Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - November 25, 2014ANLb Y 6 O P' j3!j 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULLVAKO N.W.. ANOUVLK, MINNLSU IA 553U4 . (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, November 25, 2014 Conference Rooms A & B 1. Call to Order — 6:00 p.m. 2. Discuss Traffic Study /12 -37B /Crosstown Blvd. NW Traffic Analysis Phase 2 -Engineering 3. Discuss Round Lake - Engineering 4. Final 2015 Budget /Levy Development Discussion 5. 2014 General Fund Budget Progress Report 6. October 2014 City Investments Report 7. Other Business Closed Session 8. City Administrator Performance Appraisal 9. Adjournment a. C I T Y O F ANDDVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss Traffic Study /12 -37B /Crosstown Blvd. NW Traffic Analysis Phase 2 - Engineering DATE: November 25, 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to review and discuss the attached draft traffic study regarding Crosstown Boulevard specifically from Nightingale Street NW to Andover Boulevard NW. DISCUSSION Staff has been working with a Traffic Consultant, Bolton & Menk, Inc. (BMI) on a traffic study to analyze the function of a portion of Crosstown Boulevard from Nightingale Street to Andover Boulevard. The study was recommended to be conducted after the turn lane and auxiliary lane was constructed to Andover High School to evaluate the road function and the impact the changes may have had. Kevin Kielb and Bryan Nemeth with BMI will be presenting the traffic study findings and be available to answer questions. The draft report recommends the following items: • Consider possible improvements to Nightingale /Crosstown Intersection. Pursue Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. • Consider improvements at Crosstown/149" Ave. Underpass is a potential option that could be included in the HSIP funding application. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to discuss the draft traffic study for Crosstown Blvd and direct staff on how to proceed with proposed improvements and pursue possible funding through HSIP. Respectfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz Attachments: Draft 2014 Traffic Analysis for Crosstown Boulevard Area / BO L_TON 8L M B N K, I NC® UU, Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 12224 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone (952) 890 -0509 • Fax (952) 890 -8065 www.botton- menk.com Date: November 19, 2014 To: David Berkowitz, P.E. From: Kevin Kielb, P.E. Bryan Nemeth, P.E., P.T.O.E. Ross Tillman, P.E. Subject: 2014 Traffic Analysis for Crosstown Boulevard Area INTRODUCTION This study updates the Andover Area Traffic Analysis Study prepared in 2013. Subsequent to preparation of the 2013 study, a portion of the recommended improvements have been completed. The southbound Crosstown Boulevard right turn lane at Andover Boulevard was extended and an auxiliary lane was constructed along Andover Boulevard from Crosstown Boulevard to the High School entrance. This study focused on the following: • The Nightingale Street and Crosstown Boulevard intersection, and • Pedestrian traffic along Crosstown Boulevard. In conjunction with this analysis, a signal timing analysis was prepared for the Andover Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard traffic signal to determine if the improvements made require an adjustment to be made for that signal. The signal timing analysis we prepared is currently being reviewed by Anoka County. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our analysis, we recommend the following: • Consider the next phase of improvements at the Nightingale Street and Crosstown Boulevard intersection. This potentially includes applying for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. • Consider installation of a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) along Crosstown Boulevard at 149" Avenue as an interim solution, while understanding that a grade separated crossing is a more appropriate solution for that location. A grade separated crossing could be included in the application for HSIP funding. • We completed the signal timing analysis for the Andover Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard intersection. Anoka County is currently reviewing our analysis. Based on our review, now significant changes to the signal timing are anticipated. • We met informally with Anoka County staff to discuss our findings. We recommend discussing any recommendations with Anoka County, as Crosstown Boulevard is under their jurisdiction. DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer 0 David Berkowitz, P.E. 2014 Traffic Analysis Page 2 NIGHTINGALE STREET AND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION Existing Conditions (October 2014) Since the 2013 traffic analysis (2012 traffic volumes), conditions have grown worse at the Nightingale Street and Crosstown Boulevard intersection. While Crosstown Boulevard is operating at a high level, conditions for Nightingale Street worsened. The majority of the delay for Nightingale Street is due to waiting for adequate gaps in traffic to merge onto Crosstown Boulevard. The southbound Crosstown Boulevard right turn lane at Andover Boulevard had the effect (as expected) of making Crosstown Boulevard more free - flowing. Potential Geometric Improvements Both the existing and 2030 traffic operations analyses show there are traffic issues now that will be exacerbated by increased traffic volumes in the future if no changes are made. Several different improvement options are available and have been analyzed for this intersection. Traffic Signal The tight radius on Crosstown Boulevard at this intersection causes issues with sight distance requirements. A traditional traffic signal is not recommended. See the previous study for additional discussion. Roundabout A roundabout is a valid alternative for traffic control at this intersection. A single lane roundabout would function well based on 2030 forecasts, but could be expanded to handle higher volumes. See Concept A for a depiction of this treatment option. Construction costs associated with a single lane roundabout are estimated at $990,000. Green "T" Signal The primary benefit of this design is that one through direction is separated from the rest of the intersection by a median and therefore does not need to be signalized. More green time can be given to side street traffic and therefore can decrease delays. A Green "T" could be expanded to accommodate a wider roadway section when required. See Concept B for a depiction of this treatment option. Construction costs associated with a single lane Green "T" are estimated at $860,000. Of the options described above, Anoka County Highway Department staff indicated a preference for a roundabout when compared to a Green "T" signal for the following reasons: e Complexities associated with interconnecting the signal to other signals along the corridor, e Reduction of high speed right angle conflicts, and • Geometric changes that would be required between Nightingale Street and Hanson Boulevard. CORRIDOR PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS Existing Pedestrian Patterns Nightingale Street and Crosstown Boulevard Intersection DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Mwk is an equal opportunity employer. David Berkowitz, P.E. 2014 Traffic Analysis Page 3 Most pedestrians were traveling south along Crosstown Boulevard on the north /west side and south along Nightingale Street on the west side. Almost all crossings of Nightingale Street occur at the marked crosswalk. No pedestrians were seen walking on the east side of Crosstown Boulevard during the morning peak hour. Crosstown Boulevard at 149' Avenue The marked crosswalk with crossing guard at 149" Avenue is used sparingly to cross Crosstown Boulevard in the morning as students walk and bike to school. The flasher system paired with the school speed limit electronic sign seems to have a calming effect on traffic. Most speeds for southbound Crosstown Boulevard traffic during the peak morning school traffic period were around 20 MPH at this location. While the lower speeds provide a safer environment for pedestrians, it causes delays and potential safety impacts for vehicles. Traffic was backing up from this crossing to Nightingale Street at times with no pedestrians present due the low speeds at the 1491" Avenue flasher system causing shockwaves in southbound traffic. Other Observations Pedestrians were seen using the traffic signal at Andover Boulevard to cross to the high school. No midblock crossings at unmarked locations were noted along Crosstown Boulevard. Without an improved crossing, the evening rush hour is a very difficult time for a pedestrian to cross Crosstown Boulevard. High delay times tend to cause pedestrians to "run for it" and try to cross the street in shorter than desirable gaps in traffic. Improvement options Nightingale Street and Crosstown Boulevard Intersection Improved crossings at this intersection should be considered. Both intersection improvement concepts we prepared show potential underpasses connecting the trail network across the roadways that would completely remove the conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Depending on the intersection option selected, these underpasses are estimated to cost between $300,000 and $400,000 each. If no other improvements were being made to the roadway, the costs would increase to account for roadway reconstruction above the underpass. Crosstown Boulevard Crossing near 149' Avenue The flasher system near the 149" Avenue crossing of Crosstown Boulevard flashes during morning and afternoon school hours. This may be causing traffic backups along Crosstown Boulevard. Because this type of flasher system appears to be uniform throughout the City near school areas, we recommend leaving it in- place. An underpass is recommended to completely remove the potential for pedestrian and vehicle conflict. A Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) was analyzed as an interim improvement option to improve non - school hour pedestrian crossings. This type of treatment would help pedestrians during all hours of the day and is activated by pushing a button to start the flashers when a pedestrian is present to cross. A typical RRFB installation can range from $12,000 to $18,000 and would include flashers and signs on both side of the road. These systems are often solar powered and communicate across the street DESIGNING FOR A BETFER TOMORROW Bolton & Mwk is on equal opportunity ar^PioyK 0 David Berkowitz, P.E. 2014 Traffic Analysis Page 4 wirelessly to avoid boring conduit under the roadway. While an RRFB could be considered as an interim improvement for this location, a grade separated crossing is the preferred long -term solution for the following reasons: • Speed is high along the corridor, • Sight distances are limited at this location due to the curve along Crosstown Boulevard, • There are no other RRFB's on the Anoka County system, making maintenance and upkeep more costly, and • There is limited observed pedestrian traffic at the location FUNDING AVAILABILITY A potential funding source for the intersection improvement concepts (as well as the pedestrian improvements at 149`h if tied into the same project) would be the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Funding is for FY 2017 -2019 construction with a maximum award of $1,800,000 with a 10% local match. HSIP applications are due on January 27', 2015. Based on our review, this project would score well in the Proactive category of the HSIP funding scoring system. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS Andover Boulevard and High School Entrance The improvements in the Andover Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard intersection area served to improve travel for southbound Crosstown Boulevard traffic. Southbound right turning vehicles are now clearing out of the through lane, allowing vehicles traveling straight through the intersection with a clear travel path. Drivers, however, are not merging as anticipated along westbound Andover Boulevard, or allowing others to merge, which is causing traffic backups from the high school entrance back to the traffic signal during a short time period, approximately five minutes based on observations and discussions with the school. Drivers making the northbound left hand turn onto Andover Boulevard appear to have a difficult time merging in with the southbound right turning traffic to enter the single lane high school entrance. This issue appears to be caused by a few different problems: inexperienced school -aged drivers are having a difficult time negotiating a merge situation and the school entrance appears to lack the capacity to allow the new auxiliary lane to clear quickly. Because the improvements are still somewhat new and drivers are still adjusting, we recommend continuing to observe the traffic patterns prior to making additional improvements in the area. Potential future physical solutions include upgrades to the school entrance and internal drives. Continued education of the drivers, both students and parents, related to proper merging techniques and etiquette is encouraged. ATTACHMENTS Concept — Roundabout Concept B — Green 'T" Detailed Traffic Memorandum DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton 8 Meek is an equal opportunity employer. rossti pdf- cplpnpltcfp bmLtbl 10/28/2014 9:11:47 AM H: \ANDV \N151 08773 \CAD \MS \Ioyouts \Layout- Roundot>out.dgn W a 1 6 { - { - V4 -.. i 1 _ LL N HOCKEY I RINKS '. . =T.Wl [ILec � ^r or On Ydf - 4E+ LEGEND O PAVEMENT CURB AND rs. - GUTTER r' o TRAIL :1 o BDIt GVLV[xT ^. 0 C 150 75 O LANDSCAPE L� ._ '::Y.' . �... RETAINING WALL n Q r }' y SHOULDERI a ROUNDABOUT EXPANSION C `0. Yf$. AREA SINGLE LANE ROUNDABOUT (EXPANDABLE TO MULTI -LANE) CONCEPT A rossti pdf- cplpnpltcfp bmLtbl 10/28/2014 9:11:47 AM H: \ANDV \N151 08773 \CAD \MS \Ioyouts \Layout- Roundot>out.dgn Iva I HOCKEY RINKS ) 1 I OF SOUTH MDOWD LANES - -- \,N Z CROSSTOWN BLVD Oo 2 SEE INSET A \ OPTIONAL PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS iX E fy a r, I SUNSHINE PARK pof- coior,pitpfq bml,t Dl 10/29/2014 9:09119 Ali NI \ANDY \NISID$773 \CAD \M$ \layouts \Loyout -Greer T,Ogn I U VYCKLAT RSOUTHSOUND I' NES ± LEGEND O PAVEMENT 0 CURBN cVTTER O $NOV LOER O^ TRGIL C!� ] ) 1 1 BOX CULVERT 6666 J V SS 50 75 LANDSCAPE O {�R.a,� RETAINING 11 '. SCALE IN FEET W.1LL swNAL al tis CROSSTOWN DLVD 1+1 w V J m b. - ..INSET �- - -— o A:. 0 ! _ SINGLE LANE GREEN T SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION I\` (EXPANDABLE TO 2 -LANE) CONCEPT B pof- coior,pitpfq bml,t Dl 10/29/2014 9:09119 Ali NI \ANDY \NISID$773 \CAD \M$ \layouts \Loyout -Greer T,Ogn BOLTON 8, MINK, �I� Consulting Engineers & Surveyors °� \ 12224 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone (952) 890 -0509 • Fax (952) 890 -8065 www.bolton- menk.com Date: November 19th. 2014 To: Kevin Kielb, P.E. From: Ross Tillman, P.E. Bryan Nemeth, P.E., PTOE Subject: Follow -up Traffic Analysis for Crosstown Boulevard Area - DRAFT INTRODUCTION 1 NC® The purpose of this study is to augment the Andover Area Traffic Analysis Study provided in 2013 by further analyzing the Nightingale Street at Crosstown Boulevard intersection as well as pedestrian traffic along Crosstown Boulevard. Updates are provided for intersection options at Nightingale Street based on current traffic levels along with an analysis of pedestrian needs. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic Data Collection Turning movement count data was collected at Crosstown Boulevard at Andover Boulevard (September 23`d, 2014) and at Crosstown Boulevard/Nightingale Boulevard intersection (September 17th, 2014). Daily traffic volumes, vehicle classification, and speeds were taken along Crosstown Boulevard between 148`h Avenue and lWh Avenue as well as between the elementary school and city hall driveways on September 171h and 181h, 2014. Level of Service Description Operations analysis of the AM, afternoon, and PM peak hours was conducted at the intersection of Nightingale Street and Crosstown Boulevard to determine how traffic is expected to operate throughout the study area under mitigation alternatives. A level of service (LOS) analysis was completed for turning movements at this intersection to determine how well it operates with study area traffic volumes. