Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - October 22, 2013C I T Y O F NDQVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVAKU N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESUTA 553U4 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, October 22, 2013 Conference Rooms A & B 1. Call to Order - 6:00 p.m. 2. Discuss /Approve Associate Planner Hire (staff report will be provided at the meeting) - Administration 3. Update on County CAD /Records Management System — Fire Department 4. Discuss Options for Defective and Hazardous Building Maintenance and Abatement — Building Department 5. Discuss Potential Community Survey to Determine Resident Support for City Services /Programs -Administration 6. 2013 -2014 Council Goals Update -Administration 7. 2014 Budget/Levy Development Discussion - Administration 8. 2013 General Fund Budget Progress Report - Administration 9. September 2013 City Investments Review - Administration 10. Other Business 11. Adjournment O ID VE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator FROM: Dan Winkel, Fire Chief D . SUBJECT: Update on the Anoka County Public Safety Data System DATE: October 22, 2013 0 INTRODUCTION The Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council, in partnership with the Anoka County Fire Protection Council, continues to work on the Public Safety Data System (PSDS) to update the records and information systems serving all law enforcement and fire agencies in Anoka County, as well as the Anoka County Jail and Central Communications. DISCUSSION The City of Andover Council, as well as all of the other City Councils in Anoka County, approved, resolutions of approval for this project about two years ago. The resolution also approved Anoka County as the fiscal agent for this project and supported the County seeking legislative approval to bond for the project. The bonding authority was approved and the County is now close to signing the final negotiated contract with the chosen vendors that met the criteria set forth in the RFP's sent out for this very important project. BUDGETIMPACT The Fire Chief will present information at the City Council workshop and explain where the process is currently, along with what are close to the final costs for the project as well as future estimated maintenance costs. RECOMMENDATION Staffs in recommending that the Mayor and City Council review the information presented and ask any questions regarding the project timetable. The final contract proposal and request for the County Board approval to bond for the project will be presented to the Anoka County Board on November 12, 2013. , Respectfully �fectfully submitted, C/J.� Dan Winkel, Fire Chief Anoka County Public Safety Data System October 2013 Update The Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council, in partnership with the Anoka County Fire Prevention Council, continues work on the Public Safety Data System (PSDS) to update the records and information systems serving all law enforcement and fire agencies in Anoka County, as well as the Anoka County Jail and Central Communications. This update is being provided to inform elected officials and other interested parties of the current project status and the remaining steps to completion. The vision is an integrated data system which enhances public safety by improving data sharing across agency boundaries and at the same time achieves the financial and operational efficiencies made possible through a shared, county -wide system. The major components of this shared system are: • Computer -Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data (CAD /Mobile) • Fire Records Management System (FRMS) • Law Enforcement Records Management System (LRMS) • Jail Records Management System (JMS) Current Project Status: The Evaluation Team reviewed eleven submitted proposals, conducted reference checks, attended vendor demonstrations and performed site visits. The Evaluation Team made recommendations to the Governance Committee and contract negotiations commenced. With the goal of procuring the best systems for our public safety agencies, vendors were allowed to submit for all or some of the major components. As a result, one single vendor was not identified as having the best solution for all components; rather one vendor was identified as having the best product for CAD /Mobile and Law Enforcement Records Management while a second vendor was selected for the Fire Records Management System. Evaluation showed that the Jail's current records management system could be upgraded and integrated with the new CAD /Mobile /LRMS system. Together, these new and upgraded systems will combine to create a fully integrated PSDS as envisioned by the JLEC and Fire Protection Council. The JLEC and the Fire Protection Council have ratified the respective cost allocation formulas for system maintenance and management. These formulas are similar to the cost- sharing method the JLEC currently uses to allocate operational expenses for the existing police shared records system. The Fire Protection Council's formula is also based upon calls - for- service data but with property values as a component. Proper implementation of the PSDS is crucial for its success and requires a dedicated project manager with specialized skills and experience. The project manager is responsible for insuring all vendors work together and fulfill the terms of their contracts with the JLEC. In September, the JLEC entered into a contract with a proven project manager to oversee the configuration, installation, training, and deployment of our new integrated data system. Mr. Lowell Vogen is already hard at work on our behalf as our new implementation project manager. The Contract Negotiation Team has been diligently working on specifying costs and scoping services for the components of this system; the primary focus is CAD /Mobile /LRMS. Though not concurrent with the CAD /Mobile /LRMS contract process, negotiations have begun with the Fire Records Management vendor as well. The current Jail Records Management System is a quality product specifically tailored for Anoka County; with an upgrade and integration with the two other systems, our current JMS will meet our needs. What happens next? Capital costs of the new and upgraded systems will be provided by special public safety bonding as authorized by the 2011 legislature. The Anoka County Board is empowered to issue bonds for countywide public safety projects approved by a majority vote of the JLEC with input from the Fire Protection Council. Costs related to maintenance and management of the system will begin slowly, and depending upon maintenance agreements, Cities are not expected to incur additional costs until late 2015 or 2016. After the appropriate approvals, contract signing is estimated to occur mid - November with implementation to begin immediately. CAD will be the initial focus for implementation due to its age and the critical nature of the service it provides. This system is the cornerstone of public safety data in Anoka County. Following CAD /Mobile implementation, LRMS will receive a significant upgrade and new hardware, the new fire records system will be integrated, and the jail management system will be updated and interfaced . PSDS will change the way data is gathered, stored, retrieved, appended, and shared for virtually every public safety position in the County: dispatchers, officers, deputies, firefighters, investigators, corrections officers, and records technicians will all see the way they process information improve.. We want all of our users to be as efficient with the new system as possible when it's fully implemented over the next 18 — 24 months. Training and system familiarity will be crucial for understanding the new workflows and to maximize utilization of the various components What are the costs associated with this system? Bonding will cover system hardware and software costs but not ongoing system management costs. Anoka County will use existing funds and /or loan and bonding proceeds to cover the approximate $7.63 million for the system; Anoka County intends to pre -pay maintenance, subscriptions, and support costs to realize savings of about $270,000 which will benefit all of our law enforcement and fire agencies over the first four to five years of the new system's operation. Other system support costs, which will be shared by each City according to the ratified formulas, are estimated to be in the $200,000- $400,000 range, annually. These system management and administration costs are anticipated to start toward the end of 2015 or beginning of 2016 with the majority of maintenance costs not being incurred by individual communities until 2020 - 2021. Anoka County's public safety professionals are excited about this new system and the improvements it will make in the way we serve our residents. This system will allow Anoka County's police and fire departments to work the way our residents already think we do —as one integrated profession. The public will benefit from our agencies' ability to analyze data and deploy resources more effectively. When a citizen does have to call for aid, their responder will likely have the information they need to help them at their fingertips. Our first responders will also benefit directly from the new system; Whether it's an officer who will no longer have to type the same name in to multiple report screens, the firefighter who can see law enforcement hazard data on an address they're sent to inspect, or a corrections officer who's safety is enhanced by knowing the history of an arrestee before the squad car delivers him or her to the jail, the new PSDS will improve their job. Questions or Comments? Don Abbott Fridley Police Chief/ Governance Committee Member abbottd @ci.fridley,mn.us 763 - 572 -3625 Chris Olson Blaine Police Chief/ Governance Committee Chair colson @ci.blaine.mn.us 763 - 785 -6196 Jerry Streich Centennial Fire Chief/ Governance Committee Member jerry.streich @centennialfire.org 651 - 792 -7901 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW. CLAN DOVER. MN. US TO: Mayor and Council Members N CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator FROM: Fred Patch, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: Discuss Options for Defective and 1 DATE: October 22, 2013 INTRODUCTION The purposes of this discussion are to: • Recognize the post- recession improvement and revitalization of many previously foreclosed and vacant residences; and, • Give consideration and direction to further reducing neighborhood blight caused by vacant, neglected, or hazardous buildings. As the city recovers from the recession, we have been pleased to observe that many previously foreclosed, vacant and poorly maintained residential properties have come back into the market, reoccupied and are being remodeled, renovated and revitalized by home buyers, entrepreneurs and investors. However, there are scattered residential and commercial properties that have yet to recover and be properly maintained. Some seem to be completely abandoned, while others are occupied by residents who apparently have yet to find the economic relief necessary for property and building maintenance. Though fewer, the neglected properties and buildings remain a long - lasting blight and nuisance to their neighborhoods. In the coming months, we are proposing a strategy to more actively encourage the owners of blighting residential and commercial properties to maintain their buildings in compliance with local and state laws. Our approach would initially be friendly and encouraging, but may gradually lead to stronger enforcement following the procedures prescribed by the Housing Maintenance Ordinance, Minnesota State Building Code, and State Statutes, Chapter 463, 463.15 though 463.261, regulating Hazardous Buildings. BUDGETIMPACT Initial costs are considered within the normal budgeted programs for the City; however, as enforcement efforts ramp up for specific properties, expenditures for time and materials would be recorded by property and eventually recovered as investigation fees under the Minnesota State Building Code or assessed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes regulating Hazardous Buildings. Respectfully submitted, Fred Patch, Chief Building Official ,AN66W 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discuss Potential Community Survey to Determine Resident Support for City Services /Programs DATE: October 22, 2013 INTRODUCTION An Andover City Council 2013 -2014 Goal is to "pursue a community survey to determine resident support for current city services and programs ". At the September City Council workshop there was discussion about starting this process to assist the Council on gauging public opinion of current services and support for future capital projects. DISCUSSION The last Community Survey was done in 2006 by Decision Resources Incorporated. Decision Resources has recently changed their company name to The Morris Leatherman Company. Attached is the Executive Summary of that 2006 survey, the PowerPoint presentation made to the Council in June of 2006 and the actual survey questions. Cost of the 2006 survey was $13,750. Administration has contacted The Morris Leatherman Company to see what the 2013/14 cost of a comparable survey would be; they indicated the range for their random sample 400 respondent telephone surveys are generally $12,500 to $25,000 depending on the number of questions asked. A basic 50 -60 question survey is $12,500, a 200 question survey would be $25,000, a survey comparable to the City of Andover 2006 survey would be $15,000 to $20,000. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to review the attached 2006 Survey results, receive a presentation and provide direction to staff on how to proceed. submitted, Dickinson The Morris Leatherman Company. Minneapolis based full- service market and research firm. The Morris Leatherman Company AFFORDABLE EXCELLENCE IN MARKET RESEARCH & INTERPRETATION (Jindex.php) Page 1 of 3 Minneapolis based full- service market and research firm With almost 50 years of combined experience in market and opinion research, Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman know the industry inside and out, and they know how best to serve their clients efficiently and effectively. Research Methods COMPARISON OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES: Mail -Out Census versus Telephone Survey of Random Sample Mail -Out Census: In this type of approach, a written questionnaire is sent to all the households in a community. The survey "package" may or may not include a stamped, self- addressed return envelope. The questionnaire requires respondents to follow directions and answer each question in a specific manner (circling a letter, checking a box, etc.). After a specific period of time, all residents are mailed a reminder postcard. Results are based upon the number of returned surveys at the pre - announced "cut -off' date. Telephone Random Sample: In this type of approach, a random sample of households is selected to be interviewed by telephone. All households have an equal chance of being selected and the adult respondent in each household is also chosen randomly. Questionnaires are administered over the telephone by trained and supervised interviewers. Telephone numbers are tried at least six times http://morris-leathennan.com/methods.php Get in Touch The Morris Leatherman Company 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone: 612.920.0337 Email: pjleatherman @earthlink.net (mailto :pjleatherman @earthlink.ne 10/16/2013 The Morris Leatherman Company. Minneapolis based full- service market and research firm. during a one -week period and an additional six time a second week before another household is substituted for the original selection. Results are based upon a pre -set number of completed interviews. Mail -Out Census Telephone Survey Type of Sample Convenience sample, based Random sample, including upon who responds to the pre- designated target mailing households and substitutions Representativeness Residents with more Random samples can be intense feelings likely to projected statistically to the respond, potentially biasing entire population within the results specific limits of accuracy Probable Response 10% -40% Rate Accuracy of Results Questionable; low response rate makes distortion by "extremists" more likely Fieldwork Time 4 -6 weeks Cost Low -to- moderate, depending on size of questionnaire, size of the community, and number of reminders 90 %+ Statistically significant; e.g., 400 respondents provide results within t 5.0% of the entire population 95% of time 2 weeks Moderate, depending on size of questionnaire and size of sample Focus Groups: In this type of approach, potential participants are screened and invited to participate in a discussion section at a specific time and location. The facilitator engages the group in a discussion based upon a scripted series of open - ended questions. The proceedings can be videotaped, electronically recorded, or transcribed by a note - taker. If there are a series of focus group discussions taking place, the common discussion guide will facilitate later comparisons between groups. In order to ensure an acceptable participation rate among targeted individuals, financial incentives are usually offered and refreshments are served at the session. Telephone Random Sample: In this type of approach, a random sample of individuals is selected to be interviewed by telephone. All individuals have an equal chance of being selected and interviewed. Questionnaires are administered over the telephone by trained and supervised interviewers. Telephone numbers are tried at least six times during a one -week period, before another household is substituted for the original selection. Results are based upon a pre -set number of completed interviews. Focus Group Series of 4 Telephone Survey Sample of Sessions with 15 People 400 People http://morris-leatherman.com/methods.php Page 2 of 3 10/16/2013 The Morris Leatherman Company. Minneapolis based full- service market and research firm. Type of Sample Convenience sample, Random sample, including based upon who is pre- designated target willing and able to households and substitutions participate Representativeness Citizens with more intense feelings likely to respond, potentially biasing the results Probable Response 10 % -40% Rate Accuracy of Results Fieldwork Time Cost Questionable; group dynamics may invalidate results; not statistically projectable 4 -8 weeks Moderate, depending on recruitment and reminder costs, as well as incentives Random samples can be projected statistically to the entire population within specific limits of accuracy 90%+ Statistically significant; e.g., 400 respondents provide results within t 5.0% of the entire population 95% of time 4 weeks Moderate, depending on size of questionnaire and size of sample Copyright 2013 © The Morris Leatherman Company Page 3 of 3 http: // morris - leatherman.com/methods.php 10/16/2013 C Decision Resources, Ltd. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920 -0337 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2006 City of Andover Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Andover. