Divided North Oaks N 4,000 0 4,000 Feet Lakes School Open Space/ City Parks County Parks Lino Lakes City Limits Two -Lane * For Major and Minor Collectors, Minor Arterials and Principal Arterials except I-35W and 1.35E. See "Year 2030 System Needs" of the Transportation Plan for further discussion. H ST E fwp Figure 6-12 LN(l KES July 22, 2009 Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. J:\ Maps \5833 nxd\ FinalFgures \Fgure_612_2030_1anes.mxd k Legend I -35E / CSAH 14 Intersection Alignment — Street Options wetlands 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN F-1 50 foot Wetland Buffer 66 foot Pipeline Easement s al A • o CD ~• bp 5-,' 0=7:' ,i, ,, ,4 , (:) . _ • H O AS 8 o CA o 2 o o 0 a 5 0 O o d CD a y o rD b 5 d , o o t-Ti ›- rit 2 s?.,D..,—< ,(--) d CD cA pa cA n !l.0•al4IbIo41!l ∎•■•14aaAI lb eft OA RVI Years of Groundwork and Research x Secured 400 plus acres close to the Twin Cities (City of Columbus and Lino Lakes) • Development for speedway as well as commercial sites x Through research we discovered: • An underserved motorsports market • Facility will be fully sustained by existing race market • Facility will capitalize on need for outdoor facility for non - motorsports events �.wr+.. `rtYMN�t gy SNIPERS') H o n n o crq O C a o - CD cA cn cn — CD n cr 071 CD ti CZ- cn Of-r CD v, 0 •-• . O cn cn r-r- • 0-•' C 0 C 0 0 - CD CD • ~ • cn - -. A: n • n O r-r• O • n CA o SID • 0 • n 0 n• cn SID N r-r 0 0 • H CD CD � n � cn cn a) 0 Q 0. 0 a) E a. a) U) 1 1 �. .•,$ I• f� tot t • • "Depending entirely on NASCAR's own plans for expansion, we would rate this market as highly attractive in terms of its ability to sell tickets, produce sponsor and advertising support, develop race sponsorships and generally produce excellent results. A number of area brands have supported NASCAR racing for many years." OPPORTUNITY This facility will enhance value for stakeholders and the State of MN: x provide entertainment and services to large consumer base of motorsports enthusiasts x provide entertainment and services to non - motorsports event participants x provide advertising services to the business community x promote Minnesota nationally /internationally as a tourism destination x bring revenue back to Minnesota from surrounding states NIP tom,. c 1-t• o crq 0 fD CD 4 E. C Cr 0 o E 0 E o Cig cA 0 • CD cA CD cA 0 CD CHT 0 CD CD 0 CD 0 0 o �. 0 CD • CD ■—•• cD cn cip d 0 0 0 c e c� 0 N vn vi O r—' p _ • cv 75 O .so 7E E O� O O ,9 • 0 O 0 -5 0 — ?c�ri •� cd ice+-' V] • 0 CU U 0.4 r.1 'd 0 � O C ° ...