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle as calculated by the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Control delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as they are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection, and the time for the vehicle to speed up through the intersection and enter into the traffic stream. The average intersection control delay is a volume weighted average of delay experienced by all motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches. Intersections and each intersection approach are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS A through D is generally perceived to be acceptable to drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating at, or H:AANDVAN15108773 \2_ PreliminaryVC_Reports\201411- I9_Traffic Tech Memo Update.doe DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer very near, its capacity and that drivers experience considerable delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity and drivers experience substantial delays. The LOS and its associated intersection delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections are presented Table 1. The delay threshold for unsignalized intersections is lower for each LOS compared to signalized intersections, which accounts for the fact that people expect a higher level of service when at a stop - controlled intersection. In this analysis, roundabouts are being compared to signals, therefore the signalized intersection thresholds are applied to the roundabout analysis. Unacceptable (i.e. LOS E and F) is indicative of elevated delay times compared to acceptable levels of service (i.e. LOS A, B, C and D). Table 1: Level of Service Criteria Synchro was used to analyze existing and 2030 traffic volume conditions to determine the effectiveness of the potential alternatives and to help design the concepts in terns of necessary storage for turning vehicles, etc. Existing Conditions Existing traffic operations were analyzed using Synchro with the in place thru -stop control. The morning and evening periods coincide with vehicle peak hours along the two roadways, however the afternoon peak hour coincides with the end of the high school day (2:30- 3:30pm) and has a high number of pedestrians. Table 2: Existing Operational Analysis Results Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection (Roundabout) LOS Control Delay (sec. per veh.) Control Delay (sec. per veh.) A < 10 <_ 10 B >10 and <_20 >10 and <_15 C >20 and <_ 35 >15 and <_ 25 D >35 and <_ 55 >25 and <_ 35 E >55 and <_ 80 >35 and <_ 50 F >80 >50 Synchro was used to analyze existing and 2030 traffic volume conditions to determine the effectiveness of the potential alternatives and to help design the concepts in terns of necessary storage for turning vehicles, etc. Existing Conditions Existing traffic operations were analyzed using Synchro with the in place thru -stop control. The morning and evening periods coincide with vehicle peak hours along the two roadways, however the afternoon peak hour coincides with the end of the high school day (2:30- 3:30pm) and has a high number of pedestrians. Table 2: Existing Operational Analysis Results As can be expected, the majority of the delay occurs along Nightingale Street where vehicles are required to wait for adequate gaps in free flowing traffic to merge onto Crosstown Boulevard. It AANDVAN151 08773 \2_ preliminaryV C_ReponsA2014- 11- 19_9'raffic'rech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton &. Mwk is an equal opporkinily employer. NB Crosstown SB Nightingale WB Crosstown Total Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay LOS (sec) (ft) LOS (sec) (ft) LOS (sec) (ft) LOS (sec) Morning A 2.3 6 D 30.4 106 A 0 0 B 11.3 2014 Afternoon A 4 20 D 31.6 52 A 0 0 A 6.6 Thru -Stop Evening A 3.7 22 221.4 278 A 0 0 48.9 As can be expected, the majority of the delay occurs along Nightingale Street where vehicles are required to wait for adequate gaps in free flowing traffic to merge onto Crosstown Boulevard. It AANDVAN151 08773 \2_ preliminaryV C_ReponsA2014- 11- 19_9'raffic'rech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton &. Mwk is an equal opporkinily employer. N R �O MR The evening peak period is the worst overall with an intersection LOS of E and a LOS F for Nightingale traffic. 2030 Conditions 2030 traffic volume projections were computed based on the 2005 City of Andover Transportation Plan. See the attachments for the projected turning movement counts. The projected turning movement counts were used to analyze traffic conditions in 2030. Table 3 shows the SimTraffic delay and queue information. Table 3: 2030 Operational Analysis Results All three periods analyzed show LOS F for traffic along Nightingale. Capacity for this approach is being over exceeded as vehicles are not able to find long enough gaps to turn onto Crosstown Boulevard due to higher traffic volumes. GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS As the existing and 2030 traffic operations analyses show, there are traffic issues now that will only be exacerbated by increased traffic volumes in the future if no changes are made. As indicated in the previous study, this intersection meets traffic signal and all -way stop warrants. Therefore, several different improvement options are available and have been looked at for this intersection to alleviate congestion issues. Traffic Signal A traffic signal would be able to create gaps in traffic in order to allow Nightingale traffic to make turns onto Crosstown Boulevard. However, as indicated in the Andover Area Traffic Analysis Study, the tight radius associated with this intersection on Crosstown Boulevard causes issues with sight distance requirements from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the cone of vision recommendations from the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook. See the previous study for additional discussion. For these reasons, a traditional traffic signal is not recommended. Roundabout As recommended in the previous study, a roundabout is a valid alternative for traffic control at this intersection. See Concept A in the attachments for a concept level drawing of this treatment option. A single lane roundabout would function well based on the current future forecasts for the corridor. If traffic increases further, there may be opportunity to expand the roundabout for specific movements accordingly. The roundabout would slow traffic prior to Nightingale Street. The roundabout fits the school area and does not hurt the flow of the transportation system. Additional considerations of a roundabout is that northbound Crosstown Blvd traffic will now be required to slow down or stop for conflicting traffic. H:AANDVAN15108773 \2_ preliminary VC_Reports\20I4- I1- 19_'I'raffic Tech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is on equal opportunity employer. NB Crosstown SB Nightingale WB Crosstown Total Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay LOS LOS LOS sec ft sec f t sec ft sec Morning A 2.7 JL0, 12 671.7 804 A 0 0 286 2030 Afternoon A 3.2 16 116 210 A 0 0 D 27.8 Thru -Stop Evening A 4.7 54 3263 902 A 0 0 883.7 All three periods analyzed show LOS F for traffic along Nightingale. Capacity for this approach is being over exceeded as vehicles are not able to find long enough gaps to turn onto Crosstown Boulevard due to higher traffic volumes. GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS As the existing and 2030 traffic operations analyses show, there are traffic issues now that will only be exacerbated by increased traffic volumes in the future if no changes are made. As indicated in the previous study, this intersection meets traffic signal and all -way stop warrants. Therefore, several different improvement options are available and have been looked at for this intersection to alleviate congestion issues. Traffic Signal A traffic signal would be able to create gaps in traffic in order to allow Nightingale traffic to make turns onto Crosstown Boulevard. However, as indicated in the Andover Area Traffic Analysis Study, the tight radius associated with this intersection on Crosstown Boulevard causes issues with sight distance requirements from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the cone of vision recommendations from the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook. See the previous study for additional discussion. For these reasons, a traditional traffic signal is not recommended. Roundabout As recommended in the previous study, a roundabout is a valid alternative for traffic control at this intersection. See Concept A in the attachments for a concept level drawing of this treatment option. A single lane roundabout would function well based on the current future forecasts for the corridor. If traffic increases further, there may be opportunity to expand the roundabout for specific movements accordingly. The roundabout would slow traffic prior to Nightingale Street. The roundabout fits the school area and does not hurt the flow of the transportation system. Additional considerations of a roundabout is that northbound Crosstown Blvd traffic will now be required to slow down or stop for conflicting traffic. H:AANDVAN15108773 \2_ preliminary VC_Reports\20I4- I1- 19_'I'raffic Tech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is on equal opportunity employer. J ? � f An operational analysis was completed using Synchro with the results shown in Table 5. Again, the multilane version was used for the 2030 analysis. Table 4: 2014 and 2030 Roundabout Operational Analysis A single lane roundabout will provide acceptable operations as shown with the 2014 analysis for all approaches and time periods analyzed. The multilane version analyzed with 2030 volumes also performs well with only the Nightingale approach operating at LOS D in the morning period with the forecasted traffic volumes. Green "T" Signal Since the sight distance and cone of vision analysis only shows issues with northbound through traffic on Crosstown Boulevard, an option would be to install a Green "T" at this location. Green "T" intersections have been used around the country at "T" intersections with heavy through volumes along the major street. The benefit of this design is that one through direction is separated from the rest of the intersection by a median and therefore does not need to be signalized. More green time can be given to side street traffic and therefore can decrease delays. There are also safety benefits to this design as the 90 degree conflict points with the unsignalized through movement are removed from the intersection. However, there are disadvantages in terms of pedestrian safety in that crossing the main street, in particular the unsignalized movement, can be dangerous. Adding to this issue is that fact that the intersection lies in the middle of a curve, so drivers may not be as aware of pedestrians crossing the road. Additional considerations for a Green "T" include the need for interconnection to the other signals on Crosstown Blvd as the signal would be at an appropriate distance from the other signals to now consider interconnection. Westbound traffic on Crosstown Blvd would be most impacted by the proposed changes. Sight lines, while improved over a traditional signalized intersection, are still impacted by the curve in the roadway. The improved movement for Nightingale along with Crosstown Blvd traffic eastbound may increase the backups that are currently being experienced at Hanson Blvd. The weaving that needs to occur may also be a concern for the eastbound movement east of the intersection. Additional analysis during design would be recommended. See Concept B in the attachments for a concept level drawing of what this treatment would look like. The design would be a similar lane configuration to the existing geometry except there would be a northbound left turn lane instead of a bypass. Pedestrian underpasses were also drawn in and would be optional to a certain degree. The north/south crossing could be completed at- grade along a marked crosswalk as can be done at a traditional signalized intersection. However, H:\ ANDV\ N15108773 \2_Preliminary \C_Reports \2014- 11 -19- Traffic Tech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bollon & Monk is an equal opporlunily employer. NB Crosstown SB Nightingale WB Crosstown Total Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay LOS LOS LOS LOS sec ft sec ft (sec) ft sec Momin A 8.9 40 C 24.6 140 B 11 80 C 15.3 2014 Afternoon B 14.7 120 A 6 20 B 10.2 40 12.3 Roundabout Evening D 33.5 260 B 10.7 40 C 16.4 100 23.6 Morning A 8.7 20 41 220 A 9.4 60 EA 20.8 2030 Roundabout Afternoon A 8.2 40 A 6.3 20 A 6.8 20 7.2 Evening C 22 160 B 12.7 60 B 13.5 80 15.9 A single lane roundabout will provide acceptable operations as shown with the 2014 analysis for all approaches and time periods analyzed. The multilane version analyzed with 2030 volumes also performs well with only the Nightingale approach operating at LOS D in the morning period with the forecasted traffic volumes. Green "T" Signal Since the sight distance and cone of vision analysis only shows issues with northbound through traffic on Crosstown Boulevard, an option would be to install a Green "T" at this location. Green "T" intersections have been used around the country at "T" intersections with heavy through volumes along the major street. The benefit of this design is that one through direction is separated from the rest of the intersection by a median and therefore does not need to be signalized. More green time can be given to side street traffic and therefore can decrease delays. There are also safety benefits to this design as the 90 degree conflict points with the unsignalized through movement are removed from the intersection. However, there are disadvantages in terms of pedestrian safety in that crossing the main street, in particular the unsignalized movement, can be dangerous. Adding to this issue is that fact that the intersection lies in the middle of a curve, so drivers may not be as aware of pedestrians crossing the road. Additional considerations for a Green "T" include the need for interconnection to the other signals on Crosstown Blvd as the signal would be at an appropriate distance from the other signals to now consider interconnection. Westbound traffic on Crosstown Blvd would be most impacted by the proposed changes. Sight lines, while improved over a traditional signalized intersection, are still impacted by the curve in the roadway. The improved movement for Nightingale along with Crosstown Blvd traffic eastbound may increase the backups that are currently being experienced at Hanson Blvd. The weaving that needs to occur may also be a concern for the eastbound movement east of the intersection. Additional analysis during design would be recommended. See Concept B in the attachments for a concept level drawing of what this treatment would look like. The design would be a similar lane configuration to the existing geometry except there would be a northbound left turn lane instead of a bypass. Pedestrian underpasses were also drawn in and would be optional to a certain degree. The north/south crossing could be completed at- grade along a marked crosswalk as can be done at a traditional signalized intersection. However, H:\ ANDV\ N15108773 \2_Preliminary \C_Reports \2014- 11 -19- Traffic Tech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bollon & Monk is an equal opporlunily employer. off n4, J if an east/west crossing is desired, grade separation would be recommended. When Crosstown Boulevard becomes a 4 -lane section, the Green °T" could be expanded to accommodate it. An operational analysis was completed in Synchro for the Green "T" with the results shown in Table 4. The multilane version was assumed for the 2030 analysis. Table 5: 2014 and 2030 Green "T" Operational Analysis Overall, this treatment operates well in all time periods for each intersection approach. Based on projected volumes, it appears the southbound approach on Nightingale may back up approximately 340 feet (one or two cars past 150th Lane). Different options along Nightingale could be analyzed to mitigate this issue if /when long queues occur. All Options With operational and geometric changes at Crosstown Blvd and Nightingale St, the analysis indicates less delay and freer movement with fewer backups. This will likely impact the operations at 149th Street/Crosstown Blvd and 150th Street/Nightingale St, similar to how the change at Andover Blvd kept traffic moving, potentially making it more difficult to enter into the traffic stream from those side street movements. Further evaluation of those intersections would be completed during the design phase to understand the possible access changes. Pedestrian access across Crosstown Blvd is also a concern under all options, as covered in more detail below. PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS Field Review The area was visited on October 7th during the morning school rush period to note pedestrian activities along with vehicular issues. At the Nightingale Street/Crosstown Boulevard intersection, most pedestrians were traveling south along Crosstown on the north/west side and south along Nightingale on the west side. All but one crossing of Nightingale occurred at the marked crosswalk. No pedestrians were seen during this time period on the east side of Crosstown. The marked crosswalk with crossing guard at 149th Avenue was used sparingly to cross Crosstown. The flasher system paired with the school speed limit electronic sign seems to have a calming effect on traffic. Most speeds during the peak morning school traffic period were around 20 MPH at this location. The lower speeds provide a safer environment for pedestrians but cause delays and potential safety impacts for vehicles. Traffic was backing up from this crossing to H: \ANDV \N 15108773\2- Peeliminary\C_Reports \2014- 11- 19_Traffic Tech Memo Opdate.