HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - February 23,2016lirti) , Tk Toni rok
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOIA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Conference Rooms A & B
1. Call to Order — 6:00 p.m.
2. Discuss Emerald Ash Borer Management /15 -28 -Engineering
3. Discuss Hazardous Tree Policy - Engineering
4. Discuss Subordinate Classroom Structures — Planning
5. Discuss Accessory Dwelling Units - Planning
6. Discuss Solar Energy System Regulations - Planning
7. Discuss Animal Regulations - Planning
8. Discuss Four Counties' Metro Governance Proposal — Administration
9. January 2016 Budget Progress Report — Administration
10. January 2016 City Investments Review — Administration
11. Other Business
12. Adjournment
C I T Y O F
ND OVE
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
David D. Berkowitz, Director of Pub ' ks /City Engineer
From: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources
Subject: Discuss Emerald Ash Borer Management/15 -28 - Engineering
Date: February 23, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a devastating insect that attacks all species of ash trees. It was found
in St. Paul in 2009, and since then has popped up in several other cities. It was most recently found in
Ham Lake in March, which was the first find in Anoka County. Since first being found near Detroit,
Michigan in 2002, this insect has killed millions of ash trees in Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,
Wisconsin and some Canadian provinces.
The City has an EAB Management Plan that has primarily been on standby for the last few years. Now
that EAB has been found in Ham Lake, it's necessary to plan for the eventual appearance in Andover.
DISCUSSION
The following are some points of discussion:
• Should the City REQUIRE the removal and proper treatment of infected ash trees?
• Should the City provide financial assistance to residents for chemical treatments? Staff has
drafted a potential cost -share assistance program that could be used (see draft "City of Andover
Ash Injection Program."
• The City will need to decide if chemical treatments should be used on select ash trees on public
properties; and
• An EAB budget may need to be created to cover costs of management.
ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is requested to come ready for discussion, review the updated City ordinance and
provide comments as needed.
F'fu"Ym subitted,
on K en
Natural Resources Technician
Attach: City Code 4 -3
City of Andover Management Plan/Program
Diseased Tree Removal /Sanitation Enforcement Policy
City of Andover Ash Injection Program
CHAPTER 3
SHADE TREES
SECTION:
DRAFT
4 -3 -1:
Declaration Of Policy
4 -3 -2:
Natural Resources Technician (NRT)
4 -3 -3:
Tree Commission (Rep. By Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -4:
Tree Contractors
4 -3 -5:
Epidemic Disease Program
4 -3 -6:
Nuisances Declared
4 -3 -7:
Nuisances Prohibited
4 -3 -8:
Inspections And Investigations
4 -3 -9:
Abatement By City Of Epidemic Tree Disease Nuisances
4 -3 -10:
Procedure For Abatement Of Infected Trees And Wood
4 -3 -11:
Spraying Trees
4 -3 -12:
Transporting Epidemic Diseased Wood
4 -3 -13:
Requirements For Developers
4 -3 -14:
Violation; Penalty
4 -3 -1: DECLARATION OF POLICY: The City Council has determined
that the health of elm, oak, ash and pine trees within the city is threatened by
fatal diseases known as Dutch elm disease, oak wilt, emerald ash borer and pine
bark beetle. It has further determined that the loss of elm, oak, ash, pine and
other species of trees growing upon public and private property would
substantially depreciate the value of property within the city, and impair the
safety, good order, general welfare and convenience of the public. It is declared
to be the intention of the City Council to preserve shade trees as well as to
control and prevent the spread of these diseases, apd other epidemic diseases
of shade trees and hazardous trees by enacting this chapter in conjunction with
the Tree Preservation Policy, Diseased Tree Removal /Sanitation Enforcement
Policy and Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan /Program . (Ord. 305, 2 -24-
2005)
4 -3 -2: NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN (NRT):
A. Positions Created: The position of Natural Resources Technician is
hereby created within the city. The NRT must be a Certified Tree
Inspector (CTI) as determined by the Minnesota Oeanmissioner
Department of Agriculture and /or Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
DRAFT
B. Duties: It is the duty of the NRT to coordinate, under the direction and
control of the Council, all activities of the city relating to the control and
prevention of Dutch elm disease, and oak wilt, emerald ash borer, the
G^F� of the pine bark beetle, a.PA other epidemic diseases of shade
trees and hazardous trees. The NRT will be responsible for establishing
and prioritizing control areas, promulgate rules, regulations, standards and
specifications to be approved by the City Council, and advise the City
Council of appropriate actions.
C. Interference Prohibited: It is unlawful for any person to prevent, delay or
interfere with the NRT or their designee while engaged in the
performance of the duties imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 305, 2 -24-
2005)
4 -3 -3: TREE COMMISSION: (Rep. by Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -4: TREE CONTRACTORS:
A. License Required: It shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership or
corporation to conduct, as a business for profit, the cutting, trimming,
pruning, removing, spraying or otherwise treating of trees, shrubs or
vines in the city without first having secured a license from the city to
conduct such business.
B. Application For License: Application for a license under this chapter
shall be made at the office of the City Clerk. The application for a
license shall be made on a form approved by the city which shows,
among other things, the name and address of the applicant, the
number and names of the employees of the applicant, the number of
vehicles of the applicant, together with a description and license
number of each, and the type of equipment proposed to be used.
C. Insurance Requirements: No license or renewal of a license shall be
granted, nor shall the same be effective, until the applicant has filed with
the City Clerk a certificate of insurance evidencing the holding of liability
insurance and the limits required by Minnesota Statutes and proof of
workers' compensation insurance. The city shall be named and the
insurance provided shall include the city as an additional party insured.
Said policy shall provide that it may not be canceled by the insurer except
after ten (10) days' written notice to the city, and if such insurance is so
canceled and licensee shall fail to replace the same with another policy
conforming to the provisions of this chapter, said license shall be
automatically suspended until such insurance shall have been replaced.
DRAFT
D. License Fees: Fees shall be in such amounts as set forth by this code'.
E. Chemical Treatment Requirements: Applicants who propose to use
chemical substances in any activity related to treatment or disease
control of trees, shrubs or vines shall file with the City Clerk proof that the
applicant or an employee of the applicant administering such treatment
has been certified by the Agronomy Division of the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture as a commercial pesticide applicator for
category "E: Turf and Ornamentals" if the chemical and /or type of
application warrants it. Such certification shall include knowledge of tree
disease chemical treatment. (Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
1 See section 1 -7 -3 of this code.
DRAFT
4 -3 -5: EPIDEMIC DISEASE PROGRAM: It is the intention of the Council
to conduct a program of plant pest control pursuant to the authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 18G, as amended, directed at the control and
elimination of Dutch elm disease, oak wilt disease, emerald ash borer aed pine
bark beetle other tree diseases and hazardous trees and is
undertaken at the recommendation of the Minnesota Commissioner Department
of Agriculture and /or Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (Ord. 305, 2-
24 -2005)
4 -3 -6: NUISANCES DECLARED: The following are public nuisances:
A. Any elm tree or part thereof infected to any degree with either of two (2)
species of Dutch elm disease fungi, Ophiostoma ulmi and Ophiostoma
novo -ulmi, or which harbors any of the elm bark beetles, Scolytus
multistriatus or Hylurgopinus rufipes.
B. Any dead elm tree or part thereof, including logs, branches, stumps,
firewood or other elm material not properly covered and sealed from
which the bark has not been removed or sprayed with an effective elm
bark beetle insecticide; except, that the stockpiling of uncovered bark
bearing elm wood shall be permitted during the period from September
15 to April 1 of any year.
C. Any northern red oak (Quercus rubra), northern pin oak (Quercus
ellipsoidalis), black oak (Quercus velutina) and scarlet oak (Quercus
coccinea), or part thereof, infected to any degree with the oak wilt
disease, Ceratocystis fagacearum.
D. Any liViRg or sta" white oak (Quercus alba), bur oak (Quercus
macrocarpa) and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), that poses a threat
of transmission of the oak wilt disease to other trees of the same species
through interconnected root systems.
E. Any diseased material of the red oak group that is potentially spore
producing (PSP).
F. Any ash tree (Fraxinus spp.) or part thereof, infected to any degree with
emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis.
G. Any standing pine tree infected with the pine bark beetles, Ips
pini, Ips perroti or Ips grandicollis.
H. Any standing dead pine tree that has been dead under one and one -half
(1 1/2) years.
DRAFT
Any exposed pine tree slash or logs cut from live trees or from trees
that have been dead under one and one -half (1 1/2) years. (Ord. 305,
2 -24 -2005)
J. Any tree deemed by the NRT as "hazardous." This is a tree that has
structural defects in the roots, stem and /or branches, that may cause
the tree to fail; where if it fell, would land within a public right -of -way or
property owned by another person or entity and has a target that
would be compromised.
4 -3 -7: NUISANCES PROHIBITED: It is unlawful for any person to permit
the spread of a public nuisance as defined in this chapter across his or her
property lines and in any specified control areas as established by the city. Such
nuisances shall be abated in the manner prescribed in Section 4 -3 -10 of this
chapter. (Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -8: INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS:
A. Annual Inspections and Investigations Required:
1. The NRT shall inspect all premises and places within the city as often
as practicable to determine whether any condition described in Section 4-
3-6 of this chapter exists thereon.