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the community between April 25th and May 4th, 2006. The average interview took 29 minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Andover residents within f 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: Andover was found to be a moderately stable, comparatively young and relatively upscale community. The median longevity of adult residents is 11.8 years. Eighteen percent of the sample report moving to the city during the past five years, while 17% were there for over two decades. Fifty -seven percent of the households contain at least one school -aged child or pre- schooler. Nine percent report the presence of senior citizens, with five percent of the households are composed exclusively of senior citizens. The average age of respondents is 44.5 years old. Fifty -one percent of the sample fall into the 35 -54 years old age range; 16% report ages under 35 years old and 24 %, over 65 years old. Women and men are equally represented in the sample. Ninety -seven percent own their present residences. The median valued home in Andover is $301,000.00, with 12% valued over $400,000.00. Twenty -one percent report living in the Northern Precincts One and Nine. Twenty -two percent reside in East Central Precincts Two and Eight. Twenty -four percent indicate they live in Far Southwest Precincts Six and Seven. Nineteen percent reside in Southern Precincts Three and Ten, while 14% live in South Central Precincts Four and Five. a 0 City of Andover Residential Survey June, 2006 The typical Andover resident has a 26 minute commute to their job location. While 33% report jobs in other Anoka County locations, 18% commute to Hennepin County suburbs, and 13 %, to Ramsey County locations. Seventeen percent work in the City of Minneapolis, and seven percent work in the community. Seventy percent of the sample "always" vote in elections, and 24% "nearly always" do so. In particular, when cities and school districts ask voters to approve referendum proposals, 64% say they "always vote," and 24% "often vote." Quality of Life Issues: A solid 96% rate the quality of life in the city as either "excellent" or "good;" in fact, 39% rate it "excellent," ranking within the top 10% of suburban communities. Only four percent are more critical, rating the quality of life as "only fair." "Open space and rural nature," cited by 21 %, "strong neighborhoods," at 14 %, and "location" within the Metropolitan Area, mentioned by 10% are the most liked features of the city. Nine percent each like "quiet and peacefulness" and "their home," while eight percent point to "nice people" and "good schools." "Small town feel' and "shopping opportunities" are each liked most by Andover residents. The most serious issue facing the City of Andover is "growth," posted by 31 %. "Traffic' and "high taxes" follow, at 13% and 14 %, respectively. Boosters — those who see no serious issues facing the community — are 10% of the sample. A comparatively strong 88% rate the sense of community pride in Andover as either "excellent" or "good." Only ten percent are more negative in their evaluations. Community Characteristics: In reviewing a list of twelve community characteristics, majorities think the number or amount of each one is "enough," with one exception. Over seventy percent, think Andover has enough "move -up" housing, higher cost housing, and service establishments. Between 60% and 69% report the community contains "enough" townhomes, parks and open spaces, retail shopping opportunities, and entertainment establishments. And, between 50% and 59% think the City has "enough" rental units, starter homes for young families, trails and bikeways, and dining establishments. On two characteristics, over 40% think the City has "too little:" parks and open space and dining establishments. Between 30% and 39% see "too few" entertainment Page 2 City of Andover Residential Survey June, 2006 establishments, starter homes for young families, and trails and bikeways. Tax Climate and City Services: City service evaluations are consistently positive. Fire protection, storm drainage and flood control, snow plowing, park maintenance, and trail maintenance are all rated highly by at least 85 %. Animal control receives an 80% favorable rating. Police protection, with a 78% favorable rating, is 14% below the suburban norm. Street lighting, posting a 74% positive rating and a 25% negative rating, is at the suburban norm. City street repair, with a 74% favorable rating and a 27% unfavorable rating, actually exceeds the suburban favorable service norm by 23 %. By an overwhelming 72 % -19% margin, residents oppose an increase in their city property taxes if it were used to enhance current city services or offer additional city services. Among the small minority of supporters of a property tax increase for this purpose, the typical respondent would accept a $37.50 per year tax increase. Forty-three percent see their property taxes as "high" in comparison with nearby cities. Forty-nine percent view them as "about average," while four percent report they are "low." When considering the value of city services — quality versus cost — 76% rate it highly and 23% are more critical. A very solid 83% feel the quality of city services has kept pace with growth in the community. Among the 12% disagreeing, respondents point to the "inability to increase road capacity," "lagging street repair," and "inadequate police and fire services." There is little support for changing the assessment method for street reconstruction projects. By a 64 % -14% margin, residents oppose changing the property owner's assessment to a define percentage of the total project cost rather than just the cost of concrete and gutter. Among the small minority in favor of the change, the typical respondent would be willing to pay 16 %. Between 71% and 85% majorities think the City is "about right" in its enforcement of various city codes. On only two types of codes does the percentage of residents reach 20% thinking enforcement is "too tough:" loose animals and junk cars on residential property. Public Safely Issues: A very high 91% state they feel "safe" walking in their neighborhood at night; only nine percent disagree. Fifty percent, however, consider traffic speeding in their neighborhood to be a "serious" problem. A majority of residents, though, are satisfied with the amount of patrolling by the Anoka County Sheriffs Department in their neighborhood. But, 35% think there is not Page 3 o' City of Andover Residential Survey June, 2006 enough patrolling in their neighborhood. Traffic - related problems — "traffic speeding" and "traffic congestion" — are viewed as the greatest public safety concerns in Andover by 29 %. "Drugs" ranked next, at eight percent. Six percent cite "property theft," while "burglary" and "vandalism" follow, each at five percent. A comparatively large 16 %, though, think there are no serious public safety problems in the community. Transportation Issues: An overwhelming 92% are satisfied with their ability to get where they need to go in the city within a reasonable amount of time; only eight percent are dissatisfied with infra -city travel times. Most Andover residents who work outside the home normally commute to work driving alone. Four percent use a van or car pool, and two percent use public transportation. Among respondents who do not use public transportation, a comparatively large 30% would be willing to use public transportation if it were more convenient — particularly if there were more pick -up sites, more destinations, or more service times. By a virtual tie, 38 % -35 %, residents are ambivalent about the construction of a vehicle overpass across the railroad tracks on Bunker Lake Boulevard. Proponents cite "safety," "reducing traffic back- ups," and "long wait for trains." Opponents point to "not busy enough to justify," "lack of need," and "high cost of construction." Parks and Recreational Issues: A significant 45% report household members used the Andover Community Center during the past year. Ninety -four percent of the visitors rate the Community Center as either "excellent" or "good;" in fact, 48% see the facility as "excellent." Only six percent rate the Center unfavorably, citing "high costs." By an large 82 % -11% margin, residents would support the purchase of open spaces for permanent preservation. Thirty -three percent "strongly support" these purchases. The typical resident would accept a $20.60 per year property tax increase for this purpose. But, 20% are unwilling to support any property tax increase, while 28% would accept a $40.00 per year increase. Page 4 C9 City of Andover Residential Survey June, 2006 City Communications: Clearly, the City has developed an extensive and focused communications system. The city newsletter, "Andover Today," is key to 69% in providing information about city government and its activities. "Cable television" is relied upon by 14 %. Both the "City website" and the "grapevine" is used by five percent. The City Newsletter, then, is the dominant information channels used by most residents. "Andover Today," indicated by 64 %, is the most preferred way for residents to receive information about City government. Nineteen percent prefer "City mailings," and nine percent opt for "cable television." Residents, then, prefer to receive their information first -hand, from the City of Andover. Ninety -eight percent regularly receive and read "Andover Today." Among readers, 93% rate the format as either "excellent" or "good." And, a remarkable 89% also report they read "all of it" or "most of it." "Andover Today" ranks among the top city newsletters in the Metropolitan Area. Sixty -nine percent of the surveyed households subscribe to cable television. A comparatively large 46% either "frequently" or "occasionally" watch Andover City Council Meetings or Commission Meetings on Channel 16. Ninety percent of the sample have access to the Internet. Thirty -eight percent have accessed the City of Andover's website. Website users were generally, 85 %, able to find the information they sought. Website visitors are split on the type of Internet service they use: 46% have broadband cable, while 34% have a DSL line, and 19% use a dial -up modem. By a 45 % -29% margin, residents support Andover offering wireless high -speed Internet access. Among supporters, the typical respondent would be willing to pay $22.50 per month for a service offered by the City. In grading the City's overall performance in communicating key local issues to residents in its publications, newspaper columns, and on cable television, 78% award it "excellent" or "good" evaluations, while 23% prove more critical. This rating was among the highest across the Metropolitan Area. Page 5 City of Andover Residential Survey June, 2006 Conclusions: In general, Andover residents are very satisfied with their community. The survey found a large number — ten percent — of residents who see no major problem facing the City of Andover. Concerns about growth and taxes are at normal levels for a growing outer -ring suburban community. Traffic, though, is a somewhat serious concern, particularly congestion. Residents rate the quality of life in Andover highly, and express a real sense of community pride. The key issues facing decision - makers in the future remain balancing growth and development with natural ambience and the efficient provision of city services. Even so, in balancing the wishes of residents against their concerns as taxpayers, City government and staff strike an excellent balance when compared with other suburban communities. However, tax hostility lurks in the background, particularly with respect to enhancing or expanding city services. In contrast, residents support a bond referendum for acquiring more open space for permanent preservation. Generally strong city service ratings are posted across the board, with a large majority thinking services have kept pace with growth. The only aberration is the rating of police protection, which could be attributed to about one -third of the residents feeling police patrolling is insufficient in their area of the community. Public safety concerns primarily focus on traffic speeding. While most residents do not regard travel time between places in the community excessive, results suggest that traffic during standard commuter hours may be an issue. The average commute of 26 minutes is one of the highest in the Metropolitan Area. And, the potential interest in public transportation as an alternative to driving alone is unusually high. Even so, only limited support is evidenced for the construction of a vehicle overpass bridging the Bunker Lake Boulevard railroad tracks. The City of Andover has done an exceptional job in communicating with residents about city government and policies. "Andover Today" is among the most well-read and regarded city newsletters in the Metropolitan Area City Council and Planning Commission telecasts also register a comparatively high audience. And, the City website is both well - received and highly utilized for obtaining information. Clearly, Andover "works." Residents are very happy with their community. They endorse the direction the City is taking. More important, there is a deep reservoir of goodwill toward City Government and its ability to tackle the issues ahead. Page 6 CITY OF ANDOVER 2006 Quality of Life Study Decision Resources, Ltd. ( Quality of Life Rating 2006 City of Andover Excellent 39% Good 56% Decision Resources, Ltd. isure 1 % ly Fair 4% C<--A) Like Most about City 2006 City of Andover Unsure Location Schools Small Town House Quiet People Safe Rural /Open Space Parks Shopping Nice Neighborhood Scattered �I Decision Resources, Ltd. 2 10 s s 9 9 s 3 21 3 s 14 2 5 10 15 20 25 m Percentage Most Serious Issue 2006 City of Andover Unsure Growth Taxes School Funding Crime Traffic Stadium Issue Need Own Police /Fire Need More Rec Facilities Need More Retail Improve Street Repair Nothing Scattered 0 Decision Resources, Ltd. 31 14 4 5 13 2 3 2 2 2 10 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage Sense of Community Pride Good 2006 City of Andover Decision Resources, Ltd. 19% pure 2% r 1% air 9% O Characteristics of City 2006 City of Andover Rental Units Townhomes Starter Homes "Move Up" Housing Higher Cost Housing Senior Housing Parks /Open Spaces Trails /Bikeways Service Establishments Retail Shopping Opportunities Entertainment Establishments Dining Establishments 0 20 40 60 80 100 Too Many EAbout Right MToo Few 120 Decision Resources, Ltd. z City Service Ratings 2006 City of Andover Police Protection Fire Protection Storm Drainage /Flood Control Park Maintenance Trail Maintenance Animal Control City Street Repair /Maintenance Snow Plowing Street Lighting Decision Resources, Ltd. 0 20 40 100 MExcellent MGood MOnly Fair /Poor 120 Tax Increase to Enhance Oppose 71% 2006 City of Andover Decision Resources, Ltd. tor Unsure 10% Property Taxes 2006 City of Andover Somewhat High 33% About Average 49% Decision Resources, Ltd. /ery High 10% Unsure 5% DIATA Services Kept Pace with Growth Ye: 83° 2006 City of Andover Decision Resources, Ltd. Unsure 5% Value of City Services Good 671Y 2006 City of Andover Ilent 8% .are 2% 2% �O Decision Resources, Ltd. Q Change City Assessment Method - m 2006 City of Andover Strongly Oppose 17% Decision Resources, Ltd. for Strongly Favor 3% are m Public Safety Concerns Traffic Speeding Traffic Congestion Drugs Property Theft Burglary Vandalism Slow Response Time Lack of Own Fire /Police Pedestrian /Bicycle Safety Not enough Street Lights Scattered Unsure Nothing Decision Resources, Ltd. 2006 City of Andover 0 20 40 60 80 Most Serious MSecond Most Amount of Neighborhood Patrolling 2006 City of Andover About Right 62% Not Enough 35% Too Much 1% Unsure 2% Decision Resources, Ltd. d Neighborhood Traffic Speeding 2006 City of Andover Somewhat Serious K El dWn Not Too 29% Decision Resources, Ltd. (ery Serious 16% At All Serious 21% Walk Alone at Night in Neighborhood Reasonably Sal= 2006 City of Andover Very Safe 40% Decision Resources, Ltd. nsure 1% mewhat/Very Unsafe 9% Satisfactory 68 0r I ntra-Cmlty Travel 2006 City of Andover Decision Resources, Ltd. nt 24% 'oor 1 % arginal 7% I ) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Commute Time 2006 City of Andover < 5 Minutes 11 -15 Minutes 21 -30 Minutes 6 -10 Minutes Decision Resources, Ltd. 16 -20 Minutes Percentage > 30 Minutes Drive Alone 91 Commute Method 2006 City of Andover Normal Commute Decision Resources, Ltd. 6% it Pool 4% No 6u-ro Yps 30% nsure 2% If Convenient, Willing to Use Public Transit LVE Vehicle Overpass No 28% 2006 City of Andover Yes 24% Strongly Yes 11% re Strongly No 27% 10% Decision Resources, Ltd. 19) WX ; .E all 20 0 Code Enforcement 2006 City of Andover Loose Animals Residential Lawns Storage /Rvs Upkeep /Fences Junk Cars Storage /Boats Upkeep /Boulevards Upkeep /Storage Bldgs MToo Tough MAbout Right MNot Tough MUnsure Decision Resources, Ltd. 0% Community Center Usage 2006 City of Andover No 54% Unsure 1% Used during Past Year Decision Resources, Ltd. Yes 45% Excellent 48% Good 46% Community Center Rating 2% Fair 4% Open Space Referendum Support 49% 2006 City of Andover Strona Support 33% nsure 8% ongp Oppose 3% Purchase of Open Space for Preservation Decision Resources, Ltd. Nothing 11$10.0011 11$20.00° 11$30.0011 11$40.0011 °$50.00° 11$60.0011 11$70.0011 11$80.0011 11$90.0011 11$100.0011 Unsure 0 5 10 15 20 25 w Percentage Acceptable Yearly Property Tax Increase Sources of Informs 2006 City of Andover Unsure City Newsletter City Mailings Grapevine Website E -Mail Meetings Cable Television Local Newspapers Star Tribune 0 bon 1 o 69 64 0 13 5 3 5 4 0 3 2 1 14 9 4 3 2 1 Decision Resources, Ltd. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ImPrimary m Preferred C%-m Receive Don't Recall Excellent Good Only Fair /Poor Unsure All of It Most of It Some of It Very Little Unsure "Andover Today" 2006 City of Andover 68 2 Rating of Format 28 63 7 1 ; Extent of Reading; 53! $6 11 . 1 0 0 20 Decision Resources, Ltd. 40 60 80 100 120 Percentage No 31% Cable Television 2006 City of Andover Cable Subscriber Decision Resources, Ltd. Yes 69% Occasionally 32% 33 %+ Frequently 14% ever 21% Watching City Council or Commission Meetings bli-2 No 10% City Websolte 2006 City of Andover Internet Access Decision Resources, Ltd. Yes 90% Yes 42% No 58% Viewed City's Website w City Offering High -Speed Internet Oppose 20% 2006 City of Andover Support 34% ° ^ceptable Monthly large: $22.50 Strongly Support 11% re Strongly Oppose Gi° 9% Decision Resources, Ltd. am Communications Performance Good 68% 2006 City of Andover 1U "lo Decision Resources, Ltd. Excellent 9% Poor 3% Ri 0 D(3 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 ANDOVER RESIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE FINAL MARCH 2006 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Andover to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years have you lived in the City of Andover? LESS THAN TWO YEARS .... 5% TWO TO FIVE YEARS ...13% SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 28% ELEVEN - TWENTY YRS ... 38% OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 17% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 2. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT .............39% life in Andover -- excellent, GOOD ..................57% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR ..............4% POOR ...................0% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% 3. What do you like most about living in Andover? UNSURE, 2 %; LOCATION, 10 %; QUIET, 9 %; OPEN SPACE /RURAL, 21 %; PEOPLE, 8 %; HOUSE, 9 %; SMALL TOWN FEEL, 6 %; SCHOOLS, 8 %; NEIGHBORHOOD, 14 %; PARKS, 3 %; SAFE, 3 %; SHOPPING, 6 %; SCATTERED, 2 %.. 4. What do you think is the most serious issue facing the City of Andover today? UNSURE, 9 %; NOTHING, 10 %; GROWTH, 31 %; SCHOOL FUNDING, 4 %; TRAFFIC, 13 %; CRIME, 5 %; HIGH TAXES, 14 %; STADIUM ISSUE, 2 %; NEED OWN POLICE AND FIRE, 3 %; NEED MORE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES, 2 %; NEED MORE RETAIL, 2 %; IMPROVE STREET REPAIR, 2 %; SCATTERED, 4 %. (9-1 5. How would you rate the sense of EXCELLENT .............19% community pride among Andover GOOD ..................69% residents -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR ..............9% fair, or poor? POOR ...................1% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% Let's talk about community characteristics in Andover. For each of the following, please tell me if you feel the city has enough, too many, or too little.... ENO MAN LIT DKR 6. Rental units? 58% 9% 9% 23% 7. Townhomes? 65% 19% 5% 11% B. Starter homes for young families? 50% 5% 38% 8% 9. "Move Up" housing? 74% 5% 12% 10% 10. Higher cost housing? 76% 14% 3% 7% 11. Senior housing? 32% 2% 40% 26% 12. Parks and open spaces? 63% 10% 25% 3% 13. Trails and bikeways? 55% 9% 32% 5% 14. Service establishments, such as dry cleaners, barbershops, and copy shops? 73% 6% 20% 1% 15. Retail shopping opportunities? 69% 7% 24% 0% 16. Entertainment establishments? 62% 7% 30% 2% 17. Dining establishments? 52% 8% 41% 0% Turning to city services.... I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor.... 18. Police protection? 19. Fire protection? 20. Storm drainage and flood control? 21. Park maintenance? 22. Trail maintenance? 23. Animal control? EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK /R, 18% 60% 14% 4% 5% 24% 65% 2% 0% 10% 12% 77% 4% 2% 6% 14% 76% 4% 1% 6% 12% 74% 2% 0% 13% 7% 73% 10% 3% 8% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N =137) J 24. Why do you feel that way? STRAY ANIMALS, 29 %; NEED OWN POLICE AND FIRE, 180; POLICE AND FIRE SLOW RESPONSE TIME, 4 %; NEED MORE POLICE PATROLLING, 26 %; BETTER UPKEEP OF PARKS AND TRAILS, 6 %; FLOODING, 13 %; SCATTERED, 4 %. For the next three city services, please consider only their job on city- maintained streets and roads in neighborhoods. That means you should exclude state and county roads, such as Round Lake Boulevard, Hanson Boulevard, Crosstown Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard, that are taken care of by other levels of government. Keeping that in mind, would you rate each of the following as excellent, good, only fair or poor..... 28. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR .................19% crease in city property taxes to OPPOSE ................72% enhance current city services or DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 10% offer additional city services? IF "FAVOR," ASK: (N =74) 29. How much would you be willing EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK /R 25. City street repair and vices or offer additional $30.00 ................15% city services? How about maintenance? 11% 63% 21% 6% 0% 26. Snow plowing? 23% 65% 11% 2% 0% 27. Street lighting? 10% 64% 17% 8% 1% 28. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR .................19% crease in city property taxes to OPPOSE ................72% enhance current city services or DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 10% offer additional city services? IF "FAVOR," ASK: (N =74) 29. How much would you be willing NOTHING ................1% to pay in additional property $10.00 ................14% taxes to enhance city ser- $20.00 ................18% vices or offer additional $30.00 ................15% city services? How about $40.00 .................4% $_ per year? (CHOOSE A $50.00 ................15% RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE $60.00 ................30% UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RE- DON'T KNOW .............4% SPONSE) How about $ per REFUSED ................0% year? (REPEAT PROCESS) 30. What services would you like to see enhanced or of fered? UNSURE, 23 %; STREET REPAIR, 18%; OWN POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT, 19 %; STREET LIGHTS, 12 %; PARKS AND TRAILS, 18 %; SIDEWALKS, 5%; SCATTERED, 5 %. 31. Compared to nearby cities, do you think that the property taxes in Andover are very high, somewhat high, about average, somewhat low, or very low? 32. Do you feel the quality of city services has been able to keep pace with growth in the city? VERY HIGH .............10% SOMEWHAT HIGH......... 33% ABOUT AVERAGE ......... 49% SOMEWHAT LOW........... 3% VERY LOW........... ..1% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 5% YES ...................83% NO ....................12% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 50 IF "NO," ASK: (N =47) 33. What services, in particular, have not been able to keep pace? UNSURE, 6 %; ROAD CAPACITY, 30 %; STREET REPAIR, 32 %; POLICE AND FIRE SERVICE, 24 %; PARKS AND TRAILS, 6 %; SCATTERED, 2 %. 34. When you consider the city prop- erty taxes you pay and the quality of city services you receive, would you rate the general value of city services as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXCELLENT ..............8% GOOD ..................68% ONLY FAIR .............21% POOR ...................2% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% 6 Currently, the City's neighborhood street reconstruction program only assesses those property owners who receive new concrete curb and gutter or have asphalt curb replaced with concrete curb and gutter. Typically, this amounts to about 20% of the total project cost. The asphalt street and storm sewer improvements, usually 80% of the project cost, are not assessed to the property owners but funded through general city -wide property tax revenue. 35. Would you favor or oppose changing the property owner's assessment for these projects to a defined percentage of the total project cost rather than just the cost of concrete and gutter? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY FAVOR......... 3% FAVOR .................11% OPPOSE ................47% STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 17% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 22% IF "STRONGLY FAVOR" OR "FAVOR," ASK: (N =57) @ 36. Which of the following per- centages would you be willing to pay? (READ LIST) Moving on.... LESS THAN 15 %.........30% 15 % ...................21% POLICE AND FIRE DEPART 20 % ...................16% 25 % ....................9% TOO MUCH ...............1% 30 % ....................0% ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT.... 63% 35 % ....................0% NOT ENOUGH ............ 35% 40 % ....................4% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% MORE THAN 40 %..........7% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 14% 37. What do you consider to be the greatest public safety con cern in Andover? UNSURE, 15 %; NOTHING, 16 %; TRAFFIC SPEEDING, 17 %; PROPER TY THEFT, 6 %; BURGLARY, 5 %; VANDALISM, 5 %; TRAFFIC CON GESTION, 12 %; DRUGS, 8 %; LACK OF OWN POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT, 3 %; SLOW RESPONSE TIME FROM POLICE AND FIRE, 4 %; PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY, 3 %; NOT ENOUGH STREET LIGHTS, 3 %; SCATTERED, 4 %. 38. Do you have a second public safety concern in the city? UNSURE, 22 %; NOTHING, 55 %; TRAFFIC SPEEDING, 5 %; PROPERTY THEFT, 3 %; BURGLARY, 30; VANDALISM, 3 %; TRAFFIC CONGES TION, 2 %; DRUGS, 4 %; LACK OF OWN POLICE AND FIRE DEPART MENT, 2 %; SCATTERED, 3 %. 39. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH ...............1% patrolling the Anoka County Sher- ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT.... 63% iff's Department does in your NOT ENOUGH ............ 35% neighborhood -- would you say they DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% do too much, about the right amount, or not enough? 40. How serious a problem is traffic VERY SERIOUS .......... 16% speeding in your neighborhood -- SOMEWHAT SERIOUS...... 34% very serious, somewhat serious, NOT TOO SERIOUS....... 29% not too serious, or not at all NOT AT ALL SERIOUS .... 21% serious? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 41. How safe would you feel walking VERY SAFE .............40% alone in your neighborhood after REASONABLY SAFE....... 51% dark -- very safe, reasonably SOMEWHAT UNSAFE........ 8% safe, somewhat unsafe, or very VERY UNSAFE ............ 1% unsafe? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% Moving on.... 42. How would you rate your ability EXCELLENT .............24% to get where you need to go in SATISFACTORY .......... 68% Andover in a reasonable amount MARGINAL ...............7% of time -- excellent, satis- POOR ...................1% factory, marginal, or poor? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% IF "MARGINAL" OR "POOR," ASK: (N =30) 43. Why do you feel that way? TRAFFIC CONGESTION, 83 %: T00 MANY STOPLIGHTS, 7 %; CITY IS SPREAD OUT, 7 %; SCATTERED, 3 %. If you work outside of the home, please answer the next questions about your own job; if you do not work outside of the home, please answer the next questions in terms of the job of your spouse or partner, if applicable. 44. What is your average commute time to your job location? IF WORKS OUTSIDE THE HOME, ASK: DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% 5 MINUTES OR LESS ...... 4% 6 TO 10 MINUTES ........ 9% 11 TO 15 MINUTES....... 8% 16 TO 20 MINUTES...... 12% 21 TO 30 MINUTES...... 13% OVER 30 MINUTES....... 35% NOT APPLICABLE ........ 17% 45. In what city is your job located? REFUSED, 1 %; ANDOVER, 7 %; MINNEAPOLIS, 17 %; SAINT PAUL, 4 %; VARIES, 7 %; FRIDLEY,'5 %; ELK RIVER /ROGERS, 2 %; COON RAPIDS, 10 %; ANOKA, 7 %; BLAINE, 4 %; MAPLE GROVE /BROOKLYN PARK, 6 %; SAINT LOUIS PARK /EDINA, 6 %; RAMSEY, 3 %; ROSEVILLE, 2 %; SHOREVIEW /NEW BRIGHTON, 3 %; LINO LAKES, 2 %; PLYMOUTH /MINNETONKA, 2 %; BLOOM- INGTON /RICHFIELD, 2 %; ARDEN HILLS, 2 %; WHITE BEAR LAKE, 2 %; EAGAN /ROSEMOUNT, 2 %; OAKDALE, 2 %; HAM LAKE, 2 %; REST OF METRO, 2 %. CL�)q 46. How do you normally commute DRIVE ALONE...........91% to work -- drive alone, ride VAN OR CAR POOL ........ 4% in a van or car pool, take TAKE BUS ...............1% the bus from near home, use a PARK AND RIDE LOT ...... 1 park and ride lot, walk or WALK /BIKE ..............1% something else? SOMETHING ELSE......... 0% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% IF "DRIVE ALONE," "VAN OR CAR POOL," OR "WALK /BIKE," ASK: (N =328) 47. If it were convenient, YES ...................30% would you be willing to NO ....................67% commute using public DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% transit? 48. What changes would make public transit more con venient for you? UNSURE, 10 %; NOTHING, 59 %; GO MORE PLACES, 6 %; MORE PICK -UP TIMES, 5 %; MORE PICK -UP SITES, 7 %; PARK AND RIDE IN ANDOVER, 2 %; LIGHT RAIL, 5 %; EXPRESS BUSES, 2 %; MORE TRANSIT OPTIONS, 3 %; SCATTERED, 1 %. 49. Should a vehicle overpass be con- STRONGLY YES.......... 11% structed over the railroad tracks YES ...................24% on Bunker Lake Boulevard? (WAIT NO ....................28% FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strong- STRONGLY NO ........... 10% ly that way? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 27% IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (N =292) 50. Why do you feel that way? UNSURE, 1 %; SAFETY, 12 %; NOT BUSY ENOUGH, 10 %; WASTE OF MONEY, 5 %; REDUCE TRAFFIC BACK -UPS, 25 %; NOT NEEDED, 21 %; LONG WAIT FOR TRAINS, 12 %; HIGH COST OF AN OVERPASS, 10 %; DON'T USE BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD, 2 %; SCATTERED, 1 %. Moving on.... For each of the following, please tell me whether the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing city codes on these nuisances. TOO NOT ABO DK/ TOU TOU RIG REF 51. Loose animals? 1% 22% 72% 6% 52. Junk cars on residential property? 0% 25% 71% 4% 53. Establishment and main- tenance of lawns on residential property? 1% 15% 80% 4% 54. Storage of boats on residential property? 2% 10% 84% 4% 55. Storage of RVs on residential property? 1% 10% 85% 5% 56. Upkeep of boulevards and public right of ways? 0% 11% 85% 4% 57. Upkeep and maintenance of fences? 0% 11% 64% 5% 58. Upkeep and maintenance of storage buildings on residential properties? 1% 8% 85% 6% Turning to parks and recreation.... 59. Have you or members of your house- YES ...................45% hold used the Andover Community NO ....................54% Center during the past year? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% IF "YES," ASK: (N =181) 60. Overall, how would you rate EXCELLENT .............48% the Community Center -- ex- GOOD ..................46% cellent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR ..............4% poor? POOR ...................2% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N =11) 61. Why did you rate it as (only fair /poor)? REFUSED, 9 %; NOT ENOUGH OPEN GYM TIME, 18 %; NEED BIGGER FACILITY, 9 %; MORE FOR CHILDREN, 9 %; COSTS TOO MUCH, 46 %; MORE FOR SENIORS, 9%. The City of Andover is considering a voter referendum to fund acquisition of open space in the community, to conserve these parcels of land from development. 62. Would you support or oppose the STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 33% purchase of open spaces for per- SUPPORT ...............49% manent preservation? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE .................8% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 3% that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 8% 63. How much would you be willing to NOTHING ...............20% see your property taxes increase $10.00 ................14% in order to fund the acquisition $20.00 ................18% of open spaces? Would you be will- $30.00 .................7% ing to pay $ per year? $40.00 .................3% (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT; $50.00 ............... ".11% MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON $60.00 .................3% ANSWER) How about $ per year? $70.00 .................1% (REPEAT PROCESS) $80.00 .................0% $90.00 .................1% $100.00 ................9% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 130 Moving on.... 64. What is your primary source of information about Andover City Government and its activities? UNSURE, 1 %; CITY NEWSLETTER, 69 %; WORD OF MOUTH, 5%; WEBSITE, 50; MEETINGS, 2 %; CABLE TELEVISION, 14 %; LOCAL NEWSPAPERS, 4 %; STAR TRIBUNE, 2 %. 65. How would you prefer to receive information about City Government and its activities? CITY NEWSLETTER; 64 %; WORD OF MOUTH, 3 %; WEBSITE, 4 %; CABLE TELEVISION, 9 %; MAILINGS, 13 %; LOCAL NEWSPAPERS, 3 %; E -MAIL, 3 %; SCATTERED, 2 %. The City publishes a bi- monthly newsletter, called "Andover Today." 66. Do you receive this newsletter? (IF "YES," ASK:) How would you rate the format -- excellent, good, only fair or poor? IF "YES," ASK: (N =390) NO.....................2% YES/EXCELLENT ......... 28% YES /GOOD ..............63% YES /ONLY FAIR.......... 6% YES /POOR ...............1% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% CL�1) CLA3 67. How much of the city news - ALL OF IT .............53% letter do you read -- all of MOST OF IT ............ 36% it, most of it, some of it, SOME OF IT ............ 11% or very little? VERY LITTLE ............ 1% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 66. Does your household receive cable YES ...................69% television? NO ....................31% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES," ASK: (N =277) 69. How often do you watch An- dover City Council Meetings or City Commission meetings, such as Planning and Park and Recreation, on channel 16 -- frequently, occasionally, rarely or not at all? FREQUENTLY ............ 14% OCCASIONALLY .......... 32% RARELY ................33% NOT AT ALL ............ 21% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 70. Do you have access to the Internet YES /YES ...............38% at home or work? (WAIT FOR RE- YES /NO ................52% SPONSE) Have you accessed the NO ....................10% city website from either location? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES /YES," ASK: (N =152) 71. Did you find the information YES ...................65% you were looking for? NO ....................14% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% 72. What type of internet service DIAL- UP ...............19% do you use to view the web- DSL ...................34% site -- dial -up, DSL, BROADBAND CABLE....... 46% or Broadband Cable? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% As you may know, some cities are starting to offer for - profit services, such as high -speed wireless Internet, to their resi- dents. The high -speed wireless Internet service is somewhat faster than dial -up, but somewhat slower than cable or DSL. Also, it is less expensive than cable or DSL, but more expensive than dial -up. 0 73. Would you support or oppose Andov- STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 11% er offering wireless high -speed SUPPORT ...............34% speed Internet service of- Internet access? (WAIT FOR RE- OPPOSE ................20% $30.00 .................8% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 9% way? MORE THAN $35.00.......2% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 26% IF "STRONGLY SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORT," ASK: (N =IBD) 74. How much would you be willing LESS THAN $20.00......29% to pay for wireless high- $20.00 ................22% speed Internet service of- $25.00 ................28% fered by the City of Andover? $30.00 .................8% Would you be willing to pay $35.00 .................4% $ per month? (CHOOSE RAN- MORE THAN $35.00.......2% DOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 7% OR DOWN DEPENDING ON ANSWER) How about $ per month? (REPEAT PROCESS) 75. How would you rate the City's EXCELLENT ..............9% overall performance in communicat- GOOD ..................69% ing key local issues to residents ONLY FAIR .............20% in its publications, newspaper POOR ............. .......3% columns, and on cable television DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? Now just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... 76. How often would you say you vote ALWAYS ................70% -- always, nearly always, part of NEARLY ALWAYS ......... 24% the time, or seldom? PART OF THE TIME ....... 2% SELDOM .................4% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% From time to time, cities and school districts ask.voters to approve referendum proposals... 77. Thinking about past city and school district referendum elec- tions, would you say you always vote, often vote, sometimes vote, rarely vote or never vote? ALWAYS VOTE ........... 64% OFTEN VOTE ............ 24% SOMETIMES VOTE......... 6% RARELY VOTE ............ 4% NEVER VOTE .............3% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 1) Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest. Be sure to include yourself. 78. First, persons 65 or over? NONE ..................92% ONE....................3% TWO OR MORE ............ 6% 79. Adults, 18 to 65? NONE ...................5% ONE............ .....6% TWO ...................75% THREE OR MORE......... 14% 80. School -aged or pre- school NONE ..................43% children? ONE ...................19% TWO ...................27% THREE OF MORE......... 11% 81. What is your age, please? 18- 24 ................ .4% 25- 34 .................12% 35- 44 .................35% 45- 54 .................26% 55- 64 .................17% 65 AND OVER ............ 3% 82. Do you own or rent your present RENT ...................3% residence? (IF "OWN," ASK:) Which OWN /UNDER $200,000.....3% of the following categories would OWN /$200,000- $250,000.16% contain the approximate value of OWN/$250,001- $300,000.29% your residential property -- under OWN /$300,001- $350,000.23% $200,000, $200,000 - $250,000, OWN/$350,001- $400,000.13% $250,001 - $300,000, $300,001- OWN /OVER $400,000.....12% $350,000, $350,001- $400,000 or DON'T KNOW .............1% over $400,000? REFUSED ................1% 83. Gender (BY OBSERVATION) MALE ..................50% FEMALE ................50% 84. REGION OF CITY 9q PCT 1 .................120 PCT 2 .................12% PCT 3 ..................9% PCT 4 ..................6% PCT 5 ..................8% PCT 6 ..................9% PCT 7 .................15% PCT 8 .................10% PCT 9 ..................9% PCT 10 ................10% 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: FROM SUBJECT: Mayor and Council Members Jim Dickinson, City Administrator 2013 -2014 City Council Goals Update DATE: October 22, 2013 INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2013 the City Council adopted the attached City of Andover 2012 -2013 Goals and Values. The values and goals are summarized into the following categories: 1. Fiscal 2. Commercial/Residential Development/Redevelopment 3. Collaboration 4. Service Delivery 5. Livability/Image DISCUSSION The attached City of Andover 2013 -2014 Goals and Values contain progress report segments. At the workshop, City Administration utilizing the Smart Board will facilitate a discussion with the Council to determine if acceptable progress is being made. ACTION REQUESTED Receive a brief presentation, review and discuss the progress being made on the 2013 -2014 Council Goals and Values, and participate in a discussion to determine if acceptable progress is being made. submitted, City of Andover 2013 -2014 Goals and Values Fiscal Goals: Value Statement: The City recognizes the following fiscal values as the basis for delivering current and future services to the residents of Andover. 1. Assure city financial stability through cost effective services. 2. Focus spending on community needs; wants need to be supported by new or redirected sustainable revenues. 3. Explore new revenue streams. 4. Don't commit dollars today that will commit the City to unsustainable future expenses. 90 Progress Report. • The 2012 budget completed the year with both positive revenue and expenditure variances, the 2013 Budget is paced to also have positive revenue and expenditure variances. The 2013 Budget was developed with specific guidelines that were adopted by the City Council and is being implemented following directives consistent with the adopted Fiscal Values. • Looking forward to 2014 the City Council again adopting specific guidelines for the budget development; those guidelines have the Council and City Staff continually analyze services. • The annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) development process evaluates current and future infrastructure improvements extensively to assure long term financial sustainability. • The City continues to maintain a AA+ bond rating. Commercial/Residential Development/Redevelopment Goals: 6) Value statement: The City wants to be supportive of those invested in or wanting to be invested in our community. 1. Facilitate upgrades or redevelopment of blighted or underdeveloped commercial /industrial parcels. 2. Help stimulate business growth in Andover through more business friendly municipal costs, regulations and support programs. 3. Review TIF district expirations; discuss future planning and options available which may include the creation of new TIF Districts 4. Develop a business outreach plan to improve City relationships with the business community. 5. Continually analyze existing commercial areas to determine if expansion is feasible and seek out new areas to better serve the community. 6. Continually evaluate how to meet sewer /water and street needs of any proposed development and redevelopment projects. 7. Review City development processes to help reduce unnecessary steps, time delays and development costs. 