The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/01/2006 Council Packet• • WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday May 1, 2006 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 5:30 1. Regular Agenda Items 6:00 2. Heron Task Force Update 3. Blue Heron Days Update, Chad Wagner 4. Storm Water Utility Update 5. Pomps Tire Project Update to follow 6. Retreat Issues Update a. Communications Plan to follow b. Financial Analysis Progress 7. I -35W Interchange /Lake Drive Improvements 8. 21St Avenue Street Extension (JPA with Centerville) 9. Miller's Crossroads Shopping Center - Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Drive- Through Facility and Restaurant Outdoor Dining Facilities (Tabled by City Council action of 4/24/06) 10. Charter Commission Correspondence 11. City Hall Facility Security, Access 12. Adjourn PAGE 1 • • • WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Marty Asleson Date: May 1, 2006 Re: Heron Rookery/Peltier Island Update WS-2 The Peltier Lake Heron Rookery has been a focus of study since June 14, 2000 when it was discovered that the Herons had abandoned nests on the island. At that time the Heron colony was considered the second largest colony in the Metropolitan area. A task force was formed to investigate reasons for nest abandonment. Several hypotheses for abandonment were listed and the task force set out to investigate causes including: disturbance/human influence, predation, and loss of habitat. A Slow No Wake Ordinance was passed jointly with the City of Centerville on March 25th, 2002. The purpose of this ordinance was to minimize human disturbance to adjacent nesting birds and the shallow, resource - sensitive lake area around the island. On May 10th of 2004, the Lino Lakes City Council amended the Slow No Wake Ordinance to repeal a Sunset Clause written into the ordinance. The Heron Task Force meets on a regular basis to discuss the Heron issue and continue investigation into Heron nest abandonment. Council periodically has seen information on the Herons in the news media, DNR, University of Minnesota, and City Publications. The purpose of this update is to report to the Council findings of the Heron Task Force. In addition to myself, Jeff Perry, Glen Fuchs, Scott Noland from Anoka County parks and Andy Von Duyke from the University of Minnesota will be at the meeting. • Summary Report Management Activities for the Peltier Island heronry during the 2004 and 2005 Field Seasons Prepared by: Submitted to: Mafelr6., 2006 Andrew Von Duyke Conservation Biology Graduate Program University of Minnesota 180 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 vond0024(aumn. edu 612 - 624 -1987 (phone) 612 -625 -5299 (fax) Lino Lakes City Council Lino Lakes City Hall, 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN. 55014 Introduction Peltier Island, formerly the second largest colonial waterbird colony in the Minneapolis /St. Paul metropolitan area, reached an estimated maximum size of 1,149 active nests in 1996. Beginning in the year 2000, local residents noticed the apparent abandonment of the Peltier Island colony long before chicks would normally have fledged. Ground survey work confirmed that the colony had experienced a complete loss of recruitment. This pattern continued annually, coinciding with a steep decline in the number of active nests within the colony (Figure 1). 1400 1200 1000 800 Z 600 Estimated active nests at Peltier Island • No abandonment • Abandonment i 400 200 - j I i 0 5 Year • Figure 1: Annual estimated colony size at the Peltier Island heronry (MN -DNR 2004). These data are based upon winter nest counts. The colony reached its maximum size in 1996 with a nest count of 1,149. The number of active nests in 2004 was estimated at 186 and in 2005 at 25 -30. Upon the urging of local residents, the recommendation of Peltier Island Heron Task Force, and with funding from the Minnesota State Wildlife Grant, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Anoka County, a study was initiated to determine the cause(s) of abandonment and to recommend management measures geared toward preserving the Peltier Island colony. To facilitate this study, Dr. Francie Cuthbert of the University of Minnesota Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology was retained as a consultant. Andrew Von Duyke, a University of Minnesota graduate student was also hired by Anoka County to monitor the Peltier Lake colony and other metro area colonies. • • • Brief background on Great Blue Herons Great Blue Herons (Ardea Herodias) are the largest North American heron and are widely distributed. In Minnesota, Great Blue Herons return each spring about March 17th and lay eggs by about April lst. Chicks typically hatch around May 1st. Clutch size ranges from two to five eggs. Fledging occurs around July 4th. Wild Great Blue Herons can live up to 20 years. Their diet consists primarily of fish, but they will opportunistically take other prey including small birds, rodents, amphibians, and invertebrates. Visual hunters, Great Blue Herons usually hunt by slowly walking or wading in order to stalk their prey. They may also stand motionless and wait for prey. Similar to other heron species, Great Blue Herons occasionally plunge dive for fish in deep water (Kelly et al. 2003, Hawkins 2003). For the most part, Great Blue Herons are diurnal hunters, but on occasion will forage nocturnally (Butler 1992). Great Blue Herons are shy and easily disturbed. As such, they prefer nesting in remote and inaccessible locations. These locations typically include islands, wetlands, or riparian zones. Within this habitat, their preferred nesting locations are situated within the uppermost canopy of mature hardwood forests (Figure 2). Given their inaccessible nest locations and timid nature, monitoring heron colonies is not only logistically difficult, but also risky for the health of the colony. Disturbance within the colony can cause abandonment early on in courtship /nesting and, later on, may cause attending adults to leave the nest long enough to render eggs /chicks vulnerable to exposure or predation. Figure 2: A climber installs cameras in the crown of a Black Ash on Peltier Island. Camera height was estimated to be 75 feet. Cameras installed at Pig's Eye Lake were 100 feet high. 3 Methodology Video surveillance technology was utilized to monitor heron nesting activity. The primary advantage to this approach is the ability to collect continuous data while minimizing the risk of human disturbance. In addition to Peltier Island, the colony at Pig's Eye Lake (St. Paul, MN) was also monitored for use as a control. Comparisons between the study colony and the control colony offer valuable insights into potential cause(s) for colony desertion. Table 1 shows the locations and quantities of cameras deployed in each field season. Cameras were installed between May 4, 2004 and May 12, 2004. Batteries were replaced every two days and total time per replacement was about 10 minutes. Cameras were clustered within trees in order to capture regional disturbance events. Figure 3 shows the typical setup for video cameras during this study. Year Colony Location Total # cameras used Cameras per tree 2004 Peltier Island 8 4 cameras per tree Pig's Eye Lake 4 4 cameras per tree 2005 Peltier Island 14 1 camera per tree Table 1: Locations and quantities of cameras deployed in each feld season. Figure 3: Typical video surveillance camera setup used to monitor Great Blue Heron nesting activity at the Peltier Island and Pig's Eye Lake colonies. Note: multiple cameras in a single tree were used to capture regional disturbance events. 4 • • • • • • Figure 4: Video evidence from 2004 suggested that mammalian predation played an important role in the status of the Peltier Island colony. In January, 2005, metal flashing (36" wide) was wrapped around all trees with nests or which could provide easy access to the canopy by predators (Hjertaas 1982). In response to 2004 video data, metal flashing was wrapped around the trunks of all trees containing nests or any tree determined to provide easy access by mammalian predators to the forest canopy near the active parts of the colony. The width of the flashing was 36" and it was held to the tree with 2.5" screws (Figure 4). Flashing was either painted gray or factory painted brown. Throughout the season, along with nesting activity, the status of the flashing was monitored. And finally, again in response to 2004 video data, local raccoons (Procyon lotor) were live captured and fitted with radio collars (Figure 5). A total of six raccoons were collared in the first week of March, 2005. Radio telemetry locations were taken 2 -5 times per week throughout the heron nesting season and into the fall up until they denned up for the winter. 5 Summary of results Figure 5: A total of 6 raccoons were radio - collared. Five of these were females and all animals were captured on Peltier Island. Locations of all animals were monitored throughout 2005. 2004 Nesting Season The Pig's Eye Lake colony, largest in the Minneapolis /St. Paul metropolitan area, thrived throughout the 2004 nesting season. However, Peltier Island's population of about 150 nests rapidly declined between May 25, 2004 and June 15, 2004 when it ultimately failed. Note: early signs of abandonment were documented at two separate times: 1. May 25, 2004: Aerial observers noticed many empty nests on the periphery of the colony. 2. May 26, 2004: Attempted to install cameras in a second tree at Peltier Island. The originally scouted tree, which had been determined to be active and appropriate for camera installation, was empty. Further scouting showed that most trees in the vicinity, while not completely abandoned, had fewer active nests than previously seen. Table 2 summarizes the difference in nest and chick survival between the Peltier Island and Pig's Eye Lake colonies. Colony # Nests Monitored # Chicks Monitored # Chicks Surviving to Fledge Peltier Island 8 13 0 Pig's Eye Lake 5 8 8 Table 2: Comparison of Great Blue Heron chick survivorship between the Peltier Island and Pig's Eye Lake colonies. 6 • Video - surveillance 2004 — Pig's Eye Lake colony: A total of five nests were monitored at Pig's Eye Lake in 2004. One nest never produced young despite the best efforts of the adults and was abandoned by May 27, 2004. However, four other nests, each containing two chicks managed to fledge all eight chicks. Video data are still being quantified and analyzed. Video - surveillance 2004 — Peltier Island colony: A total of eight nests were monitored at Peltier Island. Of these nests, one had a camera malfunction. A second nest failed to produce young despite parental effort. Of the remaining six nests under video surveillance, all failed to produce young. Furthermore, all of these remaining nests were raided by raccoons (Procyon lotor). Video data suggested that adults, when present, were very reluctant to defend chicks from raccoons. For example, an adult lingered nearby on screen while a raccoon fed on the carcass of a chick for several minutes. Eventually, the adult heron attacked and drove away the raccoon. Raccoon raids occurred at various times throughout the day and night. Nests were raided multiple times, either the same day or on consecutive days. Verification that multiple raccoons actively hunted within the colony occurred when two cameras simultaneously recorded raccoon raids in the same tree (Figure 6). Figure 6: Channels 1 and 3 show two raccoons simultaneously raiding two separate heron nests in the same tree. Note that the time is 9:24 PM on June 9, 2004. Ground surveys 2004 — Peltier Island colony: Other forms of mortality were also documented. Figure 7 shows a four week old chick that fell, was knocked, or blown from its nest. Mortality from unknown causes (Figure 8) was also evident. Sibling aggression is thought be the cause of death of a nine week old chick at Pig's Eye Lake (Figure 9). Also, predation was not solely attributed to raccoons. On May 26, 2004 while installing a second set of cameras at Peltier Island, a young Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) was flushed from a nest. Examination of the nest contents (Figure 10) confirmed that a family of Great Horned Owls had been preying upon the young herons. Another owlet was spotted on June 8, 2004; again in the presence of depredated Great Blue Herons (Figure 11). 8 • • Figure 7: This four week old chick fell, was blown, or knocked from its nest. Unlike owls, heron chicks that fall to the ground are not cared for by the parents, ultimately dying of starvation or depredation. Figure 8: This photo, taken through a spotting scope, shows a dead five week old chick. The inaccessibility of nests in a colony makes it very difficult to speculate on causes of death when the carcass remains in the nest. • Figure 9: This nine week old chick had injuries consistent with those inflicted by another heron. Like many bird species, sibling aggression in Great Blue Herons is a well documented cause of mortality (Mock 1985, Jakubas 2004). Figure 10: Figure 11: Among the contents of a Great Horned Owl nest were the This young Great Horned Owl, observed through a remains of at least two Great Blue Heron chicks. spotting scope, had remains of Great Blue Heron chicks scattered at its feet and beneath its perch. 10 • • • 2005 Nesting Season During the 2005 field season, Peltier Island was the only colony monitored. Predator deterrents (metal flashing) had been installed on trees within the colony in response to observed raccoon predation in 2004. Efforts were made to increase the sample size by modifying the pattern of camera placement. An additional goal for video surveillance was to assess the performance of metal flashing as a deterrent to mammalian predators in a tree nesting heron colony. Unfortunately, the number of returning herons in 2005 fell approximately 80% below the 2004 population resulting in only about 30 active nests. The greatly reduced colony size placed major limitations on appropriate camera placement. Furthermore, a plan to experimentally manipulate the predator deterrents was abandoned in the interest of protecting as many nests as possible. Figure 12: A juvenile Great Blue Heron forages in the north eastern section of Peltier Lake. This is one of four chicks known to have fledged from the Peltier Island colony during the 2005 nesting season. The Peltier Island colony did experience substantial chick loss during the 2005 season. Predation by raccoons, American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Great Horned Owls is thought to have occurred. Two thunderstorms may have accounted for the loss of two chicks. Sibling aggression was confirmed to have accounted for the loss of a large, nearly fledged chick. And finally, mortality due to uncertain causes was also documented. Despite the large number of failed nests, a total of four chicks, from three nests situated in two trees are known to have fledged. These chicks were observed foraging along the shoreline of Peltier Lake during the month of July (Figure 12). This marks the first documented recruitment from the Peltier Island colony since 2003 or possibly 2000. 11 Video - surveillance 2005 — Peltier Island colony: As already mentioned, the substantially smaller colony size placed restrictions on where and how cameras were to be installed. Furthermore, the process of installing cameras into individual trees, rather than clustered in a single tree, necessitated a longer period of disturbance. Video evidence suggests that of the 14 nests monitored, four may have suffered negatively as a result of human disturbance; most likely from exposure of the eggs while the parents were off the nest. The primary compromise to video surveillance, due to the small colony size, was the need for longer than optimal video shot distances. Ideally, a camera would be situated within 10 -15 feet of a nest. Given the configuration of the landscape, the orientation of occupied nests, and the structure of the surrounding trees, shots exceeding 30 feet were necessary. Although high focal length lenses were used, the video situation was suboptimal. Big lenses require more light than smaller lenses; this decreased camera sensitivity. Tree motion was greatly amplified. And, more foliage obstructed the view of the camera. Despite these compromises, some camera evidence suggested that raccoon predation had occurred; though no direct evidence was collected. Note: a large amount of video data remain to be reviewed. Tree flashing survey 2005 — Peltier Island colony: Overall, the performance of the flashing as implemented was disappointing. Attempted climbs by raccoons were documented by scratches in the painted flashing. Table 3 summarizes the results of a survey of 128 flashed trees. Total # flashed trees surveyed # surveyed trees with raccoon scratches % of total with raccoon scratches # of trees breeched by raccoons % of scratched trees breeched by raccoons % of total # of flashed trees breeched by raccoons 128 45 35% 28 62% 22% Table 3: This summary of a survey of flashed trees at Peltier Island heronry shows that raccoons were able to cross the flashing a majority of the time. Not shown is the nest activity of the trees with breeched flashing or near those with breeched flashing. 12 • • • The metal flashing was shown to be effective but only under a narrow range of optimal conditions. Factors such as: avian predators, understory growth, tree configuration, and blowdowns all impacted the efficacy of this methodology. As shown in Figure 13 and 14, metal flashing does not deter avian predators. Analysis of the scratch patterns (Figure 15) revealed that the rapidly growing understory may also have aided raccoons and opossum in breaching the flashing (Coulter 1995). Tree shape /configuration is also important to flashing efficacy. For example, the active part of the colony is dominated by American Basswood (Tilia Americana) which is prone to grow in clusters. These clusters, if close enough, can also facilitate breaching the flashing. And finally, several large trees and many smaller limbs were blown down over the course of the 2005 season. The damage inflicted upon the flashing potentially opened up routes to the canopy, thus increasing the likelihood of predation. Installation and maintenance also required a large amount of labor. 13 Figure 13: The hole in this Great Blue Heron eggshell was pecked by an avian predator; most likely an American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Figure 14: This video screen shot shows an adult Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) perched upon an abandoned Great Blue Heron nest. Video evidence suggested that this nest was raided by a raccoon. The owl's use of this platform was recorded numerous times. The pattern of disappearance of nearby heron chicks may be indicative of owl predation. Figure 15: Multiple adjacent stems on this American Basswood (Tilia Americana) may have facilitated climbing by a raccoon. The large arrows show a pattern of scratches m the painted flashing that reveal the path taken past this guard. Raccoon radio - telemetry 2005 — Peltier Island colony: Radio telemetry of local raccoons proved to be very informative. These animals were captured and collared in early March of 2005. Radio tracking proceed immediately with 2 -5 locations taken per week. Overall 14 different den locations were located on the island. About one week after being collared, all marked animals left the island and spent the early spring on the eastern shore of Peltier Lake. This section of lakeshore is predominantly urban residential neighborhood. In the first week of April, 2005, just before ice -out and close to the time the females were to give birth, all collared females returned to Peltier Island. Scat samples taken from the island at this time revealed a large amount of bird seed, most likely from suburban bird feeders along the mainland. The females stayed on Peltier Island until after July 4th and then began crossing back and forth to and from the mainland. This pattern eventually stopped when the females again spent the majority of their time on the eastern lakeshore. In late fall, several of the females returned to den on the island. It should be noted that an ongoing mark/recapture program for raccoons was being undertaken on Peltier Island throughout the 2005 season as well. A grand total of 11 raccoons were captured and three dead raccoons found. Preliminary analysis suggests a relatively low density of raccoons residing on the island which is consistent with the low availability of food (other than heron chicks). However, seasonal movement and the absence of territoriality in raccoons lends a high degree of uncertainty to this estimate. 14 • • • • Discussion Despite substantial chick loss in 2005, cameras failed to directly show raccoon predation. Evidence on the ground and indirect video evidence suggest that raccoons did manage to kill at least a few chicks; which in a colony of 30 nests is still a sizeable percentage. Chick remains found on the ground were clearly eaten by raccoons but may have been scavenged once a chick fell from the nest. Video evidence from the 2004 nesting season suggested that once raccoons identified a vulnerable tree, they would methodically return until all nests in the tree had been raided resulting in the loss of all chicks. Usually, these raids would occur in rapid succession. During the 2005 season, this pattern of loss was seen in some trees but not in others. Though the relative lack of raccoon activity shown on video suggested that the flashing may have been marginally effective, high rates of nest failure still occurred in trees flashed with sheet metal. Aside from the relatively poor quality of video shots available over the 2005 season, it is also plausible that other causes of chick mortality played a more important role in 2005. Avian predators may have had a proportionately greater impact during the 2005 season. Great Horned Owls, a known predator of Great Blue Herons, were present and active at the Peltier Island colony in 2005. American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), also well documented predators, particularly of eggs, were common in the area. The relative importance of owls and crows upon heron mortality is not currently known. Also noteworthy is the presence of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the area. Though in Minnesota there are no documented cases of eagles preying upon herons, there is ample literature on this phenomenon occurring in the Pacific Northwest. Obviously, metal flashed tree trunks would not impact the activities of these predators. Other important factors include human disturbance and random chance. As the colony size shrinks, the relative importance of random chance (stochastic events) becomes greater. Thunderstorms, siblicidal aggression, and accidents are all examples. This is also true with human disturbance due to the proportionately larger "footprint" caused by their presence. Further Action Protecting important trees on Peltier Island with metal flashing likely contributed to the small amount of recruitment during the 2005 season. Given the lessons learned, adjustments and modifications to improve the performance of the flashing can be done relatively easily. These modifications include: raising the flashing in areas where tree trunks are within 12" of each other; raising flashing above the level of the understory; adding more flashing to angled trunks; and selective thinning of suckers and other understory plants that may compromise the integrity of the flashing. Also, addition of flashing to selected trees which were not previously flashed will decrease available routes into the forest canopy. As such, a crew is continuing to make these adjustments to the flashing in anticipation of the herons' return. Raccoons have been shown to be remarkably adaptive and motivated when foraging. Historically, raccoon removal campaigns have been largely ineffective. In order to make a small dent in a population, numbers in excess of the maximum sustainable yield must be removed; a number amounting to roughly 50% of the local population. And, given their broadly overlapping territories (Zeveloff 2002), removal would by necessity have to be an ongoing effort. Exacerbating this is the urbanization of the local landscape. Raccoons typically thrive in human dominated landscapes where they can achieve substantially higher population densities than in rural landscapes. As such, trapping and removal with the goal of decreasing the local raccoon population is not recommended. However, nest raiding behavior does not appear to be limiting to other metro area heronries, which may suggest that at Peltier Island this behavior is culturally transmitted from generation to generation. With this in mind, a small scale focused campaign of trapping is currently being conducted. If, over a period of a few seasons, this cultural behavior is trapped out or at least minimized, the Peltier Island colony may have time to recover. Finally, ongoing local and regional monitoring of waterbird colonies is important. Tracking the ebb and flow of local waterbird colonies will help develop an understanding for how wildlife reacts to such events as large scale alteration of the landscape, loss of nesting and foraging habitat, and shifts in water quality. Monitoring can also help to identify environmental problems as they arise. This knowledge is directly applicable to large scale environmental management and planning that can help ensure healthy ecosystems for all. 16 • • • Acknowledgements Jeff Perry, Glenn Fuchs, Scott Noland, Marty Asleson, staff & volunteers of Eaglebrook Church, Ron Marier, Wayne Leblanc, Paul Kapfer, Mike Buckman, Jim Lawrence, Steve Kittelson, Joan Galli, Conrad Christiansen, MN -DNR Non -game Wildlife Program, Anoka County Parks, USFWS, MN Trapper's Association. Literature Cited Butler, R. W. 1992. Great Blue Heron. In The Birds of North America, No. 25 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. Coulter, Malcom C. & A. Lawrence Bryan, Jr. 1995. Factors affecting reproductive success of Wood Storks (Mycteria americana) in east - central Georgia. Auk. 112(1): 237- 243. Hawkins, Art. 2003. Observed Great Blue Herons plunge diving in Peltier Lake. Personal communication. • Hjertaas, Dale G. 1982. Great Blue Herons and Raccoons at Nicolle Flats. Blue Jay. 40(1): 36 -41. • Jakubas, D. 2004. Sibling aggression and breeding success in the Grey Heron. Waterbirds 27(3): 297 -303. Kelley et al. 2003. An updated account of wading bird foraging behavior. Wilson Bulletin. 