2. The NRT shall investigate all reported incidents of infestation of Dutch
elm disease, oak wilt, emerald ash borer, pine bark beetle, other diseases
of shade trees and hazardous trees as necessary to determine whether
any condition described in section 4 -3 -6 of this chapter exists.
B. Entry Powers: The NRT or their designee may enter upon private
premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out any of
the duties assigned to them under this chapter.
C. Diagnoses:
1. The NRT shall make the initial identification of an infected area
whenever possible.
2. The NRT may send appropriate specimens or samples to the
Minnesota Commissioner Department of Agriculture, University of
Minnesota or any state certified testing lab for analysis.
3. A property owner or contractor who becomes aware of any condition
described in Section 4 -3 -6 of this chapter shall notify the NRT within seven
DRAFT
(7) days. (Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -9: ABATEMENT BY CITY OF EPIDEMIC TREE DISEASE
NUISANCES:
A. No person shall allow, permit the spread of, or fail to abate a public
nuisance as defined in this chapter. Such nuisances shall be abated in
the manner prescribed in this chapter.
B. The NRT shall enforce the treatment of nuisances by requiring the
performance of one or more of the following tasks in order to destroy and
prevent the spread of epidemic diseases of shade trees, including, but not
limited to, Dutch elm disease, oak wilt disease, emerald ash borer or pine
bark beetle and those trees deemed as hazardous. Such abatement
procedures shall be carried out in accordance with current technical and
expert opinions and plans as may be designated by the Minnesota
Commissioner Department of Agriculture, Department of Natural
Resources or the University of Minnesota. Abatement procedures are as
follows:
1. Root graft barrier installation (vibratory plowing or trenching) at least
forty eight inches (48 ") deep in the soil to isolate the diseased trees;
2. Removal of trees;
3. Stump grinding;
4. Burning, chipping, debarking or properly covering and sealing the
potentially hazardous wood and /or stumps;
5. Fungicide injections into healthy and /or infected oaks, ash or elms with
the appropriate chemical to avoid or minimize the effects of oak wilt,
emerald ash borer or Dutch elm disease;
6. Spraying the infected trees and /or all nearby high value trees with an
effective disease destroying concentrate.
7. Other treatment methods as approved by the NRT. (Ord. 305, 2 -24-
2005)
4 -3 -10: PROCEDURE FOR ABATEMENT OF INFECTED AND
HAZARDOUS TREES AND WOOD:
A. Nuisance Declared; Notice; Appeal: Upon the determination of conditions
constituting a nuisance as described in Section 4 -3 -6 of this chapter
located on property within the City of Andover, excluding city property, the
DRAFT
NRT shall declare the existence of a public nuisance and order abatement
thereof. The process used is outlined in the Diseased Tree
Removal /Sanitation Enforcement Policy. The NRT shall send written
notification to the owner of the nuisance declaration and the necessary
abatement procedures. A property owner who disagrees with the
determination of the NRT may appeal the determination to the City
Council. Such appeal must be filed in writing with the City Clerk and within
ten (10) days of receipt of notice of the determination by the NRT. The
City Council shall consider the appeal at the next scheduled regular City
Council meeting. The City Council shall affirm, reverse or modify the
determination.
B. Failure To Abate; Contract For Abatement; Costs: Should a property
owner fail to abate the nuisance, or be unwilling or unable to abate the
nuisance, as prescribed by the NRT, the NRT or their designee shall then
proceed to contract for the prescribed abatement procedure as soon as
possible and shall report to the City Clerk all charges resulting from the
abatement procedures carried out on such private property. The City Clerk
shall list all such charges along with a city administrative cost against each
separate lot or parcel by September 1 of each year as special
assessments to be collected commencing with the following year's taxes.
Administrative costs as set by City Council ordinance shall be assessed
for each parcel and shall be added to each assessment. All assessments
levied for the repayment of tree disease abatement cost may be repaid
over a five (5) year period. Such assessments shall be levied under
authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101.
C. Imminent Danger Of Infestation: If the NRT finds that danger of
infestation of epidemic diseases in shade trees is imminent, the NRT
shall notify the abutting property owners by mail that the nuisance shall
be abated within a specified time. (Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -11: SPRAYING TREES:
Whenever the NRT determines that any tree or wood within the city is infected
with disease, the NRT may require spraying of all nearby high value trees, as
determined by the NRT, with an effective disease destroying concentrate.
Spraying activities authorized by this section shall be conducted in accordance
with technical and expert opinions and plans of the University of Minnesota or the
Minnesota r^^,^ ,e Department of Agriculture and under the supervision of
the University of Minnesota or the Minnesota Gemmi66iene Department of
Agriculture, or agents thereof, whenever possible. (Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -12: TRANSPORTING EPIDEMIC DISEASED WOOD: It is unlawful for
DRAFT
any person to transport within the city any diseased wood that is determined to
be hazardous, as described in, but not limited to, Section 4 -3 -6 of this chapter,
without taking the appropriate precautions. All county, state and federal
quarantines shall be respected, and regulated articles may not be brought into or
out of the City without an approved compliance agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture. (Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -13: REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPERS:
A. Protection Of Trees: A tree protection plan is to be submitted by all
developers, builders and soil disturbance project area facilitators in
accordance with the city Tree Preservation Policy.
B. Required Tree Plantings:
1. Tree Planting Required; Specifications: For lots of record created after
the adoption of this chapter, it shall be the responsibility of the developer of
said lot to plant a minimum of two (2) live trees or one tree per fifty feet
(50') of lot width at the boulevard in the front yard, whichever is greater, up
to a maximum of four (4) required trees. Said trees shall be at least one
and three - fourths inches (1 3/4 ") in diameter and six feet (6') in height as
measured at ground level after the trees are planted. Said tree shall be
planted between the months of April and October, and its species and /or
type shall be on the list approved by the city.
2. Cash Escrow Or Letter Of Credit: The developer is required to escrow an
amount based on that provided in Section 1 -7 -3 of this code for the cost of
tree installation with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit.
Landscaping improvements may not be deemed complete until the city has
verified survivability of all required plantings through one "winter season ",
which is defined for the purpose of this chapter as the period October 31
through May 31.
3. Exemptions: The requirements in this subsection shall not apply to a
developer if the minimum number of trees prescribed by this subsection are
preserved in the front yard of the property and the trees meet the
requirements listed above. (Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
4 -3 -14: VIOLATION; PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation who
violates any section of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be subject to a misdemeanor penalty as then defined by
Minnesota law. Additionally, the city may exercise any civil remedy available
under Minnesota law for the enforcement of this code including civil action,
mandamus, injunctive relief, declaratory action, or the levying of assessments.
(Ord. 305, 2 -24 -2005)
City of Andover Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan/Program
PURPOSE
The City of Andover supports a proactive approach to identifying and planning for Emerald Ash
Borer (EAB) infestations to help spread the costs over a manageable time period and limit the
detrimental effect on property value, quality of life and the environment.
APPLICABILITY
This management plan is applicable to all public and private properties within the City.
EAB COORDINATOR
The Natural Resources Technician (NRT) shall be responsible for implementing and overseeing
this program.
HISTORY OF EAB
EAB (Agrilus planipennis) is an introduced pest that has been confirmed in fourteen (14) states,
including Minnesota, and two (2) Canadian provinces. It was first discovered near Detroit,
Michigan in July 2002. Since its initial finding, millions of ash trees have died and it's cost
states, municipalities, nurseries, forest industries and property owners millions of dollars.
EAB attacks all species of ash trees ( Fraxinus spp.) found in Minnesota, which include green ash
( Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black ash ( Fraxinus nigra) and white ash ( Fraxinus americana).
Minnesota is home to more than 900 million ash trees statewide. Mountain ash are not of the
Fraxinus genus, so are unaffected by EAB.
By the end of 2010, EAB has had been confirmed in three (3) Minnesota counties: Hennepin,
Ramsey and Houston. As of July 2015, it's also been found in Anoka County, as it was found in
Ham Lake in March of 2015. It is uncertain when EAB will move beyond the known infestation
sites and impact Andover.
While the adult beetles feed on ash leaves and do little damage, the larvae feed on the inner bark
of trees, disrupting its ability to transport water and nutrients up to the canopy. As the number of
larvae in a tree increases, less water and nutrients reach the canopy, resulting in dieback in the
canopy. Initial attacks tend to be in the upper portions of the canopy. By the time visible
symptoms are obvious, the population of EAB has grown and likely spread to other ash trees in
the area.
RECOGNITION OF EAB
Signs /symptoms of EAB that can help detect an infestation include:
• Increased woodpecker activity /damage
• Bark splitting (vertical slits)
• Canopy dieback
• D- shaped exit holes created by adult insects as they emerge from the tree
• Epicormic branching/shoots near base of tree
• Serpentine (s- shaped) larval galleries that are packed with frass
EDUCATION
The City will continue to educate residents and elected officials concerning EAB using
newsletter articles, segments on QCTV, the website and public and group presentations.
TRAINING
The NRT will stay informed about EAB outbreaks and research, including outcomes of the pilot
programs with wasps. City staff will be trained by the NRT to aid in City planning, responsible
tree removal and disposal and coordination of City response.