8. Review storm water regulations to achieve cost savings at the local level and to help avoid duplicity of regulations that are enforced by another governing body. Progress Report: • TIF district status is reviewed periodically with the EDA. The EDA has started the process of acquiring blighted properties making way for future redevelopment options. • Staff working with Anoka County has been successful in acquiring and remarketing properties as part of the Anoka County Neighborhood Stabilization project. • Staff is starting the process to inventory hazardous residential structures and will soon be initiating an abatement process with the City Council. • The City Council eased signage restrictions, reduced commercial water utility connection charges, initiated and completed a retail market analysis, and created has created two TIF District to facilitate development (Arbor Oaks senior housing project & Measurement Specialties Inc.). • The City Council approved for 2012 & 2013 a pilot project for residential developers where the fixed fees, along with park dedication & trail fees, are collected at the time of building permit and variable fees be collected at time of final plat. The collection process is outlined in the development contract for each plat, and the developer signs an assessment agreement in the event the lots are not built on within two years the City would assess the fees to the lots not yet built on. • City Staff has increased involvement with the local chambers of commerce and is continually making efforts to get out and visit business owners to determine their needs. The Anoka Area Chamber and Metro North Chamber relationships are positive. • Relative to evaluating sewer /water needs of proposed development, the primary involvement has been offering municipal service at the time of reconstruction of roadways. The City has been successful in securing CDBG grants to make water service available to two previously un- serviced neighborhoods. OL, Collaboration Goals: Value statement: The City is supportive of collaboration efforts that are cost - effective and improve efficiency in delivering services. 1. Rethink how we deliver existing basic city services and seek lower cost with increased productivity. 2. New collaboration opportunities must be a win -win for the participating cities. 3. Continue to work on developing working relationships with: school district, county, and adjoining cities; the goal being to reduce costs, improve delivery of services, and be as efficient as possible. 4. Seek County support on meeting the City's needs relative to transportation, in particular on how improvements to County and City infrastructure can solve traffic problems for our residents, assist existing business, and help attract new businesses. 5. Work with waste /garbage haulers to determine if a more efficient garbage collection process for the community can be achieved. 6. Develop a system that will effectively coordinate volunteer efforts whether it is in response to local emergencies and disasters, or just for the delivery of basic services. Progress Report: • Council directives and departmental expectations for the 2013 budget implementation stress seeking out efficient and cost effective services. That same philosophy is being used in the creation of the 2014 budget. • The City is pursuing collaborative opportunities with the County, School Districts, and neighboring cities. City Administration has worked with the County to determine if the County Facility Maintenance Management System could provide efficiencies to the City. The City worked with the County and the City of Coon Rapids to develop a regional dog park at Bunker Hills Regional Park. Also the Library on the Go project with the Anoka County Library is a great example of a collaborative effort. • City, County & School district are all involved in providing solutions to traffic impacts by and around Andover High School. • The Bunker Lake Boulevard /7lh Ave reconstruction project is a good example of how Cities and County can work together on transportation issues. Progress is being made, although there still are many other locations along County roads that are in need of County participation, either by the County actually doing a construction project or allowing the City or a proposed development to do a construction project. Projects would include: turn - lanes, additional lanes, controlled intersections or reasonable access to a County road. Service Delivery Goals: Value statement: The City is committed to providing efficient and cost - effective city services. 1. Determine if the City should reduce maintenance on parks not used or useable for cost savings; consider elimination of tot lots; focus development on larger parks and an expanded trail system. 2. Review the City relationships with the local sports associations to help provide for exceptional program delivery to the community. 3. Pursue paperless opportunities whenever possible and feasible. 4. Analyze the "administrative fine" process to reduce use of courts, increase local revenues, and improve code compliance. S. Explore opportunities with law enforcement to improve community policing and to make a concerted effort by mentoring or being available to the teen population of the community. 6. Pursue local programming during summer or school days for the community youth by effective utilization of the Community Center and the City's relationships with local service organizations. 7. Continually review our processes to reduce unnecessary or unwanted service deliveries. 8. Discuss employee salaries and the review process with the budget development process. Progress Report. • The Park Commission along with City Staff has evaluated all City Park properties to determine future uses and improvements. Along with that process the Park Commission has invited the local sports associations and neighborhoods to participate in the process. • In response to a task force report indicating that the City should consider enhancing or expanding current field offerings, the City Council purchased a 40 acre parcel to meet field demand, a master plan was developed and construction on phase 1 of the master plan was completed in summer 2013. • The City is currently using a paperless City Council packet and City Staff is continually encouraged to use electronic meanings of communication to limit paper use and to make presentations. The City data imaging project of historical documents is complete, current work product is scanned and archived on an ongoing basis. • City Administration and the City Attorney have researched administrative fines; neighboring communities have implemented administrative fines, staff continues to monitor to see if they are achieving measured success. • As part of the law enforcement contract, an investigator is tasked with pursuing community policing in current "hot spots" within the community. • The City Council as part 2013 budget supported a teen after- school program with the YMCA. This program in conjunction with the collaborative Youth First program are intended to start meeting the early teen programming needs within the community. • Staff and Council as part of the budget development process will spot light various service deliveries to determine is the intended purpose of the program is being met or if the program is needed any longer. • Employee salaries are evaluated annually; during the 2013 budget development process certain positions were recommended for adjustment to remain competitive. City Administration also continues to evaluating a conversion to PTO (paid time offi versus the current sick and vacation leave program. D Livabilit -Omage Goals: Value statement: The City recognizes that providing quality basic & desired services enhances the quality of life of our residents. 1. Pursue preserving open space when viable and feasible opportunities are available. 2. Continue efforts along Hanson Boulevard with promoting sustainable landscaping and by encouraging consistent fence maintenance along roadways. 3. Provide a high level of professionalism to the public at all levels of the organization. 4. Engage more with various media outlets to tell the City of Andover stories better. 5. Pursue a community survey to determine resident support for current city services and programs. 6. Be creative in improving and adding amenity options for the residents of Andover. 7. Review recent 2010 Census data and use for planning future projects. Progress Report: • The Open Space Commission along with City Staff continues to evaluate properties as options for the City to purchase as part of the Open Space Referendum program, negotiations with willing sellers continues and an additional purchase is set for November 2013. Through the development process, the preservation of open space through buffering has been taken into consideration. • Each Open Space acquisition proposal going forward will include cost estimates on access related costs and estimates on future maintenance cost. In addition, as part of the 2013 & 2014 budget development a separate budget identifying the ongoing maintenance cost related to the open space purchases is included. • The City continues to monitor the past sustainable landscape plantings and will continue to pursue property owners along Hanson Boulevard to expand the landscape offering. The Great River Substation landscape improvements were completed. • Updated 2010 Census data and a recent retail market analysis are being used as tools for economic development marketing. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Councilmembers Jim Dickinson, City Administrator 2014 Budget Development Discussion — General Fund Focus October 22, 2013 INTRODUCTION City Departments have submitted to Administration/Finance their proposed 2014 Annual Operating Budgets. Department Budgets are continually being reviewed by Administration/Finance for adherence to the Council's 2014 Budget Development guidelines. The Council did adopt at the September 3`d regular Council meeting a Preliminary 2014 General Fund Budget that proposes a total property tax levy of $10,980,675: $7,572,641 (68.96 %) operational levy, $2,071,066 (18.86 %) debt service levy, and $1,336,968 (12.18 %) capital /watershed levy. The Council has the right to reduce or keep constant this levy until the final certification date of December 27, 2013. The proposed levy, if not reduced would result in a 3.29 % increase in the gross tax levy. Council direction from the September 2013 workshop was to limit the increase in the gross tax levy to 2.00%. Revenue and Expense estimates have been updated by Administration/Finance to achieve the Council's direction. City Administration will review with the Council the bold italics items at the meeting. DISCUSSION The following are the 2014 Budget Development guidelines (with progress notes) that were adopted at the April 2nd City Council meeting: 1) A commitment to a Gross Levy and City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization yet positions the City for long -term competitiveness through the use of sustainable revenue sources and operational efficiencies. Note: Current Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City o Andover are reflectinz a 2.03% decrease in total taxable market value. Staff will continue to monitor and update the Council as the County continues to update valuations. 2) Continue with the current procurement and financial plan to appropriately expend the bond proceeds generated from the successful 2006 Open Space Referendum. Note: The Oven Space Commission and Staff have been active pursuing open space 3) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at no less than 45% of planned 2014 General Fund expenditures and the preservation of emergency fund balances (snow emergency, public safety, facility management & information technology) through targeting revenue enhancements or expenditure limitations in the 2013 adopted General Fund budget. Note: With property tax revenues making up 80% of the total General Fund revenues cash flow designations approaching 50% would be appropriate and are recommended by the City's auditor. With the direction to hold to a 2.00% increase in the gross levy, Administration/Finance is currently targeting a 48% working capital fund balance. 4) A commitment to limit the 2014 debt levy to no more than 25% of the gross tax levy and a commitment to a detailed city debt analysis to take advantage of alternative financing consistent with the City's adopted Debt Policy. Note: With the direction to hold to a 2.00% increase in the gross tax levy, the proposed 2014 debt levy would be 19.10% of the gross tax levy, It is very doubtful that the 25% level will be reached. If an additional debt issuance is considered in 2013 -2014, the debt service impact to the levy would be structured appropriately. 5) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost - effective replacement schedule is followed. Equipment will be replaced on the basis of a cost benefit analysis rather than a year based replacement schedule. Note: The City Vehicle Purchasing Committee has Performed this analysis, and those recommendations are integrated into the 2014 -2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that was adopted at the October 15, 2013 City Council meeting 6) A team approach that encourages strategic planning to meet immediate and long -term operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs. Note: The City Council adopted the 2013 -2014 City Council Goals and Values on May 7, 2013, those goals and values are integrated into the 2014 proposed budget. 7) A management philosophy that actively supports the funding and implementation of Council policies and goals, and a commitment to being responsive to changing community conditions, concerns, and demands, and to do so in a cost effective manner. Note: The City Council adopted the 2013 -2014 City Council Goals and Values on May 7, 2013; Management through these goals pays special attention to the adopted fiscal values, commercial & residential development or redevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery and livability /image of the community. Reports to be reviewed: Administration will review with the Council at the meeting the following attached reports: 1. Proposed 2014 Property Tax Levy (updated to a 2.00% gross levy increase) 2. Proposed 2014 General Fund Revenue & Expense Summary 3. Proposed 2014 General Fund— Revenue Budget Worksheet 4. Proposed 2014 General Fund— Expenditure Line Item Rollup 5. Proposed 2014 General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary —By Department G 2013 Fund Balance Analysis 7. Proposed 2014 Budget Gap Analysis 8. Mayor & Council Salary Survey Staffing: Three new staff member requests were received from City Departments for the 2014 budget. Public Works has requested a new Maintenance Worker and the Fire Department is requesting two Fire Inspection Technicians. Do to the amount of new infrastructure added over the past few years, Administration is recommending the addition of the Maintenance Worker position or at minimum a significant increase in the temporary salary budget. Development and building activity is fairly robust at this time, it is anticipated that this activity will continue into next year. With various position vacancies, Administration & Human Resource continually monitor staffing availability to maintain adequate service levels to the public. Also, Administration is anticipating a few retirements in 2014; Administration will be focusing on appropriate succession planning. Personnel Related Implications: To date the following are projected issues facing personnel related expenses: 1. Administration and Human Resources are in the process of reviewing position -based salaries in detail to assure our current compensation package is competitive with other government entities to ensure competitiveness: a $25,000 place holder is contained in the budget to address positions that are falling behind. As part of the budget process, pay steps for eligible employees will be included in the proposed 2014 budget A cost of living adjustment (COLA) is being explored and the Public Works Union negotiations are underway. 2. A midyear review of the health plan was conducted with our broker in early July. The review is showing based on the most current experience period that claims is significantly exceeding the premiums being paid which generally indicates that a renewal will include a rate increase. Administration is in the process of having our group marketed to multiple health insurance providers and will update the Council on progress at the workshop. The City currently offers the employees a high deductible plan ($5,000 family, $2,500 single) with a health spending account (HSA), this was implemented in 2006. As part of the program, the City pays for 100% of a single health insurance premium, 76% for a family health insurance premium and contributes annually to the employees HSA. 3. Administration and Human Resources continue to explore if a PTO conversion program should be part of the 2014 budget process and the Public Works Union negotiations. 4. At the September workshop, the Council indicated that Mayor /Council salaries should be reviewed to determine if modification was needed. Attached to this staff report are two recent salary surveys for the Council to review. Contractual Departments: 1. The City Attorney 2013 contract included a 1.5% increase over the 2012 rate. Discussion for the 2014 contract indicates, if City employees are granted a COLA, the legal service contract would be treated the same. 2. At the September 3, 2013 Council meeting, the City Council approved the 2014 City of Andover Law Enforcement Contract with the Anoka County Sheriffs Office. The 2014 budget for the contract is $2,818,132 and is offset by a Police State Aid of $122,720 and School Liaison revenue of $88,254 reflecting a net tax levy impact of $2,607,158. The 2014 Sheriffs contract provides for: a. 80 hours per day of patrol service b. 6 hours per day of service provided by a Community Service Officer c. School Liaison Officers in the middle school and high school d. 2 Patrol Investigators e. 50% of the Crime Watch Program's coordinator position. It should be noted that the Sheriffs Department always provides the required number of deputies for all hours contracted by the City. If the Sheriff s Department has a vacancy or a deputy is injured etc.., they still provide the City with a deputy at straight time even though they may have to fill those hours with overtime which at times may cost the Sheriffs Department additional, but is not billable per the contract The 2014 Anoka County Sheriff contract maintains the status quo and reflects a 2.8% increase ($77,233) over the 2013 contract. The primary drivers of the increase are a union wage increase of 2% a State directed employer PERA contribution increase and a health insurance increase. Council Memberships and Donations /Contributions: The following memberships /contributions are included in the 2013 General Fund Budget: • North Metro Mayors Association $13,709 Same as 2013 • Association of Metropolitan Cities (AMM) $ 9,232 1% increase • Mediation Services $ 3,323 Same as 2013 • YMCA — Water Safety Program $ 7,500 Same as 2013 • Alexandra House $14,328 2.7% increase • Youth First (Program Funding) $12,000 Same as 2013 • NW Anoka Co. Community Consortium - JPA $10,000 Same as 2013 • Teen Center Funding (YMCA) $23,000 Same as 2013 • Lee Carlson Central Center for Family Resources $1,500 Same as 2013 The following donations /contributions are in the 2013 Charitable Gambling Fund Budget: • Alexandra House $3,000 Same as 2013 • Senior High Parties $1,000 $200 less than 2013 Capital Proiects and Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Levy: Capital Projects Levy — The proposed 2014 Capital Projects Levy Budget will specifically designate $1,336,968 of the general tax levy to capital projects and equipment needs relating to Capital Outlay ($210,000), Road and Bridge ($967,197), Pedestrian Trail Maintenance ($58,271) and Park Projects ($61,500). Specific designation of the tax levy to anticipated City needs and priorities for transportation and trail maintenance, park projects and equipment outlays allows the City to strategically allocate its resources and raise the public's awareness of City spending priorities. The Road and Bridge levy is calculated according to Council Policy based on annual growth increases /decreases, with Capital Outlay, Pedestrian Trail Maintenance and Park Levies increased according to the City Council budget guidelines. • Road and Bridge An adiustment was made to the Road & Bridge funding formula this year, primarily to stop the continual decrease in the levy that has been happening over the past few years due to decreases in the Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City ofAndover. Based on Council discussion, consensus is to stop the decline in road funding and use the forecasted 2014 Local Government Aid (LGA) of $74,655 to help fund Roads. For 2014, the proposed levy to Roads is $967,197, a 0.00% increase to 2013. The 2013 levy to pedestrian trail maintenance is $58,271 a 0.0% increase over 2013. • Park Improvements This levy is an annual appropriation to be used to underwrite park improvement projects as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and approved by the City Council. This funding is intended to be a long -term supplemental source of capital funding for park projects that is separately identified in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. The 2013 levy is $61,500, the same is currently proposed for 2014. • Equipment/Projects Under the Capital Projects Levy, a levy is proposed to be designated to capital improvement/equipment project expenditures identified through the CIP process. Through this designation, the City, over time, will build a fund reserve to avoid cash flow "spikes" and address a wide range of capital improvement needs such as facility maintenance projects under a more controlled spending environment. The 2013 levy is $210,000 the same is proposed for 2014. Debt Service Levy: Annually the Finance Department conducts a detailed debt service analysis to monitor outstanding debt and to look for early debt retirement or refinancing opportunities that will yield interest expense savings to the City. Staff, along with Ehlers & Associates have completed that review and see no new refinancing opportunities at this time. The proposed 2014 Debt Service levy provides for the following: • 2004 EDA Public Facility Bonds $ 181,803 • 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum $ 187,283 2012A G.O. Equipment Certificate $ 140,000 • 2012B G.O. Capital. Imp. Refunding $ 561,015 • 2014 G.O. Equipment Certificates $ 260,000 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds $ 740,965 Total $2,071,066 The levy numbers above reflect a late 2012 refinancing of the EDA Public Facility Bonds. It should be noted that the levy is offset significantly by the $635,000 YMCA annual rental payment. The total proposed 2014 Debt Service Levy is $109,592 (5.59 %) more than the 2013 levy. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. Attachments I City of Andover, Minnesota Property Tax Levy Local Tax Rate Levy Declined Certified Certified Certified Cerelled Requested $ 8.839,803 Change 8.832.722 $ 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 %of Total (139,179) $ % General Fund Levy $ 6.844.236 $ 7.596.494 $ 7.500,802 $ 7.332,857 $ 7.332.857 $ 7,435.891 68.57% $ 103.034 141% Debt Service Funds Levy 8,657,245_ _$ 8.647,749 $ 8.945,258 2004A G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds 378.609 368,418 412.320 405.292 381,290 - Voter Approved Rat - MV 0.00551% 0.00327% 2004 FDA Public Facility Revenue Bonds 980.914 934,203 960.858 1,092.684 452,082 181,803 20068 G O- Equipment Certificate 171,066 - - - - - $ 212,626 2007A GO. Equipment Cinificale 221,340 208,000 - - - - 318,939 3.00% (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value is subject W change. 2008A G.O. Equipment Certificate 179,895 171,410 188,972 - - - 2009A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 162,900 87,797 139,179 182,558 184,973 187,283 2009A G.O. Equipment Certificate 147,241 1W.738 142,783 - - - 2011A GO. Equipment Certificate - - 85,000 102,017 101,745 - 2012A G.O. Equipment Certificate - - - 125,000 125,000 140,000 20128 G.O. Cap Improv Refunding Bonds - - - 138,339 561,015 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds - - - 578.045 740,965 2014 G . Equipment Cedificate 260,000 Total Debt Service 2,241.965 1,900,566 1,929,112 1,907,551 1,961,474 2,071,066 19.10% $ 109.592 5.59% Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital EquipmenVProject 210.000 210,000 210.000 210.000 210.000 210,000 1.94% $ - 000% Palos Projects 59.410 59,410 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 0.57% It - 0.00% Road 8 Bridge 1,151,136 1,003,056 1,064,959 1,022,817 967.197 967.197 8.92% $ - 0.00% Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 51,773 51.773 54,926 56.574 58,271 58,271 0.54% $ - 0.00% Lower Rum River Watershed 35 ,000 35,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0.37% $ 0000% Total Other 1,507,319 1,359,239 1,428,385 1,390,891 1,336,968 1,336,968 12.33% $ 0.00% Grose City Levy 10,593,520 10,856,299 10,856,299 10,631,299 10,631,299 10,843,925 100% $ 212,626 2.00% Less Fiscal Disparities Distrbution 1,379,343 1,521,663 1,886,192 1,791,496 1,798,577 1,711,384 Local Tax Rate Levy $ 9,214,177 $ 9.334,636 $ 8,970,107 $ 8.839,803 S 8.832.722 $ 9,132,541 Less Levy Based on Market Value $ (162,900) $ (87,797) $ (139,179) S (182,558) S (194,973) $ (187,283 Net Local Tax Rate Levy S 9,051,277 $ 9,246,839 $ 6,830,928 $ 8,657,245_ _$ 8.647,749 $ 8.945,258 Adjusted Tax Capacity Value" $ 28.032,781 S 25,263,121 22,917,072 20,514,674 21,155,263 20,648495 z49% h n %Chance Tax Capacity Rate^' 32.288% 36.602% 38.534% 42.200% 40.878% 43.322% 2.444% 5.979% Tax Capacity Rata W/O LRRWSD 32.180% 36.484% 38.407% 42.090% 40.721% Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 32.483% 36.814% 38.746% 42.539% 41.170% Voter Approved Rat - MV 0.00551% 0.00327% 000568% 0.00778% 0.00814% $ 106,313 1.00% $ 159,469 1.50% "Adjusted Value determined by adjusting for Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates. $ 212,626 2.00% "' Blended rate due to the CRY of Andover levying for Lower Rum River Watershed DisMct $ 318,939 3.00% (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value is subject W change. O 10/17/2013 CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Revenue & Expense Summary EXPENDITURES General Government Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget" Estimate Requested Budget Change (') 7.85% Public Safety 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 $ % REVENUES 2,399,391 2,352,111 2,403,162 2,451,850 2,482,490 2,720,537 2,745,987 2,850,096 129,559 4.76% Property Taxes $ 6,249,011 $ 6,588,601 $ 7,191,602 $ 7,115,936 $ 7,340,532 $ 7,398,782 $ 7,398,782 $ 7,501,816 103,034 1.39% License and Permits 525,340 291,904 329,901 387,206 449,826 288,355 376,560 307,355 19,000 6.59% Intergovernmental Revenues 709,252 595,001 570,096 566,706 653,720 596,564 606,564 609,541 12,977 2.18% Charges for Current Services 775,144 701,289 757,094 866,584 973,604 619,850 863,867 685,900 66,050 10.66% Fines and Forfeits 104,630 110,779 104,780 99,777 97,571 100,750 95,750 100,750 - 0.00% Interest Income 137,966 76,772 70,368 130,368 95,365 65,000 70,000 75,000 10,000 15.38% Miscellaneous Revenue 114,534 130,522 134,772 127,509 149,857 90,350 105,380 91,850 1,500 1.66% Transfers 191,194 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES 8,807,071 8,691,798 9,355,543 9,491,016 9,957,405 9,356,581 9,713,833 9,569,142 212,561 2.19% EXPENDITURES General Government 2,319,305 2,161,367 2,224,872 2,271,094 2,223,773 2,531,431 2,478,002 2,730,055 198,624 7.85% Public Safety 3,785,804 4,005,405 3,920,071 3,960,221 4,088,076 4,279,011 4,319,061 4,408,204 129,193 3.02% Public Works 2,399,391 2,352,111 2,403,162 2,451,850 2,482,490 2,720,537 2,745,987 2,850,096 129,559 4.76% Other 17,999 19,540 24,953 30,631 663,372 88,950 221,000 89,328 378 0.42% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,522,499 8,538,423 8,573,058 8,713,796 9,457,711 9,619,929 9,764,050 10,077,683 457,754 4.76% UNDER(OVER)BUDGET S 284,572 $ 153,375 $ 782,485 $ 777,220 $ 499,694 $ (263,348) $ (50,217) $ (508,541) $ (245,193) =11 it . 10/17/2013 CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund C$ Revenue Budget Worksheet -2014 Miscellaneous Revenue Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget* Estimate Requestedl Change •) Account Number Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 S % 138,835 139,605 Charges For Services Miscellaneous Revenue 41310 54175 Council Filing Fee 45 55 30 50 41230 58100 Refunds & Reimbursements 30 50 - - Miscellaneous Revenue 1,850 360 41310 58100 Refunds & Rehnbursements 1,920 150 Miscellaneous Revenue - 150 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,850 360 150 Total 1,965 150 Total I80 50 M, 1,850 360 ,�+- ...�a,.a .�.... :.,o o .....hkF �.,a v,...,.. ...a.b_,.- 3e.�.:"_.i4 ..,,,mwe .�,,3..0..�. �,�n.<n ev�.'•;2„= m°�.o-^s- �c�;.. Y, *T:�°:�i Charges For Services - License & Permits 41400 54165 Bad Check Fee 360 210 90 150 120 150 150 150 41400 54285 Finance Department Fees 32,666 41,754 32,272 41300 52100 Liquor - Intoxicating 34,592 25,046 27,179 29,438 23,543 28,200 28,200 28,200 - 0.00% 41300 52105 Liquor - Non- Intoxicating 625 375 459 375 300 300 300 300 - 0.00% 41300 52110 Tobacco 3,750 3,500 4,278 3,750 3,250 3,500 3,250 3,500 - 0.00% 41300 52115 Refuse/Recycler Haulers 2,625 2,850 3,175 3,750 3,336 2,800 3,675 2,800 - 0 -00% 41300 52120 Peddler 725 975 1,800 600 1,050 700 700 700 - 0.00% 41300 52125 Therapeutic Massage 925 475 1,949 1,073 475 600 500 600 - 0.00% 41300 52126 Vehicle Sales License 105 315 210 525 105 105 210 105 0.00% License &Permits 43,347 33,536 39,050 39,511 32,059 36,205 36,835 36,205 - 0.00% Charges For Services 41300 54100 Notary Fees 102 108 186 126 99 100 100 100 - 0.00% 41300 54115 Sale of Copies, Ord, etc. 213 202 125 50 61 so so 50 - 0.00% 41300 54125 Assessment Searches 825 1,425 2,325 2,725 6,795 1,400 5,000 1,400 - 0.00% 41300 54145 Party Permits 340 120 200 160 200 100 100 too - 0.00% 41300 54155 Recording Fees 854 1,500 200 760 600 500 500 500 - 0.00% Charges For Services 2,334 3,355 3,036 3,821 7,755 2,150 5,750 2,150 - 0.00% Fines 41300 56100 Court Fines 103,705 109,654 103,130 98,877 96,821 100,000 95,000 100,000 - 0.00% 41300 56200 False Alann Fines 925 1,125 1,650 900 750 750 750 750 - 0.00% Fines 104,630 110,779 104,780 99,777 97,571 100,750 95,750 100,750 - 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 41300 58175 Contributions 585 590 542 601 814 500 500 500 Miscellaneous Revenue 585 590 542 601 814 S00 500 500 Tom] 150,896 148,260 147,408 143,710 138,199 139,605 138,835 139,605 Charges For Services 41310 54175 Council Filing Fee 45 55 30 50 Charges For Services 45 55 30 50 - - Miscellaneous Revenue 41310 58100 Refunds & Rehnbursements 1,920 150 - 150 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,920 150 150 Total 1,965 150 55 I80 50 M, x.... �s. :..dI4�B;M�rrCCau?.w<�:i..a�,.i Charges For Services 41400 54165 Bad Check Fee 360 210 90 150 120 150 150 150 41400 54285 Finance Department Fees 32,666 41,754 32,272 31,738 48,084 25,000 83,000 25,000 41400 54320 Finance Charge 685 67 319 127 658 100 100 100 Charges For Services 33,711 42,031 32,681 32,015 48,862 25,250 83,250 25,250 Miscellaneous Revenue 41400 58100 Refunds &Rehnbursements 14,144 11,168 10,540 4,622 39,754 10,000 - Miscellaneous Revenue 14,144 11,168 10,540 4,622 39,754 10,000 Total 47,855 53,199 43,221 36,637 88,616 25,250 93,250 25,250 ....n.;..�.. d, �I42d Ibforamnon 5erlesces ' Miscellaneous Revenue 41420 58110 Computer Services 36,050 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 Miscellaneous Revenue 36,050 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 Total 36,050 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 37,800 .._..,,.- ..�_., 41500- License & Permits 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% (50) - 100.00% (50) - 100.00% #DIV /01 - #DIV /0! (50) - 100.00% - 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10/17/2013 #DIV /0! #DIV /0! 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% MY OF ANDOVER General Fund Revenue Budget Worksheet -2014 D\6 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget* Estimate Requested Change (*) Account Number Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 $ % 41500 52130 Rezoning 325 - 325 325 165 500 250 500 - 0.00% 41500 52135 Conditional Use 3,700 5,963 - 550 2,230 - 1,800 - - #DIV /O! 41500 52140 Variance 450 340 300 600 300 500 250 500 - 0.00% 41500 52145 Lot Splits 130 30 - 60 300 300 150 300 - 0.00% 41500 52150 Signs 6,039 5,093 2,904 3,100 3,221 3,500 3,000 3,500 - 0.00% 41500 52155 Vacation of Eminent 250 375 350 500 500 - - - - #DIV /0! 41500 52260 Comp Plan Amendment 500 500 500 - - #DIV /0! License & Permits 11,394 11,801 4,379 5,135 7,216 4,800 5,450 4,800 - 0.00% Charges For Services 41500 54105 Plat Fees 700 1,000 650 650 1,500 750 1,000 750 - 0.00% 41500 54130 Meeting Notification Signs 420 480 150 210 240 350 250 350 - 0.00% 41500 54280 Flood / Zone Search Letter 50 100 150 150 100 - 25 - 41500 54290 Planning Department Fees 3,191 1,422 1,841 2,003 3,630 2,000 2,500 2,000 - 0.00% Charges For Services 4,361 3,002 2,791 3,013 5,470 3,100 3,775 3,100 - 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 41500 58100 Refunds& Reimbursements 124 25 30 70 - #DIV /01 Miscellaneous Revenue 124 25 30 70 - - #DIV /01 Total 15,879 14,803 7,195 8,178 12,686 7,900 9,295 7,900 - 0.00% License & Permits 41600 52250 Curb Cut 100 50 - - 50 - 50 - - #DIV /O! 41600 52265 Fencing /Retaining Wall 1,600 1,525 1,400 1,525 1,525 1,000 1,000 1,000 - 0.00% License & Permits 1,700 1,575 1,400 1,525 1,575 1,000 1,050 1,000 - 0.00% Charges For Services 41600 54180 Escrow Inspection Fee 1,500 700 1,350 700 600 - 800 - - #DIViO! 41600 54185 Site Plan Review - Trees - - 1,690 975 1,560 - 1,000 - - #DIV /O! 41600 54200 Engineer Fees - PW Director 16,103 20,053 17,678 25,460 26,259 12,500 20,000 17,500 51000 40.00% 41600 54205 Engineer Fees - Asst PW Direc 13,360 8,439 4,807 4,316 11,220 2,500 6,735 51000 2,500 100.00% 41600 54210 Engineer Fees - Asst Engineer 67,210 77,670 73,537 87,053 112,201 55,000 80,000 70,000 15,000 27.27% 41600 54215 Engineer Fees - Tech IV 171,932 171,708 166,941 223,375 292,377 137,500 220,000 165.000 27,500 20.00% 41600 54220 Engineer Fees - Natural Res T, 1,725 3,177 973 1,337 2,383 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 0.00% 41600 54225 Engineer Fees - Secretary 7,302 9,951 9,808 13,444 14,007 5,000 8,000 8,000 3,000 60.00% 41600 54230 Engineer Fees -Intem 6,534 - - - - - 6,000 1,000 1,000 #DIV /0! 41600 54235 Engineer Fees- Mileage 4,553 3,127 2,676 3,206 4,747 1,500 2,500 2,500 1,000 66.67% 41600 54295 Grading Inspection Fee 2,209 1,900 2,215 2,632 2,826 750 2,000 750 - 0.00% 41600 54305 Administrative Fees 2,001 100 994 - - - 100 - - #DIV /0! 41600 54335 Bid Plans 1,050 1,300 2,050 350 765 750 250 750 - 0.00% Charges For Services 295,479 298,125 284,719 362,848 469,145 217,500 349,385 272,500 55,000 25.29% Miscellaneous Revenue 41600 58100 Refunds & Reimbursements 300 200 - #DIViO! Miscellaneous Revenue 300 200 - #DIV /01 Total 297,179 299,700 286,119 364,373 471,020 218,500 350,635 273,500 55,000 25.17% k 4 k 41 TS unshmt Porkottcesa3ons s ` ° ' '� ` °�'" ak.. - 7x a w 5a^.v'^��s�w^�a'x= t..?e�' Charges For Services 41975 55540 Concessions 62,335 60,022 57,095 55,973 47,535 48,000 48,000 48,000 - 0.00% Charges For Services 62,335 60,022 57,095 55,973 47,535 48,000 48,000 48,000 - 0.00% Total 62,335 60,022 57,095 55,973 47,535 48,000 48,000 48,000 - 0.00% r s? 47985 9ndmver`StNConceswons ' �` s -sa ""''S` ``+ i 4 . .�`S;r R.a C.., 5"Z, a... ..... a -,.. , ..�, ., ,��_,n. -_m .., ...,. su �..»... sss�a ,y.,.>.°`z, ., .w>...�.�... .,»_,,, �..,,. ...�. � ...... ...... ..: ,., ... ;j ,.. ,,.S v�c..xiwm'.s Charges For Sery ices 41985 55540 Concessions 10,887 14,501 11,461 8,511 81000 9,000 8,000 - 0.00% Charges For Services 10,887 14,501 1(,461 8,511 81000 9,000 8,000 - 0.00% Total 10,887 14,501 11,461 8,511 81000 9,000 8,000 - 0.00% "` 41200 'PoLce Prorecfion ' Intergovernmental Revenue 42100 53370 State Police Aid 108,100 114,840 114,840 116,820 112,860 122,720 122,720 122,720 - 0.00% 42100 53840 School District Liaison 81.543 83,988 83,988 83,988 84,828 86.524 86,524 88,254 1,730 2.00% Intergovernmental Revenue 189,643 198,828 198,828 200,808 197,688 209,244 209,244 210,974 1,730 0.83% Total 189,643 198,828 198,828 200,808 197,688 209,244 209,244 210,974 1,730 0.83% 10/17/2013 CITY ANDOVER General Fund Revenue Budget Worksheet - 2014 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget* Estimate Requestedl Change ") Account Number Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 S % License & Permits 42200 52160 Fire Permit 8,246 402 4,849 3,408 2,791 3,000 4,000 3,000 - 0.00% 42200 52165 Burning Permit 1,000 1,162 1,080 1,100 1,160 1,100 1,100 1,100 - 0.00% License & Permits 9,246 1,564 5,929 4,508 3,951 4,100 5,100 4,100 - 0.00% Intergovernmental Revenue 42200 53120 Dept of Homeland Security 21,870 - - - - - - - - #DIV /0! 42200 53410 State Fire Aid 121,813 103,492 104,210 106,170 107,440 110,000 110,000 115,000 5,000 4.55% 42200 53490 Other Grants 2,500 4,000 51000 L2,800 10,000 - - #DIVlO! Intergovernmental Revenue 146,183 107,492 109,210 106,170 120,240 110,000 120,000 115,000 51000 4.55% Charges For Services 42200 54110 Plan Check Fees 5,259 49 579 1,996 1,634 1,000 2,400 1,000 - 0.00% 42200 54120 Reports - 250 60 245 80 100 105 100 - 0.00% 42200 54169 Inspection Fee 650 650 400 550 250 400 250 300 (100) - 25.00% 42200 54300 Fire Department Fees 5,604 - - - #DIV /01 Charges For Services 11,513 949 1,039 2,791 1,964 1,500 2,755 1,400 (100) -6.67% Miscellaneous Revenue 42200 58100 Refunds &Reimbursements 5,780 707 10,515 1,107 492 500 400 500 - 0.00% 42200 58L25 Donations 554 600 3,450 300 50 - #DIV /0! Miscellaneous Revenue 5,780 1,261 11,115 4,557 792 500 450 500 - 0.00% Total 172,722 111,266 127,293 118,026 126,947 116,100 128,305 4,900 4.22% �121,000 License & Permits 42300 52170 Rental Licenses - Multi 3,221 7,950 2,836 8,250 3,136 3,500 7,000 3,500 - 0.00% 42300 52171 Rental Licenses - Single - 9,500 2,000 10,400 4,800 - 9,000 - 42300 52175 Contactor 9,845 8,335 8,895 7,690 8,455 7,000 71000 7,000 - 0.00% 42300 52180 Tree Trimmers 850 750 850 900 750 500 700 500 - 0.00% 42300 52185 Building 346296 146,864 177,445 193,225 246,621 137,500 200,000 155,000 17,500 12.73% 42300 52190 Heating 41,979 27,148 37,980 36,345 34,743 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 0.00% 42300 52195 Plumbing 27,460 17,808 23,908 29,064 30,839 17,000 25,000 20,000 3,000 17.65% 42300 52200 Septic Systems 2,676 2,750 3,130 2,975 4,200 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 0.00% 42300 52205 Septic Pumping 14,685 11,640 10,950 13,755 11,780 11,000 7,500 11,000 - 0.00% 42300 52215 Sanitary Sewer 1,175 1,075 1,550 1,375 1,850 1,000 1,425 1,000 - 0.00% 42300 52220 Certificate of Occupancy 600 510 800 650 880 600 700 600 - 0.00% 42300 52225 Gas Fireplace 7,900 6,000 5,550 6,750 5,325 6,500 5,000 5,000 (1,500) - 23.08% 42300 52230 Electric Permits 21,930 48,046 28,200 35,000 28,200 - 0.00% License & Permits 456,687 240,330 275,894 333,309 402,425 239,600 325,325 258,800 19,000 7.92% Charges For Services 42300 541 L0 Plan Check Fees 134,627 60,381 86,977 100,872 97,883 47,500 85,000 55,000 1,500 15.79% 42300 54135 Sewer Administration 705 645 930 825 1,110 800 900 800 - 0.00% 42300 54170 Reinspection Fee 47 - - 1,443 6,579 - 2,400 - - #DIV /01 42300 54325 Building Department Fee 393 300 323 513 484 - 252 - - #DIV /01 42300 54340 SAC Retainage 2,190 - - - #DIVi01 Charges For Services 137,962 61,326 88,230 103,653 106,056 48,300 88,552 55,800 7,500 15.53% Total 594,649 301,656 364,124 436,962 508,481 288,100 413,877 314,600 26,500 9.20% $dS00,Ammal ContraE .rw. .. �.. �� rv.�.. License & Permits 42500 52235 Dog Kennel 50 50 75 50 50 50 400 50 - 0.00% 42500 52240 Dog License 2,916 3,048 3,174 3,168 2,550 2,400 2,400 2,400 - 0.00% License & Permits 2,966 3,098 3,249 3,218 2,600 2,450 2,800 2,450 - 0.00% Total 2,966 3,098 3,249 3,218 2,600 2,450 2,800 2,450 - 0.00% h° $3700 Sheets &ligvs . .� , . - ..y'......:� e> Intergovernmental Revenue 43100 53401 State Highway Aid - Maintemi 179,618 185,007 190,557 196,274 202,162 208,227 208,227 214,474 6,247 3.00% Intergovernmental Revenue 179,618 185,007 190,557 196,274 202,162 208,227 208,227 214,474 6,247 3.00% Charges For Services 43100 54245 Street Department Fees 966 856 - - #DIV /0! Charges For Services 966 856 - - - - #DIV /0! Special Assessments 43100 57300 Spec Assess - interest &Penal 15 91 121 534 149 - - - - #DIV /01 10/17/2013 CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Revenue Budget Worksheet -2014 D Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget* Estimate Requested Chan e (•) Account Number Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 $ % 43100 57400 Spec Assess - Certified Bit 1,631 4,166 9,301 7,418 4,820 - - - - #DIV /01 Special Assessments 1,646 4,257 9,422 7,952 4,969 - - #DIV /01 Miscellaneous Revenue 43100 58100 Refunds & Reimbursements 507 5,813 7,612 7,833 2,055 - Miscellaneous Revenue 507 5,813 7,612 7,833 2,055 - - Total 162,737 195,077 208,447 212,059 209,186 208,227 208227 214,414 6,247 3.W% Charges For Services 43300 54190 Sale of Street Signs 8,152 2,529 4,014 8,831 3,446 3,000 5,000 3,000 - 0.00% Charges For Services 8,152 2,529 4,014 8,831 3,446 3,000 5,000 31000 - 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 43300 58100 Refunds & Reimbursements (6) 192 99 468 562 1,500 - Miscellaneous Revenue (6) 192 99 468 562 - 1,500 Total 8,146 2,721 4,113 9,299 4,008 3,000 6,500 3,000 - 0.00% 5 z R 3600, SYreet,Isgbrs BIIfe4 ,•.km...:e . ,z,„ .wa °'� - .s..LE tir ; Charges For Services 43600 55410 Street Lights - User Fee 181,124 188,495 225,937 232,681 234,134 230,000 234,000 234,000 4,000 1.74% 43600 55440 Street Lights - Penalties 928 751 801 728 706 1,000 700 700 (300) -30.00% Charges For Services 182,052 189,246 226,738 233,409 234,840 231,000 234,700 234,700 3,700 1.60% Special Assessments 43600 57300 Spec Assess - Interest & Penal 65 76 129 201 48 - - - - #DIV10I 43600 57400 Spec Assess - Certified Bit 2,699 2,442 2,766 5,403 2,761 1,500 - - #DIV 101 Special Assessments 2,764 2,518 2,895 5,604 2,809 1,500 - - #DIW0! Total 184,816 191,764 229,633 239,013 237,649 231,000 236,200 234,700 3,700 1.60% .. a , .45000, Parks &Recreation ��:3 "'N Intergovernmental Revenue 45000 53420 Slate DNR 5,927 8,977 - - - #DIV /0! Intergovenmental Revenue 5,927 - 8,977 - - - - #DIV /0! Charges For Services 45000 54160 Tournament Fees 337 338 835 430 460 - 1,700 - - #DIV /0! Charges For Services 337 338 835 430 460 - 1,700 - - #DIV /01 Miscellaneous Revenue 45000 58100 Refunds & Reimbursements 4,877 811 2,524 3,166 1,213 - - - - #DIV /01 45000 58105 Rent 800 L020 1,500 1,210 500 1,000 - - #DIV /01 Miscellaneous Revenue 5,677 1,831 4,024 4,376 1,713 - 1,000 - - #DIVlOI Total 11,941 2,169 4,859 13,783 2,173 - 2,700 - - #DIVIO! 