115(1): 105 -107. Kittelson, et al. 2004. Winter nest counts at Peltier Island heronry (1989 to 2003). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources — Non -game Wildlife Program. Unpublished data. Mock, D. W. 1985. Siblicidal brood reduction: The prey -size hypothesis. American Naturalist. 125(3): 327-343. Zeveloff, S. I. 2002. Raccoons — A Natural History. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C. and London. 17 • WS -4 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Michael Grochala Al Rolek Date: May 1, 2006 Re: Work Session Item 4 — Draft Storm Water Utility Feasibility Study Background On January 9, 2006 the City Council authorized the preparation of a Storm • Water Utility Feasibility Study. Short, Elliott, Hendrickson Inc., (SEH) has completed a draft of the study for council review. Andy Lamberson, from SEH will be at the meeting to present the study and to answer council questions. A copy of the draft study is attached. • As part of the study process staff identified storm water related costs that are currently incurred or will be incurred by the City as we continue to manage our storm water management system. Also incorporated in the budget structure is funding for storm water related costs associated with street reconstruction projects identified in the Pavement Management Plan (PMP). Storm water costs related to street reconstruction account for over 50% of the proposed storm water utility budget. As such the draft study includes three (3) rate scenarios based on funding street reconstruction related storm water costs at funding levels of 100 %, 75% and 50 %. Pending incorporation of council comments and /or modifications it is staff's intent to place the acceptance of the report at the May 8, 2006 council meeting. It is important to note that acceptance of the study does not establish or otherwise commit the City to establishing a Storm Water Utility. The next steps in the process would include the following: 1. Preparation of a Storm Water Utility brochure and mailing to all property owners within the City. 2. Two (2) public informational meetings 3. Public Hearing Page 1 • 4. Council consideration of an Ordinance establishing a Storm Water Utility. Requested Council Direction At this time staff is requesting council comments on the draft study. Of particular importance is the overall rate structure and proposed utility budget as it relates to funding levels for street reconstruction costs. Attachments 1. Draft Storm Water Utility Feasibility Study Page 1 Feasibility Study Financing Alternatives for Lino Lakes' Storm Water Management Program Lino Lakes, Minnesota SEH No. A- LINOL0602.00 April 24, 2006 i SEH Multidisciplined. Single Source. Trusted solutions for more than 75 years. Executive Summary As the City of Lino Lakes continues to develop and grow, the impact of urbanization on the City's surface water resources continues to increase. In an effort to maintain and improve the existing drainage system, mitigate the impacts of past and future development and meet the anticipated needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water regulatory program, Lino Lakes realizes the need to continue to develop and implement a comprehensive surface water management program to meet their goals. The surface water management planning process typically involves four steps. 1. Assessment of the current situation; 2. Analysis of existing and proposed management strategies; 3. Development of program goals and policies, and 4. Identification and Implementation of Capital Improvements. In order to finance this program the City has requested this study of a Storm Water Management Utility. The purpose of this study is to identify how the city might utilize the utility to finance their Storm Water Management Program. For this study, we have evaluated six (6) alternative methods of funding the Lino Lakes Storm Water Management Program: 1. General Funds/ Ad Valorem Taxes 2. Special Assessments 3. Impact Fees 4. Grants 5. Special Tax Districts 6. Storm Water Utility Program Implementation Through an integrated, comprehensive planning approach, Lino Lakes can effectively manage existing and new development without degrading the valuable water resources. Without proper funding, the program can become vulnerable when competing against other general fund items or budget constraints. The Financing Dilemma The cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining storm water facilities continues to increase along with other municipal costs. In fact, the storm drainage system is often the last and most expensive public utility for cities to develop. Traditional methods of financing storm water improvements have become more complex in recent years. Faced with increasing costs and continuous pressure to minimize property taxes, cities may lack the financial resources to undertake a multi -year storm water management program. In Lino Lakes, general funds, special assessments and the City's Storm Water Management Fund have typically financed most of the necessary improvements in the past. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Alternative Funding Options The City Council may wish to consider the following funding options were the storm water related costs for the street reconstruction projects are funded by a combination of the Storm Water Utility and the General Fund and/or Assessments. 75 % SWU Funded Scenario: If the storm water related costs of the forecasted average street reconstruction costs were paid 75% by the Storm Water Utility the rate for the SWU would be $3.75 per REU /month. City of Lino Lakes Estimated Storm Water Utility Budget 2/15/2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sweeping/Cleaning /Repairs 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 Equipment (1) 42,500 44,625 46,856 49,199 51,659 Personnel - 1.5 GMW 95,000 99,750 104,738 109,974 115,473 SWM Projects 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Pipe Inspections /maint 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Ditch & Pond Cleaning 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Street Reconstruction 75% SWU Funded 393,750.00 405,562.50 417,729.38 430,261.26 443,169.09 NPDES Requirements 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Total Budget 791,250 819,438 848,458 878,344 909,128 Average 849,323 1) Equipment Needs Sweeper 135,000 JetterNac - 1/2 of cost 140,000 Single Axle Dump 150,000 425,000 Estimated 10 service life /10 Annualized cost 42,500 Storm Sewer portion of Street Reconstruction per PMP 525,000 540,750 556,973 573,682 590,892 Lino Lakes SWU Revenue Forecast Land Use Surface Area ac) Total Revenue Utility # Monthly Revenue Credit Credit Factor 55 Charge (monthly) Assumption Estimate (per acre) Factor Address Curve Runoff Runoff Runoff Retention Depth Vol. Index (inches) (S) (CN) (inches) (Q) (ac -ft) (QA) Residential 7576 1.00 6940 $3.75 $26,025 NA $0 $15.00 70 4.29 0.24 152 High IJensity Residential 18 3.30 Per Acre $892 20% $178 $49.57 85 1.76 0.80 1 Commercial 402 5.14 Per Acre $31,003 40% $12,401 $77.12 92 0.87 1.24 41 industrial 209 4.01 Per Acre $12,577 25% $3,144 $60.18 88 1.36 0.97 17 Institutional 554 4.01 Per Acre $33,338 50% $16,669 $60.18 88 1.36 0.97 45 Agricultural, Vacant EXEMPT Road Right-of-Way EXEMPT Urban Transitional EXEM P T Open Water EXEMPT Total 8,759 I f I 1 $103,835 I I $32,393 [ I 1 I 256 Inputs: ERU Rainfall (ERU) Residential Lot Size $3.75 /mo. 2.0 inch 0.25 acre Gross Est. Credits Net Annual Revenue j$1,246,017I $388,712 I $857,304 Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI N OL0602.00 1 1 i A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 Utilizing the land use data, a storm water utility utilizing the "users pay" philosophy of land use and utilizing the estimated runoff appropriate for the land use would generate an estimated $994,473 per year for the Lino Lakes Storm Water Management program. This estimate reflects a fully funded program by the Storm Water Utility and incorporates a number of credit assumptions that may alter the actual revenue generated. Lino Lakes SWU Revenue Forecast Land Use Surface Area (ac) lbtal Revenue Udlity # Monthly Revenue Credit Credit Factor Assumpdo $$ Charge (monthly) n Eatimate (per acre) Factor Address Curve Runoff Runoff Runoff Retention Depth Vol. Index (inches) (inches) (ac-ft) (S) (CN) (Q) (QA) Residential 7576 1.00 6940 84.35 $30,189 NA $0 $17.40 70 4.29 0.24 152 High Density Residential 18 3.30 Per Acre $1,035 20% $207 $57.50 85 1.76 0.80 1 Commercial 402 5.14 Per Acre $35,963 40% $14,385 $89.46 92 0.87 1.24 41 Industrial 209 4.01 Per Acre $14,589 25% $3,647 $69.80 88 1.36 0.97 17 Institutional 554 4.01 Per Acre $38,672 50% $19,336 $69.80 88 1.36 0.97 45 Agricultural, Vacant EXEMPT Road Right -of- Way EXEMP T Urban Transitional EXEMP T Open Water EXEMPT Total 8.759 I I I 1 8120,448 I I 837,576 I I I I 256 Inputs: ERU Rainfall (ERU) Residential Lot Size 0.25 acre $4.35 2.0 /mo. inch Gross Eat. Credits Net Annual Revenue I$1,445,3791 $450,906 1 $994,473 Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota The Storm Water Utility (also referred to in other communities as a Surface Water Utility) is a funding source that can address the financing dilemma without increasing property taxes. Service charges, which have been used by communities to finance sanitary sewer and water utilities, are now being applied to surface water management (Jouseau, 1983). The storm water utility approach is gaining recognition as the most equitable way to finance storm water management activities (Honchell, 1986). Selecting the Best Option In evaluating financing options, the following criteria were considered: Fair • Charges are based on the volume of storm water runoff, not property value. • Land Use (Intensity of Development). • Sound Engineering Basis. Utilizes commonly accepted engineering formulas for calculating runoff utilizing runoff Curve Numbers (CN). This methodology is known as Equivalent Hydraulic Area. • The fee should represent a "users pay" philosophy. The more runoff a user property contributes, the more they should pay. • Operation and Construction Maintenance costs increases yearly placing increased pressure on the general levy (ad valorem) vs. a utility fee based on users pay and the actual budget based upon these costs. Dependable • No competition with the general fund. • Consistent source of revenue. • Separate, dedicated fund. • Helps increase the score in the finance section (matching funds) of grant applications. Acceptable • No increase in property tax. • A "user fee ", the more you contribute...the more you pay. • Small service charge vs. large, one time assessment. • Understandable rational for the charge and engineering sound. Simple and Flexible • Use current billing system • Includes credits, exemptions and appeals process Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The following tables identify how the rating criteria are applied to the seven funding alternatives. Storm Water Funding Alternatives Comparison Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI N OL0602.00 Ad Valorem Taxes Special Assessments Impact Fees Grants Special Tax District User Fee Storm Water Utility Fair Charge Based on runoff NO MAYBE MAYBE NO NO YES Charge not based upon property value NO MAYBE MAYBE YES MAYBE YES Engineering sound and defendable NO YES YES YES YES YES "Users Pay" NO NO YES NO YES YES Can finance the maintenance of the entire system YES NO NO NO NO YES Dependable Does not compete with the general fund NO YES YES YES NO YES Consistent source of funding NO NO NO NO YES YES Separate Dedicated Fund NO YES YES YES YES YES Increase score in finance section of grant applications (matching funds) NO MAYBE MAYBE NO MAYBE YES Acceptable No increase in Property Tax NO YES YES NO MAYBE YES User Fee NO NO YES NO MAYBE YES Not a Tax NO NO YES YES NO YES Understandable and explainable rationale YES YES YES YES YES YES Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI N OL0602.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Simple and Flexible Uses current billing system YES YES MAYBE NA MAYBE YES Includes a credit, exemptions and appeals process NO MAYBE MAYBE NA MAYBE YES Cost effective to bill YES YES YES NA YES YES Legally defendable YES YES YES NA NO YES The Proposed Methodology: A Storm Water Utility As the previous chart demonstrates, the Storm Water Utility is the optimal choice as the funding mechanism for Lino Lakes Storm Water Management program. The Storm Water Utility is a proven methodology that is fair, dependable, and acceptable and is relatively simple to implement and flexible enough to incorporate the needed credits and exemptions to support the storm water program goals and objectives. What is a Storm Water Utility? Let's start with what the utility is not. The utility is not a new level of government, nor is the utility a new tax. The utility is simply a method of financing the administration, planning, implementation, and maintenance of storm water management programs (surface water plan) and NPDES program costs. This utility does not replace existing funding sources —it complements them. The utility is a service charge or fee. A utility fee is typically charged against all developed parcels based on the premise of "contributors pay ". Where land is in a natural state, most rain soaks into the ground or is retained in small depressions. Where development has been prevalent, rooftops, driveways, and parking lots prevent rainfall from soaking into the ground. The rain runs off into streets, ditches, ponds and lakes, creating the need for drainage systems to protect the quality of our water resources. Therefore, the fee is based on how much storm water runoff a particular land use contributes. This consistent, dependable revenue source provides a dedicated fund to manage the drainage system and water quality improvements without increasing property taxes or using assessments. A utility also provides the means to handle the increasing costs through small adjustments in the utility charges. Rate Structure The utility approach is based on the concept "contributors pay ". The rate structure is based on land use type, density, parcel size, and the amount of runoff and/or pollution load contributed by a particular parcel. The general runoff equation is: Q= (P- 0.2S)2 P + 0.8S Q = Actual P = Potential Maximum Runoff Potential Maximum Retention Runoff S = (1000 /CN) - 10 Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota The "S" term can be expressed in terms of the runoff index, or curve number (CN). The graph below, demonstrates the increased amount of runoff generated by different land use types. This chart clearly demonstrates why a parking lot (with runoff of approximately 1.7 inches) should pay more per acre than a single - family home with runoff of approximately 0.3 inches. The calculations below are based upon a 2 inch rainfall in an area with sandy soils. Runoff (Inches) 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 NRCS /SCS Runoff Model 1 .:.', _i . ' F P t� F o m 3 o y �ge y c a" o� 0o o b� ca m y m� v 0 c°j VoF Qy Assumptions: P =2" Type B Soil Soil Mosture Condition II How Will the Utility Benefit Lino Lakes? The utility benefits the community by providing a dedicated fund for surface water management activities, including the required activities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Program. In addition to the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) activities, benefits may also be realized more generally in the following areas: • Flood reduction and protection; • Water quality improvements; • Wetland protection and enhancement; • Erosion and sediment control; • Drainage system construction and maintenance; • Community education; • Improved fish and wildlife habitat; and • Enhanced recreational opportunities. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota NPDES Phase II Considerations The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the enforcement action taken by the Environmental Pollution Agency (EPA) to meet the Clean Water Act. Phase II of this program is directed towards cities with populations greater than 10,000 or cities with designated or concern waters such as the Mississippi River. Lino Lakes is a "designated" Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and currently has a permit that is governed by the City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For the storm water budget, a figure of $25,000 per year has been included to address the planned activities. The Storm Water Utility Utilizes: • The "Residential Equivalent Unit" (REU). The REU is the "billing unit" that represents the residential, single- family homes, which make up approximately 90% of Lino Lakes current billing. The REU is easily understood and facilitates billing by allowing the billing department to enter in one value (the REU) for all homes vs. nearly 7,000 individual bills that may differ by only a few cents. The suggested REU for Lino Lakes residential units would be $4.35 per month per address. • Intensity of Development (Land Use). As the intensity of development increases, so does the amount of impervious surfaces, leading to more runoff. • Equivalent Hydraulic Area (Curve number) This engineering methodology is used to measure the amount of impervious surface and is utilized in calculating the amount each property should pay based upon "contributors pay ". • Program budget. What are the anticipated costs? What must you do? What do you want to do? Below is the estimated Storm Water Budgets for years 2007 through 2011. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota f Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility Budget 2/15/2006 Sweeping /Cleaning /Repairs Equipment (1) Personnel - 1.5 GMW SWM Projects Pipe Inspections /maint ;Ditch & Pond Cleaning Street Reconstruction (2) NPDES Requirements 2007 2008 2009 85,000 90,000 1 95,000 42,500 44,625 46,856 95,000 , 99,750 r 104,738 50,000 51,500 50,000 51,500 53,045 1-50,000 51,500 5-3-",64. 3,045 525,000 540,750 556,973 25,000 i 25,000 , 25,000 2010 2011 100,000 105,000 49,199 51,659 109,974 1 115,473 53,045 F 54,636 £ 56,2751 Total Budget 922,500 954,625 987,701 54,636 56,275 54, 636 56,275 573, 682 ._.. 590,892 1 25,006 I 25,000 1,021,764 ,056,851 11) Equipment Needs Sweeper Jeetter/Vac - 1/2 of cost ,Single Axle Dump Estimated 10 service life Annualized cost 135,000 140,000 150,000 425,000 /10 Average Budget: = 42,500 2) A. Storm Sewer portion of Street Reconstruction per PMP The above example assumes 100% funding of the storm water costs of the forecasted street reconstruction by the Storm Water Utility. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1 1 1 r 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 0% SWU Funded Scenario: If the storm water related costs of the forecasted average street reconstruction costs were paid 50% by the Storm Water Utility the rate for the SWU would be $3.10 per REU /month. City of Lino Lakes Estimated Storm Water Utility Budget 2/15/2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sweeping/Cleaning/Repairs 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 Equipment (1) 42,500 44,625 46,856 49,199 51,659 Personnel - 1.5 GMW 95,000 99,750 104,738 109,974 115,473 SWM Projects 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Pipe Inspections /maint 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Ditch & Pond Cleaning 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Street Reconstruction 50 %SWU Funded 262,500.00 270,375.00 278,486.25 286,840.84 295,446.06 NPDES Requirements 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Total Budget 660,000 684,250 709,215 734,923 761,404 Average 709,959 1) Equipment Needs Sweeper 135,000 JetterNac - 1/2 of cost 140,000 Single Axle Dump 150,000 425,000 Estimated 10 service life /10 Annualized cost 42,500 Storm Sewer portion of Street Reconstruction per PMP 525,000 540,750 556,973 573,682 590,892 Lino Lakes SWU Revenue Forecast Land Use Surface Area (ac) Total Revenue Utility 8 Monthly Revenue Credit Credit Factor $$ Charge (monthly) Assumption Estimate (per acre) Factor Address Curve Runoff Runoff Runoff Retention Depth Vol. Index (inches) (C N) (S) (inches) (Q) (ac -ft) (QA) Residential 7576 1.00 6940 $3.10 $21,514 NA $0 $12.40 70 4.29 0.24 152 High Density Residential 18 3.30 Per Acre $738 20% $148 $40.98 85 1.76 0.80 1 Commercial 402 5.14 Per Acre $25,629 40% $10,252 $63.75 92 0.87 1.24 41 Industrial 209 4.01 Per Acre $10,397 25% $2,599 $49.75 88 1.36 0.97 17 Instihaional 554 4.01 Per Acre $27,559 50% $13,780 $49.75 88 1.36 0.97 45 Agricultural, Vacant EXEMPT Road Right -of -Way EXEMPT Urban Transitional EXEMPT Open Water EXEMPT Total 8,759 1 1 1 I 885,837 I I $26,778 I 1 1 256 Inputs: ERU Rainfall (ERU) Residential Lot Size $3.10 2.0 /mo. inch 0.25 acre Gross Est. Credits Net Annual Revenue 181,030,040 I $321,335 I $708,705 Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI NOL0602.00 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions From the material presented in this report, the following conclusions have been made: 1. A basic principle of a SWU should be that revenues equal costs. 2. The Storm Water Utility method is the best financing option because it is fair, dependable, acceptable, and flexible. 3. A Storm Water utility, supported by the service charge, provides financing for storm water management improvements, based on a particular property's contribution of runoff water to the drainage system. 4. The utility benefits a community by providing a dedicated fund for drainage system improvements and maintenance and water quality enhancement. 5. The key elements to the utility approach are: a. All properties benefit; and b. All developed properties should pay. c. Contributors Pay. Recommendations 1. A storm water management utility (Storm Water Utility) should be utilized to help pay for Lino Lakes' storm water management program. 2. Fees should be based on runoff contributed to the drainage system, following NRCS criteria and a two -inch rainfall, and utilizing the curve number values (CN) for a type `B" soil. 3. An ordinance should be prepared as the legal basis for the utility. 4. The existing land use (vs. zoning) should be used to determine the storm water management utility fees. 5. The recommended rate for the Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility is a $4.35 /month REU. This rate is projected to fund 100% of the forecasted Storm Water Budget Costs. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Table of Contents Title Page Executive Summary Table of Contents Page 1.0 Surface Water Management Program 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Mission Statement 2 1.3 Program Objectives 2 1.4 Planning Process 3 1.4.1 Assessment of the Current Situation 3 1.4.1.1 Classification of Significant Storm Water Management Problems 3 1.4.1.2 Determine Existing Conditions 3 1.4.2 Analysis of Management Strategies 3 1.4.2.1 Conveyance Philosophy 3 1.4.2.2 Ponding Philosophy 3 1.4.2.3 Combination Ponding and Conveyance Philosophy 3 1.4.2.4 Develop and Treat Philosophy 3 1.4.2.5 Regional Pond Philosophy 3 1.4.2.6 Land Use Control Philosophy 4 1.4.2.7 Enhanced Practices Philosophy 4 1.4.3 Development of Goals and Policies 4 1.4.4 Identification and Implementation of Improvements 5 2.0 Financing Alternatives 5 2.1 Ad Valorem Taxes 7 2.2 Special Assessments (Fifield, 1997) 7 2.3 Storm Drainage System Development Charge 8 2.4 User Charges or Storm Water Utility 9 2.5 Grants 10 2.5.1 Storm Water Protection Agency (EPA) 10 2.5.1.1 604b - Urban Water Quality Grant 10 2.5.1.2 Underground Injection Control Program 10 2.5.1.3 Storm Water Education Grant 10 2.5.1.4 Clean Lakes Grant 10 2.5.1.5 Section 319 - Clean Water Act 10 2.6 Other Sources of Funding 11 2.6.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Sect. 22 Planning Asst. to State Programs 11 2.6.2 DNR's Flood Hazard Mitigation Program (Federal program administered through the State DNR and Counties) 11 2.6.3 Special Tax District (Fifield, 1997) 11 SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page i 3.0 Implementing Lino Lakes' Utility 12 3.1 What Is a Storm Water Management Utility? 