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opporlunily employer. NB Crosstown SB Nightingale Wit Crosstown Total Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay Queue Delay LOS LOS LOS LOS sec f[ (sec) ft sec ft sec Morning A 1.8 26 B 133 113 C 21.4 253 B 13.4 2014 "i„ Afternoon A 3.3 32 B 12.7 35 B 13.1 90 A 7.3 Green Evening A 3.8 92 B 13.7 65 B 16.2 164 A 9.6 Morning A 3.6 47 C 27.2 340 C 23.6 203 C 20.7 2030 "T„ Afternoon A 5.4 52 B 15.2 67 B 13.6 73 A 9.4 Green Evening B 10.3 247 B 17.3 128 B 18.7 134 B 14.6 Overall, this treatment operates well in all time periods for each intersection approach. Based on projected volumes, it appears the southbound approach on Nightingale may back up approximately 340 feet (one or two cars past 150th Lane). Different options along Nightingale could be analyzed to mitigate this issue if /when long queues occur. All Options With operational and geometric changes at Crosstown Blvd and Nightingale St, the analysis indicates less delay and freer movement with fewer backups. This will likely impact the operations at 149th Street/Crosstown Blvd and 150th Street/Nightingale St, similar to how the change at Andover Blvd kept traffic moving, potentially making it more difficult to enter into the traffic stream from those side street movements. Further evaluation of those intersections would be completed during the design phase to understand the possible access changes. Pedestrian access across Crosstown Blvd is also a concern under all options, as covered in more detail below. PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS Field Review The area was visited on October 7th during the morning school rush period to note pedestrian activities along with vehicular issues. At the Nightingale Street/Crosstown Boulevard intersection, most pedestrians were traveling south along Crosstown on the north/west side and south along Nightingale on the west side. All but one crossing of Nightingale occurred at the marked crosswalk. No pedestrians were seen during this time period on the east side of Crosstown. The marked crosswalk with crossing guard at 149th Avenue was used sparingly to cross Crosstown. The flasher system paired with the school speed limit electronic sign seems to have a calming effect on traffic. Most speeds during the peak morning school traffic period were around 20 MPH at this location. The lower speeds provide a safer environment for pedestrians but cause delays and potential safety impacts for vehicles. Traffic was backing up from this crossing to H: \ANDV \N 15108773\2- Peeliminary\C_Reports \2014- 11- 19_Traffic Tech Memo Opdate.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opporlunily employer. z Nightingale Street at times with no pedestrians present due the low speeds at the 149th Avenue flasher system causing shockwaves in southbound traffic. Other pedestrians were seen using the traffic signal at Andover Boulevard to cross to the high school. No midblock crossings at unmarked locations were witnessed along Crosstown Boulevard. Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Pedestrian delay and level of service was computed for the 149' Avenue crossing using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Delay values are calculated based on the speed and volume of traffic along the roadway along with assumed motorist yield percentages for different types of crossing treatments. The same analysis periods were used for this analysis as the vehicle analysis. Existing conditions include a crossing guard in both morning and afternoon periods and just pedestrian crossing signs in the evening peak period. Table 6: Existing Pedestrian LOS Without a change in the crossing, the evening rush hour is a very difficult time for a pedestrian to cross Crosstown Boulevard. High delay times tend to cause pedestrians to "run for it" and try to cross the street in shorter than desirable gaps in traffic. Improvement Options Improved crossings at both the Nightingale/Crosstown intersection and near the current at -grade crossing at 139' should be considered. Both concepts show potential underpasses connecting the trail network across Crosstown Blvd and Nightingale St that would completely remove the conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. H: \ANDV \N1 5108773\2 — Preliminary \C —ReporLs \2014- 11 -19— 'Traffic Tech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Mwk is on equal opportunity employer. Delay LOS (sec) 2014 Morning B 6 Afternoon B 7.3 Existing Evening 69.7 Without a change in the crossing, the evening rush hour is a very difficult time for a pedestrian to cross Crosstown Boulevard. High delay times tend to cause pedestrians to "run for it" and try to cross the street in shorter than desirable gaps in traffic. Improvement Options Improved crossings at both the Nightingale/Crosstown intersection and near the current at -grade crossing at 139' should be considered. Both concepts show potential underpasses connecting the trail network across Crosstown Blvd and Nightingale St that would completely remove the conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. H: \ANDV \N1 5108773\2 — Preliminary \C —ReporLs \2014- 11 -19— 'Traffic Tech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Mwk is on equal opportunity employer. nN n.b R �x The school speed zone flasher system near the 149th Avenue crossing of Crosstown Boulevard flashes during morning and afternoon school hours. This may be causing traffic backups along Crosstown Boulevard. Because this type of flasher system appears to be uniform throughout the City near school areas, we recommend leaving it in- place. An underpass in conjunction with the underpass at Nightingale Street would eliminate the at -grade crossing concern due to the high speeds on the roadway and difficulties in attaining appropriate sight distance coming on the curve in the roadway. Either option for the Nightingale Street intersection would still have this sight distance concern. A possible interim improvement until an underpass could be constructed to accommodate non - school times, would be a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB). There is currently no other RRFB on the county roadway system and the pedestrian volumes are currently below the threshold for providing a system, especially during the times when an RRFB would be an improvement but is an option if the pedestrian volume threshold can be met. An RRFB was analyzed as an improvement option to improve non - school hour pedestrian crossings. This type of treatment would help pedestrians during all hours of the day and is activated by pushing a button to start the flashers when a pedestrian is present to cross. With the current speed zone flasher system, it would be recommended that the RRFB only be activated when that is not, to reduce the presence of multiple flashing systems in the same area. A Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) was analyzed as an improvement option for non - school hour operation. Crossing guards tend to produce higher motorist yield rates compared to the RRFBs, the morning and afternoon period numbers were not changed. Table 7: Pedestrian LOS with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon With an RRFB, the delay drops down to LOS B and is within the acceptable range to the majority of pedestrians. Also, this type of treatment would help all hours of the day compared to just having a crossing guard during school periods. COSTS Concept level cost estimates were developed for each design alternative. Table 8 shows these numbers. Although the pedestrian underpasses are shown as a separate column and are optional H: \ANDV\N15 108773 \2_Preliminary\C_Reporls \2014- 11- 19- Traffic'rech Memo Updale.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bohan ✓f<Menk is w equal opporhmiy employer. Delay LOS (sec) 2014 Morning B 6 Afternoon B 7.3 RRFB Evening B 6.6 With an RRFB, the delay drops down to LOS B and is within the acceptable range to the majority of pedestrians. Also, this type of treatment would help all hours of the day compared to just having a crossing guard during school periods. COSTS Concept level cost estimates were developed for each design alternative. Table 8 shows these numbers. Although the pedestrian underpasses are shown as a separate column and are optional H: \ANDV\N15 108773 \2_Preliminary\C_Reporls \2014- 11- 19- Traffic'rech Memo Updale.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bohan ✓f<Menk is w equal opporhmiy employer. in most cases, the underpass beneath Crosstown Boulevard would be necessary with a green "T" if a crossing is desired from Nightingale to the park. Table 8: Cost Estimates Alternative Intersection Construction Nightingale Under ass Crosstown Underpass Total Concept A $989,200 $398,4001 $295,200 $1,682,800 Concept B 1 $862,000 $383,6001 $1,245,600 Overall the intersection construction costs for both alternatives are similar. The main differences lie within the pedestrian underpass options which differ due to number and length required. The pedestrian underpasses are somewhat optional, however the only safe way for a pedestrian to cross Crosstown Boulevard with Concept B would be with grade separation. A typical RRFB installation can range from $12,000 to $18,000 and would include flashers and signs on both side of the road. These systems are often solar powered and communicate across the street wirelessly to avoid boring conduit under the roadway. A potential funding source for these concepts including improvements to the pedestrian crossing at 149th Avenue would be the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Funding is for FY 2017 -2019 construction with a max award of $1,800,000 with a 10% local match. Right of way is not eligible for funding. HSIP applications are due on January 27h, 2015. The Proactive category would be applied for as crashes in the past ten years would likely not score well in the Reactive category. With Crosstown Boulevard more free flowing now due to recent improvements, the changes would help prevent future crashes from happening. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS High School Entrance The improvements in the Andover Boulevard/Crosstown Boulevard intersection area served to improve travel for southbound Crosstown Boulevard traffic. Southbound right turning vehicles are now clearing out of the through lane, allowing vehicles traveling straight through the intersection with a clear travel path. Drivels, however, are not merging as anticipated along westbound Andover Boulevard, or allowing others to merge, which is causing traffic backups from the high school entrance back to the traffic signal. Drivers making the northbound left hand turn onto Andover Boulevard appear to have a difficult time merging in with the southbound right turning traffic to enter the single lane high school entrance. This issue appears to be caused by a few different problems: inexperienced school -aged drivers are having a difficult time negotiating a merge situation and the school entrance appears to lack the capacity to allow the new auxiliary lane to clear quickly. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Nightingale Street at Crosstown Boulevard Intersection Both the roundabout and green "T" alternative would improve traffic operations at this location. The green "T" appears to provide slightly better levels of service compared to the roundabout at a lower cost. Possible concerns with the Green "T" include the need for signal interconnection, H: \ANDV\N1 5108773\2_ Preliminary\ C_ Reports\2014- 11- 19_Traffic'rech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton S Meek is an equal opportunity employer. r�N R y J R the merging for eastbound, westbound stops, and sight lines. Possible concerns with a roundabout include northbound Crosstown Blvd slowing in addition the westbound and motorist learning period on proper entering techniques. Overall, a roundabout is recommended due to the significant safety improvements from slowed traffic and the elimination of high speed conflicts, which tend to result in severe injury and fatal crashes. The roundabout is a better fit for the school area and does not hurt the traffic flow of the roadway system. Underpasses are recommended based on the traffic speeds, sight lines, and pedestrian use. 149th Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Upgrading the crossing with an underpass is recommended just south of this location as it provides connectivity between residential areas, the school, and Sunshine Park. An RRFB system could be an interim solution until an underpass is constructed that would help pedestrians cross the road more quickly and would make drivers more aware of the presence of pedestrians, especially during non - school peak times. Pedestrian volumes would need to increase and sight lines would need to be improved to justify the installation of an RRFB system at this location. High School Entrance The improvements are still somewhat new and drivers are still adjusting, therefore we recommend continuing to observe the traffic patterns prior to making additional improvements in the area. Potential future physical solutions include upgrades to the school entrance and internal drives. Continued education of the drivers, both students and parents, related to proper merging techniques and etiquette is encouraged. H:\ANDV\N15108773\2—Preiiininiry\C3eports\2014-11-19—Traffic Tech Memo Update.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bohon & Meek is an egwl opporlunity =IA . I ✓1 '�M r._A �.�. Pk�� q �_ r. 7AFTERNOON N S t'•1Y "a ES I � 'ft U W �.y d +'�t6+ ALL RVOLUMESROUNOEOTO L EST S. kkr9lE5 IO ` wa; `.• `.., *.. - _ '# SCALE IN f kd"T »� .s i 2014 CI c rc •,,u ni.vo ' v M r N F m '76 TRAFFIC VOLUMES • N n c U �-- 57 (154 *191 a ` P lRlvo 1 �- -439 �+� •�' . _ Nossrow (399) � ry: . - 7s•171� (323) ' 205 "291 WN4_1(460) � � C .p 1 v I rossn pdt- coIor.pltcfg bml.tbl 10/22/2014 7:52:25 AM H: \ANDV \N15108773 \CAD \MS \flgures \2014 Turning Movement Cour � B r. 7AFTERNOON S t'•1Y "a ES U W �.y d ALL RVOLUMESROUNOEOTO L EST S. 5 So 7S IO `.• `.., *.. - _ '# SCALE IN f kd"T »� .s i 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES rossn pdt- coIor.pltcfg bml.tbl 10/22/2014 7:52:25 AM H: \ANDV \N15108773 \CAD \MS \flgures \2014 Turning Movement Cour rosstl odf- color.oltcfg bmi.tbl 10/22/2014 7:52:52 AM H : \ANDV \N15108773\CAD \MS \flgures \2030 Turning Movement Coui CROSSTOWN RLVC N r u ¢ 4` 91'121 698* 698'304 %,OSSTOWN BLVD. (491) 113'257 —+ _ (485) - - - 308'437 - _ - Z " 4i,�"' •" (690) k A'L'N. ,N u LEGEND AV ^ . XX MORNING VOLUMES 1 S x 'XX AFTERNOON VOLUMES fI/ I i /' (X%) EVENING VOLUMES l• y. ti. ��J ALL VOLUMES ROUNDED TO NEAREST S. �I SCA N FEET. }• _;. r _ _ . W 2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES rosstl odf- color.oltcfg bmi.tbl 10/22/2014 7:52:52 AM H : \ANDV \N15108773\CAD \MS \flgures \2030 Turning Movement Coui I _ N Q N I z fl Z F I � i 1 Y u[s r a t w a' CROSSTOWN BLVD i rasstl odf- COlor.oltafq bml.tbl 10/20/2014 9:11.47 AM H: \ANDV \N15100773 \CAD \MS \layouts \Loyout- Roundobout.dan HOCKEY li f= '1 RINKS OPTIONAL MILL AND P. + OFSOUTHRID WD LANES OVERLAY. 4N CROSSTOWN BLVD �sa SEE INSET A OPTIONAL PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS j. i MILL LAY BOUND SINGLE LANE GREEN T SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (EXPANDABLE TO 2 -LANE) CONCEPT B pOf- COIOr',pitcfO bmi,tbl 10/28/2014 9:0949 AM HI \ANDY \NI51 OBTT3 \CAD \MS \IOyputb \LOyput'6feEn T.OMn LEGEND PAVEMENT 1 G U T TERND XO SROVLOER TRAIL ID 1 5Q rO 00 %CULVERT III j/1 i 15 50 S LA RRSCAPE u ,µ iv L .. SCALE IN FEET h,GLA'NINL 1 s 4 �r r CROSSTOWN BLVD j1 z Z 0 c i .,,E INSET A SINGLE LANE GREEN T SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (EXPANDABLE TO 2 -LANE) CONCEPT B pOf- COIOr',pitcfO bmi,tbl 10/28/2014 9:0949 AM HI \ANDY \NI51 OBTT3 \CAD \MS \IOyputb \LOyput'6feEn T.OMn C I T D Y O OVE 3 F • N 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Adminisl FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss Round Lake - Engineering DATE: November 25, 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss and address concerns from the Round Lake Association regarding the changing water level of the lake. For several years there has been studies conducted and discussions regarding the fluctuation in the water elevation of Round Lake. Earlier this summer Lee Wameka requested that the City install a culvert under a City trail that is on the northwest side of the lake in Kelsey Round Lake Park to drain water from the north side of the trail which is a wetland into the lake. This request prompted emails back and forth which led to a discussion to have all the parties involved at a meeting so all the information can be discussed. The Round Lake Association provided questions which are attached for your information. These questions will be discussed at the meeting. Also attached are historic information and pictures provided from the Round Lake Association. Mayor Gamache reviewed aerial photos and provided comments based on questions from the Round Lake Association. This is also attached for your information. City staff along with Jamie Schurbon (Anoka Conservation District), Kate Drewry (DNR Area Hydrologist) and Tim Kelly (Coon Creek Watershed District) will present information at the meeting and be available to answer questions. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to discuss concerns from the Round Lake Association and direct staff on how to proceed going forward with Round Lake. Respectfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz Attachments: Round Lake Association Questions Historic Information and Photos, Aerial photos d comments from Mayor Gamache Cc: Lee Wameka, Round Lake Association President After many years of questions about the conditions of Round Lake with members of the Round Lake Association, I have asked them to send me questions about the concerns they have so that we can attempt to clear up the concerns they have and if the Council deems it necessary, take action to address any issues that may help the lake going forward. This is for the Andover City Council's November 25`h Workshop meeting which I do expect to be attended by members of the Round Lake Association and members of our Park Commission, 1. The DNR study showed that the water comes into the lake on the north side and out on the south east side. Is this correct? 