INVENTORY
A local ash tree inventory will allow the City to determine what is at stake, help determine which
areas should rank as priority management areas and help with overall planning efforts.
Currently, the NRT has begun recording GPS locations of ash trees while in the field. Data
collected includes number, size, condition and management recommendations.
Conducting a broader sample survey or complete inventory provides these benefits:
• Provide the percentage of public and private trees that consist of ash species
• Help plan for budget impacts for removal and replacement of trees
• Locate priority areas for tree management plans
• To forecast potential impacts of infected trees on private property
• Estimate volume of wood potentially requiring disposal
• Identify homeowner associations that may benefit from education and planning
DETECTION AND MONITORING
Staff will continue to inspect public and private properties, both on request and during routine
inspections. Suspect trees will be carefully analyzed. Sampling mechanisms to be used will be
consistent with Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) guidelines and will include but not
be limited to visually looking at all parts of the tree, branch removal and bark shaving with a
drawknife. Staff from the MDA will be contacted if EAB is suspected or confirmed in a tree. If
staff detects an early infection which is limited to a few trees, the City may encourage tree
removal to slow the rate of spread.
As in the past, the City will volunteer to allow MDA to set up purple traps in trees on public and
private properties (with permission), to determine a presence of beetles in the City. The traps use
a sticky substance to trap the beetles.
ORDINANCE REVISION
The City will revise its diseased tree ordinance to include EAB as a threat to the urban and
community forest. The ordinance amendment will specify requirements for proper management
of EAB infested trees.
ASH TREE REMOVAL
• Public trees (as authorized by the EAB Coordinator):
• Any boulevard tree found to be positively infected with EAB will be removed
• Any park tree in a landscape setting infected with EAB will be removed
• Trees in wooded areas in a park that are positively infected with EAB and deemed
a safety hazard will be removed. All other cases will be looked at on a case by
case basis
• Any stressed tree may be removed
• Any tree may be removed, if determined appropriate; reasons may include under
power line, safety hazard, near infection center, etc.
• Private trees:
o EAB Coordinator will advise property owners of available options. Details on
removal requirements will be specified in approved diseased tree ordinance.
TREE DISPOSAL AND UTILIZATION
Approved options for proper disposal of wood positively infected with EAB:
• Transporting the wood to an approved disposal site
• Chipping the wood to dimensions no greater than 1" x 1" x 1"
• Burning
• De- barking (removing all bark and at least 0.5" of outer wood)
• Treatment (including heat treating, kiln drying, fumigating, seasoning or another method
approved by the MDA)
The NRT will continue to seek creative, cost effective ways to utilize ash trees. Examples may
include finding a small scale logger who has a special market for ash or a property owner with a
sawmill who makes unique products out of ash.
PLANTING
Ash will no longer be planted on public properties or recommended to be planted on private
properties. Ash trees have been removed from the "City of Andover Tree Planting
Recommendations" handout.
Staff will encourage planting other species. Native species found from common seed sources are
highly recommended. The City will also plant a variety of species, as diverse plantings reduce
impacts of insect or disease outbreaks.
CHEMICAL TREATMENTS
Currently, there are no cost - effective treatments for widespread city consideration.
The EAB Coordinator will provide consultation and information to help property owners devise
treatment plans, as requested. Information will include the handout "Homeowner Guide to
Insecticide Selection, Use and Environmental Protection." Staff will advocate for responsible
application of chemicals that can be done by a non lieensed per-so . For chemicals that require
professional application, only Certified Pesticide Applicators shall be recommended.
BUDGET
The City Forestry Fund will include a new category called "EAB Fund" and will may fund this
plan beginning in 204-1 2016 with a $5,000 allotment. Each year, an additional $5,000 may be
added.
The NRT will continue to seek grant opportunities to fund this plan.
PARTNERSHIPS /CURRENT ACTIVITIES
The City will continue to work with the MDA, DNR, Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory
Committee (MnSTAC) and neighboring communities.
The NRT is was a board member of MnSTAC and as event chairman of the Forest Health
Committee in 2011, is OF!EiRg an hosting hosted a discussion on EAB for communities around
the state.
The City held a meeting with neighboring communities in August 2009, and plans to hold more
meetings in the future. Included local units of government include the Cities of Blaine, Coon
Rapids, Ham Lake, Ramsey and Anoka County Parks. Regular meetings will allow for idea and
resource sharing and a regional EAB program that is consistent and cost effective.
SUMMARY
EAB poses a serious threat to Andover's urban and community forest. The City will implement
this EAB Management Plan/Program to the extent feasible. This management plan is dynamic
and subject to revision(s) as new information about EAB becomes available and/or as new
treatment options are identified. Furthermore, this plan is also subject to revision should state
and /or federal policies necessitate plan updates.
2044 2015/2016 TASKS /GOALS
• Present plan to and train City staff about EAB
• Send in f r.. atio on 1; A ZZ t„ A..de or i ; see Tree Care !'..m..anie..
• Meet with neighboring communities (Ramsey, Ham Lake, Blaine, Coon Rapids and
Anoka County Parks)
• Continue inventory
• Remove stressed ash trees in boulevards and parks
• Prepare education materials on EAB for public events, newsletter & website
• Have booth and/or presentation at Home Show
• Establish Budget to be included in the City 24�2 2016 Annual Budget
CONTACTS
EAB Coordinator: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician: 763 - 767 -5137
k.kytonen&andovermn.gov www.andovennn.gov
MDA Arrest the Pest Hotline: 651- 201 -6684
? C I T Y CN Db 06 • A
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
City of Andover
Diseased Tree Removal /Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Summer 2007
Revised Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Page
Section I. General Policy Statement
Section II. Diseased Tree Enforcement Process
Section III. Hiring City Contractor 67
Section IV. Abatement and Assessment Process
-78
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section I. General Policy Statement
The City of Andover is home to many specimen trees and woodlands of valuable trees
including but not limited to oak, maple, ash and pine. Each year, the future of these
resources is under increased pressure due to factors including development and insect and
disease problems.
The City considers diseased and hazardous trees to be public nuisances. This policy
outlines the strategies that will be used to ensure that diseased trees will be properly
treated. This will help save more trees in the community and offset the effects of all
insect and disease problems in our urban and community forests.
Currently, oak wilt and Dutch elm disease are two diseases that have wreaked havoc on
each species of trees respectively. Each year, hundreds of trees die from these aggressive
diseases. Because of the nature of how the diseases spread, proper sanitation of the
diseased trees is an important step in preventing further spread to healthy trees. In
general terms, sanitation refers to removing and properly treating the wood of the trees,
which can be done in one or more of many different ways.
Other insect and disease problems, such as the emerald ash borer (EAB), offer additional
long -term concerns. This particular insect kills all species of ash trees and has killed
millions of ash trees in the Detroit area; it has now been found in several counties in
Minnesota including Anoka County. is *hr°°tening to move into Wiseensin and
Minnesota. Because of the large populations of ash in Minnesota and the difficulty in
controlling this insect, its arfval continued spread in this state could be devastating.
Due to these ever - growing concerns, it is critical that local units of government insert
policies and work with property owners to increase awareness of these current and
potential threats. It is equally important that local units of government take a proactive
approach to ensure that diseased trees are properly treated by established deadlines.
Finally, this document is subject to modifications and edits as suggested by staff and
brought to the City Council for formal approval.
3
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section II. Diseased Tree Enforcement Process
Overview:
The following outlines the general process of how the Natural Resources Technician
(NRT) or designee will handle typical situations as a result of a suspected or positive
diagnosis of diseased or hazardous trees on private properties in the City of Andover.
These practices are governed by Minnesota Statutes 18G.13. The specific actions taken
are based on tree diseases or hazardous trees that are considered through Andover City
Code and State Law to be public nuisances.
How Property Inspections of Diseased or Hazardous Trees are Initiated.
There are generally three different scenarios that trigger an initial property inspection.
They are:
1. A property owner (PO) requests the City to perform an inspection on their
own property;
2. A complaint is made from another source that requests the City to perform
an inspection on a given property; and
3. Diseased or hazardous tree(s) noticed in the field by the City.
General Enforcement Process:
A general process shall be followed based on how the first inspection was initiated.
Under each scenario that triggers the first inspection, a series of steps to be taken by the
City will be listed.
PO Requests Inspection on Their Property:
a. NRT or designee shall visit site, evaluate property and mark tree(s); will
consult with PO and explain findings;
b. NRT or designee shall send Declaration of Nuisance (see "attachment 1")
to PO; and
c. Compliance check done by NRT or designee.
i. If found to be in compliance: no further action taken at this time
ii. If found to be out of compliance: refer to Section IV.