12 3.2 How Will it Benefit the Community? 12 3.3 Assuring Success 12 3.4 Key Elements (Kremple, 1988) 13 3.5 Utility Advantages and Disadvantages (Jouseau, 1983) 13 3.5.1 Advantages 13 3.5.2 Disadvantages 13 3.6 Program Administration 14 3.7 Ordinance 14 3.8 Public Hearing 14 4.0 Fee Basis 14 4.1 Philosophy 14 4.2 Cause and Effect 15 4.3 Run -Off Equation 15 4.4 How Much Rainfall? 15 4.5 Typical Rainfall 16 4.6 Typical Charges 18 4.7 Exclusions 19 4.8 Credits 19 5.0 Alternative Rate Revenue Estimates 21 5.1 Alternative Funding Options 21 5.2 75 % SWU Funded Scenario: 21 5.3 5 0% SWU Funded Scenario: 22 6.0 Implementation of the Utility 25 6.1 Public Acceptance 25 6.1.1 Public Information Program 25 6.1.1.1 Articles 25 6.1.1.2 Special Mailings 26 6.1.1.3 Informational Meetings 26 6.1.1.4 Public Hearing 26 6.1.1.5 Common Questions and Answers 26 6.2 Ordinance Development 26 6.2.1 Model Ordinance 26 7.0 Storm Water Utility Ordinance 27 7.1 00.010 - General Operation 27 7.2 00.020 - Definitions. Utility Factor 27 7.2.1 Utility Factor 27 7.2.2 Storm Water Utility Fee 27 7.2.3 Monthly Utility Revenue 27 7.3 00.030 - Storm Water Utility Factors. 27 7.4 00.040 - Credits 28 7.5 00.050 - Exemptions 28 SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI NOL0602.00 Page ii 7.6 00.060 - Payment of Fee 28 7.7 00.070 - Appeal of Fee 28 7.8 00.080 - Penalty for Late Payment 28 7.9 00.090 - Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes 29 8.0 City of Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility Proposed City Policy 29 8.1 Policy Statement 29 8.2 Exemptions 29 8.3 Fee Basis 29 8.4 Credits 30 8.5 Adjustment of Fees 31 9.0 Billing Options 31 9.1 Establishing Individual Utility Bills 32 9.2 Conflict Resolution 32 9.3 Initiating New Billings 32 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 34 10.1 Conclusions 34 10.2 Recommendations 34 11.0 References 35 List of Tables Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Funding Alternatives 6 Table 2 Rainfall /Runoff Ratios Example 16 Table 3 Lino Lakes Runoff Curve Numbers 18 Table 4 Lino Lakes Land Use Breakdown 18 Table 5 Proposed Monthly Billing and Revenue (Year 1 ) 20 Table 6 Utility Cost Comparison 24 Table 7 Utility Factors for Various Land Uses 28 Table 8 Runoff Indices 30 List of Figures Figure 1 NRCS /SCS Runoff Model Runoff Example 17 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D List of Appendices Legal Considerations (Joseau, 1983) Typical Questions Suggested SWU Credits Policy and Application Form Example Public Education Flyer and Public Information Meeting Notice SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page iii April 26, 2006 Feasibility Study Financing Alternatives for Lino Lakes' Storm Water Management Program Prepared for City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1.0 Surface Water Management Program 1.1 Introduction Development and redevelopment often results in an increase in the rate and volume of storm water runoff. An increase in runoff overtaxes the natural drainage systems, and increases the potential for localized flooding. Additionally, a decrease in overall water quality can be directly attributed to an increased level of development. A decrease in water quality translates into lost recreational opportunities and permanent changes to the biological systems present in local water bodies. Storm water management has been an issue that figures prominently in the development proposals that now come before Lino Lakes. In recent years, the State of Minnesota has adopted laws regarding storm water drainage and erosion control measures. State agencies such as the Board of Water and Soil Resources have created model ordinances and "best management practices" for communities to use. Looming in the future are possible federal EPA mandates regarding the monitoring of storm water quality. Lino Lakes staff is aware of the problems as well as the new requirements and have been incorporating them into new development, but Lino Lakes recognizes the need to take a more comprehensive and systematic look at surface water management. In addition, the City of Lino Lakes works closely with the Rice Creek Watershed District to assure that projects meet the requirements of the Watershed District. Historically, the issue of storm water management has in principle been very simple; collect the water into an underground system of pipes and get it to a river, or creek as quickly as possible. If there was a problem with localized flooding, additional and/or larger pipes were put in the ground. Water quality and other storm water issues were not typically considered. It is fair to say that the main concern of the average Lino Lakes citizen is still to get the water away from their house or business as quickly as possible. But a A -L I N OL0602.00 Page 1 relatively new issue has been factored in- one mandated by law and for the most part good sense -the issue of water quality. Unchecked and ever increasing runoff is impacting the quality of our rivers, lakes and streams through pollutants that are contained in the runoff as well as by erosion that occurs as a result of increasing amounts of storm water that enter into bodies of water at a faster rate. Today, best management practices for managing storm water have changed from collection and piping to retention, infiltration, treatment, and establishing a more controlled and gradual discharge to the receiving body of water. 1.2 Mission Statement A logical first step in any comprehensive planning process is to clearly define the limits of the project. One of the best ways to develop consensus among all concerned parties is to establish a mission statement for storm water planning. The mission statement represents Lino Lakes' attitude towards storm water management efforts. To accomplish the goals of the storm water management program, Lino Lakes should have a single consistent approach. The mission statement focuses on what is to be accomplished; the storm water management program will focus on how it will be accomplished. The suggested mission statement is as follows: The City of Lino Lakes envisions a community in which the quality of life is enhanced by a natural and healthy environment and by infrastructure designed and maintained to protect property investment. Toward that end, the Lino Lakes Surface Water Management Program provides a single, comprehensive strategy that addresses existing and future storm water needs in a pro- active manner. The program promotes citizen and industry participation and education, and provides clear direction for properly managing the quantity and quality of storm water runoff surface water, wetlands and groundwater resources. 1.3 Program Objectives The primary objectives of the storm water management program are summarized as follows: • Develop and implement a comprehensive storm water management program, including a comprehensive drainage plan and analysis of future facilities (i.e., pipes, ponds, etc.). • Maintain natural and man -made facilities (wetlands, ponds, creeks, sediment basins, storm sewers, culverts, ditches, etc.) for their intended use and function. • Address existing storm water runoff problems and their control. • Provide adequate financing to implement necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs), maintenance activities, water quality programs, and public education. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 2 1.4 Planning Process Lino Lakes is addressing its storm water management needs through a process of prioritization in the planning process and identifying important projects in a yearly budget forecast. 1.4.1 Assessment of the Current Situation 1.4.1.1 Classification of Significant Storm Water Management Problems Classification of significant storm water management problems within Lino Lakes establishes a priority for making necessary improvements. The priority is dictated by the severity of existing problems, maintenance issues or future development pressure. 1.4.1.2 Determine Existing Conditions Establishing existing conditions helps to quantify the operational problems of the in place systems. By identifying deficiencies in the existing system and projecting for future needs, the cost for needed improvements can be developed. 1.4.2 Analysis of Management Strategies A philosophy for handling storm water runoff is developed based on one or more of the following: 1.4.2.1 Conveyance Philosophy A conveyance philosophy involves the collection and discharge of storm water without the use of ponding areas. This strategy is less land intensive but requires the construction of large storm sewer or ditch systems. 1.4.2.2 Ponding Philosophy A ponding philosophy uses natural low areas to temporarily store or detain runoff until the conveyance system can safely discharge the runoff downstream. 1.4.2.3 Combination Ponding and Conveyance Philosophy It is likely that a combination of ponding and conveyance will provide the most economical solution. This philosophy takes advantage of available low lands for storm water storage and optimizes the in place conveyance systems. Based on full utilization of the existing systems, improvements can be planned. 1.4.2.4 Develop and Treat Philosophy The develop and treat philosophy is practiced in most communities. The develop and treat philosophy encompasses the ponding philosophy by allowing full development of the land with on site rate control and pollutant removal requirements resulting in a multitude of small onsite ponds and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout Lino Lakes. 1.4.2.5 Regional Pond Philosophy The regional pond philosophy is related to the "Develop and Treat Philosophy ". Rather than requiring on site facilities, the regional pond philosophy relies on a comprehensive plan to identify (and acquire) parcels of land to serve as detention/treatment pond sites that can serve multiple Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 3 properties. This philosophy often requires up -front funding to acquire the land, but results in fewer ponds and less overall pond maintenance. 1.4.2.6 Land Use Control Philosophy The land use control philosophy may seem extreme to some, but it is based on reducing the impervious (hard) surface areas related to development. Less impervious surface results in less runoff and less pollutant loading. If done properly, the land use control philosophy can work without adversely impacting development densities. 1.4.2.7 Enhanced Practices Philosophy The enhanced practices philosophy can be used in redevelopment and new development to meet volume reductions, treatment and ground water recharge goals. Typical practices include infiltration and bioretention. A rain water garden program is an excellent example of bioretention. 1.4.3 Development of Goals and Policies Lino Lakes' current Storm Water Management Plan contains specific goal statements and corresponding policies. The goals and policies recognize the fundamental relationship between water quality and land use. Plan goals include: • Storm Water Runoff Management (Water Quantity): Control flooding and minimize related public capital and maintenance expenditure necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff. • Water Quality: Achieve water quality goals in waters and wetlands consistent with intended use and classification. • Erosion Control: Minimize soil erosion through enforcement and education. • Wetland Management: Maintain the amount of wetland acreage and increase the wetland values within Lino Lakes, where feasible. • Administration (Public Participation, Information and Education): Increase public participation and knowledge in management of the water resources. • Drainage Way Maintenance (Maintenance and Inspection): Preserve the function of water resource facilities through routine inspection and regular maintenance activities. • Recreation, Open Space and Wildlife: Manage water recreation opportunities and improve fish and wildlife habitat. • Groundwater: Prevent contamination of the aquifers and promote ground water recharge. • Finance: Establish funding sources to finance water resources management activities. • Regulations/Intergovernmental Relations: Ensure compliance with ordinances, standards, criteria, and policies with other governmental units that have regulatory authority within the city boundaries. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 4 1.4.4 Identification and Implementation of Improvements The final task associated with the storm water management program includes establishment and implementation of improvement and maintenance programs. These final tasks are necessary to ensure that storm water management measures are implemented in a timely fashion and that their effectiveness in maintaining Lino Lakes' drainage system can be quantified. The program also provides the flexibility to adjust the implementation of storm water measures to maximize effectiveness. 2.0 Financing Alternatives The cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining storm water facilities continues to increase along with other municipal costs. In fact, the storm drainage system is often the last and most expensive public utility for cities to develop. Traditional methods of financing storm water improvements have become more complex in recent years. Faced with increasing costs and continuous pressure to minimize property taxes, cities may lack the financial resources to undertake a multi -year storm water management program. Consequently, many communities lack the proper funding to address the increasing costs related to storm water drainage, water quality management, and wetland protection. The major categories of funding sources are (1) Ad Valorem Taxes; (2) Special Assessments; (3) System Development Charges (Building Permits, Land Development Fees and Land Exaction); (4) User charges; (5) Grants; and (6) Special Tax Districts. Table 1 illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of the different financing methods. Following is a description and financing principles used with each of these financing mechanisms. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Funding Alternatives Funding Method Advantages Disadvantages • No incentive to reduce runoff or pollution. • Administrative Structure for collection in place. • No relationship to level of benefits received. • Simple and accepted source of • Discontinuous source of Ad Valorem Tax revenue. revenue. • Allows for a larger revenue base. • Limitations on amount of • Through tax districts contributors pay. expenditures due to budget constraints. • Competition with other services (i.e., police, fire). • Only benefited properties pay. • Rigid procedural • Revenues from assessment are requirements. applied to a specific project cost. • Runoff contributions cannot Special No competition with general be assessed. Assessments services. • Difficult to determine and • Benefits directly related to cost for prove benefit. service. • May place an unfair burden on • Assessment can be deferred in hardship cases. some segments of the population. System Development P • • New development generating runoff pays for runoff management. Administrative structure for reviewing plans and collecting fees is in place. • • Only addresses problems within the vicinity of the new development, not usually existing developments. Only addresses prevention not Charges • Systems can be tailored to the specific needs through regulatory correction of existing problems. changes. • Limited usefulness as a • Revenues are applied to water management. No competition with general services. financing mechanism. • Properties causing or contributing to the need for runoff management pay relative to their contribution to the problem. • Self - financing system not in competition with general services funds. • Some initial costs in development of rate formula User Charges • Existing and new developments and philosophy. both pay. • May require an expanded • Flexibility in the system. administrative structure. • Continuous source of revenues. • Specific dedicated fund. • Administrative structure for collection already in place. Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI N OL0602.00 Page 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Funding Method Advantages Disadvantages • Unreliable source of revenue. • Increase administrative costs for securing and managing the funds. • Most often grants require cost sharing and thus additional Grants • Reduce cost burden to residents in the community. funding sources. This results in double administrative costs due to management of several funding sources. • Limited availability on an irregular schedule. • Requires considerable lead - time from application to receiving funds. • Do not need to prove benefit from • No flexibility in application of Special Tax the improvement. tax. • Tax exempt properties not District • All taxable property in district subject to tax. pays. • Legal issues are complex. 2.1 Ad Valorem Taxes Ad valorem taxes, or general taxation, is the most common revenue source used to finance government services, including minor maintenance measures for drainage and water quality facilities. Using property taxes has the effect of spreading the cost over the entire tax base of a community. 2.2 Special Assessments (Fifield, 1997) Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, conveys the authority to undertake and finance public improvements. Section 429.021 gives the power to "convey the authority to undertake and to finance a wide range of public improvements, andspecifically gives the power to ": .... acquire, develop, construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain storm and sanitary sewers and systems, including outlets, holding areas and ponds, treatment plants, pumps, lift stations, service connections, and other appurtenances of a sewer system, within and without the corporate limits." Special assessments are the most common tool for financing public improvements, All or a portion of the cost of an improvement is levied against properties benefited by the improvement. The issue of benefit poses the greatest challenge in the use of special assessments. The amount of the special assessment cannot exceed the benefit received by the property from the improvement. The benefit is measured by the increase in the market value of the property. As noted earlier, the direct benefits of a storm water management system may not be equally distributed in a given area. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 7 Other factors to consider in the use of special assessments include: • State law contains a specific process for making public improvements and levying special assessments. • Lino Lakes can issue general obligation bonds to finance the improvements. • Special assessments are not required to finance the entire project. Lino Lakes can use other available sources of revenue, including general property taxes, to finance the improvement and pay debt service on bonds. • Use of special assessments are further regulated by the City's charter provisions 2.3 Storm Drainage System Development Charge As land is developed or built upon, surface water runoff and pollution loading increases. Administrative and capital costs can be recovered at the time of building permit issuance or land development approval. Lino Lakes can require dedication of land for ponding or drainage purposes. The land, however, must be from the parcel being developed. System Development Charges (SDCs) or trunk charges are one -time charges paid by new development to finance the construction of public facilities. SDCs are generally used for several basic reasons (Nelson, 1995): • To shift the burdens from existing development to new development; ■ To synchronize the construction of new or expanded facility cap with the arrival of new development; • To subject new development decisions to pricing discipline; and • To respond to anti -tax sentiments. According to Nelson (1995), there are seven factors to determine the proportionate share of costs to be borne by new development: ■ The cost of existing facilities. • The means by which existing facilities have been financed. • The extent to which new development has already contributed to the cost of providing excess capacity. • The extent to which existing development will, in the future, contribute to the cost of providing existing facilities used community wide or by non - occupants of new development. • The extent to which new development should receive credit for providing at its cost facilities the community has provided in the past without charge to other development in the service area. • Extraordinary cost incurred in serving new development. • The time -price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts of money paid at different times. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 8 Planning is extremely important according to Nelson (1995), both from a land use and a surface water management perspective. Of particular importance within the water resources management plan is the capital improvements element (CIE) and the capital improvements program (CIP) that implements the CIE. For improvements to be funded in part through SDCs, the CIE should offer an adequate policy foundation. In essence, the CIE serves to strengthen the relationship between SDCs and public policy by clearly stating those policies and the role of impact SDCs have in effecting them. CIE's normally include a three step planning process. 1. Preparation of an inventory and assessment; 2. Determination of policies and needs; and 3. Development of an implementation strategy. To adequately address the issue of Storm Drainage Trunk Charge for New Development or SDCs, a comprehensive review of the existing water resources management plan would be conducted to consider the elements discussed above. Next, a CIE would be refined from the existing document. Work with legal counsel would be undertaken to establish the legal basis for SDCs. Finally, the SDC determination will be developed based on development needs, land use and total systems cost. Lastly, a public information element will be used to introduce the system to the community. The public information element will illustrate the approach as equitable and will dispel any myths or criticisms that may exist. 2.4 User Charges or Storm Water Utility User charges, which support storm water utilities, are a mechanism by which Lino Lakes can generate funds through billings similar to water and sewer billings. The principle is to charge for services rendered to properties generating runoff, as well as the service to properties being protected from the effects of runoff, without consideration to an increase in market value of the property. Implementation of a storm water utility consists of three phases: Concept Development, Implementation and Billing. Concept Development involves research and analysis of funding options and funding needs. This feasibility report contains a summary of all findings and recommendations, including a preliminary implementation plan. During the implementation phase, action plans for each component of the utility implementation program are developed. The action plans identify tasks, resources, responsibilities, schedules and measurements. A link between the recommended rate structure and the database is also developed during Implementation. The public involvement component can be implemented prior to presenting a draft ordinance to Council. With public support in place, the Storm Water Utility ordinance is finalized prior to the billing phase. The billing phase applies adopted rates to individual accounts, resulting in an interface between real estate records and the City billing system. Standard operating procedures are developed to document the process for updating the Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 9 data base interface and billing system. On -call support is developed to ensure a smooth transition to new billing procedures and investigation of credits and appeals. 2.5 Grants Grants are available for surface water management and nonpoint source pollution. However, it is generally not a good financial practice to rely on grants for a service delivery program. This source of revenue is not dependable and requires constant speculation as to its availability. Grants are useful but should only be used to supplement a planned local revenue source. 2.5.1 Storm Water Protection Agency (EPA) 2.5.1.1 604b - Urban Water Quality Grant The EPA's 604b Grant Program is targeted at water quality improvements in urban areas. The grant is not a cost share program, but does require local participation. The grant is generally administered through the state. This program does not enjoy support from the State of Minnesota. 2.5.1.2 Underground Injection Control Program The EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program involves inventories of ground water protection areas in Lino Lakes to address abandoned drainage or domestic disposal wells, which are potentially harmful to underground sources of drinking water. The results of the questionnaire can provide a great deal of information on the degree of risk to Lino Lakes' underground sources of drinking water. The EPA has provided funding and training for volunteers to implement the UIC program at the local level. 