2. Would anything that was done by the developer of the now defunct Woodland Creek Golf Course caused any damage to Round Lake? 3. This next question is a general question about the violations that occurred at the golf course site and since the development was prior to some wetland laws passed and implemented recently, it would be a good idea to summarize what actions the DNR took against the developer and perhaps an explanation of the process and how the developer got around the laws at that time. Here is the general question; a. The golf course has been described as the worst wetlands act violation in the state of Minnesota. Who approved that devastation of the wetlands? Who is the hydrologist that was consulted about the park and the golf course? Was the council really aware of the extent of the potential environmental impact? 4. What are the elevations on the east side of Round Lake Blvd where the creek runs and also the elevations of the golf course area? 5. Is there a separate Round Lake Watershed or was there one at some time? If no, was there at some time and if yes when and how did that change and who made the change? 6. Would GPS readings give us a better determination of elevations than the current contour maps we now have? 7. Would installing a culvert or culverts on the north side of the city's paved trail improve water flow to Round Lake? 8. Does the DNR or the Anoka Conservation District believe that adding culverts in this area would be a violation of any current resource or water regulations. 9. This spring we had a lot of rainfall and water built up on the north trail and was running over the trail in some areas, seeming to be heading towards the lake. Does this give credence to the believe that the trail is impeding the water flow to the lake? Pictures — Taken in June 2014 Kelsey Round Lake Park Trail 10. The ditches that are referenced below" are on the north side of the lake and are part of the ditch system, I believe created several years ago and before Andover was incorporated as a city. If it was created, perhaps by the farmer back in the 50's or 60's, is there anything now that the City can do to change that flow of water? 11. Is there any evidence of when the ditch system was created and when Kelsey Round Lake Park was created was there any work done on the ditches at that time? There is a belief that the city did something in the 90's. Here is the issue: In the late 1990s the city significantly increased the ditching the farmer had done and created a reverse flow of water to the Rum River which further lowered the lake level which resulted in cattails taking over more than a third of the lake. Ditches to Eldorado Avenue in particular. 12. Back in the mid 80's there were several letters that went back and for between a resident on the lake Mr. Wood, to the DNR and also to then Senators Durnenburger's and Boshwitz's offices. Dave Berkowitz has copies or the letters. This was related to some high water issues in 1985 and there was some discussion of lowering the lake at that time. From what we have researched it appears nothing was ever done by the DNR or the City to lower the lake at that time, but would the DNR or the Anoka Conservation District have any additional information on that matter? 13. What actions did the City of Andover and City of Anoka take regarding Dehn's pond or wetland area west of Round Lake to provide an overflow from that area into the storm sewer along Bunker Lake Blvd? 14. Both cities were sued by Ms. Sonstaby and I believe the cities were exonerated and their actions were deemed appropriate, just want some verification on that issue. 15. Andover monitors the stop logs that are placed in the sewer along Bunker Lake Blvd, who sees the records that are kept? 16. Was there an incorrect elevation of the stop logs in the storm sewer? If there was when? There is a theory that there was. 17. Is the answer to the problem as simple as restoration of the inlet water to Round Lake from the north? a. What approvals would be needed? b. DNR, ACCD, others? 18. Currently there are culverts under the trail between two areas that are wetlands north of the lake, somewhere between 152nd Lane and 153 d Lane. According to Public Works staff that water does not flow towards the lake in that area. Elevations will confirm that, but there is no culvert on the trail just north of the lake, are there any other areas where culverts exist in Kelsey? 19. Does it seem like something changed in 2010 -2011. The change in lake level is very significant. The lake is still low but, it seems clear something changed? Yes it rained but, that doesn't seem to cover it. Something is affecting the lake. If we could find out what it is the lake may be restored and preserved. What has happened to the lake in the last ten or so years is not normal. Round Lake Association was able to get the city to install a ditch block on the north nw side of the park to stop the water from the Round Lake Watershed from draining into the Rum River watershed. Unfortunately it is leaking but, something is better than nothing. It is my understanding that the ditch block does hold water in that area, but when we get a lot of water off Eldorado Ave that the water will run over to avoid flooding. From what I saw when I was out there and from what I was told about some of the issues earlier this spring, the water will back up in some of the yards off of Eldorado and not necessarily flow to the lake. Again that will be evident from elevations. (MIKE) It seems that the degradation of Round Lake goes back to the 1950s when the farmer tried to drain the areas to the north of the lake that feed the lake to the west. He did some significant ditching I suppose to increase tillable land area. This was the beginning of the lowering of Round Lake. At least there was a culvert under the road he or they constructed to allow some inflow to the lake. In the late 1990s the city significantly increased the ditching the farmer had done and created a reverse flow of water to the Rum River which further lowered the lake level which resulted in cattails taking over more than a third of the lake. These cattails were never there before and should not be there now. How much ditching occurred in the 90's? Was it significantly increased from what existed at the time? Was it done to bring the ditches into compliance with any Federal or State laws or guidelines? (MIKE) The answer is the restoration of the inlet water to Round Lake. Sounds like big deal but, I can't believe that repairing the ditch block and putting in a few culverts in each bike path would cost as much as the money the city donated to Crooked Lake. How much have we put towards the Crooked Lake project over the past few years? Is the ditch block functioning properly and is the block they are referring to off of Eldorado? If it isn't working properly what needs to be done? You can spend a lot of money removing cattails only to have them come back. The answer is the restoration of the inlet water to the lake which would keep level high enough again to be too high for cattails to grow. Is the theory about increased water levels true regarding the growth of cattails? I believe that the DNR has restrictions about removing cattails from lakes, can we get details on that as well? The water coming from the north was flowing into the lake not out of it. The road the farmer built on the north side along the lake cut the flow off when he ditched and redirected the water to the west to attempt to reclaim farm land. Further when the city built the park they removed the culvert that was in the farmers road on the north side and significantly increased the ditching to the west so the water went to the Rum River. What, if any of these statements are true? MIKE: This is what I have concluded from all I have heard from the Round Lake Association; They believe that the lake levels are lower and that work done in Kelsey Round Lake park over the years has cut off inlets to the lake on the north side. They also have concerns about issues around the lake where projects may have caused damage to the lake and perhaps increased flow out of the lake, i.e. Woodland Golf Course construction, Dehn's Pond or wetland and the flow of water to the storm sewers off of Bunker Lake Blvd, pumping by the farmers on the east side of County 9 and finally reconstruction of County 9 in the mid 2000's. Below are some last minute issues I received and I think tells a lot about what they are thinking. "The city donated a good amount of money to Crooked lake which is barely in Andover. We were guessing a few culverts in each of the two tails on the east side would cost less than the donation for milfoil eradication in Crooked Lake ?" "Jamie Shurebon of the Anoka County Water and Conservation District's report was all about countering our assertion that something unnatural was damaging the lake. I have no confidence in the report because they gave him what the result should be and then he built the report behind that." "How can we have record rain fall (2014) and yet the lake level was not affected at all. Obviously they are controlling the level (who exactly is they, we need to know). Not necessarily a bad thing but, why is the whole thing covert. What level and who and how are they controlling it? The lake association should be involved in those decisions and at minimum this should be above board not hidden under the table. This may be the answer we are all looking for! Maybe we could convince them to raise the level that they are controlling it to." "We feel the bike paths are preventing the water from reaching the lake as it once did. Now that there is a ditch block the water has to go somewhere and it should be the lake. Recent Arial photos show what looks like fingers of water reaching toward the lake. Recently the water has over run the northern trail on the east side and there are indications the trail is sinking.( ? ?) Also if you look at satellite photos at the end of the dead end trail on the north side of the lake you can see where the water used to enter the lake. There used to be a big culvert under the farmers road which is now the dead end bike path and there also was one in the northern trail on the east side which we cannot locate any longer." Maps 3'2q /30// 1471 -L I472 sr. FRANCIS /o fit. Q �� �AjO - 11 ^ ^Tlrl /// •: e93' N o � - - -- — - _ � • ' ,� •�- / ins,'. � • � ._� —_ - W. 100N1 F —7 1 �c�ttNNN J/ �9. ! . Mmf- rIG ZOrae�PY '"eaSUre- � : —• S -> I menlS. Lengyl. 0+ errows nd$ale relaitve ma "dude, Of L ©~Y + oo - �e �� sj li head difference 3beiweer .is \ .° ys_ ?e The only area on the take with a minimal cattail fringe is precisely where the demucking occurred. See Arial photos. Why are there minimal attaits there ?? Also the Mohring report does verity substantial flow at the area when there was demucking. Figure 7. Subsurface flow potential (Mohring 1989) and areas of muck removal during construction afRound Lake Boulevard, length of arrows indiate relative magnitude of head difference between sediment and water surface. The area of greatest subsurface flow (arrows E and F) does not correspond with the area of demucking. Iemucking occurred only east of the road centerline. Pictures — Taken in June 2014 Kelsey Round Lake Park Trail f 1, Cpl IN %Y I� r k _ A;:I • r RI I , rough culvert . e i LLLj CL 0 (1) -C U) m ca V 0 c ri) C) (D qi 110 1� I-- Art A AkV,' new cattails 2001 open lake prior to 20do At I would like to look at some aerial pictures of Round Lake over the years and see what the experts miqht make of them. Here are some and auestions I have. This picture shows the late probably in the late 70's early 80's. Lake looks good and the area SW of the lake and the golf course development, SE of the lake were not developed. on the SE or the SW sides of the lake. kind. a drought year like 1988 and there is no development The lake levels appear down or there is growth of some he SW and SE sides of the lake. You can begin to see the roads and perhaps sewer work and there are homes going up alongside of the golf course, which isn't under construction yet. Two different time frames and very different looks to the lake. 'V side of the lake and the golf course on the SE side of the lake. Left hand side the lake appears much like it did in the 70's or early 80's and on the right it appears to be a dryer year. r1i NL6 6 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: 2015 Budget Development Discussion DATE: November 25, 2014 INTRODUCTION City Departments have submitted to Administration/Finance their proposed 2015 Annual Operating Budgets. Department budgets are continually reviewed for adherence to the Council's 2015 Budget Development Guidelines. Also the City Council has had a number of reviews of the 2015 Proposed General Fund Budget that will be supported by the 2015 Tax Levy. The Council did adopt at the September 2nd regular Council meeting a Preliminary 2015 General Fund Budget. The Preliminary 2015 Budget proposes a total property tax levy of $11,143,925: $7,630,892 (68.48 %) operational levy, $2,136,065 (19.17 %) debt service levy, and $1,376,968 (12.36 %) capital/watershed levy. The Council has the right to reduce or keep constant this levy until the final certification date of December 29, 2014. The proposed levy, if not reduced, will result in a 2.77 % increase in the gross tax levy. By the time of the workshop property tax statements should have been received by all of the residents. Much of what will be covered at the workshop will be repeat information with updates to date; Administration is looking for ongoing City Council direction as the final preparation steps for the December 2 2014 Budget/Levy Hearing nears. City Administration will review with the Council the bold italics items at the meeting. Also..... Administration /Finance will review with the Council the attached at the meeting: 1. Pay 2015 Valuation Estimates (pg. 8) 2. City ofAndover Property Tax Levy — 2010 to proposed 2015 (pgs 9 — 10) 3. Proposed Resolution to Adopt the 2015 Budget and Tax Levy (pgs 11 —13) 4. City ofAndover 2015 Budget Summary by Fund Types (pgs 14 — 23) 5. Proposed 2015 General Fund Revenue &Expense Summary (pgs 24 -27) 6 Graphs that will be used at the December 2 2014 Budget Hearing apgs 28 — 34) H DISCUSSION The following are the 2015 Budget Development guidelines were adopted at the March 4`h City Council meeting: 1) A commitment to a City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization and positioning the City for long -term competitiveness through the use of sustainable revenue sources and operational efficiencies. Note: Currently the Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City of Andover are reflecting an 17.65% increase in total taxable market value. 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 Open Space Commission and Staff have been active pursuing open space purchases. The City Council approved the purchase of the 40 acre Selmer /Blanchette parcel at their September 16th City Council meeting and will be closing on the purchase on November 21st. Staff are currently negotiating on another parcel with the remaining bond proceeds. 3) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at no less than 45% of planned 2015 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 2014 adopted General Fund budget. Note: With property tax revenues making up close to 80% of the total General Fund revenues cash flow designations approaching 50% would be appropriate and are recommended by the City's auditor. The City also has in place Emergency Fund Balances to stabilize specific situations, but is not intended to provide for a complete solution. 4) A commitment to limit the 2015 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: The proposed 2015 Preliminary Debt Levy is currently at 19.17 %. If an additional debt issuance is considered in 2015, the debt service impact to future levies would be structured appropriately. (See attached City ofAndover Property Tax Levy spreadsheet). 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. 107 Note: The City Vehicle Purchasing Committee performed this analysis, and that committee's recommendations were integrated into the 2015 -2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that was adopted at the October 21, 2014 City Council meeting. 6) The use of long -term financial models that identify anticipated trends in community growth and financial resources that will help designate appropriate capital resources for future City needs. The financial models will be used in the budget planning process to ensure that key short-term fiscal targets are in line with long -term fiscal projections. Note: The City continually maintains various financial models to determine the long -term impacts of present day expenditures and financing decisions. Fiscal assumptions are based upon a complex set of financial data including growth factors, tax capacity valuations, per capita spending and debt ratios. These models were utilized in the development of the 2015 Budget. 7) A team approach that encourages strategic planning to meet immediate and long -term operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs. Note: The City Council has adopted City Council Goals and Values, those goals and values guided the 2015 Budget and CIP development. 