2. An Inspection on a Given Property Stemming From Complaint:
a. NRT or designee shall visit site from the street but will not enter property
and evaluate propefty fir-s will leave notice (see "attachment 2 ") or send
initial letter (see "attachment 3 ") to PO if nuisance(s) deteete suspected;
i. Call back (from PO):
1. NRT or designee will consult with PO and explain findings
ask for permission to enter property; if granted, will
evaluate property, mark tree(s) and explain findings;
2. NRT or designee shall send Declaration of Nuisance to PO;
and
3. Compliance check done by NRT or designee
4
a. If found to be in compliance: no further action
taken at this time
b. If found to be out of compliance: refer to Section
IV.
ii. No call back (from PO):
1. NRT or designee shall send second letter (see "attachment
4") MA Pteelwratien of Nuisanee to PO ; and
a. Call back (from PO):
I . NRT or designee will consult with PO and
ask for permission to enter property; if
granted, will evaluate property, mark
tree(s) and explain findings;
2. NRT or designee shall send Declaration of
Nuisance to PO; and
3. Compliance check done by NRT or
designee
1. If found to be in compliance: no
further action taken at this time
2. If found to be out of compliance:
refer to Section IV.
b. No call back (from PO):
1. NRT or designee shall send third letter
(see "attachment 5) and Declaration of
Nuisance to PO;
2. Whether the property owner calls back or
not, the NRT or designee will contact an
Anoka County Sheriff Deputy, evaluate
property, mark tree(s) and explain findings
(if applicable); and
3. Compliance check done by NRT or
designee
1. If found to be in compliance: no
further action taken at this time
2. If found to be out of compliance:
refer to Section IV.
3. Diseased or Hazardous Trees Noticed in Field by the City:
a. NRT or designee shall follow all the same steps as scenario 42 above.
5
Additional details:
• "In compliance" refers to property owners who remove the
tree(s) and take all of the measures listed in "attachment 6 7;"
• NRT or designee may mark diseased or Hazardous trees with
tree marking paint, ribbons, etc. and/or map them at any time;
• NRT or designee shall promptly notify potentially affected,
adjacent property owners of disease existence in area (see
"attachment 6 6 ");
• NRT or designee will provide adequate literature or indicate
where this literature can be found online including, but not
limited to, information on the disease(s) present, a list of licensed
Andover tree care companies and a handout on proper disposal
and treatment of diseased wood (see attachment 6 7);
• NRT or designee will may send a reminder letter no later than
January 15 to property owners who have diseased trees that are
considered public nuisances, which will indicate intentions to
inspect (perform compliance check);
• If NRT or designee encounters property where there are no
trespassing signs and/or there is resistance from a property
owner, the accompaniment of a sheriff will be requested prior to
inspection;
• Standard compliance checks will begin no earlier than February
I of each year and will go until all recorded properties have been
addressed;
• Special compliance checks will begin no earlier than the date on
the Declaration of Nuisance for that particular property.
rol
Diseased Tree Removat/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section II1. Hiring City Contractor
Option A
Each year, the City shaft may hire one contractor to perform removals and/or treatments
of trees considered by the City to be public nuisances. This contractor will be utilized by
the City when property owners have failed to meet the deadline set forth in the
Declaration of Nuisance. Additional details on this are as follows:
1. The City will set up a bid opening, inviting all Andover licensed tree care
companies to submit sealed bids on removal and proper treatment of diseased
trees;
2. Interested contractors will provide bids on tree removal and treatment
requirements as specified by the NRT or designee including but not limited to the
following:
a. Cutting down the tree and leaving the stump no higher than 2 inches above
the finished grade;
b. Hauling away and properly treating all of the wood and brush
3. The City will formulate a formal contract with the hired contractor, which will
outline all of the pertinent details describing expectations, responsibilities,
timeframes, penalties, etc.; and
4. The length of the contract will be for one year starting the date of the agreement.
There may be situations that have special circumstances. A situation involving a property
containing a large volume of diseased trees may be encountered. This may occur on land
of a large property owner, such as a farmer.
In these instances, the NRT or designee will decide whether or not it's feasible to use the
City contractor for the work. These cases may render the need to hire a logger or land -
clearing company to perform the work.
If this situation occurs, the NRT or designee will have the right to get at least two bids
from contractors of this sort and hire it out.
If the bid from a contractor exceeds 10% of the land value or a maximum of $5,000, the
nuisance abatement will be subject to City Council approval.
7
Option B
The City may also operate on a case -by case basis, where three or more contractors are
asked to give bids for each situation where a property owner has failed to meet the
deadline set forth. In this case, the lowest bid will be accepted. There will be no formal
contract set up, but the hired contractor for each job will be held to the same treatment
requirements criteria.
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section IV. Abatement and Assessment Process
For those property owners who fail to abate the public nuisance(s) noted on their
property, the City will abate the public nuisance(s) and assess the property as follows:
1. The NRT or designee will quantify the number and sum up the total diameter of
all of the trees to be condemned (Option A only);
2. The City contractor will be notified to review the property and will submit a
proposal to the City within the timeframe established under the contract;
3. The NRT or designee will provide written authorization to the City contractor (or
lowest bidding contractor if working under Option B) to perform the work;
4. Upon completion, the NRT or designee will evaluate the property to ensure
conformance to standards and pay the contractor for services provided; and
5. The NRT or designee will send a letter to the property owner summarizing the
charges to be paid, and shall report the same to the City Clerk.
6. If the property owner fails to pay the City within the designated time period, the
City Clerk shall list all such charges, along with a City administrative cost,
against each separate lot or parcel by September 1S` of each year as special
assessments under Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101, and other pertinent
statutes. These special assessments are to be collected commencing with the
following year's taxes, unless provided for otherwise by consent and action of the
City Council. All assessments levied for the repayment of tree disease abatement
costs shall be pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101, Subd. 2.
8
DRAFT
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
City of Andover Ash Injection Program
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has been found in Anoka County and threatens to move into
the City of Andover. Thus, the City has gotten bids and has awarded a contract to _
for injecting eligible ash trees for property owners at a city -wide bulk discount. These are
trees determined by the contractor and/or City staff to be acceptable candidates based on
but not limited to the following parameters: size, structure, health, condition and location.
In addition, the trees shall not have more than 25% canopy loss as a result of EAB
infestation. Below is a list of other important program guidelines:
• The company is licensed and bonded with the City;
• The trees shall be treated with Emamectin benzoate;
• Treatments will last up to 3 years;
• The company offers a money back guarantee if your treated tree(s) die from EAB
while under the company's protection plan (details available upon request);
• The price is based off the DBH (Diameter at breast height) of trees in inches;
• BONUS CITY DISCOUNT: In addition to the bulk discount found with the
hired contractor, the City will contribute a maximum of 20% of the total cost of
eligible trees per property with a maximum contribution of $75;
• The City has the final say whether or not tree(s) are eligible for treatment
and eligible to receive the bonus city discount;
• Please fill out the information below and provide a copy of the estimate
and a map showing the location of the trees from the company. Email to:
k.kylonen@andovennn.gov
• City staff will review the application and if it's approved, will sign it,
contact you by phone or email and send back the final form. Upon receipt,
you may schedule treatment; and
• Treatments are not retroactive and the application shall be approved by the
City prior to work commencing to be eligible for the bonus city discount.
DRAFT
City of Andover Ash Injection Program
i°Bonus City Discount" Application
DATE
ADDRESS
PHONE
EMAIL
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES
ESTIMA'
PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE
DATE
CITY STAFF SIGNATURE
DATE
C I T Y O 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 Administrator
David Berkowitz, Director of Publ' orks /City Engineer�a
From: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resourc echnician
Subject: Discuss Hazardous Tree Removal - Engineering
Date: February 23, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The City has a Diseased Tree Ordinance and a Diseased Tree Removal /Sanitation Enforcement
Policy, which outline the process of inspecting, diagnosing, marking trees, notifying property
owners, issuing deadlines and condemning trees. Currently staff only considers trees that have the
potential of spreading insect and diseases as public nuisances. These trees may be dead or
actively dying. Dead and live trees with structural defects that have no threat of spreading a
particular disease, such as oak wilt, are not being required for removal. However, these may be
constituted as "hazardous," as they may be dangerous to people, animals and property. Should the
ordinance and policy be updated to include hazardous trees as public nuisances?
DISCUSSION
There are many situations around the City where there are standing dead trees. In addition, there
are instances where trees are alive, but have certain characteristics that make them more prone to
failing because of structural defects (i.e. splits or cracks). These trees are more brittle and less
stable. Many of these trees are in locations where failure could be dangerous to people and
animals and /or significant damage could take place to houses and property (a target exists). Staff
receives several calls a year from property owners who have concerns about these types of trees.
Many fear they will fall and damage their property or consider them aesthetically unappealing.
Because of the continued threat of new insect and disease problems, such as the Emerald Ash
Borer (EAB), more trees will end up dead in our landscapes. This will increase the number of
hazardous trees and potentially hurt visual appeal.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on whether or not to update our ordinance and
policy to include hazardous trees.
rRespectfully su mitted,
0
ameron nen
Natural Resources Technician
Attachments: "How to Recognize Hazardous Defects in Trees"
Recognize
Hazardous
Defects in
Trees
.mow, United States Forest Service Northeastern Area
Department of State & Private
r° Agriculture . -.4n
How to
Recognize Hazardous Tree Defects
Contents
Page
Introduction
1
Inspecting Trees
2
What to Look For
3
Dead Wood
3
Cracks
4
Weak Branch Unions
5
Decay
7
Cankers
8
Root Problems
9
Poor Tree Architecture
11
Multiple Defects
12
Corrective Actions
12
Move the Target
13
Prune the Tree
13
Remove the Tree
14
Cabling and Bracing
14
Topping and Tipping- -Poor
Pruning Practices
15
Suggested Reading
16
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service is a diverse organization committed to equal
opportunity in employment and program delivery. USDA
prohibits discrimination on the basis or race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political affiliation and
familial status. Persons believing they have been
discriminated against should contact the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call
202- 720 -7327 (voice), or 202 -720 -1127 (TTY).