2.5.1.3 Storm Water Education Grant The EPA's Storm Water Education Grant, enacted in 1991, is targeted at cities or organizations in the amount of $25,000 or less. The Storm Water Education Grant is intended to finance local education initiatives related to the natural environment. Grants are awarded on a 50/50 cost share basis. 2.5.1.4 Clean Lakes Grant The Federal Clean Lakes Grant is the next step in lake restoration following the State Clean Water Partnership Program. The program can include significantly more funding than the state program and can be used for development and implementation of lake restoration plans. Clean Lakes funding is administered through the MPCA. 2.5.1.5 Section 319 - Clean Water Act Funding through EPA's Section 319 program supports state programs, but is potentially available for urban BMP and project implementation coordination. The grants program includes a spring application period (May to June) for the state. The program is significant in that it can fund implementation (i.e., construction) rather than funding planning efforts or studies. Available funds may involve either full or matching funds. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 10 2.6 Other Sources of Funding 2.6.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Sect. 22 Planning Asst. to State Programs Funds are a 50/50 cost share. The program is administered through state planning. Eligible projects are given to COE to prepare a cost estimate for preliminary design. The estimate is negotiated with the "customer ". The "customer" provides 50 percent cost share in the form of cash. The COE then completes the preliminary design or study. 2.6.2 DNR's Flood Hazard Mitigation Program (Federal program administered through the State DNR and Counties). Up to 50 percent cost sharing is available through the bonding program. This alternative best applies to a phased construction scenario, since the state funding is on the biennium. Additionally, the DNR suggests the assistance of your state representative to lobby on behalf of Lino Lakes for funds that are pursued by a number of entities. Funding through this program is very unreliable and there is considerable competition for a limited budget. 2.6.3 Special Tax District (Fifield, 1997) MN Statute 444.16 and 444.17 -18 -19 & 20 Cities can create storm water improvement districts to finance these improvements. In effect, a storm water improvement district is a new taxing district. Lino Lakes would adopt an ordinance that defines the area of the district. Lino Lakes can undertake storm water improvements within the district. To finance the improvements, Lino Lakes can levy a property tax on property within the district. This financing mechanism offers advantages and disadvantages over special assessments. The chief benefit is no need to prove benefit from the improvements. All property in the district pays to finance improvements. Costs are spread according to the taxable value of property. This may also be a disadvantage. There is no flexibility in tailoring the application of the tax. Some key factors in the establishment and use of a storm water improvement district include: ■ The ordinance establishing the district must be adopted by a two- thirds vote of the Council. A public hearing must be held prior to adopting the ordinance. • Lino Lakes must hold a public hearing before awarding a contract for an improvement within the district. State law prescribes the requirements for notice of hearing and items to be considered in ordering the improvement. • Lino Lakes can issue general obligation bonds to finance improvements in the district. The bonds do not require an election and do not count against any debt limit. • State law requires that the bonds be supported "primarily out of the proceeds of the tax levied" on property in the district. This provision allows other revenues to be used to pay debt service on the bonds. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 11 Provisions of the City charter would need to be reviewed to identify any additional requirements for a special tax district. 3.0 Implementing Lino Lakes' Utility 3.1 What Is a Storm Water Management Utility? Let's start with what the utility is not. The utility is not a new level of government, nor is the utility a new tax. A Storm Water Utility is simply a method of financing the administration, planning, implementation, and maintenance of storm water management programs. This utility does not replace existing funding sources —it complements them. The utility is nothing more than a service charge or fee. A utility fee is typically charged against all developed parcels within Lino Lakes based on the premise of "contributors pay ". Where land is in a natural state, most rain soaks into the ground or is retained in small depressions. Where development has been prevalent, rooftops, driveways, and parking lots prevent rainfall from soaking into the ground. The rain runs off into streets, ditches, ponds and lakes, creating the need for drainage systems and to protect the quality of our water resources. Therefore, the fee is based on how much storm water runoff and/or pollutant load is contributed by a particular parcel. This consistent, dependable revenue source provides dedicated funds to manage the drainage systems and water quality improvements without increasing property taxes or using assessments. A utility also provides the means to handle increasing costs through small adjustments in utility charges. 3.2 How Will it Benefit the Community? The utility benefits the community by providing a dedicated fund for storm water management activities. Benefits associated with storm water management include: • Flood reduction and protection; • Water quality improvements; • Wetland protection and enhancement; • Erosion and sediment control; • Drainage system construction and maintenance; • Community education; • Improved fish, and wildlife habitat; and • Enhanced recreational opportunities 3.3 Assuring Success To assure success in adopting a utility, the need for the utility must be understood by the public. The following steps should be taken: Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 12 1. Consideration of the implementation. If the mechanisms for billing and handling revenue are in place, as is the case with sewer and water charges, there is one less hurdle to cross. 2. A second point to be considered is who will provide the majority of the revenue. The public must believe the right properties are being charged the right amount. 3.4 Key Elements (Kremple, 1988) There are two fundamental principles to a storm water management program: 1. All real property within a sub watershed will benefit from installation of storm water management facilities. 2. The cost of developing storm water management facilities should be assessed against the property in a basin. These principles may not be easy for property owners to understand at first, but they are key to the storm water management concept. It is difficult for a property owner who lives on top of a hill to understand how the construction of a water quality basin or a storm drain in a low -lying area benefits them. It is important to recognize that development adds to existing drainage and pollutant loading problems. The property owner on the hill has, by converting the natural ground cover into streets, driveways and rooftops, increased the runoff. This contributes to the drainage and water quality problem of neighbors in low -lying areas. To some extent then, the property owner on the hill should contribute to the cost of correcting that problem. 3.5 Utility Advantages and Disadvantages (Jouseau, 1983) 3.5.1 Advantages 1. Properties causing or contributing to the need for runoff management pay into the utility. 2. The change is directly proportional to runoff generated by specific land uses. 3. A self - financing system is not in competition with general services funds. 4. Existing and new developments both pay. 5. The system is flexible. 6. The utility provides a continuous source of revenue. 7. It provides a specific dedicated fund for storm water management. 8. The administrative structure for collecting fees is usually in place. 3.5.2 Disadvantages 1. Some initial costs are encountered in developing the rate formula and philosophy. 2. The utility may require an expanded administrative structure including establishment of a billing system if none currently exists. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 13 3.6 Program Administration Administration for developing the storm water management utility involves the following: • Development of quarterly rates based on funding needs; • Modification of billing and collection systems; • Determination of responsible party(ies) to monitor program implementation; • Solicitation of comments from legal and financial advisers; and • Public information. 3.7 Ordinance The legal basis for the utility should be an ordinance used to guide the corresponding City policy. The ordinance establishes the utility, and outlines the following: • Calculation of utility fees; • Credit system; • Exemptions; • Payment of fee; • City policy; and • Supporting computations. A model ordinance is provided in a subsequent section of this report. The model ordinance differs from some of the more common ordinances in that it establishes a mathematically basis behind the fee system, supported by standard engineering practices. 3.8 Public Hearing A public hearing is required before the ordinance can be adopted. The hearing provides the forum for the general public to speak either for or against the ordinance. 4.0 Fee Basis 4.1 Philosophy The general philosophy behind the storm water utility program is simple - contributors pay (Jouseau, 1983). To develop a fee basis, Lino Lakes must make a determination of which properties pay what amounts. The utility is typically supported by all developed (non- vacant) property within the community. Based on existing land use, the extent of each property classification is estimated. Next, the percentage of impervious area associated with each property classification is determined. Using methods outlined by the Soil Conservation Service (Midje, 1992), typical land categories and relative percentages of impervious areas can be determined. Based in part on the percentage of impervious area on a parcel, a runoff index can be assigned to each property type. The runoff index or curve Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 14 number (CN) is used to estimate the relative amount of rainfall that will run off a parcel. 4.2 Cause and Effect To remain fair to all properties, the utility is based on how much a particular parcel contributes to the storm water program needs. The amount of contribution should not be based solely on the amount of rooftops and pavement, or pervious area, on a parcel. The contribution should also consider how much rain actually runs off. Different amounts of rain will produce different amounts of runoff. However, the difference in runoff for a residential property and a commercial site area is not constant for all rainfall depths. Therefore, a rainfall depth should be used in the revenue equation that will result in the various properties paying proportionate amounts. 4.3 Run -Off Equation The revenue equation should not be arbitrarily set based on pre -set factors from another community's ordinance. To be able to demonstrate a rational basis for utility fees, the revenue equation should be based on standard engineering practices. The revenue equation follows the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS - previously SCS) storm water runoff methodology outlined in the SCS National Engineering Handbook," Section 4 - Hydrology (Mockus, 1969). The general runoff equation is: Where: O= (P - 0.2S)2 P + 0.8S Q = Actual Runoff P = Potential Maximum Runoff S = Potential Maximum Retention and initial rainfall abstraction The "S" term can be expressed in terms of the runoff index, or curve number (CN). S = (1000 /CN) - 10 Tables are easily developed for convenient solution. For determining utility fees, P remains constant and CN has been assigned to each of the land use categories. 4.4 How Much Rainfall? The majority of the developed part of most of our communities is residential. Of the nonresidential developed land uses, commercial land use Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 predominates. As an example, the table 2 compares the percentage of total runoff contributions for a residential curve number of 83 (CN 83) versus commercial /industrial curve number of 94 (CN 94) considering different rainfall depths. Greater runoff, and its associated pollutant load, is generally related to the more intensely developed properties (commercial/industrial). Therefore, using the basic premise of the utility (contributors pay), a rainfall amount that will result in highly developed properties paying more than residential properties should be used. 4.5 Typical Rainfall A review of utility programs in other communities shows that a two -inch rainfall has typically been used in determining utility. As illustrated in Table 2, a two -inch rainfall results in almost four times the runoff from a commercial/industrial acre then from a residential acre. Therefore, commercial/industrial properties would pay up to four times as much as a residential parcel of equal size. Table 2 Rainfall /Runoff Ratios Example Rain Depth Runoff Commercial/ Industrial Residential Ratio* 1" 0.32" 0.01" 32.00 2" 1.10" 0.29" 3.79 3" 1.99" 0.81" 2.46 4" 2.92" 1.46" 2.00 5" 3.88" 2.19" 1.77 2" Rainfall Type C Soils 1.40" 0.70" 2.0 1" Rainfall Type C Soils 0.5" 0.13" 3.85 * Ratio equals commercial runoff divided by residential runoff. * This table uses typical curve number utilized in Minnesota Storm Water Utilities. There is also a statistical basis for the two -inch rainfall. A two -inch rain can be expected to be equaled or exceeded once annually in any given 24 -hour period; i.e., a one -year event (Oberts, 1984). While it is true that rainfall amounts of less than two inches occur more frequently, smaller rainfall events (one inch, for example) create the majority of the annual runoff volume and pollutant load. Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 16 A- LINOL0602.00 1.80- 1.60 1.40 - 1.20 1.00 0.80- 0.60 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Runoff (Inches) Land Use Categories Existing land use was used to determine each property's contribution to the utility. Table 4 illustrates typical runoff curve numbers. Using these criteria, land use categories and the respective curve numbers for use in the runoff equation are illustrated below. For the respective land uses, the curve numbers (CNs) are applied to determine the amount of runoff for an area resulting from a specified amount of rainfall as illustrated in Figure 1. The contribution towards the storm water utility is equated to the percentage of the total runoff for each property type. Figure 1 — NRCS /SCS Runoff Model Runoff Example NRCS /SCS Runoff Model 0.40 - 0.20 0.00 a cr cr a,� oc o� o �� 3� �� o �a �m o CO f o o '9 ■ i v Goc Goc mo ��, ,o, moo, o m° Ica e ti ctr Q C co o'9 o G y J •m y o-\ Qm m � Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 17 A -LI NOL0602.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3 Lino Lakes Runoff Curve Numbers Typical Land Use Category Runoff Index (CN) Residential 70 High Density Residential 85 Industrial 92 Institutions 88 Commercial 88 Vacant Exempt Table 4 Lino Lakes Land Use Breakdown Parcel Data Land Use Type Sum Acres Commercial 402 Institutional 554 Industrial 209 High Density Residential 18 Single Family 7576 4.6 Typical Charges To determine typical charges, the estimated expenditures for a given period of time are apportioned according to the percentage of total runoff attributed to that property type. Typical utility charges for the proposed budget are given in Table 5. These charges would fund 100 percent of the non - assessment revenue for the proposed budget. The utility rates can be adjusted to raise different levels of revenue by changing the relationships of what one property type pays in comparison to another, or by increasing the charge per acre. Additionally, undeveloped properties can be charged a low initial flat rate to bring all parcels into the rate collection system. The utility will not eliminate existing funds derived from new developments through assessments or developer fees. All new plats will continue to pay for its own water management features per the Surface Water Management Plan requirements. The utility will, however, allow Lino Lakes to undertake the new programs related to storm water management. Table 5 results in monthly fees that are similar to other communities, which are shown in Table 7. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 18 Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility Budget 2/15/2006 Sweeping /Cleaning /Repairs Equipment (1) _. Personnel - 1.5 GMW SWM Projects Pipe Inspections /maint Ditch & Pond Cleaning Street Reconstruction (2) NPDES Requirements 2007 85,000 42,500 95,000 50,000 50,000 50, 000 525,000 25,000 2008 2009 90,000 95,000 44,625 46,856 99,750 104,738 51,500 53,045 51,500 51,500 53,045 53,045 2010 100,000 49,199 109,974 54,636 54,636 54,636 540,750 556,973 573,682 25,000 25,000 Total Budget 922,500 25,000 2011 105,000 51,659 115,473 56,275 56,275 56,275 590,892- 25,000 954;625 987,701 1,021,764 1,056,851 1) Equipment Needs Sweeper Jetter /Vac - 1/2 of cost Single Axle Dump 135,000 140,000 150,000 425,000 'Estimated 10 service life Annualized cost /10 Average Budget: = 988,688 42,500 I s 2) Avg. Storm Sewer portion of Street Reconstruction per PMP The above example assumes 100% funding of the storm water costs of the forecasted street 4.7 Exclusions Some properties may be excluded from the utility. In the example provided, only street and highway right -of -way, lakes, wetlands and parks are excluded under this formula. In development of the final ordinance, parkland, railroad right -of -way and other properties should be reviewed to determine if a low, flat rate fee will be used or if they will be considered exempt. 4.8 Credits Communities that implement a storm water utility generally incorporate a method of applying credits for property owners who take measures to reduce storm water runoff. Such measures can include, but are not limited to, on site retention, infiltration or other best management practices (BMPs). Credits may be applied for to reduce the utility fee for individual parcels. Credits can be considered where runoff is retained on a single parcel or water quality enhancement projects have been implemented. reconstruction by the Storm Water Utility. Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI N OL0602.00 Page 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lino Lakes SWU Revenue Forecast w o w Retention as as as o. rQ a a 2 • E U .W b 0 N . I Li ,n EXEMP T EXEMP T EXEMP T N O po O 1.24 0.97 O\ O EXEMP T N N N -- o m 1.36 o v r 92 88 o0 EA 05.LS$ Q■ 00 EA Q\ ,0 EA 0, ,0 EA o 64 N O N EA $14,385 N M EA M M O, 69 Q rZ %0Z o O 7 0 v', N %05 o, 0o O M 69 v-, M O :A $35,963 rn op 7 EA $38,672 M 7 69 Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre 0 a, O O O M V w ,n '. O O N N 402 o N 11 cn rx High Density Residential Commercial I 4 Institutional 1 Agricultural, Vacant Road Right -of- Way Urban Transitional Open Water Total O v E N C4 V a`ni j 0 Annual Revenue Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI NOL0602.00 Page 20 City of Lino Lakes Estimated Storm Water Utility Budget 2/15/2006 F„ ....... #........... y. 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 2011 Sweeping/aeaning/Repai s € 85,000 90,000 I 95,000 100,000 105,000 Equipment (1) 42,500: 44,6251 46,856 49,199 51,659 ,Personnel - 1.5 GMW 95,000 99,750 104,738 109,974 115,473'. LSWM Projects ; 50,000 - 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275; !Pipe Inspections/maint ; 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 [-Ditch & Pond Cleaning [ 50,000 I 51,500 53,045 k 54,636 ' 56,275 [-Street Reconstruction 75 %SWU Funded i 393,750.00T 405,562.50 417 72938 430,261.26 443,169.09 NPDES Requirements i 25,000 i 25,000 25,000 ` 25,000 ! 25,000 Total Budget 791,250 819,438 848,458 878,344 909,128 }1) Equipment Needs Sweeper 135,000 iJetterNac - 1/2 of cost 140,000 Single Axle Dump 150,000 4.25,000 Estimated 10 service life /10 [-Annualized cost 42,500 'Storm Sewer portion of Street Reconstruction per PMP mm 525,0001 540,750 556,973 1 573,682 590,8921 j_v t A 849,323 5.0 Alternative Rate Revenue Estimates 5.1 Alternative Funding Options The City Council may wish to consider the following funding option were the storm water related costs for the street reconstruction projects are funded by a combination of the Storm Water Utility and the General Fund and /or Assessments. 5.2 75 % SWU Funded Scenario: If the storm water related costs of the forecasted average street reconstruction costs were paid 75% by the Storm Water Utility the rate for the SWU would be $3.75 per REU /month. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 21 Lino Lakes SWU Revenue Forecast Land Use Surface Area (ac) Total Revenue Utility # Monthly Revenue Credit Credit Factor SS Address Charge (monthly) Assumption Estimate (per acre) Factor Curve Runoff Runoff Runoff Retention Depth Vol. Index (inches) (inches) (ac-ft) (CN) (S) (Q) (QA) Residential 7576 1.00 6940 $3.75 $26,025 NA $0 $15.00 70 4.29 0.24 152 High Density Residential 18 3.30 Per Acre $892 20% $178 $49.57 85 1.76 0.80 1 Commercial 402 5.14 Per Acre $31,003 40% $12,401 $77.12 92 0.87 1.24 41 Industrial 209 4.01 PerAcre $12,577 25% $3,144 $60.18 88 1.36 0.97 17 Institutional 554 4.01 PerAcre $33,338 50% $16,669 $60.18 88 1.36 0.97 45 Agricultural, Vacant EX E M P T Road Right -of -Way EXEM P T Urban Transitional EXEMPT Open Water EXEMPT Total 8,759 I I I I $103,835 I I $32,393 I I I 256 Inputs: FRU Rainfall (ERU) Residential Lot Size $3.75 2.0 /mo. inch 0.25 acre Gross Est. Credits Net Annual Revenue I81,246,017I $388,712 I $857,304 5.3 5 0% SWU Funded Scenario: If the storm water related costs of the forecasted average street reconstruction costs were paid 50% by the Storm Water Utility the rate for the SWU would be $3.10 per REU /month. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 22 1 r 1 c 1 i 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes Estimated Storm Water Utility Budget 2/15/2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sweeping/Cleaning/Repairs 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 Equipment (1) 42,500 44,625 46,856 49,199 51,659 Personnel - 1.5 GMW 95,000 99,750 104,738 109,974 115,473 SWM Projects 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Pipe Inspections /maint 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Ditch & Pond Leaning 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 Street Reconstruction 50°/ SWU Funded 262,500.00 270,375.00 278,486.25 286,840.84 295,446.06 NPDES Requirements 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Total Budget 660,000 684,250 709,215 734,923 761,404 Average 709,959 1) Equipment Needs Sweeper 135,000 JetterNac - 1/2 of cost 140,000 Single Axle Dump 150,000 425,000 Estimated 10 service life /10 Annualized cost 42,500 Storm Sewer portion of Street Reconstruction per PMP 525,000 540,750 556,973 573,682 590,892 Lino Lakes SWU Revenue Forecast Land Use Surface Area (ac) Total Revenue Utility 9 Monthly Revenue Credit Credit Factor $$ Charge (monthly) Assumption Estimate (per acre) Factor Address Curve Runoff Retention Index (inches) (S) (CN) Runoff Runoff Depth Vol. (inches) (Q) (ac -ft) (Q A) Residential 7576 1.00 6940 $3.10 $21,514 NA $0 $12.40 70 4.29 0.24 152 High Density Residential 18 3.30 Per Acre $738 20% $148 $40.98 85 1.76 0.80 1 Commercial 402 5.14 Per Acre $25,629 40% $10,252 $63.75 92 0.87 1.24 41 Industrial 209 4.01 Per Acre $10,397 25% $2,599 $49.75 88 1.36 0.97 17 Institutional 554 4.01 Per Acre $27,559 50% $13,780 $49.75 88 1.36 0.97 45 Agricultural, Vacant EXEMPT Road Right -of -Way EXEMPT Urban Transitional EXEMPT Open Water EXEMPT Total 8,759 I I I I $85,837 I I 826,778 I I I 256 Inputs: ERU Rainfall (ERU) Residential Lot Size $3.10 2.0 /mo. inch 0.25 acre Gross Est. Credits Net Annual Revenue 181,030,0401 $321,335 I $708,705 Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -LI NOL0602.00 Page 23 Table 6 Utility Cost Comparison City Monthly Fee Residential Anoka County and Nearby Cities Andover $1.81 Anoka $1.75 Blaine NO Centerville $1.66 Coon Rapids $2.38 Forest Lake NO Fridley $1.07 Ham Lake NO Hugo NO White Bear Township $2.00 White Bear Lake NO Twin Cities Burnsville $ 5.75 Woodbury $ 5.23 North Saint Paul $ 5.00 New Brighton $ 4.88 Hopkins $ 4.50 Plymouth $ 4.02 Shoreview $ 3.49 Richfield $ 3.20 Crystal $ 3.00 Mounds View $ 2.50 Chanhassen $ 2.50 Coon Rapids $ 2.38 Brooklyn Park $ 2.00 White Bear Township $ 2.00 Andover $ 1.81 Anoka $ 1.75 Oakdale $ 1.67 Centerville $ 1.66 Roseville $ 1.63 Roseville $ 1.63 Falcon Heights $ 1.23 Fridley $ 1.07 Each of the above was called on April 25, 2006 to confirm the current rate. The rates above are per month. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 24 w e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Northern and Central Minnesota Area Cities Grand Rapids $5.35 Bemidji $5.25 Brainerd $3.00 Thief River Falls $3.00 Alexandria $2.75 Fergus Falls $2.10 Baxter $2.00 Detroit Lakes $1.82 Hutchinson $1.75 Little Falls $1.00 6.0 Implementation of the Utility Prior to deciding whether or not to implement a utility, a public involvement program is usually developed in an effort to measure public acceptance of the program. Once public support exists, implementation of a utility will require several steps: • Drafting a final ordinance to provide the legal basis for implementation of the utility. • Establish the individual property charges based on acreage, land use, and the rate as established by ordinance. • Modification of the current billing procedure. • Create a fund to which utility revenues would be paid into, and from which revenues can be made available for identified expenditures. • Identify the Administrator of the Surface Water Management Utility. The Administrator, typically the Director of Public Works, City Engineer, or City Administrator, is responsible for managing the funds, establishing budgets, and handling rate adjustments. The major effort in administering the utility will be to determine the area and land use category for each parcel in Lino Lakes. Additional effort may be necessary to expand the billing process to include those properties that do not currently receive City water and sewer service. 6.1 Public Acceptance 6.1.1 Public Information Program The storm water utility concept will succeed if it has complete public understanding and support. Additionally, the decision makers and the public must understand the benefits to be derived from such a program. 6.1.1.1 Articles Articles in existing utility billings and in the local newspaper can help explain the program. This "spreading the word" aspect cannot be over Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 25 emphasized. SEH has prepared a Storm Water Utility information sheet (1 page, 2 sided) that can be used to help educate the public. Unless overwhelming community acceptance of such a program exists, ample time should be set aside for the public information program. 6.1.1.2 Special Mailings Most communities have developed special promotional mailings to introduce the utility concept to the community. These procedures vary from simple to elaborately printed documents. Typically, the mailings outline the need for the program and typical charges by property classifications. In some cases, these promotional materials have also been used to announce upcoming informational meetings. 6.1.1.3 Informational Meetings Community leaders can interface with the general public at informational meetings designed to explain the reason behind the utility and how the utility will impact individual properties (Jouseau, 1983). An example format would involve a late afternoon/early evening open house followed by a formal presentation. 6.1.1.4 Public Hearing A public hearing is held for final consideration of the utility. The hearing represents a formal opportunity for citizen input prior to Council action adopting the utility ordinance. 6.1.1.5 Common Questions and Answers Appendix B of the report illustrates typical questions (and corresponding responses) that arise during consideration of the utility. 6.2 Ordinance Development 6.2.1 Model Ordinance This model ordinance is intended to outline the key elements to be included in official controls to support the utility. The legal basis for the utility should be an ordinance and corresponding Lino Lakes policy. The ordinance establishes the storm water utility, and outlines the following: • Calculation of utility fees; • Credit system; • Exemptions; • Payment of fee; • City policy; and • Supporting computations. A model ordinance is provided on the following two pages. The model ordinance differs from some of the more common ordinances in that it establishes a mathematical basis behind the fee system, supported by standard engineering principles and practices. A drafted Lino Lakes Policy Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 26 Statement in support of the basis and function of the Storm Water Utility follows the model ordinance. 7.0 Storm Water Utility Ordinance 7.1 00.010 - General Operation The City of Lino Lakes storm water system shall be operated as a public utility (hereinafter called the "Storm Water utility" or "utility"), pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 444.075, from which revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Minnesota Statutes. 7.2 00.020 - Definitions. Utility Factor 7.2.1 Utility Factor The utility factor is defined as the ratio of runoff volume, in inches, for a particular land use, to the runoff volume, in inches for an average single - family residential, assuming a 2 -inch rainfall and Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) "Type B" soil conditions. 7.2.2 Storm Water Utility Fee The Storm Water utility fee is defined as the annual charge developed for each parcel of land. 7.2.3 Monthly Utility Revenue The utility revenue is the estimated monthly expenditures for planning and inventories, capital expenditures, personnel and equipment and operation of the storm water utility, in accordance with established City of Lino Lakes policy. 7.3 00.030 - Storm Water Utility Factors. The Storm Water Utility fee shall be determined by first determining the percentage of total runoff in Lino Lakes which is attributed to single - family residential property. The fee per acre for single - family residential is computed by computing the product of the runoff percentage and the Storm Water Utility Revenue, divided by the estimated total acres of single - family residential land use in the City of Lino Lakes. The per acre fee for all other individual parcels shall be defined as the product of the single - family residential per -acre fee, the appropriate utility factor and the total acreage of the parcel. Single - family residential parcels shall be charged on a per household basis. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 27 1 r 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The utility factors for various land uses are shown in the following table. Table 7 Utility Factors for Various Land Uses Land Use Utility Factor Residential 1.00 High Density 3.30 Commercial 5.14 Industrial 4.01 Institutional 4.01 Parks /Open Space /Cemeteries* EXEMPT* Road Right -of -Way EXEMPT Lakes /Streams/Wetlands EXEMPT Undeveloped EXEMPT *The open space (green space) of parks, open space and cemeteries are exempt. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and parking lots will be billed at the commercial rate per acre. 7.4 00.040 - Credits The Council may adopt policies, by resolution, for adjustment of the Storm Water Utility fees. Information to justify a credit adjustment must be supplied by the property owner. Such adjustments of fees shall not be retroactive. Credits will be reviewed regularly by City Staff. 7.5 00.050 - Exemptions The following land uses are exempt from the storm water management fee: 1. Public Road Right -of -Way 2. Lakes 3. Wetlands 7.6 00.060 - Payment of Fee Storm Water Utility Fees shall be billed every month with water and sanitary sewer bills. The fee shall be due and payable under the same terms as water and sanitary sewer utility bills. Any prepayment or overpayment of charges shall be retained by the City of Lino Lakes and applied against subsequent fees. 7.7 00.070 - Appeal of Fee If a property owner or person responsible for paying the Storm Water Utility fee believes that a particular assigned fee is incorrect, such a person may request that the fee be re- computed. 7.8 00.080 - Penalty for Late Payment Each billing for storm water utility fees not paid when due shall incur a penalty charge of ten percent (10 percent) per billing cycle of the amount past due. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 28 7.9 00.090 - Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes If any three consecutive Storm Water Utility fees have not been paid when due, then a penalty as set forth on Section 00.080 shall be added to the amount due. Any such past due fees may then be certified to the County Auditor for collection with real estate taxes on the following year, pursuant to Minnesota Statue. In addition, the City of Lino Lakes shall also have the right to bring a civil action or to take other legal remedies to collect unpaid fees. - -- End of Proposed Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility Ordinance - -- 8.0 City of Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility Proposed City Policy 8.1 Policy Statement All properties within the City of Lino Lakes shall contribute to the Storm Water Utility in an amount proportional to the runoff contributed by each particular parcel. 8.2 Exemptions Street and Highway Right -of -Way shall be exempt from all charges. Lakes listed by the Minnesota DNR as Natural Environment Waters, Recreational Development Waters or General Development Waters shall be exempt from all charges. Wetlands on all nonresidential property which are not part of a formal storm water management system and which are maintained in a natural state shall be exempt from all charges. Parkland and open spaces shall be exempt from all charges. Wastewater facilities and airports shall be exempt from all charges if they are permitted individually under the Minnesota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and are separate, identified Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4's) under NPDES. If it is determined at a later date that wastewater facilities and airports fall within Lino Lakes NPDES Phase II MS4 permit, this exemption may be changed. 8.3 Fee Basis Land Use - Land use for determining storm water utility fees shall be the existing land use at the date of enactment of the Storm Water Utility Ordinance. As land is developed, or redeveloped, the fees will be re- computed based on the revised land use. If downstream facilities (storm sewers, ponds, etc.) have been developed in anticipation of future development, undeveloped property shall be treated as fully developed. Soils - Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) - Type B soils shall be assumed for determining the runoff index (CN) in the revenue,equation. Rainfall (P) - A 2 -inch rainfall will be used in the revenue equation. Runoff Indices (CN) - The runoff indices for the property classifications are as follows: Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 8 Runoff Indices Land Use Runoff Index (CN) Residential 70 High Density 85 Commercial 92 Industrial 88 Institutional 88 Parks /Open Space /Cemeteries EXEMPT Road Right -of -Way EXEMPT Lakes /Streams/Wetlands EXEMPT Undeveloped EXEMPT Revenue Equation - The revenue equation for computing the runoff volume (Q) shall be based on the runoff equation in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) National Engineering Handbook Section 4 - Hydrology. The equation is as follows: Q = (P- 0.2S)2 P + 0.8S where S = (1000 /CN) - 10 and P = 2" 8.4 Credits Storm Water Utility fees may be adjusted under the conditions stated below. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to provide justification for the fee adjustment. Credits must be applied for by (date) of the year preceding the year in which the credit is to be considered. Storm Water Retention If it can be demonstrated that an individual parcel retains all or a portion of the rainfall that it receives, the storm water management fee will be reduced by a percentage equal to that percent of the parcel which produces no external runoff. A fee reduction of 20 percent or greater must be demonstrated if the credit is to be applied. Property Under - utilization - If it can be demonstrated that a parcel's existing land use is developed to a lower density than assumed in the fee determination, and that no downstream improvements have been constructed based on potential development of the parcel, a reduction in fee may be considered. Water Quality Facility - Those parcels having facilities constructed specifically for the purpose of water quality enhancement may be eligible for a credit. The credit will be based on the removal efficiency of the facility. The property owner shall provide the calculations demonstrating the phosphorus removal efficiency of the facility. The credit will be equal to 60 percent of the phosphorus reduction percentage. A fee reduction of 20 percent or greater must be demonstrated if the credit is to be applied. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 30 8.5 Adjustment of Fees Storm Water utility Fees will be adjusted under the following conditions. Revision of Storm Water Revenue - The estimated expenditures for the management of storm water shall be revised at a frequency determined by the City Council. The fees will be adjusted accordingly and will follow established procedures for this adjustment of utility (water and sewer) rates. Application for Credit — The City shall establish and utilize a credit application form for consideration of fee reduction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to apply for a credit. Change in Developed Condition of Parcel - In the case of residential property; the revised utility rate will take effect immediately following occupancy of the dwelling. With all other development, the revised utility rate will be applied as soon as drainage /water quality features are developed. - -- End of Proposed Lino Lakes Policy Statement - -- 9.0 Billing Options Several key decisions exist relative to billing options. • How should it be billed? ■ Who should pay the bill? Three options are considered for billing. • A separate bill. ■ A line item on the annual County tax statement; and • A line item on the existing utility bills (water meter). The separate bill option was eliminated as being too expensive. The option to add a line item to the County tax bill seems more difficult to administer and also has a stronger connotation of being a tax rather than user fee. The option to add a line to existing water meter utility bills is recommended since it is less expensive, the customer base is in place, and it closely aligns with the party who should be paying the storm water utility fee. The next question addresses who should be paying the bill (i.e., the property owner or the occupant/tenant). If the property owner pays, the occupant/tenant would end up paying eventually through their rent. It is assumed that for non -owner occupied properties, that the existing arrangement between those two parties is already being resolved with the water bill and this should minimize later complaints, appeals, and conflict resolutions. It is further recommended that storm water utility billing be aligned with existing water accounts. For those properties not currently hooked up to municipal services, an account will be created to bill the Storm Water Utility on a quarterly basis. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 31 9.1 Establishing Individual Utility Bills The process of establishing billing from property identification information and incorporating into the existing billing system requires a succession of interrelated steps. It is envisioned that this process will involve the City of Lino Lakes building a data set, likely with the assistance of outside technical support. Simply stated, the challenge is to synchronize parcel areas with their existing land use, multiplied times the billing rate for each respective location code. This land use can be derived from the assessor's land use code in the tax roll, an existing land use map, the official zoning map or a combination of these sources which may involve field verification in some instances. Since the zoning map may not indicate existing land use, that option is not recommended. It is recommended that the assessor's land use code be relied on with cross checks made between the existing land use map and zoning classifications. As described earlier in the text, single - family residential properties will be billed a flat per - household rate. Higher density uses will be billed by the acre. As such, Lino Lakes staff will prepare a file with fields for billing code, property identification number or PIN, land use type, rate, acreage (when applicable), and the amount of the monthly bill. It is envisioned that this process will involve the City of Lino Lakes building the data set, with the assistance of outside technical support if needed. 9.2 Conflict Resolution A manual process of conflict resolution is required. The process will verify that all properties have been accounted for and the fee is appropriate. The existing GIS system can provide a graphic solution, but will not eliminate the need for a manual review. 9.3 Initiating New Billings An account can be established before utility service begins It is recommended that the lot (parcel) not be billed until it is developed and the owner /occupant is paying a water bill. Setting up an initial file or account could be triggered by an application for a building permit. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 32 Billing System Flow Chart City Council • Finalize Policy 1 Establish Rates • City Staff SEH Complete tax parcel map • Identify parcel land uses • Calculate Monthly Bill 4 Customer Receive fee 4 Yes Receive Bill No i Pay fee Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 33 A -LI NOL0602.00 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 10.1 Conclusions From the material presented in this report, the following conclusions have been made: • A basic principle of a SWU should be that revenues equal costs. • The Storm Water Utility method is the best financing option because it is fair, dependable, acceptable, and flexible. • A Storm Water utility, supported by the service charge, provides financing for storm water management improvements, based on a particular property's contribution of runoff water to the drainage system. • The utility benefits a community by providing a dedicated fund for drainage system improvements and maintenance and water quality enhancement. • The key elements to the utility approach are: ■ All properties benefit; and • All developed properties should pay. • "Contributors Pay." 10.2 Recommendations • A storm water management utility (Storm Water Utility) should be utilized to pay for Lino Lakes' storm water management program drainage system. • Fees shall be based on runoff contributed to the drainage system, following NRCS (SCS) criteria and a two -inch rainfall. Utilizing the Curve Number Values for a type `B" soil. • An ordinance should be prepared as the legal basis for the utility. • The existing land use (vs. zoning) should be used to determine the storm water management utility fees. • The recommended rate for the Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility should be a $4.35 REU per month. This is projected to fund 100% of the forecasted Storm Water Budget Costs. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 34 11.0 References Fifield, Rusty, 1997. Financing Storm Water Improvements. Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Memorandum to the City of Lake St. Croix Beach. September 8, 1997. Fiest, Dennis, 1995. Personal Phone Conversation regarding Public Facilities Administrations role in MPCA Low Interest Loan Program. Honchell, Charles V., 1989. Financing Storm Water Projects Using a Storm Water Utility; presented at a March 22 seminar at the Vadnais Heights City Hall. Honchell, Charles V., 1986. Creating a Storm Drainage Utility. American Public Works Association Reporter, pp. 10 -11. Jouseau, Marcel, 1983. Storm Water Management: Financing Local Storm Water Management. Publication No. 10 -83 -143 of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, pp. 37. Kremple, Roger E., 1988. Storm Water Management by Utility Approach , Proceedings of 1988 National Conference of Hydraulic Engineering, Steven R. Abt and Johannes Gessler (Eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 1234 -1239. Lutgen, Tom, et al., 1991. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Public Drainage Manual. September. Midje, Howard, 1992. Hydrology Guide for Minnesota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, pp. 160. Mockus, Victor, 1969. SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4 Hydrology. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, pp. 10.3- 10.6a. Nelson, Arthur C., 1995. System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Storm Water Facilities, pp. 173. Oberts, Gary L., 1984. Surface Water Management: Precipitation Frequency Analysis for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, p. C -4. Roseville, Minnesota, 1983. Storm Drainage Utility Leaflet. Skirwa, Peter., 1996. General Correspondence regarding MPCA Low Interest Loan Program, April 10, 1995. Veal, Steve, May 1996. Small Cities Await Flood of Storm Water Regulations. American City & County, pp. 42 -47. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix A Legal Considerations (Joseau, 1983) These charges are to be used for the financing of storm water systems including the conveyance system, holding areas, ponds, and related facilities. Storm water projects include the cost of construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement or other obtainment and the maintenance, operation, and use of such facilities. The charges made for service rendered shall be, as nearly as possible, proportionate to the cost of providing the service. An important issue to decide when a city is considering user charges is the notion of service and to whom the service is rendered. The concept of a charge for service rendered is unclear with reference to storm sewer service. Of particular interest is: (1) what is the service; and, (2) to whom is the service rendered? To answer these two questions one should look at the purpose of proper storm water management and look at the legislative intent. Proper storm water management is undertaken for two reasons: 1. To provide a conveyance system for the increased volume and rate of surface runoff resulting from activities on the land, whether they are urban or intensive agricultural uses. 2. To insure that the surface runoff does not damage riverain or lakeshore properties, or the ecology of a lake, thereby lowering riverain and lakeshore property values. The definition of "service rendered" helps in delineating who will receive a storm water sewer service. First, a service is generally provided to the properties generating runoff because they will ultimately rely on a storm water conveyance system. The degree to which a property relies on or uses the system is dependent on how much runoff a property generates beyond the natural runoff level. A user charge rate structure then should differentiate between types of land uses, density of use and parcel size, all significant in determining runoff. The rate structure should also consider instances where no runoff is generated because of land characteristics, or management practices. In addition, a service is provided to properties in areas susceptible to increases in runoff, especially low -lying areas, riverain and lake shore properties. The degree of protection against the effects of flooding, erosion and water quality degradation is commensurate with the proximity to the creek or its floodplain, or to the lake or wetland. Some modifying factors would include topography, views and access to the lake. These types of areas all to often serve as a reminder of the effect of poor storm water management when they flood. The "problem ", often seen as the flooded property, is really the result of poor storm water management up slope. The real problem is how the up slope (or upstream) properties deal with their storm water Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota A -1 Appendix B Typical Questions The following is intended to provide an example of typical questions that arise during the consideration of the utility: "When will it (the fee) stop and be reduced? The Ordinance establishes the storm water management fees for a three to five year period. As the community develops, rates could decrease since developed properties contribute significantly more than undeveloped properties. "Why should I pay if I don't drain into a (drainage) system? I am being taxed by the City of Lino Lakes now for services I do not receive!" There are two principles fundamental to the storm water management program: 1. All real property within a drainage basin will benefit from installation of an adequate storm drainage system. 