8) 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 has formally adopted Council Goals and Values. Management, through these goals, pay special attention to fiscal values, commercial & residential development or redevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery and the livability/image of the community. Staffing: Administration is recommending the addition of a new Maintenance Worker position and the costs associate with that position are included in the proposed 2015 Budget. The new Maintenance Worker position was a request was made from the Public Works Department, in particular a Parks Maintenance Worker, this is due to the significant amount of new Park infrastructure added over the past few years and the need to maintain that infrastructure. Development and building activity is fairly robust at this time, it is anticipated that this activity will continue into the near future. With the potential of various position vacancies, Administration & Human Resource continually monitors staffing availability and budget to maintain adequate service levels to the public. Also Administration is anticipating a few retirements in 2015; Administration is focusing on appropriate succession planning. N Personnel Related Implications: The following are issues facing personnel related expenses: 1. Administration and Human Resources have reviewed position -based salaries in detail to determine if the current compensation package is competitive with other government entities to ensure competitiveness. A few staff positions will be recommended to receive market adjustments in 2015. Pay steps for eligible employees are included in the proposed 2015 budget A cost of living adjustment (COLA) for non - bargaining employees of 2% is included in the proposed 2015 Budget and the Public Works Union is under contract for a 2% COLA or 2015. 2. A midyear review of the health plan was conducted with our broker in early July. That review showed based on the most current experience period that claims are significantly exceeding the premiums being paid which generally indicates that a renewal will include a significant rate increase. Since early July the claims have subsided and the forecasted claims trends are more favorable. Administration /Human Resources working with our health insurance broker, have marketed our group to multiple health insurance providers. Based on the more favorable forecasted claims Administration reduced the previously projected 25% increase in health insurance to 10% for the proposed 2015 Budget in September and now that the final results of the marketing are in, that has been further reduced to a 5% increase. The City currently offers the employees the option of two high deductible plans ($5,000 family, $2,500 single for in network expenses) with a health spending account (HSA), this was implemented in 2006. As part of the program, the City pays for 100% of the single health insurance premium for an accountable care plan and 76% for a family health insurance premium accountable care plan. Employees that select the open network health plan pay the increased cost over the accountable care plan. The City does contribute annually to the employees HSA. 3. Administration and Human Resources will continue to encourage the PTO conversion program for current City employees. Contractual Departments: 1. The City Attorney 2014 contract included a 2.0% increase over the 2013 rate. Discussion for the 2015 contract has been • if City employees are granted a COLA, the legal service contract would be treated the same. 2. The City Council approved the 2015 City of Andover Law Enforcement Contract with the Anoka County Sheriffs Office at the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting . The 2015 budget for the contract is $2,918,308 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 $2,707,334. The 2015 Sheriff's 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriff s Department additional, but is not billable per the contract The 2015 contract approval maintains status quo and reflects a 3.55% increase ($100176) over the 2014 contract. The primary drivers of the increase are a union wage increase, a State directed employer PERA contribution and the new Public Safety Data System annual maintenance cost Council Memberships and Donations /Contributions: The following memberships /contributions are included in the proposed 2015 Budget: • North Metro Mayors Association • Metro Cities • Mediation Services • YMCA — Water Safety Program • Alexandra House • Youth First (Program Funding) • NW Anoka Co. Community Consortium - JPA • Teen Center Funding (YMCA) • Lee Carlson Central Center for Family Resources • Senior High Parties Capital Projects and Debt Service Funds $13,709 $ 9,301 $ 3,366 $ 8,500 $17,328 $12,000 $10,000 $24,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,000 Capital Projects Levy: Capital Projects Levy — The 2015 Capital Projects Levy Budget specifically designates $1,336,968 of the general tax levy to capital projects and equipment needs relating to Capital Outlay ($250,000), 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 evaluated annually and along with Capital Outlay, Pedestrian Trail Maintenance and Park Levies increased/decreased according to the City Council budget guidelines. • Road and Bridge An adjustment was made to the Road & Bridge funding formula in 2014, 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 of Andover. Based on Council discussion consensus was to stop the decline in road funding and evaluate annually through the adopted City Council Budget Development Guidelines It should be noted that in 2014 Local Government Aid (LGA) in the amount of $74,655 was used to help fund the Road & Bridge Fund. That State of Minnesota funding has gone away for 2015 and likely years into the future. For 2015, the proposed levy to Roads is $967,197. The 2015 proposed levy to pedestrian trail maintenance is $58,271, the same as was levied in 2014. • 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 2014 levy is $61,500, the same is currently proposed for 2015. • 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 2014 levy ' $210 000 the proposed levy for 2015 is $250,000, increased to reflect the price increase we have been seeing on equipment purchases. 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 the review and see no refinancing opportunities at this time, or in the near future.) 0 The proposed 2015 Debt Service levy is as follows: • 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum $ 184,238 • 2012A G.O. Equipment Certificate $ 140,000 • 2012B G.O. Capital. Imp. Refunding $ 540,120 • 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds $ 975,652 • 2014 G.O. Equipment Certificates $ 296,055 Total $2,136,065 • It should be noted that the levy is offset significantly by a $635,000 YMCA annual rental payment for the Community Center bonds (2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds). The proposed 2015 Debt Service lea reflects a 3.14% increase ($64,999). ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. ctfully submitted, i Dickinson CITY OF ANDOVER Pay 2015 Valuation Estimates Taxable Market Values $2,500,000,000 $2,400,000,000 $2,300,000,000 $2,200,000,000 $2,100,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,900,000,000 $1,800,000,000 Pay 2012 Pay 2013 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Tax Capacity Values $26,000,000 $25,000,000 $24,000,000 $23,000,000 $22,000,000 $21,000,000 $20,000,000 Pay 2012 Pay 2013 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Estimate Pay 2012 Pay 2013 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Market Capacity Market Capacity Market Capacity Market Capacity Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Andover Valuation Totals $ 2,202,135,356 $ 23,477,711 $ 2,123,596,358 $ 22,569,018 $ 2,071,812,281 $ 21,978,322 $ 2,437,433,608 $ 25,721,391 Captured Tax Increment (1,871,779) (336,580) (327,433) (210,936) Fiscal Disparity Contribution (1,091,258) (1,077,175) (1,035,107) (998,390) Local Tax Rate Value 20,514,674 21,155,263 20,615,782 24,512,065 Fiscal Disparity Distribution 4,649,558 4,256,749 4,202,605 4,257,801 Total Adjusted Values $ 25,164,232 $ 25,412,012 $ 24,818,387 $ 28,769,866 0.98% - 2.34% 15.92% Taxable Market Value Tax Capacity Value % Change % Change Pay 2012 $ 2,202,135,356 Pay 2012 $ 23,477,711 Pay 2013 $ 2,123,596,358 -3.57% Pay 2013 $ 22,569,018 -3.87% Pay 2014 $ 2,071,812,281 -2.44% Pay 2014 $ 21,978,322 -2.62% Pay 2015 $ 2,437,433,608 17.65% Pay 2015 $ 25,721,391 17.03% Taxable Market Values $2,500,000,000 $2,400,000,000 $2,300,000,000 $2,200,000,000 $2,100,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,900,000,000 $1,800,000,000 Pay 2012 Pay 2013 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Tax Capacity Values $26,000,000 $25,000,000 $24,000,000 $23,000,000 $22,000,000 $21,000,000 $20,000,000 Pay 2012 Pay 2013 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 City of Andover, Minnesota Property Tax Levy Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equlpme- Wroject Certified Certlfled CeniRed Certified Carl Requested 2.24% a Charwe_ 40,000 19.05% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 %ot Total $ % General Fund Levy $ 71596,494 $ 7.500.802 $ 7,332,857 $ 7,332.857 $ 7,435,891 $ 7,630,892 68.48% $ 195,001 2.62% 967,197 8.68% $ - 0.00% Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 51, 773 54 .926 Debt Service Funds Levy 50,271 58,271 58.271 0.52% $ - 0.00% Lower Rum River Watershed 20NA G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds 368,418 412,320 405.292 361,290 - - $ - 0.00% 2004 EOA Public Facility Revenue Bonds 934,203 960,858 1,092,684 452,082 181,803 - 1,376,968 1256% $ 201`AG.O. Equipment Cemficete 208,000 - - - - ' 10,631,299 10,843,925 11,143,925 2008A G.O. Equipment Certificate 171,410 188,972 2.7P.4 Less Fiscal Disparities Oistdbuton 1,521,663 1,886,192 1,791,496 1,]98,57] 2009A G.O. Equipment Certificate lX738 142,783 - - - - Local Tax Rate Levy E 9,334,636 $ 819]0.19] $ 2010AG .O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 87,797 139,179 182,558 184,973 187.283 184,238 Less Lew Based on Market Value 2011A G.O. Equipment Certificate - 85.000 102,017 101,745 - - 2012A GO. Equipment Certificate - - 125.000 125,000 140,000 140,000 S 9,113;392 20128 G.O. Cep lmprov Returning Bonds - - - 138.339 561,015 540,120 21,155,263 20,615,782 24,512,065 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds - - - 51 740,965 975,652 2014 G.O. Equipment Certificate 18.90% 260,1100 296,055 Total Debt Service 1,900,566 1,929,112 1,907,551 1.961,474 2,071,066 2,136,065 19.17% $ 641999 3.14% Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equlpme- Wroject 210.000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 25),000 2.24% $ 40,000 19.05% Parks Projects 59.410 61,500 611500 61,500 61.500 61,500 0.55% $ - 0.00% Road &Bridge 1.003.056 1,064.959 1,022,817 967,197 96],19] 967,197 8.68% $ - 0.00% Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 51, 773 54 .926 56,574 50,271 58,271 58.271 0.52% $ - 0.00% Lower Rum River Watershed 35.000 SEMI) 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 0.36% $ - 0.00% Total Other 1,359.239 1.426.385 1,390,891 1,338.968 1.336.968 1,376,968 1256% $ 40,000 299% Gross City Levy 10.856,299 10,856,299 10,631,299 10,631,299 10,843,925 11,143,925 100% f 300,000 2.7P.4 Less Fiscal Disparities Oistdbuton 1,521,663 1,886,192 1,791,496 1,]98,57] 1,718,153 1,846,295 Local Tax Rate Levy E 9,334,636 $ 819]0.19] $ 0,839,803 $ 8,832,722 f 9.125,772 $ 9.297,639 Less Lew Based on Market Value f 87.797 $ 139,179 S 182,558 E 184,973 $ 187,283 S 184,238 Net Local Tax Rate Levy $ 9,246,839 $ 8,830,928 $ 8,657,245 $ 0,647,749 $ 8,938,489 S 9,113;392 Adjusted Tax Capacity Value' S 25.263,121 22,917,072 20,514,674 21,155,263 20,615,782 24,512,065 18.90% Chance %Chharr1 Tax Cana.im anre••• 36.602% 38.534% 42.200% 40.878% 43.358% Tax Capacity Rate WIC, LRRWSO 32.180% 36.484% 38.407% 42.090% 43.197 %. 37.046% Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 32483%. 36.814% 38346% 42.539% 43.657% 37.43]% Rate Ch in Rate Levy Ch in Levy Voter Approver Ref - MV 0.00551% 01 0.00568% 0.00778% 0.00841% 0.01`19% 33.363% - 16.132% $ 100,000 0.92% 36.56]% - 15.662% $ 151 1.38% " Adjusted Value determined by adjusting for Feral Disparities and Tax lnoemeut estimates. 36.771% - 15.191% $ 200,000 1.84% Slendel rate due to the G'ty of Andover levying for Lower Rum River Watershed District 36.975% - 14.721% $ 250.000 2.31% 37.179% - 14.250% $ 300.000 2.77% (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value Is subject to charge. 11/17/2014 City of Andover Gross Tax Levy $11,400,000 $11,200,000 1,143,925 $11,000,000 $10,800,000 $10,856,299 $10,856,299 $10,843,925 $10,600,000 IV $10,593,520 $10,631,299 $10,631,299 $10,400,000 $10,200,000 $10,000,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 zi) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF ANDOVER 2015 BUDGET AND 2015 PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. WHEREAS, the preparation and adoption of budgets is recognized as sound financial practice; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover receives significant financial support from its residents through the payment of property taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover has the responsibility to appropriately and efficiently manage the public's funds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires the City to certify to the County Auditor an adopted tax levy and budget prior to December 30, 2014; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires the City to certify to the State of Minnesota Department of Revenue an adopted tax levy by December 30, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby adopts the 2015 City of Andover Budget and the 2015 property tax levy totaling $11,143,925 as listed on Attachment A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby establishes the 2015 City of Andover Budget by fund type as follows: REVENUES EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 9,876,575 General Fund $ 10,338,730 Special Revenue Funds 1,523,700 Special Revenue Funds 1,710,874 Debt Service Funds 2,507,663 Debt Service Funds 2,285,820 Capital Projects Funds 3,859,038 Capital Projects Funds 4,393,745 Enterprise Funds 5,169,454 Enterprise Funds 4,832,158 Internal Service Funds 1,113,344 Internal Service Funds 1,138,752 Total _L24,049,774 Total $ 24,700,079 Adopted by the City of Andover this 16th day of December 2014. ATTEST: Michelle Harmer — Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache - Mayor O CITY ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 2015 Property Tax Levy 2015 General Fund Levy $ 7,630,892 Debt Service Funds Levy 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 184,238 2012A G.O. Equipment Certificate 140,000 2012B G.O. Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds 540,120 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds 975,652 2014 G.O. Equipment Certificate 296,055 Total Debt Service 2,136,065 Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equipment/Project 250,000 Parks Projects 61,500 Road & Bridge 967,197 Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 58,271 Lower Rum River Watershed 40,000 Total Other 1,376,968 Gross City Levy $ 11,143,925 Attachment A 6a STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF ANDOVER I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Andover, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached Resolution No. adopting the City of Andover 2015 Budget and 2015 Property Tax Levy with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be true and correct transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand this 16th day of December 2014. Michelle Harmer — Deputy City Clerk General Fund Revenues: $9,876,575 Expenditures: $10,338,730 - General Government Public Safety Public Works Fund Definitions CITY OF ANDOVER 2015 Budget Summary By Fund Type City of Andover - Budgeted Funds Total Revenues: $24,049,774 Total Expenditures: $24,700,079 I Governmental Funds I Special Revenue Funds Revenues: $1,523,700 Expenditures: $1,710,874 -EDA - Drainage & Mapping - LRRWMO - Forestry ROW Mgml / Utility - Construction Seal Coating - Community Center -CDBG - Charitable Gambling Debt Service Funds Revenues: $2,507,663 Expenditures: $2,285,820 .O. Improvement Bonds .O. Refunding Bonds .0. State Aid Bonds .0. Equip Certificates .0. Capital Notes .O. PIR Bonds JA Revenue Bonds .0. Abatement Bonds Capital Projects Funds Revenues: $3,859,038 Expenditures: $4,393,745 Storm Sewer Sewer Trunk Road & Bridge Trail & Transportation Cap Equip Reserve Tax Increment Park Dedication FIR Projects Capital Notes / Bond Projects Proprietary Funds Enterprise Funds Revenues: $5,169,454 Expenditures: $4,832,158 Sewer Fund Water Fund Stone Sewer Fund (S Internal Service Funds Revenues: $1,113,344 Expenditures: $1,138,752 Equipment / Maint. Management General Fund - accounts for the revenues and expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the City such as general government, public safety, public works, and other. Special Revenue Funds - accounts for revenue sources that finance particular functions and projects. Debt Service Funds - accounts for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of general long -term debt. Capital Projects Funds - accounts for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities financed mainly with governmental fund sources, general obligation debt, special assessments, and other. Enterprise Funds - accounts for activities that consist of rendering services or providing goods to the public for which a fee or charge is collected. Internal Service Funds - amounts for goods and services that are provided to other City departments, or to other governments, on a cost reimbursement basis. Fund Balance/Net Assets, January 1 Revenues & Other Sources General Special Revenue Debt Service Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total Revenues & Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures & Other Uses General Special Revenue Debt Service Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total Expenditures & Other Uses: Fund Balance/Net Assets, December 31 CITY OF ANDOVER 2015 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures Fund Summary Actual Adopted Estimate 2013 2014 2014 $ 50,805,368 