Introduction
Trees add to our enjoyment of outdoor
experiences whether in forests, parks, or
urban landscapes. Too often, we are unaware
of the risks associated with defective trees,
which can cause personal injury and
property damage. Interest in hazard tree
management has increased in recent years
due to safety and liability concerns resulting
from preventable accidents. Recognizing
hazardous trees and taking proper corrective
actions can protect property and save lives.
A "hazard tree" is a tree with structural
defects likely to cause failure of all or part of
the tree, which could strike a "target." A
target can be a vehicle, building, or a place
where people gather such as a park bench,
picnic table, street, or backyard.
This brochure was created to help home
owners and land managers in recognizing
hazardous defects in trees and to suggest
possible corrective actions. We recommend
that corrective actions be undertaken by
professional arborists.
Because of the natural variability of trees,
the severity of their defects, and the
different sites upon which they grow,
evaluating trees for hazardous defects can be
a complex process. This publication presents
guidelines, not absolute rules for
recognizing and correcting hazardous
defects. When in doubt, consult an arborist.
Inspecting Trees
Inspect trees under your responsibility every
year. Tree inspections can be done at any
time of year, leaf -on or leaf -off. To be
thorough, inspect trees after leaf drop in fall,
after leaf -out in spring, and routinely after
severe storms.
Inspect trees carefully and systematically.
Examine all parts of the tree, including the
roots, root or trunk flare, main stem,
branches, and branch unions. Be sure to
examine all sides of the tree. Use a pair of
binoculars to see branches high off the
ground.
Consider the following factors when
inspecting trees:
Tree Condition: Trees in poor condition
may have many dead twigs, dead branches,
or small, off -color leaves. Trees in good
condition will have full crowns, vigorous
branches, and healthy, full-sized leaves;
however, green foliage in the crown does not
ensure that a tree is safe. Tree trunks and
branches can be quite defective and still
support a lush green crown.
Tree Species: Certain tree species are prone
to specific types of defects. For example,
some species of maple and ash in the
Northeast often form weak branch unions
(page 5 ), and aspen is prone to breakage at a
young age (50 -70 years) due to a variety of
factors, including decay (page 7) and
cankers (page 8).
Tree Age and Size: Trees are living
organisms subject to constant stress. Pay
particular attention to older trees, which may
have accumulated multiple defects and
extensive decay.
What to Look For
Hazardous defects are visible signs that the
tree is failing. We recognize seven main
types of tree defects: dead wood, cracks,
weak branch unions, decay, cankers, root
problems, and poor tree architecture. A tree
with defects is not hazardous, however,
unless some portion of it is within striking
distance of a target.
Dead wood
Dead wood is "not negotiable " -- dead trees
and large dead branches must be removed
immediately! Dead trees and branches are
unpredictable and can break and fall at any
time (Fig. 1). Dead wood is often dry and
brittle and cannot bend in the wind like a
living tree or branch. Dead branches and tree
tops that are already broken off ( "hangers"
or "widow makers ") are especially
dangerous!
Take immediate action if...
• A broken branch or top is lodged in a
tree.
• A tree is dead.
• A branch is dead and of sufficient size to
cause injury (this will vary with height
and size of branch).
Figure 2. A serious crack like this one indicates
that the tree is already failing!
Weak Branch Unions
Weak branch unions are places where
branches are not strongly attached to the
tree. A weak union occurs when two or more
similarly- sized, usually upright branches
grow so closely together that bark grows
between the branches, inside the union. This
ingrown bark does not have the structural
strength of wood, and the union is much
weaker than one that does not have included
bark (Fig. 3). The included bark may also
5
Figure 3. This weak branch union has failed,
creating a highly hazardous situation.
act as a wedge and force the branch union to
split apart. Trees with a tendency to form
upright branches, such as elm and maple,
often produce weak branch unions.
Weak branch unions also form after a tree or
branch is tipped or topped (page 15), i.e.,
when the main stem or a large branch is cut
at a right angle to the direction of growth
leaving a large branch stub. The stub
inevitably decays, providing very poor
support for new branches ( "epicomzic"
branches) that usually develop along the cut
branch.
Take action if...
• A weak branch union occurs on the main
stem.
• A weak branch union is cracked.
• A weak branch union is associated with
a crack, cavity, or other defect.
Decay
Decaying trees can be prone to failure, but
the presence of decay, by itself, does not
indicate that the tree is hazardous. Advanced
decay, i.e., wood that is soft, punky, or
crumbly, or a cavity where the wood is
missing can create a serious hazard (cover
photo). Evidence of fungal activity including
mushrooms, conks, and brackets growing on
root flares, stems, or branches are indicators
of advanced decay.
A tree usually decays from the inside out,
eventually forming a cavity, but sound wood
is also added to the outside of the tree as it
grows. Trees with sound outer wood shells
may be relatively safe, but this depends upon
the ratio of sound to decayed wood, and
other defects that might be present.
Evaluating the safety of a decaying tree is
usually best left to trained arborists (Fig. 4).
Take action if...
• Advanced decay is associated with
cracks, weak branch unions, or other
defects.
• A branch of sufficient size to cause
injury is decayed.
7
Figure 4. This seriously decayed tree should
have been evaluated and removed before it
failed.
• The thickness of sound wood is less than
1" for every 6" of diameter at any point
on the stem.
Cankers
A canker is a localized area on the stem or
branch of a tree, where the bark is sunken or
missing. Cankers are caused by wounding or
disease. The presence of a canker increases
the chance of the stem breaking near the
canker (Fig. 5). A tree with a canker that
encompasses more than half of the tree's
circumference may be hazardous even if
exposed wood appears sound.
Take action if...
• A canker or multiple cankers affect more
than half of the tree's circumference.
Figure 5. The large canker on this tree has
seriously weakened the stem.
A canker is physically connected to a
crack, weak branch union, a cavity, or
other defect.
Root Problems
Trees with root problems may blow over in
wind storms. They may even fall without
warning in summer when burdened with the
weight of the tree's leaves. There are many
kinds of root problems to consider, e.g.,
severing or paving -over roots (Fig. 6);
raising or lowering the soil grade near the
tree; parking or driving vehicles over the
roots; or extensive root decay.
Soil mounding (Fig. 7), twig dieback, dead
wood in the crown, and off -color or smaller
Figure 6. Severing roots decreases support and
increases the chance of failure or death of the
tree.
than normal leaves are symptoms often
associated with root problems. Because most
defective roots are underground and out of
sight, aboveground symptoms may serve as
the best warning.
Take action if...
A tree is leaning with recent root
exposure, soil movement, or soil
mounding near the base of the tree.
• More than half of the roots under the
tree's crown have been cut or crushed.
These trees are dangerous because they
do not have adequate structural support
from the root system.
10
Figure 7. The mound (arrow) at the base of this
tree indicates that the tree has recently begun to
lean, and may soon fail.
• Advanced decay is present in the root
flares or "buttress" roots.
Poor Tree Architecture
Poor architecture is a growth pattern that
indicates weakness or structural imbalance.
Trees with strange shapes are interesting to
look at but may be structurally defective.
Poor architecture often arises after many
years of damage from storms, unusual
growing conditions, improper pruning,
topping, and other damage (Fig. 8).
A leaning tree may be a hazard. Because not
all leaning trees are dangerous, any leaning
tree of concern should be examined by a
professional arborist.
Take action if...
• tree leans excessively.
• large branch is out of proportion with
the rest of the crown.
11
Figure 8. This tree is decayed and badly out of
balance because of poor maintenance. It is
dangerous, and extremely unattractive!
Multiple Defects
The recognition of multiple defects in a tree
is critical when evaluating the tree's
potential to fail. Multiple defects that are
touching or are close to one another should
be carefully examined. If more than one
defect occurs on the tree's main stem, you
should assume that the tree is extremely
hazardous.
Corrective Actions
Corrective actions begin with a thorough
evaluation. If a hazardous situation exists,
12
there are three recommended options for
correcting the problem: move the target,
prune the tree, or remove the tree.
Move the Target
Removing the target is often an inexpensive
and effective treatment for correcting a
hazard tree. Easily moved items like play
sets and swings, RV's, and picnic tables can
be placed out of the reach of the hazardous
tree with little effort and expense.
If the target cannot be moved and a serious
hazard exists, consider blocking access to
the target area until the hazard can be
properly eliminated.
Prune the Tree
A hazardous situation may be caused by a
defective branch or branches, even though
the rest of the tree is sound. In this case,
pruning the branch solves the problem.
Prune when
• A branch is dead.
• A branch of sufficient size to cause
injury is cracked or decayed.
• A weak branch union exists and one of
the branches can be removed.
• Branches form a sharp angle, twist, or
bend.
• A branch is lopsided or unbalanced with
respect to the rest of the tree.