2. The cost of installing an adequate drainage system should be assessed against the developed property in a basin. These principles may not be easy for property owners to understand at first, but they are key to the storm water management concept. It is difficult for a property owner who lives on a hill to understand how the construction of a storm drain in a low -lying area benefits him. But storm drainage includes much more than just flood control. Keeping streets open to emergency vehicles, maintaining ponds and open channel so they do not become health and safety hazards, and promoting use of drainage facilities for recreation all contribute to enhancing the quality of life. It is important to recognize that development adds to existing drainage problems. The property owner on a hill has, by converting the natural ground cover into streets, concrete and rooftops increased the storm water runoff. This contributes to the drainage problem of neighbors in low -lying areas. To some extent then, the property owner should contribute to the cost of correcting that problem. "Don't create a separate government agency! Why is the present engineering department not capable of handling this need ?" A utility is defined as service charge based on a property's contribution of water to a drainage system. The utility is a financing method, not an agency; the Director of Public Works will be the administrator of the program. The utility will be the primary responsibility of the engineering department. "Is the utility really necessary? Hooray! - Now we get taxed because it rains - good idea - consider one for wind too! Or maybe sunshine!" Rainfall causes the need for an adequate drainage system. Development increases the volumes of runoff and associated pollutant loads. To address water quantity (flooding) and water quality issues, a utility or user charge is necessary to finance the cost of the programs. "Why do we pond storm water runoff today instead of just letting water runoff as fast as possible into ditches, storm sewers, rivers, and lakes like we did for years ?" Ponding of storm water runoff allows Lino Lakes to take a proactive rather than reactive approach to managing storm water runoff. As development increases, runoff increases as well. The use of ponding not only provides for the protection of property (flood control), but the reduction of peak flow rates also reduces the cost of installing storm sewer systems and ditch/culvert systems to carry the runoff from point A to point B. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota B -1 Additional benefits of storm water ponding include Storm Water protection and ground water protection. The use of storm water ponds can prevent pollutants associated with storm water from being carried downstream to lakes and wetlands thereby enhancing downstream water quality. Additionally, by keeping water on the land rather than letting it drain away, infiltration of storm water can help to recharge the ground water levels. "Will there be a charge on vacant land ?" Under the proposed policy vacant (undeveloped and non - impacted) land will not be charged. "Will there be a different charge on large lots ?" To keep the utility formula as simple as possible, a flat rate charge was developed for all single - family residential households in Lino Lakes regardless of the size of the individual lot. The basis for this decision is that although the overall lot size may vary, the amount of impervious surface for an individual single - family residence is very similar. Since the amount of impervious surface is similar for most of these lots, they are all charged the same amount. "Can we assess the State and/or County for their roads ?" While it is true that State and County roadways and rights -of -way, as well as Lino Lakes' own roadways and rights -of -way, produce significant runoff; roadways have not been included in the utility formula. Although there is no specific reference in Chapter 444 of Minnesota State Statutes prohibiting communities from charging publicly owned rights -of -way, such a charge is only taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Other communities have not considered a charge for public roadways under their utility formulas. "I understand that the utility fund is trying to generate revenue. What are we receiving that we are not already being given ?" The utility fund finances Lino Lakes' storm water management program. Issues to be addressed include: • Water quality improvements; • Wetland protection and enhancement; • Erosion and sediment control; • Drainage system maintenance and replacement; • Community education; and • Improved fish, wildlife, and recreational opportunities. Although activities such as addressing localized drainage problems and street sweeping are services currently provided by Lino Lakes, the utility provides the means to take a proactive management approach rather than reacting to problems after they have occurred. "Why can't persons police themselves in regard to storm water runoff, especially involving pollutants, etc. ?" People can certainly police themselves. Another aspect of the water quality management program is to raise public awareness through public education efforts. Past history has shown that a lack of public awareness regarding lawn care, for example, can result in water quality impacts to lakes, streams and wetlands. As the general public becomes more informed about water quality issues, self - policing, as is suggested in the question, can become a reality. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota B -2 "Will there be a sales tax on the Storm Water Utility charges ?" No sales tax is considered with the utility charge. "What are the benefits of a Storm Water Utility ?" This question will be addressed in two parts. First, the benefits of the storm water management program will be discussed, and second, the advantages of the storm water utility as a financing method will be addressed. Many of the benefits and services to be provided through Lino Lakes' water management program have already been described. Lino Lakes' storm water management program will address wetland protection through regulation (ordinances) and through capital improvements. Such efforts will help to protect the natural amenities that are so important to residents of Lino Lakes. Second, flooding problems can be reduced significantly by planning for proper ponding areas and storm water conveyance systems addressing the increase in runoff from continuing development in Lino Lakes, in a cost effective manner. The benefits of using a Storm Water Utility to finance storm water management programs are numerous. First of all, a utility is funded by a service charge on all developed parcels. Charges are based on the amount of water that drains away or runs off from a particular parcel. Second, since there is a direct correlation between water runoff and the impact it creates, the greater the runoff the greater the impact on storm waters and, therefore, the greater the charge. Charges are not based on property value, as are property taxes. Third, tax - exempt properties pay their fair share under the utility plan. The utility is favored because (1) it is considered fair; charges are based on runoff rather than property value as is the case with general taxes, (2) it is dependable; the utility is self - financing it does not compete with other governmental services for revenues and it provides consistent funding which is kept in separate dedicated funds, (3) it is simple and flexible; utility charges are similar to water and sewer charges the fee system is adaptable to local situations and credits and exemptions can be built in, and (4) it is acceptable; no increase in property tax is required and a regular small service charge is typically more acceptable to residents than a large one -time assessment. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota B -3 Appendix C Suggested SWU Credits Policy and Application Form EXAMPLE Storm Water Utility Best Management Practices Credit Background On DATE the Lino Lakes City Council approved a Storm Water Utility (Ordinance No. XXX) to finance the City's Storm Water Management Program. In addition, the Utility will be utilized to finance compliance with the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II (NPDES Phase II) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) as outlined in the City's Storm Water Permit. The Utility provides for credits for the use of Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as storm water ponds, green space, undeveloped land, etc. Credits must be applied for by Dec. 156 of year preceding the year in which the credit is to be considered. The amount of the credit will be determined by the City Engineer and approved by the City Council. A property owner may appeal to the City Council regarding a determination of the credit once per calendar year. Commercial, Industrial, Institutional A credit may be granted to a Commercial, Industrial or Institutional parcel that can demonstrate a minimum reduction of 20% of the amount of storm water leaving the parcel via the use of an approved Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP). Credits can be combined to account for a total reduction of up to 75% of the Environmental Utility Fee. Documentation must be provided to the City of for evaluation of the claim. It is strongly suggested that the documentation be prepared by a licensed professional engineer of the State of Minnesota and provide the necessary drawings and calculations to support the claim. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove the claim. Examples of Best Management Practices 1. Storm water retention and infiltration systems (ponds), grassed swalcs and drainage from parking lots into grassed surfaces. 2. Storm Water Detention ponds are not eligible for a credit since the water from the ponds is discharged to the City's storm sewer system. MS4. Land Use Credits Vacant Land Credit Vacant land meeting the following criteria is to be excluded from the area used to calculate the monthly charge. • The property must not be developed in any way, or have been developed in the past ten (10) years. The property must reflect land in an "undisturbed, natural state" with non - impacted soils (i.e., the soils are not compacted). • The vacant land must represent at least 50% of the total parcel Feasibility Study A-LI NOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota C -1 • Vacant land does not include "green space" as outlined below Green Space Credit Green space areas meeting the following criteria can receive up to a 75% reduction from the area used to calculate the monthly charge. • Green spaces shall be contiguous pervious vegetated areas incorporated into the developed parcel. • The space shall not have more than 25% impacted, compacted soils. Examples of impacted spaces are trails, ball fields, gravesites, golf courses and picnic areas. • Green space must be 20 feet or more away from the nearest impervious surface or structure. • The green space must be a minimum of 1 acre in size and not less than 25% of the total parcel. • Grassed parking areas that are utilized more than 15 days per year are excluded from the green space credit, as these are impacted, compacted soils. Authority Administrative implementation of this policy was reviewed by the Lino Lakes City Council on INSERT DATE. The Best Management Practices Credit Form, if not attached, can be obtained on the city's website at www.xxx.xx in the storm water management section, or by calling Public Works at (XXX) XXX -XXXX Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota C -2 1 1 r EXAMPLE 1 Storm Water Utility 1 Best Management Practices Credit Form 1 Property Owner: Street Address: 1 1 1 1 1 Brief Description of the BMP or Land Use Credit: 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lino Lakes, MN Parcel I.D. # (If unknown, leave blank) Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address: How should we contact you? Phone or Email? When can we contact you with any questions? 1 For commercial, industrial and institutional properties only: Estimated reduction in storm water volume: Please attach any documentation supporting this claim to this application. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove the claim. Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota C -3 Appendix D Example Public Education Flyer and Public Information Meeting Notice Financing Baxter's Storm Water Management with a Storm Water Utility The cos[ d constructing. operas'€ and rnalnoring Boatels storm water facllkke oorklnws to Incraasa With chi, enactment of the Clean Waco Act and the expectation that that Otywtl need to max the Natanal Polktan Ctschargia Elimination Stetarn uNPD j Phase 11 requirements. Baxter 's storm water - rabrd costs am brocasced to connue growing, Coy general fords and special asseesrnuts hare typically f sunned roast d die necessary rmpro.erne ts. Faced with increasing costs and continuous pressure corentnr& property taxes. the City may Zack . the financial resources to undertake the multi -Isar seam) weer management program that w111 be required to aZdress the incrwsing costs relate4 to storm waver drainage. water quality management and wetland protection. iereca charges which ha.e been used by communities to Murcia Banat', sewer and cote system are rnYw teeth+ applied to starrn water rroraigsrnax. I ha stingy approach is taring r000gnnion as the most equkable way to finance, storm water mragament a Maas while albwtng far denabpment and growth. A storm water utility has been tiny answer as she finea:ial needs of the equatfan for marry communities. J3AXTE1 Grnafw Coirrararty' What is a Storm Water Utility? A storm waver inky n simply a mathod of financing the planning, imple- rnanocbn and maintenance of storm water best management practices rBMPsi identical in cf.; City's budget. The utihrr e a sa'.ice charge or fan based on `use.' lust lika the sentry or dunking water fees. That many 5 n typrcalfy charted against dexebped prods wid-an a cier based on the pr-mnc d 'comfiu:ors par." The rata stnuctura n based on land use ergo. density. panel sae and the amount of rtroff cutnbuted bra particular parcel. Vahan Ind Is r, a natural stn: nwst rain soaks Into the trcud. to }ate da+dopment has been p.a.-kiln. rooftops. drrwways and parking lots staled impar.aus nriacasi preen( rainfall frorn soaking into the grand The rain rtes off into streets. ditches. penis and btes. orating the noel for drainage systems that prcect the quality of our water moots-cos Basing tha loo on how rnuch water runoff b contributed by a paricubr parcel makes a utllty fee a htr and equtable system. This donsrscene. dependable ranru source proedee a dedicated fund to manage that &amigo system and water quality npra.ements. A teak, oho pavidas the means cc halide the I-creasing cost d-rcugh small adornments in tho trdty charges. The utility fee is typically charged against all developed parcels within a city based on the premise of "contributors pay." Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota D -1 How Will the Utility Benefit the Community? A storm water utility benefits the community by providing dedicated funds for storm water man- agement activities, such as: • water quantity andfhod control projects • water quality improvements • drainage system maintenance and replacement • erosion and sediment control • wetland protection • improved fish, wildlife and recreational opportunities • community education • protecting cur valuable natural resources Rate Structure The utility approach is based on the concept "contributors pay" The rate structure factors in land use type. density. parcel size and the amount of runoH and or pollution load contributed by a particular parcel. Contributors Pay Concept :st am y arcte4amty TvtYramsty irclstral ncreasng Irnpenecusness Ctarr^eraal Storm Water Utility Advantages Fair • Charges are based on the amount of runoff rather than property value Dependable • Provides consistent funding • Revenues are kept in separate, dedicated funds • Can be used for debt services on revenue bonds Simple and Flexible • Same concept as water and sewer charges • .Adaptable to existing billing systems. which keep administration oats low, Acceptable • Utilities are in use around the country Public Education Meeting Notice On I hursday, May I Ith the City of Baxter will hold two Public tducatlon Meenngs regarding the Baxter Storm Water Utility. There will be a bnef presentation renewing the howl and wires of a Storm Water Utility and how your rate will be computed. There will be plenty of time to answer any questions you may have. The presentations will start on the hour f2 presentations per session). The first session from Iprn -3pm will Nacus on the t-ornmercial. Industrial and lax Exempt rates and the second session will locus on the Kesidential rate of $2 per hxssehald. Flea se feel free to w-rne to either session with your questions. Date; I hu r3dar. May II 1 Time: I p.m. - 3 p. m. Commercial. I ndustnal and Tax Exempt ! p.m. - . pm.: Kessidential Kate Where: Baxter City Hall SE H 1ht Storm Were- ')rd n:e ore f-bricy Marva, is onal,:bs'e an tike Lary s w eierte at awvw.ci Sarle✓mn :c, Feasibility Study A- LINOL0602.00 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota D -2 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Michael Grochala Date: May 1, 2006 Re: Work Session Item 5 — Pomp's Tire Background d kic1 a'1,k S c c i wr 2o©,6 WS -5 On April 24, 2006 residents adjacent to the Pomp's Tire site attended the city council work session to present their concerns regarding construction activities and possible nonconformance with City ordinance requirements. The City Council directed residents to meet with City staff and the City Attorney to discuss the issues. The council also requested that the issue be placed on the May 1, 2006 City Council Work Session agenda. Development Process In September of 2004 the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) issued a conditional approval (CAPROC) for a rough grading plan, wetland alteration plan, and stormwater management plan for Lot G (Pomp's Tire Site) within Apollo Business Center (Permit Application No. 04 -100). The approval included the alteration of an existing wetland to create a stormwater quality pond to serve the future development of the site as well as a new 27,626 square foot replacement wetland on the northern portion of the site. In November of 2006 the City received a Conditional Use Permit application from Pomp's Tire for a 30,870 square foot tire warehouse and tire installation facility. Automobile and Truck Repair is a conditional use within the LI, Light Industry Zoning District. The application was scheduled for a public hearing and review by the Planning & Zoning Board for December 14, 2006. Additionally the Rice Creek Watershed District issued a conditional approval (CAPROC) for the Final Site Drainage Plan (Permit Application No. 05 -117) which included the replacement wetland identified in their previous approval. The required Public Hearing was held on the December 14, 2006. Public testimony was received from Mr. John Freimuth, 7381 Jon Avenue. The Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval of the CUP with 10 conditions Page 1 including the requirements that; 1) the proposed berm on the west side of the property be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building; and 2) A revised landscape plan be submitted depicting conformance with the buffer requirements of Section 8, Subdivision 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. On January 5, 2006 the City received revised plans from Pomp's Tire, addressing comments from the City Engineer, per the P & Z recommendations. The plans also included a revised landscaping plan addressing screening along the west and north property boundaries. These plans and the staff report were forwarded to the City Council for consideration on February 13, 2006. On February 13, 2006 the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 06- 15 approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Auto Repair Facility (Pomp's Tire) with 11 conditions. A copy of the resolution is attached. On approximately April 8, 2006 contractors for Pomp's Tire, began construction activities on the site including clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. Review of Approval and Site Construction Activities At the April 24 meeting with staff and the City Attorney, residents voiced their concerns regarding a number of issues as follows: 1. Removal of existing trees in the northwest corner of the site. 2. Inadequacy of screening /landscaping 3. Inconsistency with approved plans 4. Possible non conformance with City regulations 5. Construction traffic entering the site from Jon Avenue 6. Problems with an existing private well that reportedly coincided with the timing of the Pomp's Tire site construction activities. To address these issues staff has visited the site, reviewed the project file, project staff reports, board minutes, video of the December 14, 2006 Planning & Zoning Board meeting, RCWD permit review and City Ordinance requirements. Our comments are as follows: 1. Removal of existing trees in the northwest corner of the site. Prior to construction the northwest quadrant of the site contained a wooded area which, in the site development plans, was proposed as the location of the replacement wetland previously approved by RCWD. No tree preservation was proposed or required for the project site. 2. Inadequacy of screening / landscapinq. Removal of the existing trees on the site has increased concern over the adequacy of required screening for the site. This issue is further exacerbated by the lack of screening installed with the Summit Fire development approved in 2000. The zoning ordinance requires screening where any business or industrial Page 2 use abuts property zoned for residential use or where a business or industrial use is across the street from a residential zone. Screening may take the form of either a "green belt planting strip" of not less than 80% opacity with a minimum height of six (6) feet or a fence with a minimum of height of six (6) feet. Earth mounding or a berm may be used to accomplish part of the minimum height requirement. Pomp's Tire originally submitted a landscaping plan that included an earthen berm and landscaping along the southern 2/3 of the site adjacent to Jon Avenue. The Planning and Zoning Board recommendations included a condition requesting a revised landscaping plan that provided screening along the west and north property lines of the site that conforms to the City requirements. A revised landscaping plan was submitted to the City and included in the City Council report for the project. Staff met with Pomp's Tire representatives on Thursday, April 271h to further review the proposed landscaping and discuss neighborhood concerns. In response, Pomp's is revising the landscaping plan to include additional plant materials. Ultimately, the proposed screening will be evaluated by staff, following installation, to insure conformance with city requirements. 3. Inconsistency with Approved Plans. Residents have expressed concerns that the construction activities don't conform to the plans approved by the City and that the plans substantially changed from what was originally presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and neighboring property owners. These concerns are based, in part on the removal of trees and the extensive pond and wetland replacement excavation on the site. Staff has reviewed the application materials, and RCWD review for the project. The plans are consistent with what was originally proposed. As stated previously, a replacement wetland was originally proposed for the northwest corner of the site which dictated the removal of trees. The landscaping plan has been modified to address issues raised by the Planning and Zoning Board and conformance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The only departure from the original submittal and the approved plans is the expansion of the stormwater quality pond to the south of its proposed location. The City engineering department received a received a request for expansion of the ponding area on April 13, 2006. Engineering is still completing review of the request, however, on April 24, 2006 staff became aware that construction of the proposed pond expansion had taken place. While this is a departure from the approved plans the expansion does not impact the screening /landscaping proposed, building location, or parking lot/drive lane improvements. The only city regulatory issue with the pond expansion is to insure that all storm water design criteria are being adhered to. Page 3 4. Possible nonconformance with City regulations. Residents have submitted several excerpts from the zoning ordinance and the "Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan" and identified questions and /or perceived inconsistencies with city policies, ordinances as they relate to the Pomp's Tire approval. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance contain policy statements with reference to commercial and industrial development adjacent to residential areas. Specific references to "high development standards" are intended to establish the legal basis and authority for specific regulatory requirements to mitigate compatibility issues between uses as established within the City's regulatory controls. They should not be interpreted to require additional development requirements over and above what is established within the specific ordinance. For instance the zoning ordinance specifically requires that where a side or rear lot line in a Light Industrial district coincides with an adjacent residential or commercial district, or public road right -of -way, a landscaped buffer area shall be provided along such side or rear lot line not less than 40 feet in depth. This specific requirement is required for all uses, both permitted and conditional, within the Light Industrial District that abut residential or commercial properties. This requirement is intended to provide greater separation between residential /commercial uses and industrial uses as well as provide additional screening /landscaping than what is typically required between like uses (i.e., the typical side yard setback in an industrial district is 10 feet). The specific design requirements, as they relate to screening, are spelled out within the ordinance as previously stated above. From staffs review of the submittal items it is our opinion that the Pomp's Tire development satisfies all the required provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 5. Construction traffic entering the site from Jon Avenue. Residents have notified staff of construction vehicles accessing the site from Jon Avenue. The City does not have any existing prohibitions against construction traffic entering a site from a public street. However, we have requested that Pomp's Tire limit construction access from Apollo Court. Staff is aware that as of Friday, dump trucks were using Jon Avenue to bring rock to the site. 6. Problems with an existing private well that reportedly coincided with the timing of the Pomp's Tire site construction activities. Staff was informed that at least one resident has experienced well problems concurrently with the start of construction activities. The specific problem appears to be increased sedimentation in the well requiring multiple filter replacements. Staff has not seen this type of problem previously and Page 4 does not have the technical expertise to verify the cause. We will continue to investigate this issue with appropriate agencies. Council Direction The City Attorney has reviewed the issues and has submitted a letter dated May 1, 2006 stating that he sees no legal basis for taking any action against the developer at this time. Attachments 1. City Attorney letter dated, May 1, 2006 2. Resolution No. 06 -15 3. Revised Landscaping Plan, dated May 1, 2006 Page 5 85/01/2006 15:37 LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH RUE 4 6519822499 NO.607 D02 LAW OFFICES OP William G. Hawkins and Associates WILLIAM G. HAWKINS BARRY A. SULLIVAN May 1, 2006 Legal Assistants TAMMt J. Uvsces HOLLY G. PROVO Mr. Gordon Heitke City Administrator Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 2140 FOURTH AvnvuE NoKii ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 FAX (763) 421 -4213 B-MAn. HawkLaw 1 @ aol.com Re: Conditional Use Permit Mid - States Tire and Tool, Inc. d /b /a Pomp's Tire Dear Gordon: You have requested an opinion from this office as to whether or not the City should undertake legal action against the above - referenced applicant to revoke a conditional use permit or other similar action. For the reasons expressed herein, l see no legal basis for taking any action against the developer at this time. As I understand the situation, the applicant is seeking to build a warehouse/ installation facility at 7385 Apollo Court and intends to operate some type of auto and truck repair facility. The property is zoned L -I (light industrial). Because the applicant is proposing to do tire installation on the premises, the use is considered a conditional use within the district and a conditional use permit is required. The applicant applied for a conditional use permit. The permit application was reviewed by staff, the Lino Lakes Environmental Board, and the Rice Creek Watershed District. A public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 14, 2005. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended a conditional approval of the CUP. The matter came before the Lino Lakes City Council on February 13, 2006. The City Council approved the conditional use permit subject to a number of conditions. Thereafter, and recently, the applicant apparently has started site preparation which includes substantial landscaping and grading activities. The landscaping and grading activities raise concerns among a number of neighborhood residents who contacted the City. 05/01/2006, 15:37 LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH AUE 4 6519822499 Mr. Gordon Heitke May 1. 2006 Page 2 N0.607 1303 One or more of the residents also appeared at the planning and zoning public hearing to express concerns about the conditional use permit. The neighborhood concerns are related to: (1) the removal of trees in the northwest corner of the lot as part of wetland mitigation; (2) the location of a screening berm; (3) the location of the storm water pond; and (4) inadequate screening of the property from the adjacent residential district. I understand that a storm water pond had to be constructed on the property. For that reason, the northwest corner of the property which was apparently tree covered, needed to be used as a wetland mitigation area. The applicant apparently clear -cut and removed trees from this area. Staff indicates that no tree preservation plan was required or submitted and that the grading of the property is consistent with the grading plan and the Watershed District approvals. There is nothing in the conditional use permit which requires the applicant to maintain the trees. With respect to the berm and screening, it appears the applicant submitted a landscaping plan prior to the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. A revised landscaping plan was submitted prior to the hearing before the City Council. The berm or screening requirements of the site are conditions applicable to all properties in the L -I district and are not limited to conditional uses. A "buffer" is a general requirement of the L -I district where a lot line coincides with an adjacent residential district. In that instance "... a landscape buffer area shall be provided along such side or rear lot line not less than forty (40) feet in depth and shall contain landscaping, planting, berming or other effective screening suitable to provide an effective screen." Zoning Ordinance, Section 8, Subd. 1F. The general provisions of the zoning ordinance also contain screening requirements in those Instance where industrial uses abut property zoned for residential use. Zoning Ordinance No. 8, Section 3, . ubd, 4Q. The screening shalt consist of a fence or a green -belt planting strip shall consist of vegetation or may be in combination with a berm with a minimum height of six feet and shall provide 80% opacity. In this case, the applicant has apparently decided to go forward with a green -belt planting strip rather than a fence. The buffer zone has a berm in some areas and the landscape plan provides for 80% opacity, at least on paper, and apparently is consistent with the ordinance. If, upon completion of landscaping, the buffer is deemed inadequate, the City can require improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in order to achieve 80% opacity. 05/01/2006 15:37 LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH AUE 4 6519822499 Mr, Gordon Heitke May 1, 2006 Page 3 NO.607 PO4 In order to attempt to revoke the conditional use permit, the City would need to demonstrate that the applicant is in violation of the ordinance or of the conditions of CUP approval. Implicit in the City Council's resolution approving the conditional use permit is a finding that the standards for a CUP have been met, including a finding that the proposed use "is compatible with present and future land uses of the area." Ordinance 8, Section 2, Subd. 2 (b). I do not see a legal basis for attempting to revoke the conditional use permit. I trust this answers the question which has been raised. If you wish to discuss the matter further, or if the facts are significantly different than 1 have been made to understand, please feel free to call. cc: Mike Grochala Council Member' irk tt introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 06-15 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK REPAIR FOR POMP'S TIRES. WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a conditional use permit approval for property currently described to -wit: THAT PRT OF NW1 /4 OF SE1 /4 OF SEC 18 TWP 31 RGE 22 LYG N OF CSAH NO 12, AKA APOLLO DR, & LYG W OF FOL DESC LINE: COM AT NE COR OF SD SE1 /4, TH S 88 DEG 22 MIN 57 SEC W, ASSD BRG, ALG N LINE THEREOF 2099.84 FT TO PT "A" & POB OF SD LINE, TH S 1 DEG 37 MIN 03 SEC E ALG SD LINE 694.37 FT, TH SELY ALG SD LINE 109.55 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO NEHAVARADOF 165 FT & A CEN ANG OF 38 DEG 02 MIN 28 SEC, TH S 39 DEG 39 MIN 31 SEC E TAN TO SD CUR ALG SD LINE 70.31 FT +OR- TO INTER/W NWLY R/W LINE OF SD RD & SD LINE THERE TERM, EX THAT PRT THEREOF DESC AS FOL: COM AT SD PT "A ", TH S 1 DEG 37 MIN 03 SEC E648.37 FT, TH S 88 DEG 22 MIN 57 SEC W 70 FT, TH S 1 DEG 37 MIN 03 SEC E 16 FT TO POB, TH S 88 DEG 22 MIN 57 SEC W 131.85 FT, TH S 50 DEG 20 MIN 19 SEC W 203.19 FT, TH S 80 DEG 18 MIN 27 SEC W 225 FTTO W LINE OF SD 1/4, TH S 0 DEG 01 MIN 09 SEC W ALG SD W LINE 425 FT TO NWLY R/W LINE OF CITY OF LINO LAKES R/W PLAT NO 1, AKA APOLLO DR, TH NELY 414.82 FT ALG SD NWLY R/W LINE & ALGA NON TAN CUR CONC TO NW HAV A RAD OF 799 FT & A CEN ANG OF 29 DEG 44 MIN 48 SEC & A CHORD BRG OF N 65 DEG 12 MIN 43 SEC E, TH N 50 DEG 20 MIN 29 SEC E TAN TO LAST DESC CUR 308.46 FT, TH N 39 DEG 39 MIN 31 SEC W 70.31 FT, TH NWLY 156.03 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO NE HAV A RAD OF 235 FT & A CEN ANG OF 38 DEG 02 MIN 28 SEC, TH N 1 DEG 37 MIN 03 SEC W TAN TO LAST DESC CUR 30 FT TO POB, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC ;and WHEREAS, the conditional use permit approval request is based on the following submittals: 1. Pomp's Tires plan set received January 5, 2006. ; and WHEREAS, at their meeting on December 14, 2005, the Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing and recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the meeting minutes; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit meets the requirements of the City's zoning ordinance, subject to certain conditions of approval. Pomp's Tires Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby approves the condtional use permit for automobile and truck repair for Pomp's Tires subject to the following conditions: 1. A performance agreement must be executed between the developer and the city prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. All lighting fixtures must be shoebox, downcast fixtures in accordance with the requirements of Subdivision 4, Section F of the zoning ordinance. 4. The trash enclosure must be constructed of similar materials as the main building on the site. 5. A revised landscape plan must be submitted by the applicant addressing all of the comments of the environmental board regarding planting materials. 6. Appropriate right of way easements /deeds must be submitted to the city prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 7. The entire length of Apollo Court must be completed to full city standards prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. All landscaped and planted areas, including any berm plantings, must be irrigated. 9. All native plant areas must be maintained by a city approved contractor for a minimum of three years. 10. The berm on the west side of the property must be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building. 11. Issues discussed in the Centennial Fire District review memo must be addressed to their satisfaction. 12. The following conditions of the Automobile and Truck Repair conditional use shall continue to apply to this use on the site: a. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. b. All building materials and construction including those of accessory structures must be in conformance with Section 3, Subd. 4.D. of this Ordinance. c. Not less than twenty -five (25) percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as landscaped green area according to the approved landscape plan. Pomp's Tires Page 3 d. The entire area other than occupied by buildings or structures or planting shall be surfaced with bituminous or concrete which will control dust and drainage. The entire area shall have a perimeter curb barrier, a storm water drainage system and is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. e. All buildings shall provide an interior location for trash handling or an enclosed trash receptacle area in conformance with the following: 1) Exterior wall treatment shall be similar and/or complement the principal building. 2) The enclosed trash receptacle area shall be located in the rear or in a side yard which is not abutting a street. 3) The trash enclosure must be in an accessible location for pick up hauling vehicles. 4) The trash enclosure must be fully screened from view of adjacent properties. f. All painting must be conducted in an approved paint booth. All paint booths and all other activities of the operation shall thoroughly control the emission of fumes, dust or other particulated matter so that the use shall be in compliance with the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC 1 -15, as amended. g. The emission of odor by a use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulations APC, as amended. h. All flammable materials, including liquids and rags, shall conform with the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. i. All outside storage shall be prohibited except the storage of customer vehicles waiting for repair. j• Off -street parking shall be in conformance with Section 3, Subd. 5. of this Ordinance and a loading area or berth shall be provided in conformance with Section 3, Subd. 6. of this Ordinance. k. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a form request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served by modifying the conditions. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council th }s 13 dayof January 2006. ATTEST: ell, City • erk-- Jo r. Berg'eson,"Mayor Pomp's Tires Page 4 Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 23rd day of January, 2006. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Memberu(PDAA, (( and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: /� `L (.1A_et D'T) c',tvt,z (, l�c�,l.(,�c�✓], tti 1-2-, sc5v, The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 1 11 �i i ii�111 t ;t l{'i 9t t d 1 'E ; i l' ill 1 i : Pi i iRi191111 €iiiiiti.FIi!j1`11 {1i' {`?t F {:ittiil X11 it'�'iii {[ {�i;t,�i3j 1 !hill!! 1 �! 1! t'' }i�f {} 111 E i 1 ;jll 1;1111 I ill 1i pill f i i;[ }I jii 1 1 ik 11 E#{ di Ii Ili' 9 111 11110 1.11;1 1 i! i /111,1 of ii11[iJ i 111 - i- 1 ' '1fl !,i { P E i 1 1 , i� 11 1 f 11111 1 i� i 1 1 15•i if 8 11 1 1 i( i# i fis?' 1 111 `1 i 'f wi 1111 t { 1 1 `is` {i i {`111111 o� 0 0 r k 0 MIDSTATE TIRE AND TOOL APOLLO COURT / JON ST. `INO LAKES, IN REVISIONS • wtlS tort OM qm meaiRCCtm I One a mow* OY m, w vbr my tf 0t t 1;. u. ' Imps se 01,1 May of IMmosehy SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN KELLER N216 STATE ROAD 55 KAUKAUNA, WI 54130 00! it tb TRO mm,,n, 9 BUFFERYARD / BERM PLANTING SCHEDULE SYM KEY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME BH SIZE QTY. NOTES PARKING LOT - TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE SYM KEY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE QTY. NOTES 814 'Black KW Spruce P)ces deuce demote 8' BB 3 Fully banded to ground a% PK Northern Pln Oak Qumran itibaoldess 2" BB 9 Single, straight leader 0 RD Red Oak Qumr b ole n era 2" 2 Single. straight leader RM 'Autumn Spire' Rod Maple AOer rubripn'Autumn Spire' 2 BB 3 Single. straight leader ® 8S 'Spring Snow' Crabapple Malus'Sating Snow' 1.5" BB 4 Single leader TOTAL 21 Naha Nat tam 1r dmlrbsslnhdeb Rowe eepte epdte.le 0441.1thede4MgMrllraF Moths r+oww dried* Limbic bpaa•ner•daea t►lkealulds /erbriammbra,bCaleb4 wad* *erdillwbapWphillsr tie Maryrybd Typical Deciduous Tree Planting Detail Not bemb 1 f SCAM 1' AREA TO BE SEEDED WDH CITY APPROVED NATIVE, UPLAND SEED MIX FW t:l a.err.da0ywn,dn wMVYreawitMMth•er.. 4d,1 trrMl.retwe Teo rR bit karee *satodmW eel pl •bpd 8hwswimeradni. 9+'eee a01ftlle .+rhbw• rwltw Awed adi M. sea hrbhwa.a adrbdr Mamba de t NOM lb.wbwpespd W mild. twiatrmelntdrpobp••• yablwr*berwlp.at uNY4`srbia.berr 0owiir4Mebrtddtl4114144 tbbOr sk tglkl bs4ewabmbt•0drlkb n pontek nNlWOlowlne rP1r.e.erldb wabp.e RCCC1 e a MAY 01 2 CITY OF LINO L Bs& Are la ma .b BOtheethewthkerthes sop a.a1 V!W*al Q.ldladbt OW* ewe Imbed a de i4drbdedwe abe00aM lkdehndraed eM e *444 aaablrM.rbraph Typical Coniferous Tree Planting Detail Nbtberale ern elesebnaoreedareerwhetheldi •nr.ewept•Peewee Mark •04bhs•rlYhd14e40 dera •MrpttnreadrpY •uepe.eweerWdbahr Typ)Cd Shrub Planting Delell r0 . gt a.tahlY/. the Wu* WM Msaoldrhahttre ihsepdwsldethdrile this Mal lsralsorra 0etsdewdearMb Pe asth need Mdheteehd thee learathloonelthasewels Iteleelde Nal b bode PUINTa1G NOTES: Contactor dal provide •cam thee sw..*. as d pint thelerkle. The an.ewde. beara on eo ebb dew Land4wps AMSrls or genre. melon aealpbm. dew NNW piney. a.pkonrlt pant tadod•dwlde haw • on. Y•ar•manb. asmsdp upon *Map. Tr(haw Me his teponab• p mrnOrlao MlrtaOann alallbl• tar work N pbNh web be node= grow end tab. Rents to b. trebled s per Marrderd PAN plarMO pradma t1.. adPbp,lndu ,aw el for e / In tea Owing hole mad Wafted lowlier Imolawhir larded w Moth planing Me., prrnpthemes br e.paw tie. rl nix or 1 -1 -1 puh •detl loptl, to4 per row) for Warned bade, tread d • nMSm depth of lt. aide ew caredr•s reeprrbay to very locations with d Wan barb my ate woe indkdr . Creae. hrllke* Mersa d btblarl.Wbm. Al apt areas04 be llpr.dwee an Mubelrq uarp4aa prbger oyster& N adde4W .moped rats shall be b•rsd wbl abler try hawk or with leaky pipe., as appopN• to tee MMtap• Seeded ow do Mamas Musson Mukha Mme b pini senyl ter Wrcp. CwladlrIs eporrW to nposepn any tees times not pole within ew ms yaw enmity period. Wow Y pmothLllyd trews ewe bon cap and Wear. Ramo by Ap111. Ops by dA.ip wn BB mdrw., sew.. putts= polled Moo and poly boas rob r naadad. Rule pis* as 1lawsmy pia Omani ea.ary mono Pl.dede w bwr.mrMy rioted Con snivel so.. phapery hest l nweeel anarrry (41.4.1 orb} Al IMAM arms am b be Shur sodded aaaded as mod. Sod stall be maws pow . d hrdy. A4 ( depth) layer of toped Oa be bsd.db dear to be sodded Re Wrp Ora far Web. and taww Mr IoM 08 Oath* reek pow sdM'V (mnnmW and el wed Mir Nether poly busier end nuke. Th. edging Ohl be Mood era .lest .1111 .teat coma Sas •••••••••• h o t aMbp. of mi t Shaded MEeod mulch tine w pMlded Gaud d 14Ytlad tram • • depth dY and s demotic do (err} SOD / SEEDING & IRFOGAT1ON NOTES: •N dealt ewes ere to b. ether voiced or melded a nob. on the Inhmp. Mnyy. • Sad shall wmmmrn Namara lab. AY (tape) ierdpWalwd alga slid b.lmrp.mY. bb d eraabbus/s. M ro4lns era amino moot; •Sodwee sd b'A&Id saw @rrAldbe tame) w bee 5 wT n lamrld Mallon eyMehM•Maar Omaha w phaidwi b ew Omer M OeoMerolotheen Mikan •Arerdbed ty the wabara.lp therms end WM ae e)andl .aided i Lino takes. (1Ry dedgra4d Gale wed mt. 11r upland .et. • Pad edam 4:1 low) Oil be seeded well law tale, Oh' d.dgrrdr nut. nee ml for walked Mb. • Seeded mom not to Malawi ednahrhad b noel (Sa yon) by Cy *prow. JF- 0 (/) 0 0 —) tJ_l~ LLI CY Q Y J 0 o WUJ <0 F— J J 00 -a_ Q SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN OMB 11/10/05 C1.2 April 28, 2006 Dear Resident: (jahz; ad' rytmAA- The City Council will be discussing the Pomp's Tire site development at its Monday, May 1, 2006 Work Session. The Work Session begins at 5:30. The item is the 4th topic on the agenda. If you have any questions please contact me at (651) 982 -2427. Sincerely, )171°—&-- Michael Grochala Community Development Director 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 WS - 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: Council Work Session, May 1, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Retreat Actions Update Background Staff continues to follow up on actions identified and directives given at the Council retreat. The following attachments address ongoing activities. Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking comments and direction, if any, on the communication plan and financial analysis update, described in the attached reports. Attachments 1. Communication Plan (To be provided in the Weekly Report.) 2. Financial Analysis Update 1 CITY', ,; -:QF IN KES WS -6b WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Al Rolek Date: May 1, 2006 Re: Council Retreat Issues Update — Financial Analysis Progress Report cc: During the Council retreat held February 20, 2006, staff provided a thumbnail of the city's financial future. In light of this information, the City Council directed staff to prepare an analysis of future financial impacts of financing policies and decisions made by the Council. You also asked staff to propose possible remedies to mitigate any negative impacts. Staff is in the process of working with the City's financial advisors, Springsted, Inc., and the City's independent auditor to formulate the financial analysis and to develop necessary financing policy recommendations. Under review at this time is financing of past projects, use of special assessments and special assessment/project cost deferrals, debt service needs, impacts on fund balances, financial/tax impacts of future projects, including street projects as outlined in the Pavement Management Plan, and potential impacts of special allocations. Also being considered is the financial impacts of certain development options, i.e. conservation developments. The outcome of this process should lead to the preparation of a meaningful long -term financial plan for the city. We anticipate asking Council on May 22 to set a special work session within the first two weeks of June to review the results of this analysis. This time frame with dovetail into the preparation of the 2007 Annual Budget and the 2007 — 2011 Five Year Financial Plan. Page 1 • • • WS Item 6A WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM Item 6A To: City Council From: Mary Divine Date: May 1, 2006 Re: Work Session Item 6A — Communications Process cc: During this year's city council retreat it was recognized that the council must effectively and persistently communicate to the citizens of Lino Lakes on the issues the council is addressing, the actions it has taken, and the directions that it is pursuing as a result of the actions. This communications effort is designed to ensure that the community is informed officially about what the city is doing and why it is doing it. This effort is designed to minimize misrepresentation and /or distortion within the community about city council policies and actions. The council directed staff to prepare and submit, with the assistance of Jeff Reinert and Donna Carlson, a communications process to be used by the city and the city council to communicate with citizens. The recommendation should specify the city's spokesperson who communicates the city and council's position on issues and items to the community. Communications is an ongoing process. Citizens need to know where they can consistently go for information. The city newsletter, Quad Press, city website and cable tv are clearly important for disseminating information consistently. Additional communications efforts are often based around a specific event, i.e., the visioning process, or a significant decision facing the council. Attached is a draft of a communications process that lists the resources available for communicating with citizens, what efforts are being undertaken, and suggestions regarding possible additional communications efforts. Page 2 • • Requested Council Direction Staff requests that council members provide information regarding: 1. Concerns about current communications efforts 2. Input regarding draft Communications Process 3. Additional ideas regarding citizen communication 4. Direction regarding the draft submittal Attachment Draft Communications Process • • Page 2 • • • Communication Process Council/Citizen Communication Image: The city council strives to be known as an innovative and responsive council that operates in an efficient, effective and friendly manner. Target Audience: 1. City Residents Goals: 1. Communicate city business effectively to residents 2. Communicate city council decisions in a manner that provides residents with an understanding of why the action was taken and what results are anticipated. 3. Represent the policies and positions of the city council as one voice. Current Resources for Communication 1. City Newsletter 2. City Website 3. Quad Community Press 4. Metro Newspapers and Magazines 5. Cable Channel 16 6. City Visioning Process 7. Open houses — project specific 8. City Council 9. City Staff 10. Quad Area Chamber of Commerce 11. Police Citizens Outreach Programs 12. Parks and Recreation Programs 13. Earth Day 14. Recycle Day 15. Blue Heron Days 16. New Resident Packets 17. Utility Billing 18. City Vehicles 19. Word of Mouth Recently Accomplished Communications Efforts 1. New Design for City Newsletter 2. New Design for City Website 3. Expanded Schedule for Rebroadcast: City Council, Planning and Zoning and Park Board meetings 4. Open House — Village of Hardwood Creek 5. Staff speaking at conferences sponsored by: a. Sensible Land Use Coalition 4 • • b. Regional Greenways Collaborative c. Minnesota Recreation and Park Association d. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources e. American Planning Association f. Minnesota Land Trust 6. St. Paul Pioneer Press "Green Development" article 7. Minneapolis Star Tribune YMCA article 8. Mpls /St. Paul Business Journal Finalist for Best Mixed Use Development of 2006 On -going Communications Efforts 1. City newsletter 2. City website 3. Quad Community Press: establish working relationship with new reporter /on- going communication with reporter and managing editor 4. Staff is on the board of Quad Area Chamber 5. Regular "Community News" column in Quad Chamber newsletter 6. Staff attends Blue Heron Committee meetings Communications Efforts that are Underway 1. Quad Community Press: Series of approximately five Revolving Doors discussing aspects of the citizen survey results 2. Gateway Plan for the five gateways to the community. Design stage completed: Implementation is budget decision for 2007 3. YMCA groundbreaking — Press Releases /Media Alerts /Cable TV "City Scope" 4. Improve cable information a. Timely removal of outdated items b. Rebroadcast Decision Resource Ltd. Presentation of citizen survey results c. Advance promotion of schedules of rebroadcasts Additional Ideas for Consideration 1. Citizen Academy. Small group tours. (Potentially as introduction to Visioning) a. Environment: Tour parts of the city that demonstrate different principles of development: i.e., conservation development, FireWise sites, examples of stormwater treatment trains, etc. b. Streets and Utilities: What is the system, how does it work? Visit streets that need improving, explain how our charter works c. Parks: Where are our trails? How do they get built and who pays for them? What are our park needs? 2. Update Residents Guide 3. Examine whether the 11% of residents who claim they don't receive the newsletter can be improved upon. 4. Develop "Virtual Tour" of the City on the website. (Budget issue) 5. Expand newsletter to include additional information on a particular issue selected in advance by the city council. • 6. Develop Communication Plans specific to Visioning Process and Comprehensive Planning Process • • Qf cial Spokesperson A media communications regarding a city's position on issues will be directed through Mary Alice Divine who will, in turn, contact the appropriate staff member for a response. When an official statement regarding a position of the city is required, the City Administrator will be primary source of the information or will review all information before it is released. Conclusion: The 2006 City Survey demonstrated that the city is actually doing a good job of communicating with its residents. Sixty four percent of the residents felt the level of information from the city was good to excellent. The norm for that question in metro suburbs is approximately 50 %. Only 4% of respondents felt the city did a poor job of communicating with citizens. Fifty percent of the survey respondents felt they had knowledge of the workings of the city council, which is significantly higher than the metro norm. Eighty three percent of the respondents read the city newsletter, which ranks among the highest in the metro area. The majority of residents opposed reducing the number of issues. Since the Quad Press and the city newsletter are the primary sources for information, city newsletter articles can provide information that gives residents an understanding of the purpose of city business. Staff should continue to maintain strong relationships and have regular contact with the Quad Press, its publisher, managing editor and news reporter. Staff should continue regular submittal of story ideas and prompt response to requests for information from the Quad Press and other local media. Since a high percentage of residents have access to internet, the website should continue to expand and the city should ensure the website address is on all city communications. • • • WS -7 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Date: May 1, 2006 Re: Work Session Item 7 I -35W /Lake Drive Improvement Project BACKGROUND The improvement of the I -35W /Lake Drive interchange has been a priority for the City over the last ten years. However, the project has not been successful in obtaining the necessary funding. As such the City proposed interim improvements to Lake Drive as part of the Legacy at Woods Edge development. Given the existing transportation funding constraints and the limited useful life of the interim improvements the City entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County to pursue design of the ultimate interchange project. The interchange improvement was based on the premise that City funding identified for the interim improvements would be better spent on completing the ultimate project. In July of 2005 the City Council authorized final design of the I -35W /Lake Drive Improvements. The proposed project includes reconstructing CSAH 23 /Lake Drive from Apollo Drive to approximately 1,000 -feet south of Marshan Lane. The proposed improvements include a four -lane roadway with right and left turn lanes, replacement of the bridge over I -35W, and installation of three additional traffic signals. The purpose of the improvements is to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety along the project corridor. At the same time the City has also proceeded with the engineering design for an "interim" improvement in the event funding is not available for the interchange reconstruction. The interim improvements include widening of Lake Drive, realignment of the freeway ramps, signalization of the ramps and Town Center Parkway and the construction of turn lanes on Lake Drive. • • 411 Total Identified Funding $7,000,000 PROJECT STATUS Project Funding The City originally included approximately $2.5 million in the Legacy at Woods Edge Financing plan for "interim" improvements to Lake Drive. This funding is provided from the Legacy at Woods Edge Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, Marshan Industrial Park TIF, land sale proceeds from the Fairview Clinic property, and a previous residential development contribution. In addition the City was successful in receiving $400,000 from Mn /DOT's Municipal Agreement program. At the same time the City has been actively pursuing funding for the ultimate interchange project. The City submitted an application to obtain federal funding for the improvements from the state's Surface Transportation Program (STP). This funding becomes available in 2009. This application was unsuccessful. The City has also submitted legislation for state participation in the project. At this time is does not appear that will be successful either. However, Anoka County, recognizing the benefits of the City's involvement, has proposed to commit $3.7 million to the project for construction in 2007. The City has also submitted a High Priority Project application to Congressman Kennedy for consideration in this years federal appropriations bill. Additionally, Mn /DOT staff is working aggressively to identify any additional dollars available through the state. We have now reached a critical point in terms of which project we proceed with. Final design is nearly complete for both the interim and ultimate designs. However, Mn /DOT has noted several issues with the interim design that may require a further modification and /or granting of variances from the State Aid requirements. This is primarily due to matching the four lane Lake Drive back into the existing two lane bridge. In general Mn /DOT, Anoka County and City staff are in agreement that the interim improvements, while an improvement over existing conditions, are less than desirable. Additionally, our existing cooperative agreement dollars from Mn /DOT expire at the end of State Fiscal year 2007 (July 1, 2007. The latest interchange cost is estimated at approximately $9.1 million dollars. Our existing proposed funding sources are as follows: Lino Lakes $2,500,000 Anoka County $3,700,000 Mn /DOT Coop Agreement $ 400,000 Mn /DOT In Kind Contract Administration $ 400,000 • Funding Gap $2,100,000 Staff has attempted to identify additional (non property tax) City funding to cover the gap. This is based on the following premises: 1. The $2.5 million invested in interim improvements will be, for the most part, lost when the ultimate interchange is constructed. 2. The interim improvements will negate, for the foreseeable future, any opportunities for federal funding for the ultimate project. 3. When the interchange project is constructed the City will still have a local share of the costs. The City does have the ability and capacity to use Municipal State Aid Street dollars for the project. The City currently receives approximately $435,000 annually from the State for construction of state aid qualifying street improvements. State law does allow for City's to advance funding for up to five years or issue Municipal State Aid bonds to fund eligible projects. Staff has met with Mn /DOT's Municipal State Aid Engineer and completed a preliminary financial review. At this time it appears that this is a viable option for the City to pursue. However, the use of these funds would temporarily delay new improvements to the City's state aid system. At this time the only proposed project that would potentially be delayed is the Holly Drive Phase II reconstruction from Holly Court to County Road J. Staff is anticipating further review of our state aid needs in Tight of this funding option. If the City Council determines that the use of Municipal State Aid funding is a viable option for the interchange improvements staff would continue to pursue additional funding for the interchange to off set these expenditures. Additional funding options to be pursued include: 1. TH 49 turnback funding. Staff is currently working with Mn /DOT to finalize Mn /DOT funding available from the .28 mile portion of former Trunk Highway 49 that was turned back to the City in 1996. 2. Federal Appropriations bill. If the interchange project is moving forward staff will continue to work with our federal representatives to obtain funding. However, it should be noted that this funding is limited. 3. Continue to work with Mn /DOT staff to identify other state funding options. Again, a decision on which project to pursue is time critical. Based on existing funding and development of Woods Edge a project will need to be constructed in 2007. Additionally, the scope of the project will impact the right -of -way acquisition process. illIf the council decides to proceed with this funding option the project schedule would be as follows: • • Complete Right -of -Way acquisition Final Design Approval Bid and Award Contract Start Construction Requested Council Direction December 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 1. Should the City pursue the use of MSA funding for construction of the 35W /Lake Drive Interchange or proceed with the interim improvement project? • • • WS -8 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Date: May 1, 2006 Re: Work Session Item 8 21st Avenue /Backage Road Improvements with Centerville Background The City of Centerville is proposing to construct a new backage road, south of Main Street, between 20t Avenue South (CSAH 54) and 21st Avenue. The proposed roadway project would also include the extension of 21st Avenue to a point approximately 900 feet south of its existing terminus. The intent of the proposed road project is to; 1) provide new access to commercial and industrial properties south of main street; 2) provide vehicle circulation to off set access limitations contemplated as part of the CSAH 14 reconstruction project; and 3) if built this year would serve to minimize business access disruption during the CSAH 14 project in 2007. The proposed roadway is generally consistent with the planning efforts that have taken place over the last three years including the CSAH 14 Planning Study and the City's I -35E Corridor AUAR. Each of the studies contemplated the need for a backage road system to complement the planned county road improvements. It is staff's understanding that the City of Centerville has advertised for bids and is planning to award the contract for the project in May. Centerville has also inform staff that they are prepared to build a 20 foot wide gravel road, within Centerville, in the event that Lino Lakes does not commit to the project. 21st Avenue straddles the corporate limits of the City of Centerville and Lino Lakes. For the project to move forward the two cities will need to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Centerville has already prepared the JPA based, in part, on the one previously entered into for the first leg of 21st Avenue. Page 2 • • • As proposed in the JPA, Lino Lakes would be responsible for 50% of the 21st Avenue extension costs estimated at $150,000 and acquisition of the right -of- way in Lino Lakes. The City does not have this project programmed in its draft 5 -year Financial Plan and does not have a potential funding source other than special assessments to the benefiting property owner or a property tax levy. Staff is not recommending the use of property taxes for this project. The property affected by the improvement is currently owned by Mr. Gerald Rehbein. Staff has spoken with Mr. Rehbein regarding the project. He is supportive of the project, and staff has worked with Centerville to address his previous issues with the road alignment. Staff, following review by the City Attorney, has provided Mr. Rehbein with a Petition and Waiver agreement addressing the proposed special assessments as well as the necessary street right -of -way. Project Financing The proposed JPA calls for payment to the City of Centerville in the amount of $75,000 within 30 days of the contract award and the remaining $75,000 dollars upon contract completion. Staff is currently working to determine the best financing mechanism for the project, which may include the issuance of bonds in conjunction with other projects scheduled for this year. Additionally, while Mr. Rehbein is supportive of the proposed assessment he has indicated his interest in having the assessments off -set by existing trunk utility credits he received as part of the Clearwater Creek Business Center Development. As part of the project, Mr. Rehbein installed trunk utilities at his expense. In return the City agreed to provide a credit equal to the cost of the trunk improvements against future Trunk Utility charges collected from development of his properties. He still has an existing trunk credit of approximately $120,000. Staff is currently evaluating this request. Council Direction None Required. Staff is anticipating bringing forward the executed Petition and Waiver agreement and the Joint Powers Agreement to the City Council for consideration at the May 8, 2006 meeting. Attachments 1. Project Layout Page 2 CITY OF KES MCA AN BACKA 14) ri S� NTERSECTION it J 1 1 N Legend EXISTING PROPOSED 0 75 150 300 Feet APRIL 26, 2006 1110 NI OM :�.tlikiaa:.1Q:1: ?0.:.1i40111:1. /1:R 2i4■$:... • • • MEMORANDUM W S ITEM #9 April 26, 2006 To: City Council From: Jeff Smyser c Subject: Millers Crossroads Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit At the April 24 meeting, the City Council tabled consideration of Resolution 06 -53, the CUP for outdoor seating and a drive through. The Council decided to discuss it further at the work session on May 1. Please bring your staff report from the April 24 meeting, as the report includes the relevant information. In summary, a CUP was granted in 2003 for a daycare business. The new CUP application is for a drive through and outdoor seating. A CUP requires Council approval, which is the only reason the City Council is reviewing the project. The businesses in the building are permitted uses and the building would be an administrative review. Both a daycare and a coffee shop offer services that will be used by early morning and evening commuters. Parents will drop off children before work and pick them up after work. Commuters will use a coffee shop on the way to work and after work. Of course, both types of business will be open all day. The April 24 staff report includes analyses of traffic generation and parking. The Council discussion included the question of additional screening. We learned that the townhome property is owned by the residents' homeowners association: it is no longer under the developer's ownership or control. Staff has not had the opportunity to confer with the developer regarding screening as of the date of this memo. A CUP for the outdoor seating and drive through would be granted to the property. Future businesses could use the drive through if the coffee shop leaves. A fast food restaurant would require additional parking under the zoning requirements, which would be a restriction because of the finite area of the site. • • • WS -10 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 10 Date: Council Work Session, May 1, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Charter Commission Correspondence Background Attached is correspondence from the chairperson of the Charter Commission. In separate correspondence, it was stated that the commission wished the correspondence to be received by the Council in time for their next work session. Requested Council Direction Staff is forwarding the correspondence, as requested. Attachments 1. Memorandum regarding Disposition of Proposed Charter Amendment 2. Memorandum regarding Five Year Plan 1 • Lino Lakes Charter Commission April 24, 2006 To: Lino Lakes City Council Members From: Charter Commission Paulette Warren, Chair Re: Disposition of proposed charter amendment The charter commission has received your proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Lino Lakes City Charter, Section 2.04, regarding incompatible offices. We hereby request an extension of 90 days (to September 7, 2006) in order to study our options regarding the process for adopting this amendment. Realizing that the deadline for adding this option to the ballot is September 1, it is our intention to determine action at the next charter commission meeting, July 13, and to communicate our decision in a timely manner. The charter commission is concerned whether such an amendment requires placement on the ballot; or whether a more collaborative process between the commission and the council may be employed under these circumstances. We therefore ask the city attorney, via this memo, to advise whether an amendment agreed upon by the council and the charter commission may be ratified without presentation on the ballot. The commission wishes to emphasize the need for ongoing communication between the council and the charter and encourages appointment by the council of a council member liaison to attend all charter commission meetings. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Warren Charter Commission Chair cc: Gordon Heitke William Hawkins, City Attorney Charter Commission members (Copy in July meeting packs) • • Lino Lakes Charter Commission April 24, 2006 To: Lino Lakes City Council Members Gordon Heitke, City Administrator From: Charter Commission Paulette Warren, Chair Re: Five Year Plan The charter commission appreciates the challenges inherent in developing a meaningful Five Year Plan, as outlined in Mr. Heitke's April 7, 2006 update. The council, in accepting Mr. Heitke's recommendations to further study the complexities of the city's current and projected finances, has in effect delayed the adoption of the draft plan submitted in November, 2005 until an unknown future date to be determined. While we applaud your desire to have a plan that is thoughtful and realistic, we wish to reiterate that each element within the approved Five Year Plan must be revised and extended (that is, amended) each year, under Section 7.05 of the charter. In other words, the Five Year Plan is not carved in stone; it remains flexible to the continuing and opportunistic challenges of an ex -urban environment. The annual plan review provides ample opportunity for the City to amend the Five Year Plan as necessary, and to publish such amendments (Chapter VI., Section 7.05, subdivision 6). We also remind the council that it is responsible for the administration of the city and must, by charter provision, "hire /remove personnel who are required to operate the city efficiently." (Chapter VI, Section 6.02, Subdivision 2). The commission respectfully requests council review and completion of the November, 2005 draft plan including changes the council wishes to make at this time; execution of a public hearing on the plan; and adoption as required by Charter Chapter VII, Section 7.05, Subdivision 1. The commission views the immediate completion of this plan as a requirement of the Charter and as evidence that the council and staff are responsibly and efficiently operating the City of Lino Lakes. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Warren Charter Commission Chair cc: Charter commission members (copy in July meeting packet) • • • I S�'Nt im t,,d WORK SESSION ITEM 10 LAW OFFICES OF Hawkins and Associates 1' zoo& William G. Haw WILLIAM G. HAWKINS Legal Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES BARRY A. SULLIVAN HOLLY G. PROVO April 25, 2006 Julianne Bartell Lino Lakes City Clerk Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Proposed Amendment to Lino Lakes City Charter Dear Julie: 2140 Four AVENUE NORTH ANOxA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 FAX (763) 421 -4213 E -MAn. HawkLawl@aol.com I have reviewed the letter dated April 24, 2006 from Ms. Warren, the Chair of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission, regarding the proposed amendment to the Charter. In the letter, Ms. Warren asks this office to advise whether a Charter amendment agreed upon by the City Council and the Charter Commission may be ratified without presentation on the ballot. The manner of adopting and amending city charters is contained in Minn. Stat. Chap. 410. Section 410.12 (2004) sets forth the different procedures to be utilized when amending a charter. There is more than one procedure. In the current process, the City is amending the Charter pursuant to Section 410.12, Subd. 5. Under that process, the City Council proposes a Charter amendment to the voters by ordinance. The proposed ordinance is to be submitted to the Charter Commission which has 60 days to review and shall approve, reject or suggest a substitute amendment. The Charter Commission can extend the review period for an additional 90 days by filing with the City Clerk a resolution determining that an extension is necessary. The Charter Commission is to notify the City Council of its action. The City Council may then submit the proposal to the voters. If approved by 51% or more of the voters, the amendment would take effect. All Council approvals require a simple majority. • • • Ms. Julianne Bartell April 25, 2006 Page 2 There is a different procedure that can be followed and which potentially does not involve submitting charter amendments to the voters on a ballot. This procedure is set forth in § 410.12, Subd. 7. Under this procedure, it is initiated by a recommendation from the Charter Commission to the City Council to enact an ordinance amending the Charter. The City Council can adopt the ordinance but the vote adopting the ordinance requires an unanimous vote of the City Council members. There must also be a public hearing. The ordinance does not become effective until 90 days after passage to allow for a counter - petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance. If an adequate petition is received, the ordinance would not be effective until approved by voters. In this case, the proposed Charter amendment was initiated by citizens and not a recommendation from the Charter Commission. Consequently, the City Council is following the correct procedure. Should the Charter Commission wish to affirmatively recommend adoption of the Charter amendment to the City Council, the City Council could hold a public hearing and vote on the matter. If there was a unanimous vote to approve, the Charter amendment would be approved subject to the referendum procedures. If the vote is Tess than unanimous, the proposed amendment fails. I realize that the City Council unanimously approved the proposed Charter amendment, i.e., unanimously approved sending the proposed amendment to the Charter Commission for review and comment. While it may be that the City Council would unanimously approve the Charter amendment based upon a recommendation from the Charter Commission, it may also be that one or more members of the City Council believe that the process should involve the voters as the proposed amendment does reflect a change in public policy. In other words, substantive changes to the Charter and the manner in which subsequent changes to the Charter are made are two separate policy questions. • • • Ms. Julianne Bartell April 25, 2006 Page 3 I trust this letter answers the questions which were raised. If you wish to discuss the issue further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, arry A �flivan BAS /tju cc: Gordon Heitke Paulette Warren Mayor John Bergeson and Members of the Lino Lakes City Council • WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 11 Date: Council Work Session, May 1, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: City Hall Security, Access WS - 11 Background Discussions occurred at the April 3, 2006 work session related to improving the security of City Hall. During this discussion, it was requested that the issue of security and access be placed on the next work session agenda. Requested Council Direction Council initiated. • 1