• o v , 0 a x.'5 -b .� .� a o �, a, a o Ct c o cCI V w N Z N cl;-• cipo ..0 E-4 c+9 --45-e .g. E-4 x x x A 0 m tr. seBeA se, .1, I. uelO supoe, -1,z sIlodeuelpul "01. aanoa 'OZ A4l3 sesue}l •g co 3 3 5 yoeas euo}ICea (uapl (uo ;ue.aog) ou000d '91• (lomsm's) sam3 1.u. /alitnxouyl •5 t, 1-11-10M 'Id - sellea '£ 14. Birmingham (Talladega) IV • r 3• o F.) (I) U2 o CO • 12" 0 0 - rt vq. 0 puoLug3R1 'EL 043011e43 71, , t z 0 0 v- Dallas- Ft. Worth cqj 3. San Francisco (Sonoma) 12. Milwaukee 4. Detroit (Bell Isle) 13. Richmond (Homestead) 2 It 6. Tampa- St. Petersburg Des Moines (IA Speedway) Watkins Glen itiest market G) IMP 7) 4 0 E Iu 4' 0 lija. a) 2 0 (ii 'uoslpew) slnol '3S a z ii n m ° o co 4POM '3d (E Los Angeles (Pomona)- two races (rN `uMoa4sllfiu3) sl.ioA MON 135 miles from Minneapolis) 3 E. 0 d 0 isT su c C 3 a c 04;10 ped) NW 'piaule.i8 'ZZ Vd `Bulpem ld `alllnsauleO 'OZ S)4 `e]ledol Bristol- John City- Kingsport, TN (HO `meniuoN) opelo j puounionl '94 slgdweJ 'S I, seoea onn4 - seliaA sel sllodeuelpul • • c; Accommodate Top Tier Motorsports Venues up 0 N a) > , N a) a,o 0 N .a U ''d Cl.) Ct b E c) cA 0 O Ov 0 U • .-r et0C4 CA +6 a, •- • 0 v� X x x 0 x x x x x x o o 0 o o CD o 0 0 c o ° ° © AD O cn �• O P CD O c. CCD A CD elD CD v' C 0 0 • cn z • Average 50,000 attendance to a Supercross event pup- a0lis lsanui sPIJoM — Ns silodruuipui Over 1.9M unique web visits last 30 days Average 90,000 attendance per event 0. 0 N .-f rn 1 O. a) O CD 0 N N (O O o CO P) CD CD O CO CD O -5 CD w CO O cn r+ 3 0 Cn e-I- CD CD 0 CD Cn 0 CD 0 0 O O r,. CD O O CD i MI= o a.. c..1 pi .... as E =. lc! o o = 12 = = ea = co aa = cea CO CD = = 0 CC 0 a s= E im = is 0 V3 mew MI = U3 = 0 = B INIII IMP NMI CD CC 1■ MI a CID EMI = CM Ca CIS ISID 1 CD C%1 *Ni CO 0 0 = C11 CZ C 4 a= 0 .0 0 = = CO CIS im 0 0 0 E go co = 60 o ea Id . C%1 CO V3 MI = CC Mil 1 02 0 0 am LO a CO .— E dowl ▪ a/ = 0 CO ACI M El CA low IP — Ci7 31 CD MINI O E �. aim y won _. - co = -. �. 3 O O C 0.•, a a co, =I C _ CC CD E O y '"" O C o 1 _ = al CD _'© 3 ,B so 0 CD ao • O o o _, CD CD 0 O CA Il . CID 'MUM VENN Mew am AO CD CD COD pwo C C1 CO/1 O CD y CD CO) C CD CD CCD CD CD lom owe O CD Cl� a 0 CD 31 El Ca Ion CC O O O CD or CD a O O O CPO a CD O. — -5 a). c6 1E N— 2 >, tc_ �•� ° c� _ °- c'o mq o 0, n e.:r6 C C U > O R3 ti •= p -�-' •— O �•— i C O - o E 0 p O O�' �- V V) _ OI` 0U = • 0 -0 0 m -a o E EN..vo 2) 0 ii- >N6?