• A broken branch is lodged in the crown.
Remove the branch and prune the stub.
13
Pruning a tree properly early in its life is a
good way to effectively avoid many
potential problems when the tree is older and
larger. When done correctly, routine pruning
of trees does not promote future defects. If
done improperly, immediate problems may
be removed, but cracks, decay, cankers, or
poor architecture will be the ultimate result,
creating future hazards.
We recommend that the "natural target"
pruning method be used. This pruning
method is fully described in How to Prune
Trees (Bedker, O'Brien & Mielke, 1995).
Remove the Tree
Before cutting a tree down, carefully
consider the alternatives. The effects of
removing a tree are often pronounced in
landscape situations and may result in
reduced property values. Tree removal
should be considered as the final option and
used only when the other two corrective
actions will not work. Tree removal is
inherently dangerous and is even more
serious when homes and other targets are
involved. Removal of hazardous trees is
usually a job for a professional arborist.
Cabling and Bracing
Cabling and bracing does not repair a hazard
tree, but when done correctly by a trained
arborist, it can extend the time a tree or its
parts are safe. Done incorrectly, it creates a
more serious hazard. We do not recommend
cabling or bracing as treatment for a hazard
tree unless the tree has significant historic or
landscape value.
14
Topping and Tipping - -Poor
Pruning Practices
Topping is the practice of pruning large
upright branches at right angles to the
direction of growth, sometimes used to
reduce the height of the crown. Tipping is
the cutting of lateral branches at right angles
to the direction of growth to reduce crown
width. Both of these practices are harmful
and should never be used. The inevitable
result of such pruning wounds is decay in
the remaining stub, which then serves as a
very poor support to any branches that
subsequently form. Trees that are pruned in
this manner are also misshapen and
esthetically unappealing (see Fig. 8).
Conclusions
Evaluating and treating hazard trees is
complicated, requiring a certain knowledge
and expertise. This publication outlines
some of the basic problems that may alert
you to a hazardous situation. Never hesitate
if you think a tree might be hazardous. If you
are not sure, have it evaluated by a
professional. Consult your phone book
under "Arborists" or "Tree Service."
Remember that trees do not live forever.
Design and follow a landscape plan that
includes a cycle of maintenance and
replacement. This is the best way to preserve
the health of our trees and ensure a safe and
enjoyable outdoor experience.
15
Suggested Reading
Albers, J.; Hayes, E. 1993. How to detect,
assess and correct hazard trees in
recreational areas, revised edition. St.
Paul, MN: Minnesota DNR. 63 p.
Bedker, P.J.; O'Brien, J.G.; Mielke, M.E.
1995. How to Prune Trees. NA- FR -01-
95. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service,
Northeastern Area State and Private
Forestry. 30 pp. Also available on the
Internet via FTP or the World Wide Web
at: http: / /willow.ncfes.umn.edu.
Fazio, J. 1989. How to Hire an Arborist.
Tree City USA Bulletin No. 6. Nebraska
City, NE: National Arbor Day
Foundation; 8 p.
Fazio, 11989. How to Recognize and
Prevent Hazard Trees. Tree City USA
Bulletin No. 15. Nebraska City, NE:
National Arbor Day Foundation; 8 pp.
Robbins, K. 1986. How to Recognize and
Reduce Tree Hazards in Recreation
Sites. NA- FR -31. Radnor, PA: USDA
Forest Service, Northeastern Area;. 28
P.
Shigo, A. L. 1986. A New Tree Biology.
Durham, NH: Shigo and Trees,
Associates; 595 p.
16
The Authors:
Minnesota DNR
Jana Albers, Plant Pathologist, Grand
Rapids, MN.
Tom Eiber, Entomologist, St. Paul, MN.
Ed Hayes, Plant Pathologist, Rochester,
MN.
USDA Forest Service
Peter Bedker, Plant Pathologist, St. Paul,
MN.
Martin MacKenzie, Plant Pathologist,
Morgantown, WV.
Joseph O'Brien, Plant Pathologist, St.
Paul, MN.
Jill Pokomy, Plant Pathologist, St. Paul,
MN.
Mary Torsello, Plant Pathologist,
Durham, NH.
Please cite this publication as follows:
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and USDA Forest Service.
1996. How to Recognize Hazardous
Defects in Trees. USDA Forest Service
NA -FR -01 -96.20 pp.
17
Minnesota DNR
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155 -4044
USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Area State & Private
Forestry
Headquarters Office
USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry
5 Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 200
Radnor, PA 19087 -4585
Durham Field Office
USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry
Louis C. Wyman Forest Sciences Laboratory
P.O. Box 640
Durham, NH 03824 -9799
Morgantown Field Office
USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry
180 Canfield Street
Morgantown, WV 26505 -3101
St. Paul Field Office
USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry
1992 Folwell Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55108 -1099
18
Notes
How to Recognize Hazardous Defects in
Trees was written to help people identify
potential problems with trees. Trees with
serious defects can pose an extreme hazard
and should be treated with caution. The best
way to correct a hazardous tree is to hire a
professional arborist. Information in this
publication can help to identify trees that
require attention.
19
How to Recognize Hazardous
Defects in Trees
For further information, contact:
A, 1
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administra
FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community
SUBJECT: Discuss Subordinate Classroom Structures
DATE: February 23, 2016
REQUEST
a.ctor
The City Council is requested to continue discussions on subordinate classroom
structures and provide direction to staff on the City Council's desire to regulate
these structures.
BACKGROUND
The City Council discussed subordinate classroom structures at the October 20,
2015 workshop (minutes attached). The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the City take a stronger position on these
structures by allowing an additional five year extension with possibly an additional
two year extension if the property owner had plans in place to remove the structure
or create a permanent structure.
During City Council discussions at the October 201h workshop, the question was
raised on how churches were treated versus public schools. Prior to a 2014 code
amendment, subordinate classroom structures were allowed by Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) where there is a church as the principal use and as a permitted use
when located on a licensed primary and/or secondary school property. The code
amendment, adopted in 2014, made subordinate classroom structures for both
churches and schools allowed by the granting of an Interim Use Permit (IUP).
Attached please find historical documentation in the form of staff reports and
minutes from meetings on discussions had to date on this topic.
ACTION
Provide direction to staff on how Council would like to proceed.
Attachments
October 20, 2015 City Council Staff Report with attachments
October 20, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes
Respectfully Submitted,
David L. Carlberg
CT Y O F
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304'• (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator's
Dave Carlberg, Community Dev opm t Director
SUBJECT: Subordinate Classroom Structures - P anning
DATE: October 20, 2015
INTRODUCTION
At the September 8, 2015 workshop, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) discussed
subordinate classroom structures in regards to other cities requirements, life span of the
structures, and quality of the structures. Staff researched codes and spoke with staff from 10
metro cities. The research information and P & Z workshop meeting minutes are attached for
your review.
DISCUSSION
City Requirements
Through researching the 10 communities, staff determined it is more common to require either
an Interim Use Permit (IUP) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with an expiration date. If an
extension is requested, it is typical for the city to work with the applicant by extending the
permit. 6 of the citiea (Andover, Anoka, Blaine, Elk River, Plymouth, Ramsey) have
similar /same code requirements.
3 cities (Coon Rapids, Rogers, Wayzata) do not address temporary structures within the city
code.
Coon Rapids updated the City Code 2 years ago and the portion referring to temporary
classrooms was removed from the code.
Rogers does not address theirs; however, it would need to be approved through the site plan
review process.
Wayzata does not address there and the city does not have these types of structures.
2 cities (Rogers, Shoreview) require the strictures to be approved as part of a site plan review
process; however neither of the cities have these type of structures.
Life Span of Structure
No cities' address the life span of the structures. According to Andover Fire and Building staff,
the structure itself should last indefinitely as Iong as it is kept up and continuously updated to
address life safety issues. Fire codes don't change very often. There are provisions for existing
building that may not require the building to meet the new code but must meet the code that was
in effect at the time it was constructed.
Currently, the State Fire Marshal's Office is required to inspect all public schools and their
"relocatable classrooms" every 3 years. Andover Fire Staff makes an effort to inspect the schools
and churches every 2 years.
Quality of Structure
No cities' address the quality of the structures. These types of structures are constructed
according to Building and Fire Codes. Again, according to Andover Fire and Building staff, the
structure itself should last indefinitely as long as it is kept up and continuously updated to
address life safety issues.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
At the September 8, 2015 workshop, P & Z stated concerns with the length of time these
structures remain on site and the continuous extension approvals. P & Z recommended allowing
subordinate classroom structures for a time period of five (5) years with the possibility of a two
(2) year extension with a plan from the property owner to either remove the structure(s) or the
conversion to a permanent structure(s).
ACTION REQUESTED
City Council is requested to discuss the timeframe allowed for existing and future subordinate
classrooms and provide P & Z and staff with direction regarding the possibility of a time limit.
Attachments
Research of City Codes
September 8, 2015 P & Z Workshop Meeting Minutes
Respectfully ubmi ed,
Stephanie L. Hanson
Subordinate /Temporary Structures
Andover
Requires an IUP
5 year permit. Staff is not aware of any instances in which an existing permit was not extended if
the request has been made.