10,162,469 1,556,899 3,653,909 5,891,238 4,951,154 1,151,054 27,366,723 78,172,091 9,590,074 1,591,240 4,905,496 7,632,378 4,435,260 1,082,874 29,237,322 $ 48,934,769 $ 48,934,769 9,569,142 1,498,300 2,895,189 4,712,843 4,912,517 1,073,553 24,661,544 73,596,313 9,996,375 1,571,835 19,532,362 6,270,710 4,659,798 1,085,793 43,116,873 $ 30,479,440 $ 48,934,769 9,724,413 1,579,280 2,936,415 7,379,209 4,924,517 1,161,248 27,705,082 76,639,851 10,071,684 1,642,385 19,513,351 7,071,005 4,731,308 1,217,176 44,246,909 $ 32,392,942 Budget 2015 $ 32,392,942 9,876,575 1,523,700 2,507,663 3,859,038 5,169,454 1,113,344 24,049,774 56,442,716 10,338,730 1,710,874 2,285,820 4,393,745 4,832,158 1,138,752 24,700,079 $ 31,742,637 is CITY OF ANDOVER I 2015 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures by Fund Type Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In Bond Proceeds Proceeds from Sale of Property Total Other Financing Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Operating Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Bond Discount Redemption of Refunded Bonds Total Other Uses: Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance /Net Assets, December 31 196,930 371,598 447,632 58,249 1,074,409 196,930 Special Debt Capital Internal 9,876,575 1,523,700 General Revenue Service Projects Enterprise Service Total Fund Balance /Net Assets, January 1 $ 6,612,965 $ 344,482 $ 11190,895 $ 17,202,019 $ 6,421,317 $ 621,264 $ 32,392,942 Revenues 4,416,919 506,034 - - General Property Taxes 7,706,892 40,000 2,136,065 1,336,968 - - 11,219,925 Tax Increments - - - 20,000 - - 20,000 Special Assessments - - - 412,000 - - 412,000 Licenses and Permits 316,588 - - - - - 316,588 Intergovernmental 633,015 37,500 - 1,259,573 - - 1,930,088 Charges for Services 748,550 617,800 - - 4,954,705 1,111,844 7,432,899 Fines 100,750 - - - - - 100,750 Investment Income 75,000 7,500 - 127,500 57,000 1,500 268,500 User Charges - - - 255,365 - - 255,365 Meters - - - - 13,000 - 13,000 Permit Fees - - $ 16,667,312 - 3,500 - 3,500 Penalties - - - - 16,000 - 16,000 Miscellaneous 98,850 820,900 67,000 986,750 Total Revenues: 9,679,645 1,523,700 2,136,065 3,411,406 5,111,205 1,113,344 22,975,365 Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In Bond Proceeds Proceeds from Sale of Property Total Other Financing Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Operating Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Bond Discount Redemption of Refunded Bonds Total Other Uses: Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance /Net Assets, December 31 196,930 371,598 447,632 58,249 1,074,409 196,930 371,598 447,632 58,249 1,074,409 9,876,575 1,523,700 2,507,663 3,859,038 5,169,454 1,113,344 24,049,774 16,489,540 1,868,182 3,698,558 21,061,057 11,590,771 1,734,608 56,442,716 4,416,919 506,034 - - 972,417 391,930 6,287,300 651,296 72,370 - - 280,200 386,950 1,390,816 3,817,821 255,475 - 156,000 - - 4,229,296 1,452,694 491,397 - 2,812,000 2,051,624 359,872 7,167,587 - 14,000 - 1,367,496 99,500 - 1,480,996 2,238,188 831,487 3,069,675 10,338,730 1,339,276 2,238,188 4,335,496 4,235,228 1,138,752 23,625,670 - 371,598 47,632 58,249 596,930 - 1,074,409 1,074,409 596,930 58,249 47,632 371,598 10,338,730 1,710,874 2,285,820 4,393,745 4,832,158 1,138,752 24,700,079 $ 6,150,810 $ 157,308 $ 1,412,738 $ 16,667,312 $ 6,758,613 $ 595,856 $ 31,742,637 CITY OF ANDOVER 2015 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures - All Funds 0 Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2013 2014 2014 2015 Fund Balance /Net Assets, January 1 $ 50,805,368 $ 48,934,769 $ 48,934,769 $ 32,392,942 Revenues General Property Taxes 10,682,975 10,909,850 10,919,925 11,219,925 Tax Increments 375,040 182,857 182,857 20,000 Special Assessments 1,045,000 270,000 444,200 412,000 Licenses and Permits 536,706 307,355 326,380 316,588 Intergovernmental 1,115,047 1,584,702 2,313,166 1,930,088 Charges for Services 7,785,241 7,143,733 7,274,936 7,432,899 Fines 96,130 100,750 95,750 100,750 Investment Income 549,773 320,385 358,510 268,500 User Charges 660,931 144,204 599,697 255,365 Meters 23,395 13,000 13,000 13,000 Permit Fees 4,200 3,000 3,500 3,500 Penalties 4,702 17,500 15,000 16,000 Miscellaneous 2,452,594 922,960 1,148,073 986 ,750 Total Revenues: 25,331,734 21,920,286 23,694,994 22,975,365 Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In 1,950,805 1,386,258 1,385,677 1,074,409 Bond Proceeds - 1,355,000 1,555,000 - Bond Premium - - - 44.278 - PfoceedsfromSaleofProperty 84,184 - 1,025,133 - TotalOtherFinancing Sources: 2,034,989 2,741,268 4,010,088 1,074,409 Total Revenues and Other Sources: 27,366,723 24,661,544 27,705,082 24,049,774 Total Available: 78,172,091 73,596,313 76,639,851 56,M ,716 Expenditures Personal Services 5,735,356 6.060,316 6,148,766 6,287,300 Supplies and Materials 1,285,649 1,357,295 1,410.590 1,390,816 Purchased Services 4,085,147 4,071,090 4,059,535 4,229,296 Other Services and Charges 6,725,211 7,379266 7,585,548 7.167.587 Capital Outlay 3,776,885 2,511,550 3,318,663 1,480,996 Debt Service 3,778,269 3,896,098 3,877,206 3,069,675 Total Operating Expenditures: 25,386,517 25,275,615 26,400,308 23,625,670 Other Uses Operating Transfers Out 1,950,805 1,386,258 1,385.677 1,074,409 Bond Discount - - 5,924 - Redemption of Refunded Bonds 1,900,000 16,465,000 16,455,000 - TotalOtherUses: 3,850,805 17,841,258 17,846,601 1,074,409 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 29,237,322 43,116,873 44,246,909 24,700,079 Fund Balance /Net Assets, December 31 $ 48,934,769 $ 30,479,440 $ 32,392.942 $ 31,742,637 0 City of Andover 2015 Budget - General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: $ 6,387,841 $ 6,960,236 7,376,284 536,706 710,071 1,122,461 96,130 (17,096) 140,983 9,965,539 196,930 10,162,469 16,550,310 3,981,119 614,201 3,529,998 1,275,242 54,514 9,455,074 Other Uses Transfers Out 135,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 9,590,074 7,501,816 307,355 609,541 685,900 100,750 75,000 91,850 9,372,212 196,930 9,569,142 16,529,378 4,275,019 642,544 3,673,710 1,405,102 $ 6,960,236 7,511,891 326,380 639,291 755,151 95,750 75,000 124,020 9,527,483 $ 6,612,965 7,706,892 316,588 633,015 748,550 100,750 75,000 98,850 9,679,645 196,930 196,930 9,724,413 16,684,649 4,315,469 676,304 3,683,205 1,396,706 9,996,375 10,071,684 9,996,375 Fund Balance, December 31 $ 6,960,236 $ 6,533,003 9,876,575 16,489,540 4,416,919 651,296 3,817,821 1,452,694 10,338,730 10,071,684 10,338,730 $ 6,612,965 $ 6,150,810 Actual Adopted 1 Estimate Adopted Description 2013 2014 2014 2015 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: $ 6,387,841 $ 6,960,236 7,376,284 536,706 710,071 1,122,461 96,130 (17,096) 140,983 9,965,539 196,930 10,162,469 16,550,310 3,981,119 614,201 3,529,998 1,275,242 54,514 9,455,074 Other Uses Transfers Out 135,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 9,590,074 7,501,816 307,355 609,541 685,900 100,750 75,000 91,850 9,372,212 196,930 9,569,142 16,529,378 4,275,019 642,544 3,673,710 1,405,102 $ 6,960,236 7,511,891 326,380 639,291 755,151 95,750 75,000 124,020 9,527,483 $ 6,612,965 7,706,892 316,588 633,015 748,550 100,750 75,000 98,850 9,679,645 196,930 196,930 9,724,413 16,684,649 4,315,469 676,304 3,683,205 1,396,706 9,996,375 10,071,684 9,996,375 Fund Balance, December 31 $ 6,960,236 $ 6,533,003 9,876,575 16,489,540 4,416,919 651,296 3,817,821 1,452,694 10,338,730 10,071,684 10,338,730 $ 6,612,965 $ 6,150,810 City of Andover Special Revenue Funds C19) 2015 Budget Summary - All Special Revenue Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Actual Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 1 2013 2014 2014 2015 Fund Balance, January 1 $ 441,928 $ 407,587 $ 407,587 $ 344,482 Revenues 75,807 71,270 71,320 72,370 General Property Taxes 39,913 40,000 40,000 40,000 Intergovernmental 9,828 37,500 12,500 37,500 Charges for Services 684,459 601,500 668,557 617,800 Investment Income (9,241) 7,200 7,400 7,500 Miscellaneous 831,940 812,100 850,823 820,900 Total Revenues: 1,556,899 1,498,300 1,579,280 1,523,700 Other Sources Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 1,591,240 1,571,835 Proceeds from Sale of Property - - - - Total Revenues and Other Sources: 1,556,899 1,498,300 1,579,280 1,523,700 Total Available: 1,998,827 1,905,887 1,986,867 1,868,182 Expenditures Personal Services 540,877 446,540 496,540 506,034 Supplies and Materials 75,807 71,270 71,320 72,370 Purchased Services 168,224 210,380 215,280 255,475 Other Services and Charges 411,199 466,547 482,147 491,397 Capital Outlay 14,185 - - 14,000 Total Expenditures: 1,210,292 1,194,737 1,265,287 1,339,276 Other Uses Transfers Out 380,948 377,098 377,098 371,598 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 1,591,240 1,571,835 1,642,385 1,710,874 Fund Balance, December 31 $ 407,587 $ 334,052 $ 344,482 $ 157,308 City of Andover Debt Service Funds 2015 Budget - All Debt Service Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Intergovernmental Investment Income Total Revenues: Other Sources Operating Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Debt Service Principal Interest Other Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Redemption of Refunded Bonds Total Other Uses: Total Expenditures and Other Uses Fund Balance, December 31 $ 19,019,418 1,962,018 237,890 697,403 2,897,311 756,598 3,653,909 22,673,327 1,689,000 1,262,302 5,509 2,956,811 48,685 1,900,000 1,948,685 4,905,496 $ 17,767,831 $ 17,767,831 2,071,066 11,417 59,685 2,142,168 753,021 2,895,189 20,663,020 2,140,000 915,187 12,105 3,067,292 10,070 16,455,000 16,465,070 19,532,362 $ 17,767,831 2,071,066 61,680 51,110 2,183, 856 752,559 2,936,415 20,704,246 2,140, 000 900,505 7,895 3,048,400 9,951 16,455,000 16,464,951 19,513,351 $ 1,130,658 $ 1,190,895 $ 1,190,895 2,136,065 2,136, 065 371,598 2,507,663 3,698,558 1,765,000 470,688 2,500 2,238,188 47,632 47,632 2,285,820 $ 1,412,738 aLo Actual Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 1 2013 2014 2014 2015 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Intergovernmental Investment Income Total Revenues: Other Sources Operating Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Debt Service Principal Interest Other Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Redemption of Refunded Bonds Total Other Uses: Total Expenditures and Other Uses Fund Balance, December 31 $ 19,019,418 1,962,018 237,890 697,403 2,897,311 756,598 3,653,909 22,673,327 1,689,000 1,262,302 5,509 2,956,811 48,685 1,900,000 1,948,685 4,905,496 $ 17,767,831 $ 17,767,831 2,071,066 11,417 59,685 2,142,168 753,021 2,895,189 20,663,020 2,140,000 915,187 12,105 3,067,292 10,070 16,455,000 16,465,070 19,532,362 $ 17,767,831 2,071,066 61,680 51,110 2,183, 856 752,559 2,936,415 20,704,246 2,140, 000 900,505 7,895 3,048,400 9,951 16,455,000 16,464,951 19,513,351 $ 1,130,658 $ 1,190,895 $ 1,190,895 2,136,065 2,136, 065 371,598 2,507,663 3,698,558 1,765,000 470,688 2,500 2,238,188 47,632 47,632 2,285,820 $ 1,412,738 aLo City of Andover Capital Projects Funds 2015 Budget Summary - All Capital Projects Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Actual Adopted Estimate 1 Adopted Descr tion 1 2013 2014 2014 2015 Fund Balance, January 1 $ 18,634,955 $ 16,893,815 $ 16,893,815 $ 17,202,019 Revenues General Property Taxes 1,304,760 1,296,968 1,296,968 1,336,968 Tax Increments 375,040 182,857 182,857 20,000 Special Assessments 1,045,000 270,000 444,200 412,000 Intergovernmental 157,258 926,244 1,599,695 1,259,573 Investment Income (97,811) 120,000 166,500 127,500 User Charges 660,931 144,204 599,697 255,365 Miscellaneous 1,376,841 2,000 49,430 - Total Revenues: 4,822,019 2,942,273 4,339,347 3,411,406 Other Sources Transfers In 993,035 415,570 415,451 447,632 Bond Proceeds - 1,355,000 1,555,000 - Bond Premium - - 44,278 Proceeds from Sale of Capital Assets 76,184 - 1,025,133 - Total Other Sources: 1,069,219 1,770,570 3,039,862 447,632 Total Revenues and Other Sources: 5,891,238 4,712,843 7,379,209 3,859,038 Total Available: 24,526,193 21,606,658 24,273,024 21,061,057 Expenditures Purchased Services 386,925 187,000 161,050 156,000 Other Services and Charges 2,827,750 3,170,000 3,183,670 2,812,000 Capital Outlay 3,628,461 2,511,550 3,318,663 1,367,496 Total Expenditures: 6,843,136 5,868,550 6,663,383 4,335,496 Other Uses Operating Transfers Out 789,242 402,160 401,698 58,249 Bond Discount - - 5,924 - Total Other Uses: 789,242 402,160 407,622 58,249 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 7,632,378 6,270,710 7,071,005 4,393,745 Fund Balance, December 31 $ 16,893,815 $ 15,335,948 $ 17,202,019 $ 16,667,312 ai. City of Andover Enterprise Funds 2015 Budget Summary - All Enterprise Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Net Assets Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Meters Permits Penalties Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Gain on the Sale of Capital Assets Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Expenditures: $ 5,712,214 4,907,702 (21,533) 23,395 4,200 4,702 20,446 4,938,912 4,242 8,000 12,242 4,951,154 10,663,368 859,072 239,933 1,838,142 79,725 821,458 3,838,330 $ 6,228,108 $ 6,228,108 4,784,280 57,000 13,000 3,000 17,500 17,000 4,891,780 20,737 20,737 4,912,517 11,140,625 957,725 275,650 2,000,687 828,806 4,062,868 4,771,280 57,000 13,000 3,500 15,000 44,000 4,903,780 20,737 20,737 4,924,517 11,152,625 957,725 264,070 2,083,777 828,806 4,134,378 Other Uses Transfers Out 596,930 596,930 596,930 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 4,435,260 4,659,798 Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 6,228,108 $ 6,480,827 4,731,308 $ 6,421,317 $ 6,421,317 4,954,705 57,000 13,000 3,500 16,000 67,000 5,111,205 58,249 58,249 5,169,454 11,590,771 972,417 280,200 2,051,624 99,500 831,487 4,235,228 596,930 4,832,158 $ 6,758,613 a Actual 1 Adopted Estimate Adopted Description 2013 201 1 2014 2015 Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Meters Permits Penalties Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Gain on the Sale of Capital Assets Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Expenditures: $ 5,712,214 4,907,702 (21,533) 23,395 4,200 4,702 20,446 4,938,912 4,242 8,000 12,242 4,951,154 10,663,368 859,072 239,933 1,838,142 79,725 821,458 3,838,330 $ 6,228,108 $ 6,228,108 4,784,280 57,000 13,000 3,000 17,500 17,000 4,891,780 20,737 20,737 4,912,517 11,140,625 957,725 275,650 2,000,687 828,806 4,062,868 4,771,280 57,000 13,000 3,500 15,000 44,000 4,903,780 20,737 20,737 4,924,517 11,152,625 957,725 264,070 2,083,777 828,806 4,134,378 Other Uses Transfers Out 596,930 596,930 596,930 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 4,435,260 4,659,798 Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 6,228,108 $ 6,480,827 4,731,308 $ 6,421,317 $ 6,421,317 4,954,705 57,000 13,000 3,500 16,000 67,000 5,111,205 58,249 58,249 5,169,454 11,590,771 972,417 280,200 2,051,624 99,500 831,487 4,235,228 596,930 4,832,158 $ 6,758,613 a City of Andover Internal Service Funds 2015 Budget Summary - All Internal Service Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Unrestricted Net Assets Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures and Other Uses Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 609,012 $ 677,192 1,070,619 (1,949) 82,384 1,151,054 1,151,054 1,760,066 354,288 355,708 372,878 1,082,874 1,082,874 $ 677,192 1,072,053 1,500 1,073,553 1,073,553 1 ,750,745 381,032 367,831 336,930 1,085,793 1,085,793 $ 664,952 $ 677,192 $ 621,264 1,079,948 1,500 79,800 1,161,248 1,161,248 1,838,440 379,032 398,896 439,248 1,217,176 1,217,176 $ 621,264 1,111,844 1,500 1,113,344 1,113,344 1,734,608 391,930 386,950 359,872 1,1 38,752 1,138,752 $ 595,856 a3 Actual 1 Adopted Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 2013 2014 2014 2015 Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures and Other Uses Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 609,012 $ 677,192 1,070,619 (1,949) 82,384 1,151,054 1,151,054 1,760,066 354,288 355,708 372,878 1,082,874 1,082,874 $ 677,192 1,072,053 1,500 1,073,553 1,073,553 1 ,750,745 381,032 367,831 336,930 1,085,793 1,085,793 $ 664,952 $ 677,192 $ 621,264 1,079,948 1,500 79,800 1,161,248 1,161,248 1,838,440 379,032 398,896 439,248 1,217,176 1,217,176 $ 621,264 1,111,844 1,500 1,113,344 1,113,344 1,734,608 391,930 386,950 359,872 1,1 38,752 1,138,752 $ 595,856 a3 CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Revenue & Expense Summary EXPENDITURES General Government Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Requested * Budget Change ( *) 2.33% Public Safety 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 $ % REVENUES 2,352,111 2,403,162 2,451,850 2,482,490 2,759,342 2,850,774 2,849,629 2,960,825 110,051 3.86% Property Taxes $ 6,588,601 $ 7,191,602 $ 7,115,936 $ 7,340,532 $ 7,376,284 $ 7,501,816 $ 7,511,891 $ 7,706,892 205,076 2.73% License and Permits 291,904 329,901 387,206 449,826 536,707 307,355 326,380 316,588 9,233 3.00% Intergovernmental Revenues 595,001 570,096 566,706 653,720 710,071 609,541 639,291 633,015 23,474 3.85% Charges for Current Services 701,289 757,094 866,584 973,604 1,122,460 685,900 755,151 748,550 62,650 9.13% Fines and Forfeits 110,779 104,780 99,777 97,571 96,130 100,750 95,750 100,750 - 0.00% Interest Income 76,772 70,368 130,368 95,365 (17,096) 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 130,522 134,772 127,509 149,857 140,983 91,850 124,020 98,850 7,000 7.62% Transfers 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 - 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES 8,691,798 9,355,543 9,491,016 9,957,405 10, 162,169 9,569,142 9,724,413 9,876,575 307,433 3.16% EXPENDITURES General Government 2,161,367 2,224,872 2,271,094 2,223,773 2,308,882 2,672,379 2,658,333 2,734,639 62,260 2.33% Public Safety 4,005,405 3,920,071 3,960,221 4,087,065 4,311,340 4,383,894 4,474,394 4,572,938 189,044 4.31% Public Works 2,352,111 2,403,162 2,451,850 2,482,490 2,759,342 2,850,774 2,849,629 2,960,825 110,051 3.86% Other 19,540 24,953 30,631 663,372 210,510 89,328 89,328 70,328 (19,000) - 21.27% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,538,423 8,573,058 8,713,796 9,456,700 9,590,074 9,996,375 10,071,684 10,338,730 342,355 '. 