- so sp ce) >+ I w O u) 2 0 (!) C --' N CO p .0 I� ,0 O -p 'coE�� ca NSW• —%v�>+ mEo2oo, L_�oioc� ENO " = O v � •° CO d°- (i) Cn (1) c\I c ""' r. c (t) cn (% c 0 �W c W e g Lr) Lo o o 0. -coo �(0 O O as NI' — .2 Np u) NNOO� �� ��'��p 0 E t _ Ica c��c • c) 7.-E .2 7/5 = (13 w LE (I) 12 = c.) cn to 9 --c2 t co o a co cam � E .c O O . - ca 2Ei'w E 0.o F- ca 0UNE \sJeeys /uewwnsppe4e°e21 aaa 1S03 103fO1:id 1V101 9LE'LS8`LE4 $ M co tR 4R 0( N 1)1 ul 0)) N A (D N 6900069 64 N W A Ol N (T W N N 01 (D V A Ol W 010)0) O N N V O O J V W J 0) V J N 0+0000 (7 O) 0 0 N a c) O 0 y m 7.1 0 O g d W ry 0 N 7 Mw,a • §`°3a Q— .4 O. m 01 0) •N. x D 0 02 3 O — N O 0 m N iF N W W EA 69 Hi a0 0 -i 0 69 01 60 69 O 00 O A J CT V O 0) ((3 0) 0 0) N 0 N A J O O V + W A+ N 00) IeAO eIIW 8/S 45 W tD A 0 0 n (0 N N ■ j 01 + O) + N - 00 + 0 j 01 OJ j W O A N A O V 00 O (0 N O lo N N W O 00 W N 0i A 01 O A 20 N 0) A 0 3 N EA 69 Vi EA EA N A + + + O +A 0) + +W A (D W N m+ N N N 00 N N A (001 J 0D (0 0... J N N (O W CD (O -4 M A W O ++ A W W+ A N 00 A N O W 00 W O A+ A N W 0-43-0(0 O) 6) + m V A Q) 0 A 1 1 W O .P J O J N A In A Ja W (0 (0 ( 0 (0 .1 0 ) " ) W.8 O 0) Cr, ? A O N 0 J 0 0 A J 0 J W 00 J J + V A V V J 0 0 + J OO 0 O W+ V V O 01 J V + 0) 0) A O 00 00 A O 00 (0 O1 (0 ,WW-4+0 O + 01 O N 0) J (001 + O N (0 N j W N W - + N Co O - N+ N 01 J N N+ j W + N W A W N A W A 0) 01 (0 00 + 0) + 01 0 0 0 (O 0 0 m N N + 01 0) A W N+ (0 N N+ J+ A J (D A (O A CO + 00 N J A m N N W W O) J O � 0 01 n 0 M $m o N = 3 S C /p � am O0, A m a ID sal.ITsnpul slaelod< Minnesota companies with "Associated Racing Sponsor" status also include: *slllW leaauaD< "Op s,aalaneal Ined•1S< 'OD Dleso[N< :Dui dnoaD glieaH paliun< *•daop TaSiel< c @ j 0 g apIMplaoM uosulgoa HJ< c m 03 7 c IePueul I qua /uJq j < *DUI Ang lsag< saulla!V eliaa / }saMgJON< sa)Iel 0 puel< w , gDuH -gSeN< DluoalpaW< m E 7 o al = % / 0 - - .-4. m 0 m 0. 0 \ - a) -h 3 3 - 5- 2 7 3= 3 U 3 = 7 ƒ a m n.5 c k« = 0 m ® / / ƒ 7a - = 2 03 @ CL g 0 = m § C -3 a) 3 �_ m- 3 us m 7 § \ ? o 7 j Cu } 0 \ a) _ 0- M- -0 0 = 0 0- 7 ] _ m \ = a) _ 5. 0 M - 5 m _\ § § j / R / k % 2 m o a 5' ƒ ° 0 / n m 2 0 3 3 c Q < a) Q in » 7 ® cu 0 ƒ -. \ ] 2 m- 0 c % m R 7 VI � / 0 rt in -h § 2 a M in ° X ? D- 0 0_ 0_^ 03 2 $ I 3 0. = C ƒ ƒ 0 0 o Q 7 c a) in 0 � \ 0 -p 0 ƒ ƒ in a 0 % in S 0 On 0 vi (1) 2 / 3 § _ 7 0 0- § 3 ( = C ,-1- •( *) saosuods paleiaa -area O O r� y�l E cp O 0 re EL '1) tz 42. c O O CO 0 Leading motorsports marketing company x Specializing in incentive, loyalty and promotions x NASCAR licensee x Minneapolis based QnCOr.INC LU