Public schools are a permitted use in residential districts; there are no restrictions on expansion
by construction of temporary classrooms.
Places of Worship are a conditional use therefore any expansion of their facilities would require
the issuance of an IUP.
Anoka
Requires an IUP
In 2010 the CC approved an NP for temporary classrooms for the Anoka High School, set to
expire on 7/1/2020. Part of the conditions does not allow additional classrooms. If an addition
to the high school is not completed by 2020, the NP will be extended.
Blaine
Requires a CUP
The City will work with the applicant to determine a timeframe needed for the CUP. The
existing CUP structures at the schools and churches have been amended when the request has
been made.
Coon Rapids
Code does not address temporary classrooms
Staff is not aware of any of these structures within the City of Coon Rapids
A couple years ago the Coon Rapids code was updated — the portion referring to temporary
classrooms was removed from the code.
Elk River
Requires an IUP
IUP's have an expiration date of typically 2- 3 years with a condition that the NP will not be
extended.
Currently, there is one (1) place of worship with an NP for 3 (three) temporary structures. The
structure being used as an office will not be granted an NP extension; the 2 (two) structures used
for classrooms may apply for an NP extension.
Plymouth
Requires an NP
Are allowed for public or private schools
The City will work with the applicant to determine a timeframe needed for the IUP. Extensions
for the existing permit would be extended if the request has been made.
Ramsey
Requires an IUP
5 year permit. Staff is not aware of any instances in which an existing permit was not extended if
the request has been made. Ramsey Public Works Department has an NP for use of a modular
office.
Rozers
Code does not specifically address temporary classrooms. Existing "temporary classrooms" have
been approved through the site plan review process.
Shoreview
These types of structures are considered permanent. An applicant would need to go through the
formal site plan review process. The structures would need to meet building requirements set
forth in the Shoreview code. The City does not have any of these types of structures within the
city.
Wavzata
Code does not address temporary classrooms. Staff is not aware of any of these structures within
the City of Wayzata.
PLANNING AND ZONING COlVAIISSION WORKSHOP IVEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 201 5
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Daninger on September 8, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Cleven, Bert
Koehler, Kyle Nemeth, and Jeff Sims.
Commissioners absent: Lynae Gudmundson, Steve Peterson
Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
City Planner Stephanie Hanson
Others
DISCUSS SUBORDINATE CLASSROOA [STRUCTURES
a: Other Cities Requirements
b. Life Span of the Structure
c. Quality of Structures
City Planner Hanson stated she looked at ten different metro cities and Andover's code is
very similar to them. She stated some cities do not even address subordinate classroom
structures. Coon Rapids used to have them in their code and removed them so they are
not allowed at all.
Chairperson Daninger indicated he did not remember if this item was the Commission's
idea to take a look at or was it directed by the City Council. Commissioner Cleven stated
the Commission wanted to look at this because the subordinate classroom extensions are
never ending. Commissioner Nemeth stated if the structures are temporary, then why are
they always getting approved with sidewalks and landscaping. Commissioner Cleven
stated even in the report the Fire Department goes in and inspects them and approves
them as long as they meet the current safety codes.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Afeeting
Alimites —September 8, 2015
Page 2
Chairperson Daninger asked what if they changed the wording to portable classrooms.
Commissioner Cleven stated they could not call them that because then they would need
to be readily moveable which they are not. Chairperson Daninger asked if they should
then be called classrooms.
City Planner Hanson stated some of the other cities definition states the structures need to
be used only for classrooms, not offices or storage.
Commissioner Nemeth stated it seems like the applicants need to be given a timeframe or
a sunset clause which will make them do something within the specified period of time or
they would need to remove the structure.
Cormmissioner Koehler asked if the City is going to keep renewing the structures and the
Building Department and Fire Department say they are safe, why do we care. He asked if
there is some mechanism they could put in place to make these permanent rather than
renewing them year after year.
Commissioner Cleven stated in order for a piece of property, temporary of any type, for it
to be permanent, it has to be set on a foundation with permanent water, sewer and power
connected to it. Commissioner Koehler stated when he says permanent he means the
City's idea of permanent like a PUD on the property. It could be a lasting permit as long
as the Building Department and Fire Department say it is safe.
Commissioner Nemeth stated the retoricalness of it is the applicants have been given the
opportunity to build but the City keeps approving the subordinate building so there is no
real incentive to build within the specified timeframe. He agreed after a set amount of
time it needs to have a sunset clause. After a set amount of time then the City needs to
tell the owner they need to bring something through as a site plan or something like that
and get something done rather than continuing to approve the structure.
Chairperson Daninger stated something that bothers him is the never ending extension
approvals. Commissioner Koehler stated that is why he is suggesting converting it to
permanent at some point. He stated he did not think these structures are safe and he
would feel really bad if someone got hurt.
Commissioner Cleven indicated he did not think these are safe structures. Commissioner
Nemeth thought they were setting a precedent by approving these without setting a sunset
clause on them. He thought they needed to start enforcing the time frame of the approval.
City Planner Hanson thought Public Schools did not need permitting for the structures.
Community Development Director Carlberg stated the old structures did not need
permitting but the new ones would need permitting because they will fall under the new
IUP rules.
I v
Andover Planning and Zoning Conantission Workshop j1deeting
Minutes — September 8, 2015
Page 3
Chairperson Daninger stated he was ok with approving the structure but only allowing a
certain amount of time such as seven years and no longer. Commissioner Nemeth stated
they could go with a five year permit with a possible two year extension but no longer.
Commissioner Sims thought they would need a reason why not to continue to approve the
permit. Commissioner Cleven stated in his mind these structures are not temporary
because a temporary structure gets removed after the set number of time that it was
approved for. He stated a temporary structure can become permanent if anchored to a
concrete slab and can be connected to water, sewer and electricity.
Commissioner Koehler stated he liked the idea of approving a permit of five years with a
two year extension but he thought it should be longer like another five years because of
economic downturns and he thought ten years would be enough for a turn around.
City Planner Hanson stated the Fire Chief stated the Fire Department treats these as
permanent structures in the City. She indicated she will get a more definitive answer to
this.
Commissioner Cleven stated Andover does not allow mobile homes in the City and that
is what these are. Commissioner Nemeth stated he understood where Councilmember
Knight was coming from with schools because of the up and down cycles of the
populations.
Commissioner Cleven stated if we do not allow mobile homes in the City, why are we
allowing kids to spend time in one at school. Community Development Director
Carlberg stated the City does not allow mobile homes but they do allow manufactured
homes provided they are located in a manufactured home park.
Chairperson Daninger asked if this can go before the City Council indicating the
Planning Commission would like to change this to a five year permit with a possible
extension for two years and then be done. Community Developmen rector ar rg
asked if this would be new or existing or both. Chairperson Daninger thought this should
include new and existing allowing the extension only once it comes up for renewal.
Commissioner Koehler thought they should not require someone to remove the building
but have the possibility of converting it to a permanent structure.
Community Development Director Carlberg stated he would bring this item forward to
the City Council for further direction and come back to the Planning Commission with
more direction.
ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING — OCTOBER 20, 2015
MINUTES
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trade,
October 20, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW,
Andover, Minnesota.
Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila, Valerie Holthus and James Goodrich
Councilmember absent: None
Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson
Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg
Public Works Director /City Engineer, David Berkowitz
Others
SUBORDINATE CLASSROOM STRUCTURES
Mr. Carlberg explained the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed subordinate classroom
structures in regard to other cities requirements, life span of the structures, and quality of the
structures. Staff researched codes and spoke with staff from 10 other metro cities.
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the information with the Council.
Mayor Trade stated she did not think any of the churches planned for the structures to be there as
long as they have been.
Councilmember Bukkila asked what kind of expense is put into the subordinate classrooms in
terms of buying, outfitting, utilities and everything else. Mr. Carlberg stated he is not sure.
Mayor Trade stated it depended on the user because Grace Lutheran Church actually poured
footings for their structure. Mr. Carlberg stated they have permanent anchoring or foundations
and that is the reason why the City changed the name from Temporary to Subordinate
Classrooms because they are starting to be more than temporary buildings.
Councilmember Bukkila asked when these structures first came into the City were they supposed
to be temporary. Mr. Carlberg indicated that was correct. Councilmember Bukkila stated she
was at the point where she thought they should sunset all of the subordinate structures and get rid
of them and not allow any new ones.
Councilmember Holthus thought they should have a moratorium on any new subordinate
classroom structures in the City and grandfather in the ones currently in the City, because they
basically can last forever. Mayor Trade thought that was an overstatement because the floors do
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 20, 2015
Page 2
fail along with the surrounding structures.
Councilmember Bukkila thought these structures have gone to a permanent structure because
they are putting significant money into them, they are building these out to last, and she did not
think that was the City's original intent.
Councilmember Holthus thought some of the subordinate structures are well maintained and she
is not sure if she wanted to phase those out because they are needed, the structures do not look
bad, and according to the Fire Marshall they can stay viable as long as they are maintained.
Councilmember Goodrich stated he is not against rubber stamping them. He stated if the
structures are maintained and inspected he is all for letting them do what they want to do with the
structures as long as they follow the conditions the City puts on them. He stated he would like to
allow them to stay if there is no real downside to it.