46000 Re tba " ` °. x s Inlergovermnentat Revenue 46000 53360 SCORE Reimbursement 47,580 56,467 57,536 43,531 59,055 59,000 59,000 59,000 - 0.00% 46000 53890 Mise Grants 57,844 - - IntergovertunentalRevenue 47,580 56,467 57,536 43,531 116,899 59,000 59,000 59,000 - 0.00% Charges For Services 46000 54150 Recycling Fees 35,897 29,479 40,504 48,339 39,530 32,000 32,000 32,000 - 0.00 °% Charges For Services 35,897 29,479 40,504 48,339 39,530 32,000 32,000 32,000 - 0.00 °% Total 83,477 85,946 98,040 91,670 156,429 91,000 91,000 91,000 - 0.00% qx U , Nep 49100= Una7lsaeted d- -�v ..v, r.�- .: ... General Property Tax 49100 51100 Property Tax - Current 5,356,828 5,579,775 6,086,792 5,701,098 5,990,448 7,332,857 7,332,857 7,435,891 103,034 1.41% 49100 51110 Property Tax - Delinquent 101,867 121,740 88,826 102,272 104,355 60,925 60,925 60,925 - 0.00% 49100 51300 Fiscal Disparities 784,651 881,641 1,008,656 1,303,563 1,230,371 - - - - 4DIV /0! 49100 51400 Penalties& Interest on Taxes 5,665 5,445 7,328 91W3 t5,358 5,000 5,000 5,000 - O.W% General Property Tax 6,249,011 6,588,601 7,191,602 7,115,936 7,340,532 7,398,782 7,398,782 7,501,816 103,034 1.39% Intergovernmental Revenue 1017/2013 CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Revenue Budget Worksheet - 2014 10/17/2013 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget' Estimate Requestedl Change M Account Number Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 S % 49100 53310 Local Government Aid - - - - - - - - - #DIV /0! 49100 53340 PFRA Aid 10,093 10,093 10,093 10,093 10,093 10,093 10,093 10,093 - 0.00% 49100 53380 Market Value Homestead Cred 130,209 37,114 3,872 853 2,354 - - - - #DIVII! 49100 53490 Other Grants 4,284 Intergovernmental Revenue 140,301 47,207 13,965 10,946 16,731 10,093 10,093 10,093 - 0.00% Investment Income 49100 56910 Interest Tamed 157,548 69,288 62,540 85,345 92,182 65,000 70,000 75,000 10,000 15.38% 49100 56920 Valuation Adjustment (19,582 ) 7,484 7,828 45,023 3,183 - #DIV /0! Investment Income 137,966 76,772 70,368 130,368 95,365 65,000 70,000 75,000 10,000 15.38% Miscellaneous Revenue 49100 58100 Refunds & Reimbursements - 17,120 - - - - - - - #DIV /0! 49100 58105 Rent 45,229 47,750 50,650 53,650 56,259 51,500 52,000 53,000 1,500 2.91% 49100 58140 Maps, etc 114 72 48 16 30 50 - 50 - 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 45,343 64,942 50,698 53.666 56,289 51,550 52,000 53,050 1,500 2.91% Other Financing Sources 49100 59100 Operating Transfers In 191,194 196,930 196,930 196,930 196.930 196,930 196,930 196,930 - 0.00% Other Financing Sources 191,194 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 - 0.00% Total 6,763,815 6,974,452 7,523,563 7,507,846 7,7051847 7,722,355 7,727,805 7,836,889 114,534 1.48% Grand Total 8,807,071 8,691,798 9,355,543 9,491,016 9,957,405 9,356,581 9,713,833 9,569,142 212,561 2.27% General Fund Summary 51000 General Property Tax 6,249,011 6,588,601 7,191,602 7,115,936 7,340,532 7,398,782 7,398,782 7,504816 103,034 1.39% 52000 License & Permits 525,340 291,904 329,901 387,206 449,826 288,355 376,560 307,355 19,000 6.59% 53000 Intergovernmental Revenue 709,252 595,001 570,096 566,706 653,720 596,564 606,564 609,541 12,977 2.18% 54000 Charges For Services 775,144 701,289 757,094 866,584 973,604 619,850 863,867 685,900 66,050 10.66% 56000 Fines 104,630 110,779 104,780 99,777 97,571 100,750 95,750 100,750 - 0.00% 56900 Investment Income 137,966 76,772 70,368 130,368 95,365 65,000 70,000 75,000 10,000 15.38% 57000 Special Assessments 4,410 6,775 12,317 13,556 7,778 - 1,500 - - #DIV /01 59000 Miscellaneous Revenue 110,124 123,747 122,455 113,953 142,079 90,350 103,880 91,850 1,500 1.66% 59000 Other Financing Sources 191,194 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 - 0.00% 8,807,071 8,691,798 9,355,543 9,491,016 9,957,405 9,356,581 9,713,833 9,569,142 212,561 2.27% 10/17/2013 CITY OF ANDOVER Budget Worksheet - 2014 General Fund General Fund Rolla a Account Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Requested Estimate Requested Number Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 Salaries & Benefits 60110 Salaries - Regular 2,615,221 2,467,346 2,333,796 2,454,305 2,435,868 2,932,760 2,965,760 3,010,606 60120 Salaries - Volumeer Fire Fghae 237,618 245,468 212,497 209,122 224,808 259,590 259,590 260,863 60130 Salaries - Election Judges 30,156 - 30,490 - 29,114 - - - 60140 Salaries - Council /Commission 48,160 46,630 46,235 46,223 47,970 46,700 48,700 48,700 60210 FICA 161,090 151,592 146,062 150,742 148,082 198,464 198,464 203,375 W220 Medicare 40,131 37,988 36,626 37,934 37,276 46,415 46,415 47,566 60310 Health Insurance 314,000 295,023 310,514 295,282 300,692 399,663 399,663 551,253 60320 Dental Insurance 17,088 14,902 15,103 14,728 15,060 19,456 19,456 20,942 60330 Life Insurance 1,955 1,882 1,335 1,297 1,058 688 688 860 60340 Long -Tenn Disability 6,315 6,058 5,936 5,955 6,282 7,369 7,369 7,574 60410 PERA 172,647 174,045 178,099 187,220 184,350 224,197 224,197 240,502 60420 Nationwide Retirement 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 60520 Workers Comp 70,867 71 ,395 69,492 69,492 78,659 101,810 101,810 108,787 60540 Relief Association 171,813 153,492 154,210 156,170 157,440 160,000 160,000 170,000 60990 Inter -City Labor Allocation (392,937) (432,864) (345,601) Salaries & Benefits 3,888,061 3,666,821 3,541 ,395 3,629,470 3,667 659 4,008,175 4,001,248 4,327,427 Deparlmemal 61005 Supplies - General 20,171 16,601 15,636 18,023 19,345 23,520 22,930 22,930 61010 Supplies - Printed Forms 90 509 94 419 332 1,000 1,000 1,000 61015 Supplies - Training - 567 135 454 110 1,500 1,500 1,500 61020 Supplies - Operating 104,409 87,794 79,992 75,445 89,483 112,350 120,600 123,440 61025 Supplies - Cleaning 4,807 3,650 2,456 1,223 4,078 9,600 9,600 9,600 61030 Supplies -Signs 40,553 32,263 35,808 21,264 28,559 45,000 40,000 45,000 61105 R & M Supplies - General 26,761 17,103 15,743 15,821 13,774 19,250 17,750 22,000 61120 R & M Supplies- Building 10,406 11,143 9,922 19,280 17,945 19,850 19,850 21,350 61125 R & M Supplies - Streets 146,837 142,820 175,006 122,097 93,172 147,000 137,000 149,000 61130 A & M Supplies - Landscape 30,749 22,309 24,289 44,084 44,%3 33,000 33,000 33,000 61205 Small & Expend- Small Tools 7,447 7,324 8,992 5,611 10,276 10,300 10,300 12,800 61210 Small &Expend - Office Equipm 12,806 2,819 4,746 1,325 5,289 11,000 11,000 11,000 61220 SeBwace 2,424 947 360 360 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 61225 Technology Upgrades 18,467 10,642 16,761 14,368 7,180 15,000 15,000 15,000 61245 Items for Resale 29,448 33,685 34,918 37,475 31,887 30,000 30,000 30,000 61305 Uniforms 2,617 964 484 982 978 1,750 1,750 1,750 61310 Meals /Lodging 8,445 5,934 5,263 6,957 6,158 10,550 9,098 12,450 61315 Continuing Education 24,605 32,596 30,332 23,038 32,395 49,890 48,640 55,390 61320 Annual Dues /Licenses 55,750 57,097 56,649 62,408 41,273 47,695 46,495 52,039 61325 Subscription /Publications 2,076 1,770 1,939 2,340 2,936 2,100 2,100 1,925 61405 Postage 14,269 16,711 15,043 18232 19,366 22,435 22,485 23,685 61410 Transportation! Mileage 9,596 8,326 6,613 7,337 7,582 12,185 11,575 11,485 Departmental 572,732 513,574 541,181 498543 478,101 626,175 612,873 657,544 Operating 62005 Electric 277,923 310,480 321,020 319,258 323,728 360 ,350 360 ,350 371,350 62010 Water& Sewer Service 80,163 62,730 52,159 53,888 58,331 71,116 71,116 71,116 62015 Natural Gas 59,154 68,034 51,226 49,646 37,168 91,510 91,510 91,510 62020 Refuse Collection 13,650 14,765 19,713 18,844 20,484 20,800 20,800 22,800 62025 Sturm Water Utility Charge 2100 2,374 4 ,302 4,553 4,781 5,350 5,350 5,350 62030 Telephone 45,790 42,432 46,854 48,755 51,068 64,570 63,420 65,070 6210D Insurance 122,341 128,457 135,933 135,661 135,661 139,731 139,731 139,731 62200 Rentals 26,372 25,866 26,900 26,522 28,592 40,950 42,850 44,550 62205 Central Equipment Services 406,446 467,219 490,582 490,582 490,582 505,300 505,300 505,300 62300 Equipment Maintenance Contract 22,568 32,045 27,783 34,511 37,369 46,000 47,000 46,500 62305 Software Maintenance Contracts 36,142 37,725 42,999 44,327 40,418 47,625 47,625 48,725 Operating 1,092 749 1,192,127 1,219,471 1,226,547 1,228,282 1,393,302 1,395,052 1,412,002 Professtonal Services 63005 Professional Services 207,779 206 ,356 224,995 222,285 221,674 222,550 217,550 223,700 63010 Contractual Sorvices 2,464,037 2,678,279 2,742,410 2,784,028 2,852,849 2,940,177 2,938,277 3,021,332 63015 Attorney 171,300 175,770 175,167 172,255 170,930 179,800 175,500 179,300 63025 Publishing 4,660 4,078 2,561 9,075 5,096 4,300 4,300 4,300 63030 Printing 10,768 12,481 9,651 11,287 11,499 14,400 11,650 13,400 63100 R & M Labor - General 26,676 33,391 25,928 26,599 23,822 38,400 37,900 41,400 63105 R & M Labor - Building 52,477 33,325 57,556 90,519 66,413 66,750 66,750 70,000 63110 R & M Labor - Streets 508 - 118 515 474 1,500 1,500 1,500 63215 Retarding Fee 1,380 506 1,104 7D0 1,170 450 450 450 63300 Improvements - Streets 6,471 1,955 6,349 3,332 7,840 7,000 7,000 8,000 63900 Miscellaneous 5,474 17,220 23,219 20,301 46,738 72,000 72,000 72,000 63905 Contingency 13,999 2,540 1,953 10,415 16,850 44,950 42,000 45,328 Professional Services 2,965,529 3,165,901 3,271,011 3,351,311 3,425,355 3,592,277 3,574,877 3,680,710 Capital Outlay 652DO Building - - - - 58,314 - 45,000 - 65600 Equilmac l 3,428 7,925 Capital Outlay 3,428 7,925 58,314 45,000 Other Financing Uses 67101 Opeatng Transfea Oul 600,000 135,000 Other Financing Uses 600,000 135,000 - Total 8,522,499 8,538,423 8,573,058 8,713,796 9,457,711 9,619,929 9,764,050 10,077,683 ow CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Expenditure Budget Summary Totals - By Department Budget Year 2014 OTHER 17,999 19,540 24,953 30,631 663,372 88,950 221,000 89,328 378 0.42% "1", are S r';8;522499t ?$, %8,535; •, , ,05811:1Y S,'sa;713,79br7, S ^,`19;457711' 9y25 ,' GRANIOTAL ,S "* x8573423 964,050. .SFi, l0,07a6B3' 37:15.. .. 1 r V Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget* Estimate Requested* Change (') 2008 2009 2010 - 2011 2012 2013 2013 2014 $ % GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 103,068 $ 105,318 $ 100,711 $ 101,373 $ 83,622 $ 87,953 $ 85,653 $ 86,840 (1,113) - 1.27% Administration 127,769 128,533 131,217 135,523 140,048 143,995 141,895 179,558 35,563 24.70% Newsletter 19,667 22,405 17,094 22,897 22,336 25,500 25,000 26,000 500 1.96% Human Resources 59,008 54,623 54,970 31,855 12,485 42,770 42,770 44,351 1,581 3.70% Attorney 171,300 172,900 172,775 171,062 170,930 178,300 174,500 178,300 0 0.00% City Clerk 158,203 96,621 95,165 100,697 101,377 108,925 108,973 131,496 22,571 20.72% Elections 40,907 6,139 37,926 6,399 39,614 54,155 11,478 55,687 1,532 2.83% Finance 212,764 210,206 194,863 207,032 207,337 221,256 220,756 241,244 19,988 9.03% Assessing 119,090 120,113 144,760 143,693 143,338 150,000 146,000 151,000 1,000 0.67% Information Services 137,287 122,614 136,931 142,964 136,025 161,252 161,252 173,980 12,728 7.89% Planning & Zoning 359,140 323,682 327,567 324,303 318,523 360,970 362,170 419,329 58,359 16.17% Engineering 399,437 388,285 389,038 413,818 427,339 440,168 441,368 476,724 36,556 8.31% Facility Management 411,665 409,928 421,855 469,478 420,799 556,187 556,187 565,546 9,359 1.68% Total Geuer9lGbv v 7:.2;319,305 ,.:_..' r PUBLICSAFETY Police Protection 2,318,241 2,545,642 2,599,246 2,615,407 2,693,896 2,740,899 2,740,899 2,818,132 77,233 2.82% Fire Protection 991,636 998,350 967,715 974,988 1,016,836 1,117,444 1,139,494 1,140,390 22,946 2.05% Protective Inspection 455,526 435,102 330,707 342,437 354,753 393,530 411,530 422,422 28,892 7.34% Civil Defense 13,306 14,935 15,451 16,301 149088 17,188 17,188 17,310 122 0.71% Animal Control 7,095 11,376 6,952 1 L088 8,503 9,950 99950 9,950 0 0.00% ' `,TotalPublir.Sate �:- 3,785,804 ,. .� r '; 4;OQ5 OS rr ,f` %? x t ;FS * r , , °5r y n ` x'3,960,221 r4,088;'07°�` 1 ,,oI `mt",^a x iii'' rf` °. k1 2 9 1: 9 }Y9 0d1 4;40804 129 di3. ; �'F �i`L . ,.3,920,071 PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 613,896 567,092 518,990 594,294 570,630 584,611 582,561 611,238 26,627 4,55% Snow and Ice Removal 457,587 462,849 537,947 434,603 420,175 511,834 500,334 526,904 15,070 2.94% Street Signs 170,358 159,213 166,244 175,833 170,200 198,693 192,693 204,151 5,458 2.75% Traffic Signals 15,056 26,090 25,830 26,569 27,457 36,000 36,000 36,000 0 0.00% Street Lighting 30,041 32,666 30,885 32,317 33,439 36,400 36,400 36,400 0 0.00% Street Lights - Billed 158,172 180,641 186,320 189,144 195,197 210,000 210,000 210,000 0 0.00% Park & Recreation 867,651 838,033 827,911 889,180 912,750 1,014,366 1,014,366 1,092,149 77,783 7.67% Recycling 86,630 85,527 109,035 109,910 1529642 128,633 173,633 133,254 4,621 3.59% OTHER 17,999 19,540 24,953 30,631 663,372 88,950 221,000 89,328 378 0.42% "1", are S r';8;522499t ?$, %8,535; •, , ,05811:1Y S,'sa;713,79br7, S ^,`19;457711' 9y25 ,' GRANIOTAL ,S "* x8573423 964,050. .SFi, l0,07a6B3' 37:15.. .. 1 r V City of Andover General Fund 2013 Fund Balance Analysis 10/17/2013 01� 2nd Round Actual December 31, 2012 $ 6,387,841 2013 Estimated Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) (50,217) Projected December 31, 2013 6,337,624 Less: Snow Emergency (80,000) Public Safety (80,000) Facility Management (50,000) Information Technology (50,000) Public Safety / South Coon Creek Water Main (200,000) Economic Development (300,000) Prepaids / Inventories (160,177) Working Cash Flow (4,837,288) Estimated Balance Available for Adjustments $ 580,159 2013 Working Cash Flow Designation Calculation: 2014 Requested Expenditure $10,077,683 % of 2014 General Fund Expenditures 48.000% $ 4,837,288 City of Andover General Fund 2014 Budget Gap Analysis 5 2nd Round Adopted Estimate Requested 2013 2013 2014 Revenue $ 9,356,581 $ 9,713,833 $ 9,569,142 Expenditure Base Budget * 9,619,929 9,584,050 9,584,050 Available for Adjustments $ (263,348) $ 129,783 (14,908) Adjustments to Base Budget Personal Services 326,179 Additional Staffing 68,418 Services & Supplies 167,454 Transfer Out - Capital Outlay - Total Adjustments to Base Budget 562,051 Budget Gap (576,959) Prior Year Fund Balance Available Budget Shortfall (576,959) 2013 Base Budget less any capital outlay and /or transfers. Capital Outlay is new each year. no base or carryforward is considered. Reconciliation Budget Gap Less: Additional Staffing $ (576,959) 68,418 $ (508,541) 2014 Under (Over) Budget $ (508,541) Moro l,ect ave o� mM1C�;vs Search Results for Council Member. No comparison salary provided. Num. of Organization ANNUAL Cost for Single Health Organization ANNUAL Cost for Family Andover 31,298 Metro 4 $7,500.00 52.00 per EDA Meeting N/A Apple Valley 49,376 Metro 4 $8,028.00 BCBS $8,006.00 $12,960.00 Arden Hills 10,137 Metro 4 $5,700.00 0 NA $0.00 $0.00 ]Bayport 3,379 Metro 4 $3,009.36 Blaine 58,020 Metro 6 $9,384.00 NA NA (Bloomington 84,701 Metro 6 $12,396.00 $35 to $50 comm /boards Medica $7,261.92 $14,424.00 ]Brooklyn Center 29,810 Metro 4 $8,805.00 (Brooklyn Park 75,306 Metro 6 $11,400.00 I8urnsville 61,042 Metro 4 $8,400.00 Health Partners $4,260.00 $4,260.00 Champlin 23,934 Metro 4 $6,610.00 0 Health Partners $0.00 $0.00 (Circle Pines 5,279 Metro 4 $3,900.00 Coates 179 Metro 4 $1,200.00 2400 Cologne 1,408 Metro 5 $10,400.00 (Columbia Heights 18,361 Metro 4 $7,800.00 0 Medica $6,759.48 $10,020.00 Columbus 4,104 Metro 4 $3,600.00 $100 per meeting Cottage Grove 34,502 Metro 4 $6,780.00 Icrystal 22,014 Metro 6 $8,088.83 n/a n/a IDeephaven 3,814 Metro 4 $2,400.00 0 (Eagan 65,933 Metro 4 $10,004.00 BCBS $542.00 $542.00 ]East Bethel 12,090 Metro 4 $5,700.00 I Eden Prairie 62,536 Metro 4 $10,740.00 Health Partners $7,496.64 $12,369.60 (Excelsior 2,360 Metro 4 $2,400.00 N/A N/A $0.00 $0.00 (Falcon Heights 5,762 Metro 4 $3,400.00 ]Farmington 18,959 Metro 4 $7,020.00 I Forest Lake 17,496 Metro 4 $5,500.00 No Health Partners (Golden Valley 20,312 Metro 4 $8,696.00 $50 /mtg, up to 3 monthly ]Greenwood 806 Metro 4 $2,400.00 I Ham Lake 15,324 Metro 4 $4,900.00 N/A (Hanover 2,727 Metro 4 $1,250.00 30 (Hastings 22,491 Metro 6 $6,000.00 0 ]Lake Saint Croix Beach 1,161 Metro 4 $120.00 10 (Lakeville 55,772 Metro 4 $8,664.00 25 ILexington 2,017 Metro 4 $3,300.00 $35.00 Lino Lakes 20,305 Metro 4 $5,018.00 $40 None ]Little Canada 10,036 Metro 4 $4,630.00 N/A N/A Maple Grove 62,660 Metro 4 $12,500.00 (Maplewood 37,755 Metro 4 $11,314.00 None N/A (Medina 5,026 Metro 4 $3,000.00 N/A N/A I Mendota Heights 11,766 Metro 4 $4,200.00 IMinnetonka 51,451 Metro 6 $9,000.00 0 NA $0.00 $0.00 IMinnetrista 6,296 Metro 4 $3,600.00 (Mound 9,787 Metro 4 $3,000.00 I Mounds View 12,733 Metro 4 $5,700.00 $0.00 $0.00 I New Brighton 22,321 Metro 4 $7,000.00 NA Health Partners $6,473.52 $0.00 L NO New Hope 20,718 Metro 4 $8,050.00 $25 per EDA meeting HealthPartners $0.00 $0.00 New Prague 7,081 Metro 4 $3,144.00 $50.00 (Oak Grove 8,579 Metro 4 $4,100.04 $95.00 /mo (EDA) (Oak Park Heights 4,653 Metro 4 $5,760.00 Orono 7,980 Metro 4 $3,500.00 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 Iosseo 2,499 Metro 4 $2,820.00 Plymouth 71,930 Metro 6 $10,145.00 Medica $0.00 $0.00 Ramsey 23,272 Metro 6 $6,000.00 Rogers 11,500 Metro 4 $3,600.00 0 Rosemount 21,521 Metro 4 $6,396.00 $35 /Port Authority Mtg Roseville 34,178 Metro 4 $7,020.00 0 NA $0.00 $0.00 Savage 27,567 Metro 4 $6,000.00 0 Iscandia 4,195 Metro 4 $3,148.34 0 (Shoreview 25,882 Metro 4 $6,720.00 (Shorewood 7,618 Metro 4 $3,000.00 0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 South St. Paul 20,180 Metro 6 $6,600.00 15pring Lake Park 6,768 Metro 4 $5,787.24 Spring Park 1,868 Metro 4 $4,200.00 0 ISt. Anthony Village 8,437 Metro 4 $6,000.00 {St. Paul Park 5,221 Metro 4 $3,800.00 0 N/A Stillwater 18,235 Metro 4 $7,200.00 Blue Cross Blue Shield (2 plans) $658.50 $1,731.50 IVadnais Heights 13,071 Metro 4 $6,000.00 (Victoria 6,727 Metro 4 $2,400.00 $0 `Waconia 10,183 Metro 4 $4,000.00 0 n/a Watertown 4,129 Metro 4 $4,200.00 $40 per meeting N/A I Wayzata 4,115 Metro 5 $16,500.00 1 West St. Paul 18,947 Metro 6 $7,150.00 (Woodbury 59,338 Metro 4 $8,100.00 N e�f3 -eke "e o� YAr. Search Results for Mayor. No comparison salary provided. �R Andover 31,298 Metro 1 $9,500.00 $1.00 per meeting for EDA N/A Apple Valley 49,376 Metro 1 $11,220.00 BCBS $0.00 $12,960.00 Arden Hills 10,137 Metro 1 $6,100.00 0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 Bayport 3,379 Metro 1 $4,514.04 (Blaine 58,020 Metro 1 $12,792.00 NA NA IBloomington 84,701 Metro 1 $26,400.00 $35 for Port Authority Medica $7,261.92 $14,424.00 Brooklyn Center 29,810 Metro 1 $11,500.00 Brooklyn Park 75,306 Metro 1 $17,100.00 Burnsville 61,042 Metro 1 $12,000.00 Health Partners $4,260.00 $4,260.00 (Champlin 23,934 Metro 1 $9,550.00 0 Health Partners $0.00 $0.00 ICirde Pines 5,279 Metro 1 $4,500.00 Coates 179 Metro 1 $500.00 900 Columbia Heights 18,361 Metro 1 $13,800.00 0 Medica $6,759.48 $10,020.00 IColumbus 4,104 Metro 1 $4,500.00 $125 per meeting ICottage Grove 34,502 Metro 1 $9,216.00 (Crystal 22,014 Metro 1 $10,514.69 n/a n/a Deephaven 3,814 Metro 1 $3,600.00 0 (Eagan 65,933 Metro 1 $13,624.00 BCBS $542.00 $542.00 I East Bethel 12,090 Metro 1 $6,300.00 Eden Prairie 62,536 Metro 1 $13,500.00 0 Health Partners $7,496.64 $12,369.60 Excelsior 2,360 Metro 1 $3,600.00 N/A N/A $0.00 $0.00 Falcon Heights 5,762 Metro 1 $5,400.00 (Farmington 18,959 Metro 1 $8,040.00 Forest Lake 17,496 Metro 1 $6,500.00 No Health Partners Golden Valley 20,312 Metro 1 $11,619.00 $50 /mtg, up to 3 monthly Greenwood 806 Metro 1 $3,600.00 Ham Lake 15,324 Metro 1 $6,000.00 N/A Hanover 2,727 Metro 1 $1,650.00 30 Hastings 22,491 Metro 1 $8,400.00 0 Lake Saint Croix Beach 1,161 Metro 1 $120.00 10 Ilakeville 55,772 Metro 1 $9,996.00 25 (Lexington 2,017 Metro 1 $4,200.00 $35.00 Lino Lakes 20,305 Metro 1 $6,272.00 $40 None (Little Canada 10,036 Metro 1 $5,700.00 N/A N/A Maple Grove 62,660 Metro 1 $14,500.00 Maplewood 37,755 Metro 1 $12,855.00 None N/A Medina 5,026 Metro 1 $4,250.00 N/A N/A Mendota Heights 11,766 Metro 1 $5,700.00 Minnetonka 51,451 Metro 1 $12,000.00 0 NA $0.00 $0.00 IMinnetrista 6,296 Metro 1 $4,800.00 Mound 9,787 Metro 1 $4,500.00 Mounds View 12,733 Metro 1 $6,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 New Brighton 22,321 Metro 1 $8,600.00 Health Partners $0.00 $0.00 New Hope 20,718 Metro 1 $11,170.00 $25 per EDA meeting HealthPartners $0.00 $0.00 �R New Prague 7,081 Metro 1 $4,440.00 )Oak Grove 8,579 Metro 1 $4,772.04 Oak Park Heights 4,653 Metro 1 $6,780.00 Orono 7,980 Metro 1 $4,200.00 Osseo 2,499 Metro 1 $4,200.00 (Plymouth 71,930 Metro 1 $14,004.00 y Ramsey 23,272 Metro 1 $8 %moo Rogers 11,500 Metro 1 $4,200.00 (Rosemount 21,521 Metro 1 $8,528.00 Roseville 34,178 Metro 1 $9,300.00 Savage 27,567 Metro 1 $8,000.00 jScandia 4,195 Metro 1 $3,882.96 Shoreview 25,882 Metro 1 $9,060.00 (Shorewood 7,618 Metro 1 $3,600.00 (South St. Paul 20,180 Metro 1 $10,200.00 Spring Lake Park 6,768 Metro 1 $7,234.08 Spring Park 1,868 Metro 1 $5,400.00 ISt. Anthony Village 8,437 Metro 1 $7,500.00 iSt. Paul Park 5,221 Metro 1 $4,350.00 (Stillwater 18,235 Metro 1 $9,000.00 IVadnais Heights 13,071 Metro 1 $7,500.00 'Victoria 6,727 Metro 1 $2,700.00 lWaconia 10,183 Metro 1 $4,900.00 Watertown 4,129 Metro 1 $5,400.00 West St. Paul 18,947 Metro 1 $8,910.00 Woodbury 59,338 Metro 1 $11,000.00 $50 $107.50 /mo (EDA) 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 Medica $0.00 $0.00 0 $35 /Port Authority Meetin 0 NA $0.00 $0.00 0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 0 Mayor Pro -Tem Annual Wages $6,756.00 0 N/A Blue Cross Blue Shied (2 plans) $658.50 $1,731.50 $0 $40 per meeting n/a N/A ■ TUG [on,,", ob Albert Lea Council Member $8,000.00 6 N 5/13/2011 111/2011 Andover Council Member $7,500.00 4 $1.00 per EDA N/A N 5/16/2012 1/1/2012 Meeg tm Austin Council Member $6,600.00 7 $0 N/A x 5/15/2006 Brooklyn Center Council Member $8,549.04 4 N 5/21/2012 1/1/2012 Cass County Council Member $23,596.50 5 75.00 BLUE CROSS BLUE y 5/23/2012 1/1/2012 SHEILD 7932 17892 Champlin Council Member $6,610.00 4 0 Health Partners y 5/25/2012 1/1/2012 0 0 Chanhassen Council Member $4,800.00 4 $50 per meeting x 9/25/2009 1/1/2009 Chaska Council Member $6,948.00 4 0 n.a. x 4/19/2010 1/1/2010 0 0 Columbia Heights Council Member $7,800,00 4 0 Medica y 5/2/2012 1/1/2012 6089.64 9660 Cottage Grove Council Member $6,780.00 4 x 4/21/2011 1/1/2011 Crystal Council Member $8,008.75 6 n/a n/a T N 5/23/2012 1/1/2012: Elk River Council Member $7,000.00 4 $1800 annual for EDA N 5/9/2012 1/1/2012 Faribault Council Member $7,220.00 6 x 4/25/2008 1/1/2008 Farmington Council Member $7,020.00 4 N 4/22/2011 1/1/2011 Forest Lake Council Member $5,500.00 4 No Health Partners N 5/8/2012 1/1/2012 Fridley Council Member $7,647.15 4 Medica Y 5/13/2011 1/1/2011 6478.56 13756.8 Golden Valley Council Member $8,696.00 4 $50/mtg, up to 3 N 5/25/2012 1/1/2012 monthly Ham Lake Council Member $4,900.00 4 N/A N 5/3/2012 1/1/2012 Hastings Council Member $5,880.00 6 0 1 N 5/9/2012 1/1/2012 Hopkins Council Member $4,600.00 4 0 N/A x 5/13/2010 1/1/2010 Lincoln Pipestone Rural Council Member $2,400.00 11 100 per meeting Blue Cross, Blue I N 5/8/2012 1/1/2012 Water Shield 3598.4 11532 Lino Lakes Council Member $5,018.00 4 $40 None N 5/23/2012 1/1/2012 New Brighton Council Member $7,000.00 4 NA Health Partners y 4/30/2012 1/1/2012 5882.4 5882.4 New Hope Council Member $7,553.00 4 $25 per EDA meeting HealthPartners x 5/1/2009 0 0 Northfield �Council Member $7,200.00 6 0 N/A N 8/17/2011 0 0 Owatonna Council Member $7,200.00 7 0 0 X 5/5/2006 Prior Lake Council Member $7,440.00 4 $50.00 per meeting N/A 0 0 N 4/22/2010 1/1/2010 Ramsey Council Member $6,000.00 6 X 5/10/2011 1/1/2011 Red Wing Council Member $7,550.40 7 N/A 0. 