142 %d. UNDER(OVER)BUDGET $ 153,375 $ 782,485 $ 777,220 $ 500,705 S 572,395 $ (427,233) $ (347,271) $ (462,155) $ (34,922) 1 111 812 01 4 REVENUES Property Taxes License and Permits Intergovernmental Revenues Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Interest Income Miscellaneous Revenue Transfers TOTAL REVENUES CITY OF ANDOVER Revenue Comparison - General Fund Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 Property axes $ 7,115,936 $ 7,340,532 $ 7,376,284 $ 7,501,816 $ 7,511,891 $ 7,706,892 387,206 449,826 536,707 307,355 326,380 316,588 566,706 653,720 710,071 609,541 639,291 633,015 866,584 973,604 1,122,460 685,900 755,151 748,550 99,777 97,571 96,130 100,750 95,750 100,750 130,368 95,365 (17,096) 75,000 75,000 75,000 127,509 149,857 140,983 91,850 124,020 98,850 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 $ 9,491,016 $ 9,957,405 $ 10,162,469 $ 9,569,142 $ 9,724,413 $ 9,876,575 41.00 $1.00 $3.00 0)5 City of Andover 2015 Revenue by Source - General Fund Misc. Rev 1 % Interest Income ' Transfers 1 % � 2% Fines &Forfeits � 1% Charges for Svcs 8 "k i I Intergovl Rev 6% Licenses &Permits 3% Property Taxes 78% City of Andover 2015 Revenue Comparison - General Fund Property axes Licenses & P rmits Intergo I Rev Charges to Svcs Fines & F rfe0s I Interest) come Mis Rev Tr a stars 41.00 $1.00 $3.00 $5.00 $7.00 $9.00 17Ulions ceutlge12015 ■EStlmate 2014 EAqua12013 -Actual 2012 -Actual 2011 0)5 City of Andover 2015 Revenue by Source - General Fund Misc. Rev 1 % Interest Income ' Transfers 1 % � 2% Fines &Forfeits � 1% Charges for Svcs 8 "k i I Intergovl Rev 6% Licenses &Permits 3% Property Taxes 78% City of Andover 2015 Revenue by Source - General Fund Misc. Rev 1 % Interest Income ' Transfers 1 % � 2% Fines &Forfeits � 1% Charges for Svcs 8 "k i I Intergovl Rev 6% Licenses &Permits 3% Property Taxes 78% EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Public Works Other General Govt Public Safety Public Works Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES CITY OF ANDOVER Expenditure Comparison - General Fund Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 $ 2,271,094 26% $ 2,223,773 24% $ 2,308,882 24% $ 2,672,379 27% $ 2,658,333 26% $ 2,734,639 26% 3,960,221 45% 4,087,065 43% 4,311,340 45% 4,383,894 44% 4,474,394 44% 4572,938 44% 2,451,850 28% 2,482,490 26% 2,759,342 29% 2,850,774 29% 2,849,629 28% 2,960,825 29% 30,631 0% 663,372 7% 210,510 2% 89,328 1% 89,328 1 % 70,328 1 % $ 8,713,796 $ 9,456,700 $ 9,590,074 $ 9,996,375 $ 10,071,684 $ 10,338,730 City of Andover 2015 Expenditure Comparison - General Fund $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 Millions 1313ud8e12015 ■Estimate2014 eActual 2013 eActva12012 •AClua12011 City of Andover 2015 Expenditures by Function - General Fund Other 1% alic Works 29% CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Expenditure Budget Summary Totals - By Department Budget Year 2015 0 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget' Estimate Requested' Change(') 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 $ % GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 105,318 $ 100,711 $ 101,373 $ 83,622 $ 83,595 $ 86,840 $ 86,840 $ 87,154 314 0.36% Admivistranon 128,533 131,217 135,523 140,048 147,503 176,265 176,265 180,888 4,623 2.62% Newsletter 22,405 17,094 22,897 22,336 17,677 26,000 24,000 26,000 0 0.00% Human Resources 54,623 54,970 31,855 12,485 17,907 39,229 19,353 40,156 927 2.36% Attorney 172,900 172,775 171,062 170,930 173,244 178,300 178,300 182,000 3,700 2.08% City Clerk 96,621 95,165 100,697 101,377 108,312 129,400 129,490 135,359 5,959 4.61% Elections 6,139 37,926 6,399 39,614 11,352 55,336 55,201 57,492 2,156 3.90% Finance 210,206 194,863 207,032 207,337 215,215 235,459 235,009 239,981 4,522 1.92% Assessing 120,113 144,760 143,693 143,338 144,561 150,000 146,500 150,000 0 0.00% Information Services 122,614 136,931 142,964 136,025 135,982 170,629 170,629 172,239 1,610 0.94% Planning & Zoning 323,682 327,567 324,303 318,523 349,489 401,360 399.235 412,937 11,577 2.88% Engineering 388,285 389,038 413,818 427,339 452,788 465,656 463,756 470,631 4,975 1.07% Facility Management 409,928 421.855 469,478 420,799 451,257 557,905 573,755 579,802 21,897 392% Total General Gov 2,167,367. 2,224,872 2,271,094 2123,773 2,308,882 2,672,379 2,658'.i� ]y73d;639+c- ., PUBL7CSAFETT Police Protection 2,545,642 2,599,246 2,615,407 2,693,896 2,740,899 2,818,132 2,818,132 2,918,308 100,176 155% Fire Protection 998,350 967,715 974,988 1,015,825 1,126,979 1,!27,389 1,207,839 1,192,330 64,941 5.76% Protective Inspection 435,102 330,707 342,437 354,753 423,495 411,295 415,945 423,161 11,866 2.89% Civil Defense 14,935 15,451 16,301 14,088 13,930 17,128 22,528 29,189 12,061 70.42% Animal Control 11,376 6,952 11,088 8,503 6,037 9,950 9,950 9,950 0 0.00% Total Public Safety 4.005.405 3,920,071 3,960,221 4,087,065 4 ,311 ,340 4,383,894 4,474 ,394 4,572,938 189,044 4.31 %°'. PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 567,092 518,990 594,294 570,630 572,753 604,078 605,578 625,664 21,586 3.57% Snow and Ice Removal 462,849 537,947 434,603 420,175 630,799 517,949 524,479 539,770 21,821 4.21% Street Signs 159,213 166,244 175,833 170,200 162,861 197,274 202,774 203,533 6.259 3.17% Traffic Signals 26,090 25,830 26,569. 27,457 26,241 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0.00% Street lighting 32,666 30,885 32,317 33,439 31,702 36,400 36,400 36,400 0 0.00% Street Lights - Billed 180,641 186,320 189,144 195,197 210,331 210,000 210,000 216,000 6,000 2.86% Park & Recreation 838,033 827,911 889,180 912,750 946,545 1,118,926 1,101,426 1,169,338 50,412 4,51% Recycling 85,527 109,035 109,910 152,642 178,110 131,147 133,972 135,120 3,973 3.03% Total Public Works 2.352,111 2,403,162 2,451,850 2,482,490 2,759,342 2,850.774 2,849,629 2,960,825 110,051 - 3.86% OTHER 19.540 24,953 30.631 663,372 210,510 99,328 89,328 70.328 (19,000) - 21.27% Total Other 19,540 24,953 30,631 663,372 210,510 89,328 89,328 70,328 (19,000) - 21.27 %'. GRAND TOTAL 342,355 342% 5 10,338,730 S 10,071,684 S 9,996 ,375 S 9 .590,074 $ 9,456,700 $ 8,713,796 $ 8,538,423 $ 8,573,058 MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN ANOKA COUNTY Proposed 2015 City Tax Rate Comparison Muniri alities Only Hilltop 100.013 Lexington 72.056 Columbia Heights 71.064 Bethel V�59.214 .030 Centerville 18 St. Francis Circle Pines 5(.604 Spring Lake Park 52.80 East Bethel 51.430 n Columbus 3 48.827 � Lino Lakes 46.550 0 u Anoka 44.940 Coon Rapids 44.654 Fridley 43.451 Ramsey 42.191 Andover 3 F.044 Blaine 36 T27138 104 Linwood 0 4 Oak Grove Ham Lake 26.847 Nowthen 26.097 0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 TAX RATE e CITY OF ANDOVER 2015 Proposed Tax Rate Breakdown Other School District 4.03% County 22.09% 37.45% City 36.43% PERCENTAGES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO REFLECT 100% RATHER THAN ACTUAL AMOUNT OF 101.684 %. * Does not include voter approved referendum levy based on market value. 9) CITY OF ANDOVER 2015 General Fund Revenue Types Intergovernmental Transfers Fines & Forfeits Interest Income g% 2% 1 % Miscellaneous % Charges for Services 1 % 8% i License & Permits 3% ` '\ Property Taxes 78% Publ 2 CITY OF ANDOVER 2015 General Fund Expenditures Other 0.7% by Function General Government 26.5% Public Safety 44.2% m Fire Protection 26.1% CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Public Safety Expenditures _. I r.ivil r)ofonco Animal Cnntrol Police Protection 63.8% 33 Parks & Re 39.5' CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Public Works Expenditures Recycling Streets & Highways 4.6% 21 1% 7.3% oireei ugniung 1.2% 1.2% inow & Ice 18.2% r 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: 2014 Budget - General Fund Progress Report — Through October 2014 DATE: November 25, 2014 INTRODUCTION The City of Andover 2014 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $9,569,142 and total expenditures of $10,026,875 (includes $30,500 of 2013 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 Revenue & Expenditure Budget Summary - Budget Year 2014 with year to date actual - October 2014. The attachments are provided to assist discussion in reviewing 2014 progress; other documents may be distributed at the meeting. The following represents Administration's directives and departmental expectations that are in place again for 2014: 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. 6. Departments are to be cognizant that services provided are subject to available revenues and should not commit to services that are not sustainable. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. submitted, Dickinson CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Budget Summary Totals Budget Year 2014 2013 2014 REVENUES Budget Oct YTD % Bud Final Budget Oct YTD % Bud General Property Tax $ 7,398,782 $ 3,875,127 52% $ 7,376,284 $ 7,501,816 $ 3,898,686 52% Licenses and Permits 288,355 467,048 162% 536,706 307,355 288,812. 94% Intergovernmental 596,564 493,280 83% 710,071 609,541 635,603 104% Charges for Services 619,850 972,024 157% 1,122,461 685,900 809,468 118% Fines 100,750 77,841 77% 96,130 100,750 71,358 71% Investment Income 65,000 39,211 60% (13,242) 75,000 45,434 61% Miscellaneous 90,350 133,946 148% 137,129 91,850 128,845 140% Transfers In 196,930 196,930 100% 196,930 196,930 196,930 100% Total Revenues $ 9356,581 $ 6,255,407 67% S 10,162,469 $ 9569,142 $ 6,075,136 63% Attorney 178,300 2013 73% 173,244 178,300 2014 75% EXPENDITURES Budget Oct YTD % Bud Final Budget Oct YTD % Bud GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 87,953 $ 74,322 85% $ 83,595 $ 86,840 $ 74,351 86% Administration 143,995 124,886 87% 147,503 176,265 133,936 76% Newsletter 25,500 15,868 62% 17,678 26,000 19,165 74% Human Resources 42,770 12,993 30% 17,906 39,229 15,757 40% Attorney 178,300 129,883 73% 173,244 178,300 133,364 75% City Clerk 108,925 98,404 90% 108,311 129,400 101,520 78 % Elections 54,155 10,071 19% 11,353 55,336 24,617 44% Finance 221,256 181,169 82% 215,215 235,459 194,460 83% Assessing 150,000 141,783 95% 144,561 150,000 142,210 95% Information Services 161,252 109,240 68% 135,981 176,629 121,081 69% Planning & Zoning 360,970 290,556 80% 349,488 401,360 308,401 77% Engineering 440,168 374,036 85% 452,788 465,656 370,072 79% Facility Management 566,187 346,382 61% 451,255 562,905 379,299 67% Total General Gov 2,541,431 1,9099593 75% 2308,878 2,683,379 2,018,233 5 PUBLICSAFETY Police Protection 2,740 899 2,055,674 75% 2,740,899 2,818 132 _ _ _ 2,818,132 100% Fire Protection 1,127,444 961,289 85% 1,126,979 1,127,389 894,831 790/' Protective Inspection 393,530 342,974 87% 423,495 411,295 309,553 75% Civil Defense 17,188 12,748 74% 13 930 17 128 20 382 119% Animal Control 9,950 3,665 37% 6,037 9,950 3,286 33% Total Public Safety 4,289,011 39376,350 79% 4,311340 4,383,894 4,046,184 92 PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 585,111 494,695 85% 572,754 604,078 499,612 83% Snow and Ice Removal 511,834 425,825 83% 630,798 517,949 463,086 89% Street Signs 198,693 130,213 66% 162,859 197,274 162,155 82% Traffic Signals 36,000 19,145 53% 26,241 35,000 21,441 61% Street Lighting 36,400 25,123 69% 31,702 36,400 24,885 68% Street Lights - Billed 210,000 140,649 67% 210,331 210,000 151,055 72% Park & Recreation 1,014,366 758,649 75% 946,545 1,138,426 804,124 71% Recycling 128,633 126,691 98% 178,109 131,147 87,393 67% Total Public Works 2,721,037 2,120,990 IFIFIZ 2,759,339 2,870,274 2,213,751 0 OTHER 223,950 201,953 90% 210,519 89,328 64,952 73% Total Other 223,950 201,953 90% 210,519 89,328 64,952 73% Total Expenditures $ 78% $ 9,590,076 $ 8343,120 $ 10,026,875 9,775,429 $ 7,608,886 NET INCREASE (DECREASE) $ (418,848) S (1,353,479) $ 572,393 $ (457,733) S (2,267,984) ? C I T Y 0 F A 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.AN DOVER. MIN -US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: October 2014 Investment Report DATE: November 25, 2014 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 October 2014, the October 2014 Investment Detail Report and the October 2014 Money Market Funds Report. These attachments are intended to assist with discussion when reviewing the October 2014 investments. ACTION REOUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide feedback to staff. submitted, Investment Maturities - October 2014 Investment Maturities (in Years Credit _ Fair Less Than More Than Investment Type Rating Value 1 1-5 6-10 10 Money market funds N/A $ 2,700,469 $ 2,700,469 $ $ _ - $ MN Municipal Money Market Fund (4M) N/A 4,993 4,993 Certificates of deposit FDIC 5,348,887 1,839,210 2,768,640 741,037 Local governments A/Al /A2 596,368 - 391,337 100,593 104,438 AAl /AA2 /AA3 7,935,953 1,937,724 3,292,292 2,082,049 623,888 AAA 4,333,456 909,947 2,258,919 780,151 384,439 State governments A/Al /A2 437,360 - 208,938 228,422 AAl /AA2 /AA3 405,972 14,962 313,494 77,516 - AAA 439,910 76,922 341,620 21,368 - U.S. agencies AAA 4,496,343 444,435 2,976,394 392,506 683,008 FNMA REMIC N/A 15,760 - 15,760 U. S. agencies N/A 246,748 - 246,748 - - Total investments $ 26,962,217 $ 7,928,663 $ 12,814,141 $ 4,423,641 "95,713 Deposits 2,536,251 Total cash and investments $ 29,498,469 October 2014 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value rest el w Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity ) Due Date RBS Citizens NA 75524KCY8 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.250% 248,997.51 maturity 08/06/14 none 11/06/14 MB Financial Bank 55266CHV1 CD 102,249.00 102,249.00 100,000.00 2.350% 100,044.00 monthly 04/18/11 none 11/12/14 State Bank India NY 856283XB7 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.350% 248,992.53 maturity 08/14/14 none 11/14/14 S & T Bank 7838616119 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 248,980.08 maturity 12/13113 none 12/12/14 _ First Merit Bank (Ohio) 320844NY5 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 _0.350% 0.300% 248,925.30 maturity _07/16/14 none 01/16/15 Peoples Utd Bk Bridgeport CT 712700EG7 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.250% 248,641.44 maturity 07/16114 none 01116115 Capital One Bank Glen Allen_ VA 14041AXU8 CD 43,910.10 43,910.10 40,000.00 4.750% 40,371.20 semi - annual 05/10111 none_ 07/23115 Garrett State Bank 366526AJ0 CD 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.750% 201,712.00 monthly_ 05/20111 06120/11 07/20115 Flushing Savings Bank 344030DK4 250,023.39 250,023.39 249,000.00 1.750% _ 252,545.76 monthly 07125111 none 10/29115 Chaska MN 161664DS3 AA _CD 66,128.40 66,128.40 65,000.00 2.000 % 65,094.90 semi - annual 08115113 06/01/14 12101114 Pell City AL 705880ML3 AA- _local local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 1.200 % 100,483.00 semi - annual 04/25112 08/01/12 - 08/01115 Brooklyn Park Minn 114223V64 AA+ local 206,700.00 206,700.00 200,000.00 3.400% 201,184.00 semi - annual 02/10/11 - n - one 02101115 Pipestone - Jasper MN ISO #2689 724114BH5 AA+ local 181,521.00 181,521.00 180,000.00 1.000% 180,406.80 semi - annual 05123113 03/1/14 03101115 Red Wing Minn ISO #25 757130JR1 AA+ 36,367.10 36,367.10 35,000.00 3.500% 35,359.10 semi - annual 01/11/11 none 03/01/15 Ramsey MN 7518130E9 AA+ _local local 176,289.75 776,289.75 175,000.00 1.000% 775,733.25 semiannual 06/05112 72/01112 06/07/15 Palatine III 696089RY9 W local 112,000.00 112,000.00 100,000.00 5.200% 100,386.00 semi - annual 11/07/11 none 12/01/14 Austin Minn 052249542 AA2 local 79,600.00 79,600.00 80,000.00 5.100% 80,232.80 semi- annual 07115/08 __none 02/01/15 Duluth MN 264438ZA3 _ AA2 local 201,733.11 201,722.00 200,000.00 1.000 % 200,390.00 semi - annual 11/27/12 08/01/13 02/01/15 Onamia MN ISD#480 682271DT5 AA2 local 104,979.00 104,979.00 100,000.00 3.000% 100,674.00 semi - annual 09/27/12 08101/13 02101/15 Waunakee WI 943181NZ6 AA2 local 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 1.500 % 55,272.25 semi - annual 11/08/11 05101112 05/01/15 Waterloo IA 941647NW5 AA2 local 261,334.20 261,334.20 255,000.00 2.000% 257,644.35 semi - annual 06/27113 12/01/13 06/01/15 Riley Cnty Kars Uni Sch Dist 766651NP4 AA2 local 36,876.00 36,876.00 35,000.00 4.730% 36,289.40 semi - annual 05105114 03101/10 09101115 Western Lake Superior MN 958522WO3 AA2 local 101,790.00 101,790.00 100,000.00 2.000% 101,611.00 semi - annual 08116/11 04/01/12 10/01115 Brownsville TX 116405FY2 AA3 local 102,683.00 102,683.00 100,000.00 2.000% 100,528.00 semi - annual 12/27/12 02/15/13 02115/15 SouthEastern IA Cmnty College 841625MC7 AA3 local 149,060.00 149,060.00 145,000.00 2.000% 146,435.50 semi - annual 07126/12 none 06101115 Saint Louis Park MN 791740ZJ5 AAA local 55,000.00 55,000.00 0 0.750% 55,064.35 semi - annual 10/17112 08/01/13 02101115 Chesterfield MO 166455EC5 AAA local 102,174.00 102,174.00 0 2.950% 100,799.00 semiannual 04/30/74 none 02115/15 Cook Cnty IL Cmnty Clg Dist #5 216129FD3 _ AAA local 196,228.20 196,228.20 0 2.000% 191,974.10 semi - annual 01/08/13 06/01/13 06/01/15 Palm Beach Cnty FLA 696497TP1 AAA local 226,296.00 226,296.00 *190,000.00 00 5.808°/ 206,414.00 semi - annual 03/14/11 none 06 /01/15 Johnson Cnty KS 478700J99 AAA local 257,290.00 257,290.00 00 2.000% 254,085.00 semi - annual 12/12/13 none 10!01!15 Madison WI 55844RFY5 AAA local 103,87000 103,82000 00 2.000% 101,611.00 semi - annual 10/07/12 04/01!13 10/01/15 Oregon School Boards Assn Zero Cpn 686053CE7 AA2 state 1423350 14,233.50 00 14,962.20 maturity 02108/12 none 06/30/15 Texas State 882722J28 AAA state 80,158.50 80,158.50 75,000.00 3.000% 76,922.25 semi - annual 03/28112 04/01/12 10/01/15 US Treasury Sec Stripped Zero Cpn 912833161 AAA US 49,889.30 49,889.30 244,000.00 5.000% 243,995.12 maturity 09/14/94 11!15!14 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EA6K9 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.410% 200,440.00 semi - annual 10129/12 04/29113 10/29/15 5,223,201.19 Portage County Bank 73565NAZ6 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.650% 252,575.64 monthly 07125111 none 11103115 Sterling Savings Bank 859532AH6 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.750% 248,768.80 semiannual 07131/13 01/31114 01129/16 Lake Forest Bank & Trust 509685ES8 CD 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.850% 200,684.00 semi - annual 08/14/13 02/14114 08/15/16 Luana Savings Bank 549103MY2 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.750% 249,111.04 semi - annual 08/16/13 02/16/14 08/16116 Synovus Bank GA 87164DFL9 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.800 °h 247,144.40 semi - annual 09110/14 03104/15 09106116 NCB Savings Bank FSB 628825JN2 CD 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 1.500% 99,414.00 semi - annual 07/25/14 01/25/15 07125/18 Barclays Bank 06740KHB6 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 245,900.85 semi - annual 07/03/14 01/02/15 07/02119 1,839,209.82 CD 2,847,671.80 local 91,884.45 state 444,435.12 US Less Than 1 Year October 2014 Investment Detail Description Cusip.Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity / Due Date Synchrony Bank 87164WBT4 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 245,666.20 semi - annual 07/11/14 01111/15 07/11/19 07/22119 PrivateBank B Trust Co _ Goldman Sachs Bank USA 74267G608 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.000% 245,50_5.65 semi - annual 07/21114 01/21115 38147JU59 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 245,453.78 semi - annual 07/23114 01123115 07/23119 Bangor Savings Bank Victory Bank Oshkosh Wis Storm Wtr Util 060243DV1 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 _245,000.00 1.000% 243,850.95 244,564.58 semi- annual 07130/14 01/30115 07/30/19 _ 09/24/19 05/01/18 04/15/19 09/01/18 04/01/19 92644LAB8 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.000% semi - annual 09/24/14 03124/15 68825RBD1 Al local 101,003.00 101,003.00 100,000.00 3.250% 104,310.00 semi - annual 10/05110 05/01/11 _ Oneida County NY 682454382 Al local 114,388.00 114,388.00 100,000.00 6.250% 110.476.00 semi - annual 08/16/10 none 03101109 Junction City Kansas 4815021`72 A2 local 101,558.00 101,558.00 100,000.00 5.500% 113,694.00_ semi- annual 05/28108 Barren Cnty KY 068437DM1 A2 local 43,996.00 43,996.00 40,000.00 4.300% 41,414.80 _semi-annual 02/08112 none Augusta ME A3 local 28,125.00 22,500.00 20,000.00 5.250% 21,442.00 semi - annual 03/07112 none 10/01/17 Chaska MN 161664DT1 AA local 71,663.20 71,663.20 70,000.00 2.000% 71,306.2_0 semi - annual 08115113 06101114 12101/15 Chaska MN 161664DU8 AA local 76,434.00 76,434.00 0 2.000% 77,154.75 semi - annual 08/15/13 06/01114 12/01/16 North Mankato MN Port Auth Com 660760AG4 AA local 107,657.00 107,657.00 0 4.000% 105,613.00 semi - annual 09/20113 none 02/01 r17 Philadelphia PA Auth Zero Coupon 71781LBJ7 AA local 161,700.00 161,700.00 0 234,714.90 maturity 01/12/10 none _04/15/17 Rice Cnty MN 762698GK8 AA local 45,466.80 45,466.80 L245,000.00 0 4.400% 44,605.20 semi - annual 03/07/12 none 02/01/19 Racine WI 7500216D4 AA- local 101,792.00 101,792.00 00 2.100% 102,921.00 semiannual 01/24/12 06/01/12 06/01/18 Minnethsta MN 604229KE3 AA+ local 15,000.00 15,000.00 00 2.450% 15,013.35 semiannual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01/19 Ramsey MN 751813PB6 AA+ local 158,677.85 158,677.85 00 4.500% 151,210.35 semi - annual 02/16/12 04/01116 04/01/19 Minneapolis Minn 60374YP35 AA1 local 21,269.40 21,269.40 20,000.00 3.250% 20,781.80 semi - annual 08/02/11 none 03/01/16 Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Cal 250097A85 AA1 local 137,668.95 137,668.95 135,000.00 1.375% 136,802.25 semiannual 07/30112 12/01/12 06/01/16 _ Osseo MN ISD #279 688443J27 AA1 local 30,103.25 30,103.25 25,000.00 6.000% 27,912.00 semi - annual 12122111 none _02/01/17 Dane County Wl Minneapolis MN King Cnty WA Minneapolis MN 236091M92 AA1 local 106,487.00 106,487.00 100,000.00 2.450% 103,781.00 semi - annual 07116/12 none none none 12/01111 12/01/13 12/01/17 60374YF93 AA1 local 220,938.00 220,938.00 200,000.00 4.000% 220,160.00 semi - annual 03/04/14 03/01/18 494746 -5 AA1 local 224,634.00 224,634.00 200,000.00 3.980% 217,484.00 semi - annual 03127112 12/01/18 60374YS73 _ AA1 local 111,898.00 111,898.00 217,672.00 100,000.00 3.250 % 1000% 3.170% 3.000% 4.000% 1.000% 108,539.00 211,476.00 205,314.00 77,127.00 semi - annual 1 06/11113 12/01/18 Cedar Rapids IA 150528RM1 AA1 local 217,672.00 208,324.00 79,373.25 74,939.20 105,652.05 200,000.00 semi - annual 06101/19 New York NY AA2 local 208,324.00 79,373.25 74,939.20 200,000.00 semi - annual 04107/14 12127/12 01/18/11 12/05/12 _0.6/01/11 12/01/15 Plainfield III _64966JAW6 726243LT3 AA2 local 75,000.00 semi - annual none none 08/01113 12115115 _ Duluth Minn ISO #709 264474CK1 AA2 local 70,000.00 71,965.60 semi- annual 02101116 Duluth MN 264438ZB1 AA2 local 105,652.05 105,000.00 105,705.60 semi - annual 02/01/16 Rowlett TX 77969861­17 AA2 local 101,905.55 101,905.55 95,000.00 3.000% 98,153.05 semi - annual 07/10/12 08/15112 02/15/16 Hopkins Minn ISD #270 439881HCO AA2 local 95,278.40 95,278.40 80,000.00 _ 89,450.40 semi - annual 04130/12_ 08101/09 02101118 Scott County IA 809486EZ2 AA2 local 114,450.33 112,617.00 100,000.00 _5.250% 4.400% 107,843.00 semi - annual 10131/12 12101/12 06/01118 Orange Beach ALA 68406PHF1 AA2 local 241,689.60 241,689.60 240,000.00 4.400% 252,952.80 semi - annual 08105110 02/01111 02101/19 Waterloo IA 941647PA1 AA2 local 50,559.50 50,559.50 50,000.00 50,673.00 semi - annual _06/27/13 12/01/13 06/01/19 Western Lake Superior MN 958522WU4 AA2 coal 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 _2.000% 3.150% 103,857.00 semi - annual 08/16/11 04/01112 10/01/19 East Bethel Minn 271074HRO AA3 local 100,941.00 100,941.00 100,000.00 3.200% 102,372.00 semi - annual 12115/10 08/01/11 02101/16 Kane McHenry Cook & De Kalb Zero Cpn 484080MB9 AA3 local 157,328.00 157,328.00 200,000.00 177,404.00 maturity 07116112 none 12101118 Hinsdale IL 433416LW2 AAA local 118,011.85 118,011.85 115,000.00 2.000% 117,119.45 semiannual 04/23114 12/15114 12/15/15 Three Rivers MN Park Dist 885718GG5 AAA local 210,828.00 210,828.00 200,000.00 3.000 % 206,794.00 semi - annual 12/12113 08/01114 02101/16 Maple Grove MN 56516PNY5 AAA local 230,520.40 230,520.40 220,000.00 2.000% 225,456.00 semi - annual 01/10113 08/01/13 02101/17 Ramsey Cnty MN 751622JG7 AAA local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 _ 1.130% 100,368.00 semi - annual 08/12/14 02/01/15 02/01/17 Tennessee Valley Auth 880591EA6 AAA local 93,153.11 93,153.11 85,000.00 5.500% 94,971.35 semi - annual 06/01/09 01/18/08 07118117 Washington County MN 937791KL4 AAA local 115,000.00 115,000.00 115,000.00 3.750% 120,529.20 semiannual 07/01/10 01101/11 01/01/18 2,768,639.89 CD October 2014 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity I Due Date Saint Louis Park MN 79174OWC3 AAA local 112,114.00 112,114.00 100,000.00 3.850% 107,704.00 semi - annual 12/22/11 none 02/01/18 Brownsville TX ISO Zero Coupon 116421E46 AAA local 229,640.00 229,640.00 250,000.00 230,947.50 maturity 06/26113 none 08/15/18 Minnetonka MN ISD #276 604195RA7 AAA local 37,433.20 37,433.20 35,000.00 3.100% 35,804.30 semi - annual 12/22/11 none 02/01119 Palm Beach Cnty FLA 696491 AAA local 256,504.60 256,504.60 220,000.00 5.898% 247,319.60 semi - annual 07/06111 none _ 06/01119 Tenn Val Auto Cpn Strip Zero Cpn 88059EWZ3 AAA local 262,890.00 262,890.00 300,000.00 273,693.00 maturity 12127/13 none 06/15119 Norwalk Conn 668844DS9 AAA local 122,464.80 122,464.80 120,000.00 4.050% 125,925.60 semi - annual 08/04/10 08/01/11 08101/19 Greensboro NC 39546OV21 AAA local 366 ,832.80 366,832.80 360,000.00 3.263% 372,286.80 semi - annual 07115/11 none 10/01/19 Illinois State 452152HR5 A3 state 217,312.00 217,312.00 200,000.00 4.961% 208,938.00 semi - annual 07116/12 09101/11 03101/16 Washington State 939758DL9 AA state 205,804.00 205,804.00 200,000.00 4.500% 217,520.00 semi- annual 01124112 04101/12 10/01/18 Oregon State 68608URVO AA1 state 70,194.60 70,194.60 70,000.00 0.890% 70,650.30 semi - annual 07/29/14 08101113 08101/16 Mississippi State 605581BV8 AA2 state 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 1.116% 25,324.00 208,604.00 26,811.75 106,204.00 200,024.00 semi - annual 09/12113 none 12101116 Tennessee State 880541QM2 AAA state 201,894.00 201,894.00 200,000.00 2.326% semi - annual semi - annual semi - annual semi - annual_ 10/26111 02/01112 08/01117 Georgia State 373384RQ1 AAA state 26,742.50 26,742.50 25,000.00 2.970% 02/08/12 none 10/01/18 Texas State Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp 882722J51 AAA state 103,089.00 103,089.00 100,000.00 2.891 08/10/11 07/15/14 04/01/12 10/01/18 3134G4YD4 AAA US 200,084.00 200,084.00 200,000.00 0.500% 10/01/14 04/01/16 Fed Home Ln Bank Fed Farm Credit Bank 3130A1XZ6 3133EATE8 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA US US US US US US US US US US US US US 200,880.00 99,647.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 224,325.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 200,000.00 198,000.00 200,880.00 99,647.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 224,325.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 225,000.00 200,000.00 1.375% 200,216.00 semi - annual 07/14/14 12/05/14 06/05/17 0.900% 100,263.00 semi - annual 11/04/13 12108/12 06/08117 Fed Nall Mtg Assn 3136GOS69 3130AIM6 3136G16E4 3136G1AJ8 3133ECFA7 0.600% 249,395.00 semi - annual 07122114 04130/13 10/30117 _ Fed Home Ln Bank 1.300% 199,316.00 semi - annual 03/27/14 09/27114 12127/17 _ Fed Natl Mtg Assn 0.600% 224,356.50 semi- annual 07/11114 none 12/28/17 Fed Nall Mtg Assn 0.700% 199,480.00 semi - annual 01/30/13 07/30113 01/30118 _ Fed Farm Credit Bank 100,000.00 100,000.00 1.080% 99,135.00 semi - annual 02/13113 08/13/13 02113/18 03127/18 06/12/18 07/30118 08/01118 11/26/18 12/28/18 01130/19 03104/19 08125118 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Tenn Note Fed Home Ln Mlg Corp 3134G4XK9 3134G46D5 3134G3ZK9 31331Y4S6 3130AOFN5 3136GORB9 3136GOY70 3133EC5NO _AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.300% 200,642.00 semi - annual 03/27/14 09127/14 198,000.00 200,000.00 1.200% 199,212.00 semi - annual 06112/13 12/12/13 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Mad Term Note Fed Farm Credit Bank 200,000.00 114,000.00 200,000.00 294,999.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.200% 198,390.00 semi - annual 07/30/12 01/30/13 114,000.00 100,000.00 5.050% 114,332.00 semi - annual 09111/13 none _ Fed Home Ln Bank 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.500% 200,032.00 semi - annual 12/26/13 05/26/14 Fed Nall Mtg Assn 294,999.00 300,000.00 1.375% 298,071.00 semiannual 12/05/13 10/30/12 01/07113 12128/12 01130/13 03/04/13 Fed Natl Mtg Assn US 199,300.00 199,300.00 200,000.00 1.080% 195,102.00 semi - annual Fed Farm Credit Bank Fed Nall Mtg Assn Remic FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp US 99,587.00 204,187.50 99,587.00 15,326.84 236,235.00 8,672.55 100,000.00 15,012.52 250,000.00 8,466.16 1.250% 4.500% 98,427.00 semi - annual 31391 US 15,759.54 monthly 07/30103 none 31771EAA9 US 236,235.00 237,877.50 maturity 06 /09114 none 05/11118 31393VMQ1 US 153,656.25 4.500% 8,870.25 monthly 06/30/03 06115/18 12,814,140.58 Celtic Bank 15118RJM0 CO 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 246,552.93 semi - annual 12120/13 06/20/14 12120/19 Citizens Alliance Bank _ 17311 _ CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 2.000% 247,269.45 monthly 06/27/14 07/27/14 06/26/20_ Enerbank USA 29266NA31 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 2.100% 247,214.67 monthly 07/18/14 08/18/14 07/20120 Rockford IL 77316QJY6 1616636S3 Al AA local local 102,867.00 115,122.70 102,867.00 115,122.70 100,000.00 110,000.00 100,000.00 5.250% 4.000% 6.000% 4.500_% _3.100_% 5.000% 100,593.00 113,787.30 112,905.00 263,435.00 195,107.25 26,853.25 semi - annual 05/07/14 none 12115/21 Chaska MN _ semi - annual 09108/14 none 02/01/24 Mitchell SD Sch Dist #17-2 606687EHO AA local 116,702.00 116,702.00 semi - annual 12120/11 06/15119 06/15124 Steams Co MN 857896MH4 AA+ local 276,875.00 276,875.00 250,000.00 semi - annual 04117113 none 06/01120 Minnetrista MN 604229KG8 AA+ local 196,265.55 196,265.55 195,000.00 semi - annual 10110113 08/01/14 02101/21 Greenway MN ISO#31 39678LDF6 AA+ local 27,593.50 27,593.50 25,000.00 semi- annual 07/09113 none 03115121 5,942,547.85 local 864,052.05 state 3,238,900.79 US 1- 5 Years 741,037.05 CD October 2014 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value $ P r�'I Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity ) Due Date Minnelrista MN 604229KJ2 AA- local 50,000.00 1981018.00 50,000.00 198,018.00 278,632.50 110,419.00 286,268.00 108,820.00 50,000.00 3.850% 50,041.50 semi - annual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01/23 Savage Minn Minneapolis MN 80465PAN4 AA+ local 200,000.00 4.800% 211,182.00 semi - annual 06/17/10 02/01/11 02/01124 60374YS81 AA1 local 278,632.50 250,000.00 3.500% 272,605.00 semi - annual 02126/13 none 12/01/19 Minneapolis MN 60374YG68 AA1 local 110,419.00 100,000.00 4.700% 109,784.00 semi - annual 10/31/11 none 03101/23 Portsmouth VA 73723RSL8 AA2 local 286,268.00 295,000.00 2.400% 299,445.65 semi - annual 07/17/13 02101/14 02101/20 Moorhead MN 6161412R7 AA3 local 108,820.00 100,000.00 3.800% 101,788.00 semi - annual 11/14/11 none 02/01/20 Davenport Iowa 238388GS5 AA3 AA3 _ AA3 AAA local 111,948.00 111,948.00 100,000.00 4.650% 106,339.00 semi- annual 09/13/11 06/01120 Whitewater Wis 966204KA6 local local local 109,541.00 111,480.00 123,037.35 116,900.00 109,541.00 100,000.00 4.850% 112,422.00 semi - annual 06109/11 _none none 12/01/20 Hawkins Cnty TN 420218PL7 97913PCQ7 111,480.00 100,000.00 4.800% 106,354.00 semi - annual 03/13/12 none 05101/24 Woodbury MN 123,037.35 115,000.00 12509/. 117,482.85 semiannual 12/22111 none_ 02101/20 Dallas TX Indpt Sch Dist Tenn Valley Auth Zero Cpn Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn 235308QK2 AAA local 116,900.00 10_0,000.00 4.450% 111,717.00 semi - annual 04/16/12 08/15/11 02/15/20 88059EHD9 88059EMX9 604195PQ4 825214EH8 3416OWUAO AAA local 263,970.00 263,970.00 300,000.00 262,998.00 maturity 03/11113 none 05101/20 AAA local 88,133.00 88,133.00 100,000.00 88,141.00 maturity none 07/15/20 _ Minnetonka MN ISO #276 _ Shoreview MN Florida St Dept Environmental AAA local 23,491.73 23,016.40 20,000.00 _ 6.200% 21,336.40 semiannual _03/18/13 11119/12 none 01/01121 AAA local 197,205.75 197,205.75 175,000.00 4.900% 178,475.50 _ semi - annual 01/25/12 none 02/01/24 Al state 217,800.00 217,800.00 200,000.00 6.20_6% 228,422.00 semi - annual 08/30/10 07101/22 Minnesota St Hsg Fin Agy Taxable 60415NE24 AA1 state 75,562.50 75,562.50 75,000.00 6.300% 77,515.50 semi - annual 07/27106 _07/01/10 07/01/23 Virginia State 928109XD4 AAA state 22,126.00 22,126.00 20,000.00 4.100% 21,367.60 semi - annual 02/07112 _01101/07 none 06/01121 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133ECQ64 AAA US _ 191,812.00 191,812.00 200,000.00 1.740% 196,768.00 semi- annual 07/23/13 11/21/13 05/21/20 Fed Home Ln Bank .._— 3133803H8 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.500% 195,738.00 semi - annual 07/30/12 01/30/13 07/30/24 ._. _ 4,423,640.85 Itasca County Minn 465452GP9 A local 105,024.00 105,024.00 100,000.00 5.550% 104,438.00 semi- annual 07/12/11 none 02/01/28 Lake City Minn ISD #813 508084DW7 Ai- local 103,933.00 103,933.00 100,000.00 5.000% 106,293.00 semi - annual__ 05/11111 none 02/01125 Mllaca Minn ISO #912 598699NT9 AA- local 106,941.00 106,941.00 100,000.00 5.650% 108,588.00 semi - annual 07122/11 none 02/01/27 Duluth MN 264438ZL9 AA2 local 29,767.20 29,767.20 30,000.00 2.625% 28,212.60 semi - annual 12/05/12 08/01/13 02/01125 Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon 9690784M9 AA2 local 159,000.00 159,000.00 500,000.00 268,515.00 maturity 08/25/09 none 11/01/27 Van Buren Mich Public Schools 91 AA2 local 102,750.00 102,750.00 100,000.00 6.430% 112,279.00 semi - annual 07/17109 11/01 /09 05101/29 Tennessee Valley Auth Ser E 880591CJ9 AAA local 121,500.00 121,500.00 100,000.00 6.750% 134,439.00 semi - annual 03/19109 none 11101/25 Ice Deposit- National Sports Center none local 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 maturity 02/06/08 none 01101/26 Fed Farm Credit Bank 31331VLC8 AAA US 106,030.45 106,030.45 100,000.00 5.250% 123,544.00 semiannual 02126/10 none 04/21/28 Fed Nall Mtg Assn 31391 AAA US 218,100.00 218,100.00 200,000.00 5.380% 200,256.00 semi - annual 12124/12 none 11/13/28 Fed Nall Mtg Assn 3136FTP94 AAA US 361,069.20 361,069.20 360,000.00 2.000% 359,208.00 semi - annual 12/13112 none 02/27/32 1,795,772.60 _ 24,256,755.22 2,962,792.70 local 327,305.10 state 392,506.00 US 6 -10 Years 1,112,764.60 local 683,008.00 US 10+ Years INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds October 31, 2014 Description Current Market Value YTD Interest t Wells Fargo Government Money Market Fund 1 $2,700,468.891 $227.16 I 14M 1 1,892.521 - I 14M Plus 3,100.71 $2,705,462.12 $227.76 Updated. 1111212014