0 N 5/4/2012 1/1/2012 Richfield Council Member $7,746.00 4 Health Partners 0 0 N 5/10/2010 1/1/2009 Rosemount. Council Member .$6,396.00 4 $35 /PorMAuthority tg N : - 5/21/2012 1/1/2012 Roseville Council Member $7,020.00 4 0 NA 0 0 N 5/9/2012 1/1/2012 Sartell Council Member $5,200.00 4 $0 N 5/8/2012 1/1/2012 Savage Council Member $6,000.00 4 0 N 5/24/2012 1/1/2012 Shakopee Council Member. $6,715.00 4 0 N 6/22/2010 1/1/2010 Shoreview Council Member $6,720.00 4 N 6/28/2012 1/1/2012 South St. Paul Council Member $6,600.00 6 - N ' 5/9/2012 1/1/2012 St. Michael Council Member $0.00 4 $60.00 per meeting X 4/17/2007 Stillwater Council Member $7,200.00 4 Blue Cross 492 849,86 Y 4/26/2010 "1/1/2010 West St. Paul Council Member $6,500.00 6 X 4/30/2012 7/1/2012 Willmar Council Member $7,500.00 8 $20 per hour N/A 0. 0 Y 5/22/2012 '1/1/2012 Winona Council Member $6,696.00 6 Blue Cross, Blue Shield X 1/1/2013 1/1/2011 Albert Lea , Mayor - $12,000.00 1. N _ 5/13/2011 ". 1/1/2011 Andover Mayor $9,500.00 1 $1.00 per6DmAeeting for N/A N 5/16/2012 1/1/2012 Austin - Mayor $9,000.00 1 $0 N/A X 5/15/2006 - Brooklyn Center Mayor $11,166.00 1 N 5/21/2012 1/1/2012 Champlin Mayor $9,550.00 1 0 Health Partners 0 0 Y 5/25/2012 1/112012 Chanhassen Mayor $6,000.00 1 $50 per meeting X 9/25/2009 1/1/2009 Chaska Mayor - $8,208.00 1 0 . -n.a. 0.. 0 X 4/19/2010 1/1/2010 Columbia Heights Mayor $13,800.00 1 0 Medica 6089.64 9660 Y 5/2/2012 1/1/2012 Cottage Grove Mayor... $9,216.00 ` 1 - X 4/21/2011 1/1/2011 , I ) w Crystal Mayor $10,410.59 1 n/a n/a N 5/23/2012 1/1/2012 Elk River Mayor $10,000.00 1 $1800 annual for EDA - N 5/9/2012 - 1/1/2012 Faribault Mayor $8,480.00 1 X 4/25/2008 1/1/2008 Farmington Mayor - ..$8,040.00 1 N 4/22/2011 1/1/2011. Forest Lake Mayor $6,500.00 1 No Health Partners N 5/8/2012 1/1/2012 Fridley Mayor $10,530.57 1 Medica fi478.56 13756.8 y 5/13/2011 1/1/2011 Golden Valley Mayor $11,619.00 1 $50 /mtg, up to 3 month) N 5/25/2012 1/1/2012 Ham Lake Mayor $6,000.00 1 N/A N . 5/3/2012 1/1/2012 Hastings Mayor $8,232.00 1 0 N 5/9/2012 1/1/2012 Hopkins Mayor $6,000.00 1 0 N/A : X 5/13/2010_ 1/1/2010 Lino Lakes Mayor $6,272.00 1 $40 None N 5/23/2012 1/1/2012 New Brighton Mayor $8,600A0 1 Health Partners 0 0 Y 4/30/2012 1/1/2012 New Hope Mayor $10,672.00 1 $25 per FDA meeting Health Partners 0 0 X 11/23/2011 11/1/2011 Northfield Mayor $9,600.00 1 0 N/A 0 0 N 8/17/2011 1/1/2011 Owatonna Mayor $9,000.00 1 Council Pres. = $9000.00 0 0 X 5/16/2006 Prior Lake Mayor $9,420.00 1 .$50.00 per meeting N/A 0 0 X 5/11/2009 1/1/2009 Ramsey Mayor $8,000.00 1 X 5/10/2011 1/1/2011 Red Wing Mayor $9,815.26 1 N/A 0 0 N 5/4/2012 ,1/1/2012 Richfield Mayor $9,979.00 1 HealthPartners 0 0 X 5/10/2010 1/1/2009 Rosemount Mayor. - $8;528.00 1 $35 /Port Authority Meetin N 5/21/2012 1/112012 Roseville Mayor $9,300.00 1 0 NA 0 0 N 5/9/2012 1/1/2012 Sartell. Mayor $7,500.00 1 $0. N 5/8/2012 1/1/2012 -. Savage Mayor $8,000.00 1 N 5/24/2012 1/1/2012 Shakopee Mayor $7,854.00 1 0 N 6/22/2010 :::1/1/2010 Shoreview Mayor $9,060.00 1 N 6/28/2012 1/1/2012 South St.Paul Mayor $10,200.00 1 N 8/9/2012 1/1/2012 St. Michael Mayor $0.00 1 $70.00 per meeting X 4/17/2007 Stillwater Mayor $9,000.00 1: X 4/26/2010 1/1/2010 492 849.86 West St. Paul Mayor $8,100.00 1 X 4/30/2012 7/1/2012 Willmar Mayor $12,000.00 1 $20 per hour N/A -. y 5/22/2012 1/1/2012 0 0 Winona Mayor $9,407.00 1 Blue Cross, Blue X 1/1/2013 1/1/2011 Shield C ^ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2013 Budget Implementation General Fund Progress Report — September 2013 DATE: October 22, 2013 INTRODUCTION The City of Andover 2013 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $9,356,581 and total expenditures of $9,640,429 (includes $20,500 of 2012 budget carry forwards), a decrease in fund balance is planned. Monthly reporting of the City Budget progress to the Governing body is a recommended financial practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies. DISCUSSION Attached is the General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary - Budget Year 2013 through September 2013. The attachment is provided to assist discussion in reviewing 2013 progress; other documents may be distributed at the meeting. The following represents Council directives and departmental expectations for 2013 (adopted April 2d): 1. Expenditure budgets while approved, expenses are to meet with the spirit that needs are fulfilled first, expansions of service and special requests are to be reviewed with City Administration before proceeding. 2. Departments are to be committed to search for the best possible prices when purchasing goods and services. 3. Departments are to be committed to continually searching out new efficiencies and to challenge the status quo of how the City provides services. 4. Departments are to be committed to searching out collaborative opportunities to facilitate efficient and cost - effective utilization of governmental assets and personnel. 5. Departments are to be committed to developing effective, consistent and ongoing communications with City residents, businesses and other stakeholders. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. submitted, I Dickinson CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Budget Summary Totals Budget Year 2013 2012 2013 REVENUES Budget Sep YTD % Bud Final Budget Sep YTD % Bud General Property Tax $ 7,398,782 $ 3,809,259 51% S 7,340,532 $ 7,398,782 $ 3,875,127 52% Licenses and Permits 250,155 327,546 131% 449,561 288,355 415,474 144% Intergovernmental 566,103 342,638 61% 653,720 596,564 339,725 57% Charges for Services 601,150 692,432 115% 973,605 619,850 796,402 128% Fines 100,750 68,245 68% 97,572 100,750 68,185 68% Investment Income 65,000 31,940 496/6 95,365 65,000 19,845 31% Miscellaneous 84,850 122,104 144% 149,857 90,350 129,632 143% Transfers In 196,930 196,930 100% 196,930 196,930 196,930 100% Total Revenues $ 9,263,720 $ 5,591,094 60% $ / 9,957,142 $ 9,356,581 S 5,841,320 !, 2013 2012 EXPENDITURES Budget Sep YTD % Bud Final Budget Sep YTD % Bud GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 88,162 $ 70,046 79% $ 83,622 $ 87,953 $ 69,510 79% Administration 140,621 101,061 72% 140,047 143,995 110,595 77% Newsletter 25,500 17,250 68% 22,335 25,500 14,059 55% Human Resources 15,429 9,952 65% 12,485 42,770 11,973 28% Attorney 178,300 113,810 64% 170,930 178,300 115,421 65% City Clerk 103,937 75,386 73% 101,378 108,925 84,256 77% Elections 53,922 19,281 36% 39,613 54,155 5,112 9% Finance 213,522 160,943 75% 207,338 221,256 166,539 75% Assessing 152,500 140,597 92% 143,338 150,000 141,783 95% Information Services 153,560 93,239 61% 136,025 161,252 100,077 62% Planning & Zoning 338,696 230,077 68% 318,524 360,970 261,360 72% Engineering 419,688 316,047 75% 428,960 440,168 333,935 76% Facility Management 574,639 305,115 530 420,794 566,187 326,054 58% Total General Gov 2,458,476 1,652,804 67% 2,225,389 2541,431 1,740,674 PUBLICSAFETY Police Protection 2,694,135 2,020,422 75% 2,693,896 2,740,899 2,055,674 75% Fire Protection 1,081,933 668,231 62% 1,017,095 1,127,444 705,424 63% Protective Inspection 363,834 258,379 71% 354,752 393,530 311,557 79% Civil Defense 16,755 12,133 72% 14,087 17,188 12,074 70% Animal Control 9,950 5,038 51° 8,503 9,950 2,857 29° Total Public Safety 4,166,607 2,964,203 71% 4,088,333 4,289,011 3,087,586 72% PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 571,625 423,268 74% 570,631 585,111 431,329 74% Snow and Ice Removal 488,172 296,151 61% 420,174 511,834 382,228 75% Street Signs 196,631 122,750 62% 170,200 198,693 117,543 59% Traffic Signals 36,000 15,238 42% 27,457 36,000 17,584 49% Street Lighting 36,400 22,451 62% 33,439 36,400 22,332 61% StreetLights - Billed 206,000 127,915 62% 195,196 210,000 125,512 60% Park & Recreation 932,599 667,982 72% 912,750 1,014,366 660,891 65% Recycling 126,210 72,227 57% 152,642 128,633 110,223 86% 1 Total Public Works 2593,637 1,747,982 67% 2,482,489 2,721,037 1,867,642 69% \L.J) OTHER 80,000 51,068 64% 663,371 223,950 194,453 87% Total Other 80,000 51,068 64% 663,371 223,950 194,453 Total Expenditures 6,416,057 69% $ 9,459,582 $ 9,775,429 $ 6,890,355 $ 9,298,720 $ NET INCREASE (DECREASE) $ (35,000) $ (824,963) $ 497,560 $ (418,848) $ (1,049,035) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: September 2013 Investment Report DATE: October 22, 2013 INTRODUCTION Summary reporting of the City Investment portfolio to the Governing body is a recommended financial practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies. Furthermore, the City of Andover Investment Policy recommends the Finance Director presents to the City Council at least quarterly the type of investments held by the City. DISCUSSION Attached is the Investment Maturities Summary for September 2013, the September 2013 Investment Detail Report, and the September 2013 Money Market Funds Report. These attachments are intended to assist with discussion when reviewing the September 2013 investments. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide feedback to staff. ed, Investment Maturities - September 2013 Investment Maturities Credit Fair (in Years) Less Than More Than Investment Type Rating Value 1 1 - 5 6-10 10 3,486,356 Money market funds N/A $ 3,486,356 $ $ $ MN Municipal Money Market Fund (4M) N/A 4,993 4,993 Certificates of deposit FDIC 21338,451 787,488 1,550,962 - Local governments B /BI /B2 AJAl /A2 60,397 1,014,130 60,397 754,739 112,078 147,314 - AA1 /AA2 /AA3 9,634,436 2,278,122 3,921,753 2,342,533 1,092,028 State governments AAA A/Al /A2 3,636,195 _125,896 1,383,266 1,562,241 564,793 635,564 - 416,122 219,442 AA1 /AA2 /AA3 585,025 159,445 141,699 283,881 149,424 AAA 432,420 1 282,996 U.S. agencies AAA 4,156,811 2,171,922 877,784 1,107,105 24,805 - FNMA REMIC N/A 24,805 - U.S. agencies N/A 14,245 307 13,914 23 $ 7,657,743 $ 10,0195517 Total investments -- $ 26,023,829 $ 5,582,619 — $ 2,763,950 I Deposits 1,895,925 $ 27,919,753 Total cash and investments September 2013 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturit Amount y Interest Rate Current Market Value Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity I Due Date Suntrust Bank Atlanta GA 86789VHM2 AA3 CD 99,000.00 99,000.00 248,000.00 99,000.00 248,000.00 340,231.37 100,000.00 4.000% 97,239.78 quarterly 05/28/09 08/28/09 05/28/14 12/26/13 Beal Bank Plano TX 07370TXD0 CD 248,000.00 0.400% 247,942.96 annually 12/28/12 none 1 Year CD -1st MN Bank Citizens State Bank - Appleton MN Etowah TN 2908 CD 340,231.37 340,231.37 0.30% 3.250% . 1.000% 340,231.37 maturity 03/19/13 none 03/19/14 176688AM1 CD 100,000.00 100,000.00 102,074.00 135,064.80 monthly 07/09/09 08/09/09 07/09/14 038051KP2 A local 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 semi - annual semi - annual - semi - annual semi - annual 09/13/11 04/12/13 12/01/11 12/01/13 12101/13 06/01/14 297785EY9 - 563588YUO 8628111-120 A local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.600% 99,904.00 Manitowoc Wis Al Al local local local 101,898.00 101,898.00 100,000.00 2.500% 100,683.00 12/28/12 none 02101/14 Strafford Conn 200,000.00 222,688.40 30,576.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.905% 201,926.00 06/29/11 03/29/11 08/01/11 08/01/14 Bridgeport Conn 108151V57 A2 222,688.40 30,576.00 35,280.00 215,000.00 3.074% 217,160.75 semi - annual none 08/15/13 none 09/15/14 McLennan Cnty TX Jnr Clg Dist 582188JV1 AA local 30,000.00 2.000% 30,325.20 semi - annual 05/02/13 08/15/14 10/01/13 Windsor Wis 973808CZ9 AA- local 35,280.00 35,000.00 110,000.00 1.500% 2.600 %° 35,000.35 semi - annual 08/29/11 Sherwood Wis Pell City AL Marion MA 824422CB3 AA- local 110,000.00 110,000.00 110,951.50 99,994.00 150,661.50 semi - annual 03/11/10 06/01/10 06/01/14 705880MK5 AA- local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.950% semi - annual 04/25/12 08/01/12 08/01/14 569781GS0 565557NF8 AA+ local 152,581.50 152,581.50 150,000.00 3.000% semi - annual semi - annual 04/11113 none 12/01/13 Maplewood Minn AA +_ local local 165,580.80 103,552.00 244,172.50 165,580.80 165,000.00 2.450% 165,800.25 05/10/10 01/10/13 02/01/11 none none 02/01/14 Palatine III 696089QD6 AA1 103,552.00 244,172.50 25,250.00 100,000.00 4.550% 100,555.00 semi - annual 12/01/13 02/15/14 10/01/13 Dallas TX Zero Coupon 23521 KK60 AA1 local 250,000.00 - 25,000.00 50,000.00 249,600.00 maturity 12/21/11 Will County IL Cmnty Cons Sch 968717QL5 AA2 local 25,250.00 1.900% 25,000.75 semi - annual 08/29/11 10/01/11 Essex Cnty NJ 296804JL2 AA2 local 54,010.00 54,010.00 5.310% 3.000% 6.000% 50,365.00 semi - annual 02/07/12 none 12101/13 Onamia MNISD #480 Scott County Minn Hsg & Redev Auth -- Oakdale Minn Virginia Beach VA Council Bluffs Iowa 682271DS7 AA2 local 123,768.00 123,768.00 120,000.00 120,942.00 20,225.60 semi - annual 09/27/12 08/01/13 02/01/14 809567AL4 AA2 local 20,956.00 20,956.00 20,000.00 semi - annual 09/26/11 none 02/01/14 672088AR2 AA2 local 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.750% -- - 200,178.00 semi - annual semi - annual semi- annual 03/17/11 03/15/12 03/15/14 92774GCV5 222129X52 497595WL8 AA2 local 71,100.25 71,100.25 65,000.00 5.000% 66,699.10 05/27/11 none 05/01/14 AA2 local 137,991.60 137,991.60 135,000.00 3.500% 138,015.90 08/19/09 12/10/10 12/01/09 06/01114 Kirkwood Cmnty College Iowa AA2 local local 103,718.00 140,000.00 276,402.50 103,718.00 100,000.00 2.500% 101,000.00 semi - annual 06/01/11 08/01/13 06/01/14 11/01/13 12/15/13 Orange County 68428LCW2 AA3 140,000.00 276,402.50 101,274.00 140,000.00 0.610% 140,030.80 semi - annual 02/12/13 Rockford ILL 77316QFZ7 AA3 local 250,000.00 100,000.00 60,000.00 5.000% 251,937.50 semi - annual 08/05/10 none Moorhead MN 6161412K2 AA3 local 101,274.00 1.750% 2.000% 1.7500% 100,211.00 semi - annual 12/20/12 none 02/01/14 Brownsville TX 116405FX4 AA3 local 61,015.20 61,015.20 60,400.80 semi - annual 12/27/12 02/15/13 02/15/14 New Richmond WI Bloomington MN Vadnais Heights Minn Oregon School Boards Assn Zero Cpn 648431QM9 AA3 local 61,113.60 61,113.60 60,000.00 60,227.40 125,896.25 semi - annual 07/16/12 none 03/01/14 094780XR9 AAA local 130,451.25 130,451.25 125,000.00 3.000% semi - annual 11/15/11 08/01/12 02/01/14 918738SQ9 B local 63,957.00 63,957.00 60,000.00 3.750% 60,397.20 semi- annual maturity 11/05/10 02/12/09 none 02/01/14 686053CD9 AA2 state 138,663.60 138,663.60 160,000.00 159,444.80 none 06/30/14 Govt Natl Mtg Assn Pool #502983 36210UXL2 US 95,964.85 322.32 305.88 6.000% 307.45 monthly 06/17/03 02/15/14 43,910.10 4,166,394.01 40,000.00 100,000.00 Capital One Bank Glen Allen VA 14041AXU8 A2 CD 43,910.10 4.750% 2.350% 42,069.60 semi - annual 05/10/11 none 01/23/15 MB Financial Bank 55266CHV1 CD 102,249.00 102,249.00 102,241.00 203,962.00 monthly 04/18/11 none 11/12/14 Garrett State Bank 366526AJO CD 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.750% monthly 05/20/11 06/20/11 07/20/15 Flushing Savings Bank 344030DK4 CD 250,023.39 250,023.39 249,000.00 1.750% 254,470.53 monthly 07/25/11 none 10/29/15 Portage County Bank 73565NAZ6 859532AH6 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.650% 254,485.47 monthly 07/25/11 none 11/03115 01/29/16 Sterling Savings Bank CD CD 248,000.00 200,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.750% 247,248.56 semi - annual 07/31/13 01/31/14 Lake Forest Bank & Trust 509685ES8 200,000.00 248,000.00 200,000.00 0.850% 199,140.00 semi - annual 08/14/13 02/14/14 08/15/16 Luana Savings Bank 549103MY2 CD 248,000.00 0.750% 247,345.28 semi - annual 08/16/13 02/16/14 08/16/16 787,488.11 CD 3,219,153.65 local 159,444.80 State 307.45 US Less Than 1 Year 1,550,962.44 CD September 2013 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price i Cost Carrying Maturity Amount y Interest Rate Current Market Value Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity/ Due Date Junction City Kansas 481502F72 A2 local local 101,558.00 115,965.30 66,128.40 101,558.00 100,000.00 5.500% 112,078.00 semi - annual 05/28/08 11/24/10 08/15/13 03/01/09 09/01/18 Canton Charter Twp Mich 138128EC3 AA 115,965.30 66,128.40 71,663.20 110,000.00 3.625% 113,456.20 semi - annual none 06/01/14 06/01114 10/01/14 Chaska MN 161664DS3 AA local 65,000.00 2.000% 66,086.15 semi - annual 12/01/14 12/01/15 12/01/16 Chaska MN 161664DT1 AA local 71,663.20 70,000.00 75,000.00 100,000.00 2.000% 71,696.10 semi - annual 08/15/13 Chaska MN North Mankato MN Port Auth Com Augusta ME 161664DU8 AA local 76,434.00 76,434.00 2.000% 4.000% 76,686.75 semi - annual 08/15/13 06/01/14 660760AG4 AA local 107,657.00 107,657.00 105,042.00 26,934.25 99,638.00 semi - annual 09/20/13 none 02/01/17 051411ND4 705880ML3 71781LBJ7 AA local 28,125.00 28,125.00 25,000.00 5.250% semi - annual semi - annual 03/07/12 none 10/01/17 Pell City AL AA- AA- local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 1.200% 04/25/12 01112/10 01/24/12 02/10/11 08/01/12 none 08/01/15 04115/17 Philadelphia PA Auth Zero Coupon local local 161,700.00 101,792.00 206,700.00 161,700.00 245,000.00 222,543.30 maturity semi - annual Racine WI 7500216D4 AA- 101,792.00 206,700.00 181,521.00 100,000.00 2.100% 98,979.00 06/01/12 none 06/01/18 Brooklyn Park Minn 114223V64 AA+ local 200,000.00 180,000.00 35,000.00 3.400% 203,722.00 semi - annual 02/01/15 03/01/15 03/01/15 Pipestone - Jasper MN ISD #2689 Red Wing Minn ISD #25 Ramsey MN Palatine III 724114BH5 AA+ local 181,521.00 1.000% 180,034.20 semi- annual 05/23/13 03/01/14 757130JR1 AA+ local 36,367.10 36,367.10 3.500% 1.000% 5.200% 36,134.35 semi - annual 01/11/11 none 751813QE9 AA+ local 176,289.75 176,289.75 175,000.00 174,951.00 semi - annual 06/05/12 12101/12 06/01/15 696089RY9 60374YP35 250097A85 AA1 local 112,000.00 112,000.00 100,000.00 104,259.00 21,224.80 semi - annual 11/07/11 none 12101/14 Minneapolis Minn AA1 AA1 AA1 local 21,269.40 21,269.40 20,000.00 3.250% semi - annual 08/02/11 07/30/12 none 12/01112 03/01/16 06/01/16 Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col local local 137,668.95 30,103.25 106,487.00 102,756.00 137,668.95 135,000.00 1.375% 135,884.25 semi - annual semi - annual Osseo MIN #279 688443127 30,103.25 25,000.00 6.000% 27,802.75 12/22/11 07/16/12 -- 08/16/11 none 02101/17 Dane County WI 236091M92 AA1 local 106,487.00 102,756.00 164,175.00 100,000.00 2.450% 103,787.00 semi - annual none -- 04/01/12 none 12/01/17 Western Lake Superior MN 958522WP5 AA2 local 100,000.00 2.000% 101,509.00 semi - annual 10/01/14 02/01/15 Austin Minn 052249S42 AA2 local 164,175.00 165,000.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 5.100% 165,297.00 semi - annual 07/15108 Duluth MN Onamia MN ISD #480 Waunakee WI Waterloo 1A 264438ZA3 AA2 local 201,733.11 201,722.00 1.000% 200,742.00 semi - annual 11/27112 08/01/13 02/01/15 682271DT5 AA2 local 104,979.00 104,979.00 3.000% 1.500% 102,593.00 semi - annual 09/27/12 08/01/13 02/01/15 943181NZ6 AA2 local 110,000.00 110,000.00 110,000.00 110,246.40 semi - annual semi - annual 11/08/11 06/27113 08/16111 12/27/12 01/18/11 05/01/12 12101/13 04/01/12 05/01/15 06/01/15 10/01/15 941647NW5 958522WQ3 AA2 local 261,334.20 261,334.20 255,000.00 2.000% 259,918.95 Western Lake Superior MN AA2 AA2 local local 101,790.00 101,790.00 100,000.00 2.000% 102,279.00 semi- annual Plainfield III 726243LT3 79,373.25 74,939.20 79,373.25 75,000.00 3.000%1 78,064.50 semi - annual none none 08/01/13 12/15/15 Duluth Minn ISD #709 264474CK1 AA2 local 74,939.20 105,652.05 101,905.55 70,000.00 4.000% 73,298.40 semi - annual 02/01116 02/01/16 Duluth MN 264438ZB1 AA2 local 105,652.05 105,000.00 95,000.00 80,000.00 1.000% 104,933.85 semi - annual 12/05112 Rowlett TX 7796986H7 AA2 local 101,905.55 3.000% 5.250% 4.400% 99,941.90 semi - annual 07/10/12 08/15/12 02/15/16 Hopkins Minn ISD #270 Scott County Brownsville TX SouthEastern IA Cmnty College 439881HCO AA2 local 95,278.40 95,278.40 90,910.40 107,863.00 102,220.00 semi - annual 04/30/12 08/01/09 02/01/18 809486EZ2 AA2 local 114,450.33 112,617.00 100,000.00 semi - annual 10/31/12 12/01/12 06/01/18 116405FY2 AA3 local 102,683.00 102,683.00 100,000.00 2.000% semi- annual semi - annual 12/27112 02/15/13 02/15115 841625MC7 AA3 AA3 local local 149,060.00 149,060.00 145,000.00 2.000%1 147,038.70 07/26112 12/15/10 none 06/01115 East Bethel Minn 271074HRO 100,941.00 101,003.00 100,941.00 100,000.00 3.200% 102,893.00 semi - annual 08/01/11 05/01/11 02/01/16 05/01/18 Oshkosh Wis Storm Wtr Util 68825RBD1 AA3 local 101,003.00 100,000.00 3.250% 103,143.00 semi - annual 10/05/10 Saint Louis Park MN 791740ZJ5 AAA local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 190,000.00 200,000.00 0.750% 99,691.00 semi - annual 10117/12 08/01/13 02/01/15 Cook Cnty IL Cmnty Clg Dist #5 216129FD3 AAA local 196,228.20 196,228.20 2.000% 194,689.20 semi - annual 01/08/13 06/01/13 06/01/15 Palm Beach Cnty FLA 696497TP1 AAA local 226,296.00 226,296.00 5.808% 2.000% 214,998.00 102,279.00 semi - annual 03/14/11 none 06/01/15 Madison WI Maple Grove MN Tennessee Valley Auth 55844RFY5 AAA local 103,870.00 103,820.00 100,000.00 semi - annual semi - annual semi - annual 10/01/12 01/10/13 04101/13 08/01/13 10/01/15 02101/17 56516PNY5 AAA local 230,520.40 230,520.40 220,000.00 2.000% 222,989.80 98,151.20 880591EA6 AAA local 93,153.11 93,153.11 85,000.00 5.500% 06101109 01118108 07/18117 Washington County MN Saint Louis Park MN 937791KL4 AAA local 115,000.00 115,000.00 115,000.00 3.750% 119,675.90 semi - annual semi - annual 07/01/10 01/01/11 01101/18 791740WC3 AAA local 112,114.00 112,114.00 100,000.00 3.850%1 107,199.00 12/22/11 none 02/01/18 September 2013 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity) Due Date Brownsville TX ISD Zero Coupon 116421E46 AAA local 229,640.00 229,640.00 250,000.00 223,592.50 203,638.00 maturity semi - annual 06126/13 12/17/10 none 03/01/11 08/15/18 Alabama St Univ Rev 010632MKO A2 state 200,858.00 200,858.00 200,000.00 3.400% 09101/15 Illinois State 452152HR5 A3 state 217,312.00 217,312.00 200,000.00 4.961% 212,484.00 semi - annual 07/16/12 09/01/11 03/01/16 Oregon School Boards Assn Zero Cpn 686053CE7 AA2 state 14,233.50 14,233.50 15,000.00 14,743.20 maturity 02/08/12 none 06/30/15 Mississippi State 605581BV8 AA2 state 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 1.116% 24,939.75 semi - annual 09/12/13 none 12/01/16 Iowa State Spl Oblg 46257TCL1 AA2 state 104,348.00 104,348.00 100,000.00 3.335% 102,016.00 semi - annual 12/13/11 none 06/01/18 Texas State Tennessee State US Treasury Sec Stripped Int Pmt 882722J28 880541QM2 912833KD1 AAA AAA AAA state 80,158.50 80,158.50 75,000.00 3.000% 77,845.50 semi - annual 03/28/12 04/01/12 10/01/15 state US 201,894.00 49,889.30 201,894.00 49,889.30 200,000.00 244,000.00 200,000.00 2.326% 5.000% 0.410% 205,150.00 semi - annual 10/26/11 02/01/12 08/01/17 243,577.88 199,890.00 200,074.00 maturity 09/14/94 11/15/14 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EA6K9 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 semi - annual semi - annual 10/29/12 04/29/13 10/29/15 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EA6P8 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.500%1 11/05/12 05/05/13 11/05/15 Fed Nall Mtg Assn 3136FTXS3 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.000% 200,302.00 semi - annual 12/30/11 06/30/12 12/30/15 Fed Home Ln Bank 313381MH5 AAA US 24,812.50 24,812.50 25,000.00 0.500% 24,946.25 semi - annual 07/10/13 07/07/13 01/07/16 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 3136FTB24 AAA US 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 1.000% 100,174.00 semi - annual 01/27/12 07/27/12 07/27/16 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Mad Term Note 3134G4EF1 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.000% 200,090.00 semi - annual 08/13/13 02/13/14 02/13/17 Fed Natl Mtg Assn Fed Farm Credit Bank 3136G1AJ8 3133ECFA7 AAA AAA US US 200,000.00 100,000.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 0.700% 1.080% 0.500% 197,622.00 semi - annual 01/30/13 07/30/13 01/30/18 98,524.00 198,566.00 semi - annual semi - annual semi - annual 02/13/13 08/13/13 02/13/18 Fed Home Ln Bank 313382AV5 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 02/28/13 06/12/13 08/28/13 12/12/13 02/28/18 06/12/18 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp 3134G46D5 AAA US 198,000.00 198,000.00 200,000.00 1.200%1 195,596.00 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note 3134G3ZK9 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.200% 196,158.00 semi - annual 07/30/12 01/30/13 07/30/18 Fed Farm Credit Bank 31331Y4S6 AAA US 114,000.00 114,000.00 100,000.00 5.050% 116,402.00 semi - annual 09/11/13 none 08/01/18 Fed Nall Mtg Assn Remic 31393BO36 US 203,816.48 194.32 190.16 5.000% 194.64 monthly 04/30/03 05/25/03 04/25/18 Fed Natl Mtg Assn Remic 31393EAL3 US 204,187.50 23,666.26 23,180.92 4.500% 24,610.49 monthly 07/30/03 none 08/25/18 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp 31393VMQ1 US 153,656.25 13,512.69 13,191.13 4.500% 13,913.87 monthly 06/30/03 06/15/18 10,019,516.82 semi - annual 02/08/12 none 04/01/19 Barren Cnty KY 068437DM1 Al local 43,996.00 43,996.00 40,000.00 4.300% 41,094.80 Oneida County NY 6824543R2 Al local 114,388.00 114,388.00 100,000.00 6.250%1 106,219.00 semi - annual 08/16/10 none 04/15/19 Rice Cnty MN 762698GK8 AA local 45,466.80 45,466.80 40,000.00 4.400% 42,439.60 semi - annual 03/07/12 none 02/01/19 Ramsey MN 751813PB6 AA+ local 158,677.85 158,677.85 145,000.00 4.500% 149,060.00 semi - annual 02/16/12 04/01/16 04/01/19 Stearns Co MN 857896MH4 AA+ local 276,875.00 276,875.00 250,000.00 4.500% 259,052.50 semi - annual 04/17/13 none 06/01/20 Greenway MN ISD #31 39678LDF6 AA+ local 27,593.50 27,593.50 25,000.00 5.000% 26,861.00 semi - annual 07/09/13 none 03/15/21 King Cnty WA 49474EK5 AA1 local 224,634.00 224,634.00 200,000.00 3.980% 215,874.00 semi - annual 03/27/12 none 12/01/18 Minneapolis MN 60374YS73 AA1 local 111,898.00 111,898.00 100,000.00 3.250% 106,248.00 semi - annual 06/05/12 12/01111 12/01/18 Minneapolis MN 60374YS81 AA1 local 278,632.50 278,632.50 250,000.00 3.500%1 266,242.50 semi - annual 02126/13 none 12/01/19 Minneapolis MN 60374YG68 AA1 local 110,419.00 110,419.00 100,000.00 4.700% 110,231.00 semi - annual 10/31/11 none 03/01/23 Orange Beach ALA 68406PHFI AA2 local 241,689.60 241,689.60 240,000.00 4.400% 245,932.80 semi - annual 08 /05 /10 02/01/11 02/01/19 Waterloo IA 941647PAl AA2 local 50,559.50 50,559.50 50,000.00 2.000% 49,154.00 semi - annual 06127/13 12/01/13 06/01/19 Western Lake Superior MN 958522WU4 AA2 local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 3.150% 101,949.00 semi - annual 08/16/11 04/01/12 10/01/19 Portsmouth VA 73723RSL8 I AA2 local 1 286,268.00 286,268.00 295,000.00 2.400% 288,925.95 semi - annual 07/17/13 1 02/01/14 02/01/20 Davenport Iowa 238388GS5 AA2 local 111,948.00 111,948.00 100,000.00 4.650% 106,154.00 semi - annual 09/13/11 none 06/01/20 Kane McHenry Cook & De Kalb Zero Cpn 484080MB9 6161412R7 AA3 AA3 local local 157,328.00 108,820.00 157,328.00 108,820.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 3.800% 165,554.00 101,676.00 maturity semi - annual 07/16/12 11/14/11 none none 12101/18 02/01/20 Moorhead MN Whitewater Wis 966204KA6 AA3 local 109,541.00 109,541.00 100,000.00 4.850%1 107,179.00 semi - annual 06/09/11 none 12/01/20 5,417,096.80 local 840,816.45 state 2,210,641.13 US 1- 5 Years September 2013 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity ) Due Date Minnetonka MN ISD #276 604195RA7 AAA local 37,433.20 37,433.20 35,000.00 3.100% 35,327.95 207,182.00 semi - annual semi - annual semi - annual 12/22/11 none 02/01/19 Cedar Rapids IA 150528RM1 AAA local 217,672.00 217,672.00 200,000.00 3.000% 06/11/13 07/06/11 12/01/13 06/01/19 Palm Beach Cnty FLA 696497TR7 AAA local 256,504.60 256,504.60 220,000.00 5.898% 251,011.20 none 06/01/19 Norwalk Conn 668844DS9 AAA local 122,464.80 122,464.80 120,000.00 4.050% 124,322.40 semi - annual 08/04/10 08/01/11 08/01/19 Greensboro NC 395460V21 AAA local 366,832.80 366,832.80 360,000.00 3.263% 360,738.00 semi - annual 07/15/11 none 10/01/19 Woodbury MN Dallas TX Indpt Sch Dist 97913PCQ7 235308QK2 AAA AAA AAA local 123,037.35 123,037.35 115,000.00 3.250% 114,865.45 semi - annual 12/22/11 none 02/01/20 local local 116,900.00 263,970.00 116,900.00 263,970.00 88,133.00 100,000.00 4.450% 111,236.00 semi - annual 04/16/12 08/15/11 02/15/20 Tenn Valley Auth Zero Cpn 88059EHD9 300,000.00 100,000.00 252,081.00 maturity 03/11/13 none 05/01/20 Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn 88059EMX9 AAA local 88,133.00 6.200% 83,261.00 22,215.60 maturity 03/18/13 none 07/15/20 Minnetonka MNISD #276 Florida St Dept Environmental 604195PQ4 AAA local 23,491.73 23,016.40 20,000.00 semi - annual semi - annual 11/19/12 08/30/10 none 01/01121 34160WUAD Al state 217,800.00 217,800.00 200,000.00 6.206% 219,442.00 07/01/10 07/01/22 Washington State 939758DL9 AA- state 205,804.00 205,804.00 200,000.00 4.500% 199,908.00 semi - annual 01/24/12 04/01/12 10/01/18 Minnesota StHsg Fin Agy Taxable 60415NE24 AA1 state 80,600.00 80,600.00 80,000.00 6.300% 83,972.80 semi - annual 07/27/06 01/01/07 07/01/23 Georgia State Texas State 373384RQ1 882722,151 AAA state 26,742.50 26,742.50 25,000.00 2.970% 26,248.75 semi - annual 02/08/12 none 10/01/18 AAA state 103,089.00 22,126.00 103,089.00 22,126.00 1002000.00 20,000.00 200,000.00 2.894% 102,037.00 semi - annual 08/10/11 04/01/12 10/01/18 Virginia State 928109XD4 AAA state 4.100% 1.080% 1.250% 212138.40 semi - annual 02/07/12 none 06/01/21 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 3136GOY70 AAA US 199,300.00 199,300.00 192,942.00 96,770.00 196,122.00 semi - annual 10/30/12 01/30/13 01/30/19 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EC5NO AAA US 99,587.00 99,587.00 100,000.00 semi - annual semi - annual semi - annual 01/07/13 03/04/13 03/04/19 Fed Home Ln Mig Corp Mad Term Note 3134G3RY8 AAA US 204,229.17 2032750.00 200,000.00 1.875% 10/29/12 08/06/13 09/13/12 03/13/19 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 3135GOKB8 AAA US 203,114.00 203,114.00 200,000.00 2.750% 202,096.00 10/16/12 04/16/19 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133ECO64 AAA US 191,812.00 191,812.00 200,000.00 1.740% 189,854.00 semi - annual 07/23/13 11/21/13 05/21/20 5,582,618.70 - Mitchell SD Sch Dist #17-2 606687EHO AA- local 116,702.00 116,702.00 100,000.00 6.000% 111,731.00 semi - annual 12/20/11 06/15/19 06/15/24 Itasca County Minn 465452GP9 80465PAN4 AA- AA+ local local 105,024.00 198,018.00 105,024.00 198,018.00 100,000.00 5.550% 103,279.00 semi - annual 07/12/11 none 02/01/28 Savage Minn 200,000.00 100,000.00 4.800% 5.000% 209,322.00 105,257.00 108,502.00 semi - annual 06/17/10 02/01/11 02/01124 Lake City Minn ISD #813 508084DW7 AA+ local 103,933.00 103,933.00 semi - annual semi - annual semi - annual 05/11/11 none 02/01/25 Milaca Minn ISD #912 598699NT9 AA+ local 106,941.00 106,941.00 100,000.00 5.650% 07/22/11 12105/12 none 02/01/27 Duluth MN 264438ZL9 AA2 local 292767.20 29,767.20 30,000.00 2.625% 26,983.20 08/01/13 02J01125 Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon 969078QM9 AA2 local 159,000.00 159,000.00 500,000.00 218,025.00 maturity 08/25/09 none 11/01/27 Van Buren Mich Public Schools 920729HD5 AA2 local 102,750.00 102,750.00 100,000.00 6.430% 106,373.00 semi - annual 07/17/09 11/01/09 05/01/29 Hawkins Cnty TN 420218PL7 AA3 local 111,480.00 111,480.00 100,000.00 4.800% 102,556.00 semi - annual 03/13/12 none 05/01/24 Shoreview MN 825214EH8 AAA local 197,205.75 197,205.75 175,000.00 4.900% 184,933.00 semi - annual 01/25/12 none 02/01/24 Tennessee Valley Auth SerE Ice Deposit - National Sports Center 880591C,19 none AAA local local 121,500.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 121,500.00 100,000.00 6.750% 129,860.00 semi - annual 03/19/09 none 11/01/25 250,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 maturity 02/06/08 none 01/01/26 Fed Home Ln Bank 3133803H8 AAA US 1.500% 184,938.00 114,510.00 semi - annual 07130/12 01130/13 07/30124 Fed Farm Credit Bank 31331VLC8 AAA US 106,030.45 106,030.45 100,000.00 5.250% semi - annual semi - annual 02/26/10 12/24/12 none 04/21/28 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 31398AQYJ AAA US 218,100.00 218,100.00 200,000.00 5.380% 209,804.00 none 11/13/28 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 31398ARA2 AAA US 248,750.00 248,750.00 250,000.00 5.270% 251,432.50 semi - annual 12/05/08 none 11/14/28 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 3136FTP94 AAA US 361,069.20 361,069.20 360,000.00 2.000% 346,420.80 semi - annual 12/13/12 none 02/27/32 Fed Natl Mtg Assn Pool #561214 31386EN79 US 253,331.33 21.77 21.63 6.000% 23.24 monthly 06124/02 04/01/31 2,763,949.74 22,532,479.27 4,052,087.75 local 652,746.95 state 877,784.00 US i - 10 Years 1,656,821.20 local 1,107,128.54 US 10+ Years INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds September 30, 2013 Description Current Market Value YTD Interest Wells Fargo 1 lWells Fargo Government Money Market Fund 1 $3,486,356.031 $280.35 4M 1 14M 1,892.52 - 4M PLUS 1 L4M Plus 1 3,100.711 29.26 Grand Total Money Market Funds 1 $3,491,349.26 1 $309.61 Updated: 1011512013 0 Overview - Considerations o Pricing is still subject to change o One significant item remains for TriTech Contract: n Kronos /Telestaff FA Anoka County PSDS Draft Pricing Summary (10 -15 -2013) Inform CAD and Mobile Software System Software $1)746.1453 Services $7849127 $2)520)579 Inform RMS /FBR Software System Software Services Third Party $932,278 $309,768 Products and Services $26,167 $1,268,214 TriTech Business Partner's Systems BAIRAnalytics $100,328 (5 -years PPM) Rhodium $363,467 (5 -years PPM) CADNorth $46,506 (5 -years PPM) Telestaff* $815,108 (4 -years PPM) $1,325,409 Hardware Production Hardware $327,635 Production Maint. 1 year $124,798 Production Software $149,931 DR Hardware $244,219 DR Maint. 1 year $104,372 DR Software 570.053 $1,021,007 Implementation Service Fee $68,640 1 o Estimated ongoing annual maintenance costs o Estimated ongoing annual maintenance costs o CAD /Mobile* $403,525 o CAD North* $4,914 o Stratus * $157100 o TeleStaff $72,460 o RMS /FBR /IQ $131,816 o RMS Address Validation $7,655 o BAIR Analytics $11,759 o Rhodium $769488 o Total Annual Estimate $723,717 o Less Central Comm /County $423,529 o Cities /ACSO $300,178 o Less pre -paid maint y2 -y6 $1602707 o Annual to LE /Cities /ACSO $139,471 o Pre -paid maintenance costs (4 — 5 years, net savings est. $272,114) o Tffech and Subs Total $6)203)849 o Fire Records Estimate $7309000 o Jail Records and Interface $695,000 oTotal for bonding $7,628,849 I, A-L\\ C>> C 07 SAL 5V5TEA- 5T S5 o Fire Records annual support $106,000 o System Administration (estimated at $200,000 - $400,000 /year) o Presentation to County Board's Finance Committee Oct. 15 o Presentation to County Board's Public Safety Committee this Thursday, Oct. 17 o Draft purchase agreement and Statement of Work provided to Governance Oct. 24 o Draft purchase agreement and Statement of Work to Fire Protection Council Oct. 24 o Present to JLEC for approval Oct. 30 o County Board Approval Nov. 12 o Kronos /Telestaff o Online Scheduling 0 500 licenses Licensed Officers C SO's Jail Staff r- Central Communications o Initial Cost $449,260 o Annual Support - 5 years $197,850 o Estimated Annual year 6+ $49,462 © Estimate Per agency year 6+ Telestaff Licenses Annual Support $49,464 Sworn Civilian Total Percent Annual Expense Anoka PD 27 $5' 112 21.1% $10,453 Anoka Sheriff's 131 s.5' 131 24.7% $12,226 Blaine PD 59 59 11.1% $5,506 Centennial Lakes PD 16 7 23 4.3% $2,147 Columbia Heights PD 28 8 36 6.8% $3,360 Coon Rapids PD 0 0 0.0% $0 Fridley PD 42 42 7.9% $3,920 Lino Lakes PD 25 5 30 5.7% $2,800 Ramsey PD 23 6 29 5.5% $2,707 St. Francis PD 10 2 12 2.3% $1,120 Spring Lake Park PD 11 11 2.1% $1,027 Central Comm 45 45 8.5% $4,200 Total 530 100.0% $49,464 Annual Support $49,464 Anoka PSDS LRMS Forumla Estimate Agency 2012 % CFS T 2013 Agency Allocation PSDS Estimate - Low Difference Percent High Estimate Difference Percent ACSO 16.77% $31,203 $57,018 . $25,815 82,7 %` $90, 558 $59;355 190.2 %' Anoka PD - 9.82% _ -,._.. _ - -� _ $18,654 $33,388 $14,734 79.0% $53,028 $34,374 184.3% Blaine PD 16.00% $30,376 $54,400 $24,024 _._: '. 79.1 %` _... _ "$86,400 1, .$56,024 184.4 %, Centennial Lakes PD 2.53% $4,838 $8,_602 $3,764 77.8% $13,662 $8,824 182.4% Columbia Heights PD $29,070 $13,810 ` , 90.5% $46,170 $30,910 202.6% Coon Rapids PD 2146% $40,756 $72,964 $32,208 79.0% $115,884 $75,128 184.3% Fridley PD 11;51% $21,861 $39,134 $17,273 79.Q, $62,154 $40;293 184.3 %' Lino Lakes PD - 3.51% $6,671 $11,934 $5,263 78.9% $18,954 $12,283 18_4.1% Ramsey PD 5.14% _ $17,476 $7,708? .78.9% -`�. $27,756 1 $17;988 184.2 % St. Francis PD 2.09% ._,.. _ $3,961 $7,106 $3,145 79.% $11,286 $7,325 184.9/4 Spring lake Park PD 2.60% $4,944 $8,840 $3,896 ,78.8% $14,040' $9,096 184.0% Totals 99.98% $188,292 $339,932 $539,892 RMS /1LEC 2013 Allocation $188,292 PSDS Estimate Low - 2016* $340,000 PSDS Estimate High - 2016* r $540,000 PSDS Support (2015 - 2021) $140,000 System Mgmt /Admin - Low $200,000 System Mgmt /Admin - Hi $400,000 Fire Service Cost Allocation 2010 Data '_. 6° t, ± .. , C9IIYennI2f' Lei69t; St.FraoclMOV ' SB _'... Agdo OWI-1 iP BetAelW -4 15 AnokW -.l4 650 !t Cofl7fblaa Heights? 2,395 Frf die" 7kr - 2.865 Eas4Bethelk � €Ham l;zkd i 5'3: Rainse F "OaR Grd i`e,r": At tilniYOOd�t - :2 Columbbs% �iCtltln.Ra ".rata - m . ,%- 188 300 1.100 1,100 600 350 500 176 200 0 4,800 16,159 2007 Calls for Service 920 300 1,150 1,150 20 650 2,395 1 2,865 1 600 350 500 154 200 0 4.800 16,274 2008 Calls for Service 950 190 200 300 1,200 1,175 20 660 2,390 2,865 600 350 500 187 200 0 4,800 16,447 2009 Calls for Service 1,000 300 1,200 1,200 20 670 2,400 2.888 600 350 500 143 220 0 4,800 16,541 2010 Calls for Service 11050 200 1200 1250 25 698 2450 3,037 600 370 500 143 200 0 4,851 16,924 2011 Calls for Servire 1100 200 978 300 1,500 51850 51875 100 3.328 12.030 14,520 3,000 1,770 2,500 803 1,020 0 24.051 82,345 Total Five Year Average 5,020 1,004.00 195.60 300.00 - 1.170.00 1,17500 20.00 665.60 2.406.00 2,904.00 600.00 354.00 500.00 1 160.60 204.00 � 0.00 ! 4,810.20 16.469.00 Percent of Calls in County Total S 6.1 °k 1.2% 1.8% 7.1% 7.1% 0.1% 4.0% 14.6% 17.6% 3.6% 2.1% 3.0% 1.0% 1.2 % 0.094 292% 100.0% Market Value Anoka Cuu-ntv 2.796,095,4001 136,265,500 531.385,600 9,919,798,000 2.756,266,700 35,439,700 3,030,576,800 1,328,541,000 2,561,173,300 1,033,801,500 1,705,976,600 2,759,034,700 849,418,200 519,547,900 0 5,088.417,800 35,031740,700 per Market Value divided by 1,000.000 2,796.101 136.27 531.39 91919.60 2,756.27 35.44 3,010.58 1,328.54 2,561.17 1,033.60 1,705,98 2,759.03 849.42 519.55 0.00 5,086.42 35,031.76 Population per Met Council 31,630 2.250 7,700 77,855 37,400 550 42,089 20,770 27,000 12,600 16,200 32,560 9200 4.920 0 65,700 388,444 3,884.44 Population divided by 100 316.30 22.50 77.00 778.55 374.00 5.50 420.89 207.70 270.00 126.00 162.00 325.80 92.00 49.20 0.00 657.00 CALCULATION 1,004.00 195.60 300,00 1,170.00 1.175.00 20.00 665.60 2,406.00 2,904.00 600.00 354.00 500.00 160.60 204.00 0.00 4,810.20 16,469.00 Five Year Avers eofRuns Market Value divided b 1,000,000 2,796.10 136.27 531.39 9,919.80 2.756.27 35.44 3,010.58 1,328.54 2.561.17 1,033.80 1 705.98 2,759.03 849.42 51955 0.00 5,088.42 35,031.76 Population dividedb 100 316.30 22.50 77.00 778.55 374.00 5.50 420.89 207.70 270.00 126.00 162.00 325.80 92.00 49.20 0.00 657.00 3,884.44 55,385.20 1,102.02 772.75 0,00 10 5.62 . _ __ _ 35437 9_08.39 11,868.35 4,305.27 60.94 5,735.17 59.80 __2,221.98 3,584.83 Total ---1,-7-- _4,116.40 _ _ _ _ _4097.07 _3,94224 _ :3 19.1% 1.6 %i 21.4 %! 7.8 %'� 0.1 %'' 74 %I 7.1 %. 10.4 %' 3.2% 4.0% 6.5 %' 2.0 %i 1.4 %' 0,0% 100.0% RE 06 %; 74W 7.. _ 209.1% Percents eofiotal 7.4 %' _ _ ._%i ......ate �.. .. .__.. roes._- tsr <aF y naY _4ti