Mayor Trude stated as she drives around the City she wonders about the outward appearance,
they do have building codes and they allowed this, she sees these structures as detractors to the
community.
Councilmember Holthus asked what the City stance is on mobile homes in the City. Mr.
Carlberg stated the City does not allow mobile homes in the City unless in a mobile park, which
is an R -5 District and the few that are in the City have been grandfathered in and when they are
gone they cannot bring in new. Councilmember Holthus thought they could go by those same
criteria for these structures.
Councilmember Knight thought they could also go to a deadline program where after five years
they need to show they are moving to a permanent structure. Mayor Trude thought that was
what the Planning and Zoning Commission was moving towards. Councilmember Bukkila
stated she would like to see progress towards building a permanent structure. Councilmember
Holthus stated she would like the ones currently in the City to be grandfathered in.
Councilmember Bukkila asked if this was unique to the churches or would this include the
schools also. Mr. Carlberg stated this would apply to churches only because public schools are
permitted in residential districts, the ones put in at Andover High School are permitted.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would have a problem with this because she wanted
everything to be equal, if they do not permit them in private then they should not be permitted in
public. Mr. Carlberg stated in 2013 they did a complete rewrite of the Use Code, Chapter 12,
and they separated them out at that point and indicated schools would be permitted.
Mayor Trude thought the schools were another issue that needed to be reviewed for safety
reasons.
Mayor Trude thought they should go with the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation because the majority of the Council is for this. She also thought they should
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —October 20, 2015
Page 3
talk with the churches regarding their plans with the structures.
Mr. Carlberg explained at the September 15, 2015 City Council work session, Council discussed
an artkle in the Star Tribune "Granny flats" may find a home in Inver Grove Heights and gave
the PlahQing and Zoning Commission direction to discuss the possibility of allowing ADU's
within the itv of Andover.
Mr. Carlberg r6yiewed the staff report with the Council.
Mayor Trude thou t they would want to get some public input regarding this item. She stated
no one else is doing a onditional Use Permit (CUP) for these and she thought they would want
some neighborhood inp \tosure
Councilmember Holthu the structures would be like mobile homes. Mr. Carlberg
stated the building code quirements that would be used for these types of structures.
He stated they would w it is more of a permanent structure rather than a portable
type of home.
The Council would like the Planning
ordinance.
SEPTEMBER 2015 GENERAL FUND B
Commission to continue to work on a possible
PROGRESS REPORTS
Mr. Dickinson stated the City of Andover 2015 Ge ral Fund Budget contains total revenues of
$9,876,575 and total expenditures of $10,364,730 eludes $26,000 of 2014 budget carry
forward); a decrease in fund balance is planned.
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the information with the Council.
SEPTEMBER 2015 CITYINVESTMENTSREVIEW
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the City investments with the Council.
Mayor Trude asked how the cash carry forward (Fund Balance) is looking. Mr. Dickinson stated
it is looking good.
2016 BUDGET & 2016 -2020 CIP DEVELOPMENT UPDATES
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the 2016 budget and CIP development with the Council, in particular
available General Fund Balance.
ANDOVEA
T Y O F 5
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator'
FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss Accessory Dwelling Units
DATE: February 23, 2016
REQUEST
The City Council is requested to discuss and provide direction to staff on the City
Council's desire to amend the City Code to allow Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs).
BACKGROUND
The City Council discussed ADUs at their September 15th and October 201h
workshop meetings (minutes attached). Council directed the Planning and Zoning
Commission to work on a possible ordinance amendment to allow ADUs.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held three work sessions on November 101
2015, December 8, 2015 and January 13, 2016 (minutes attached). The
Commission reviewed other city regulations on ADUs and drafted the attached
ordinance amendment for Council consideration. The Commission's
recommendation is to allow ADUs in the R -1, Single Family Rural Zoning District
as a detached accessory structure by the granting of a Conditional Use Permit.
ACTION
Provide direction to staff on how Council would like to proceed with the proposed
ordinance amendment.
Attachments
Draft Ordinance Amendment
September 15, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes
October 20, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes
November 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
December 8, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Other City's ADU Regulations Summary
Respectfully Submitted,
2) C/. Cot,
David L. Carlberg
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
A. Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to permit and regulate an
accessory dwelling unit (ADU). An ADU may be located accessory to a
single - family dwelling in the R -1, Single Family Rural zoning district
only as a conditional use subject to the regulations set forth herein. The
minimum lot size in the R -1 zoning district ensures that additional
housing will have less impact on neighboring properties. Because this use
will be located in established one - family residential districts (single
family home neighborhoods), the installation and use of an accessory
dwelling unit must be strictly controlled to avoid adverse physical, social,
economic, environmental and aesthetic impacts. By allowing only those
accessory dwelling units that are in compliance with all of the
performance standards of this subdivision, the character and quality of
existing neighborhoods will be protected.
B. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definition
shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different
meaning.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) means a subordinate habitable dwelling
unit, which has its own basic requirements of shelter, heating, cooking and
sanitation, accessory to a single - family dwelling (hereinafter principal
dwelling unit).
C. Performance standards. No property within a single - family residential
district shall have more than one dwelling unit, except an ADU may be
permitted as conditional use to a single family dwelling when the
following requirements are met:
1. The primary residence must be located on a lot within an R -1, Single
Family Rural zoning district with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres.
2. The property owner must reside in either the primary residence or
the ADU as their permanent residence according to state law.
3. An ADU may not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in
ownership from the primary residence structure.
4. An ADU's total floor area shall be no more than 900 square feet and
not less than 400 square feet.
5. An ADU shall be designed and maintained as to be consistent with
the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the
primary residence as a single - family residence. An ADU shall not
extend beyond the height of the primary residence.
6. Two off - street parking spaces shall be required for the ADU, in
addition to the off - street parking spaces required for the primary
residence. An additional garage may be constructed, provided it
complies with all state and city regulations.
7. No more than one ADU shall be permitted on a lot or parcel.
8. An ADU shall have a permanent foundation. Houses on wheels or
trailers shall be prohibited.
9. An ADU shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with all
state laws, state building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and fire
code regulations and City Code requirements.
10. The primary residence and ADU shall be constructed and
maintained in compliance with the property maintenance regulations
set forth in the City Code.
11. Rental of the accessory dwelling unit, or rental of the principal
dwelling unit if the property owner resides in the accessory dwelling
unit, shall require a City rental license pursuant to the City Code.
It is unlawful for a property owner to construct or allow occupancy
within an ADU that does not comply with all of the foregoing
requirements.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 15, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Dickinson stated they could do some ponding on the land if they did road 'mprovements in
the area.
Mayor Trude stated she talked to Gretchen Sabel of the Op/dhas mmission who went out
and looked at the property and stated there are a lot of trees enough and they would
not have chosen it for open space. The landlocked property le at all from what staff
has told her. Mr. Haas indicated the property is landlock lot of water on it. He
thought it might have been tax forfeit but did not designate i .
Mayor Trude asked if the second property act ually a ed to the City stormwater management
system. Mr. Haas stated there would be some co s to do survey work, an easement on the
property, a description written on it if they w;;aAas to sell the property. Mr. Dickinson stated
there are nine parcels abutting the parcel. Mr. stated the Park and Recreation Commission
recommended both properties to b/othe or Trude did not think there would be any money
from a sale, if anything it would cmoney. Mr. Haas stated they might get some tax
revenue back if someone were to parcels. Councilmember Bukkila stated the cost
to do all of the work could be rollerchase price of the parcels. Staff ind icated that is
correct.
Consensus was to keep the parrXs as passive parks.
DISCUSS PARK SIGNAP VER TISEMENT POLICY
Mr. Haas explained/iffie City Council is requested to consider amending the Park Advertising
Policy to allow bu.
,Xnesses to advertise directly with the City in the parks and /or facilities.
Mayor Trude/thought they needed to go back and find out why they originally made the
agreement ith the Associations. Mr. Haas stated it was done so the Associations could make
money.
Goodrich stated he is not interested in cutting out the Associations. The Council
® DISCUSS A CCESSOR Y D WELLING UNITS
Mayor Trude stated this item came up at Night to Unite by someone who wanted to build a unit
to allow their mother to live with them and stay independent.
Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council is requested to discuss and provide direction to staff on
the City Council's desire to amend the City Code to allow accessory dwelling units.
Councilmember Knight thought if this issue is happening nationwide they should look at this.
The Council concurred to have the Planning and Zoning Commission look at this.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would only want to allow this on larger parcels.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 15, 2015
Page 3
Mayor Trade asked if the current city ordinances allow this type of structure. Mr. Carlberg
stated they can have guest home type structures in the City but kitchens in them are not allowed.
Councilmember Goodrich asked if there were any downfalls to allowing the accessory dwelling
units. Mr. Carlberg stated there has not been enough research done on them as of yet.
Councilmember Bukkila stated the concerns are how will people prove a familial relationship
and what authority do they carry otherwise. She stated even if the original intent is for a family
member, the situation is what will happen down the road. She stated this becomes a property
rights issue and they need to look at the parking, congestion, impact to schools and use of
services and roads. Mayor Trade stated when she looked at the City of Minneapolis code they
had everything covered that Councilmember Bukkila mentioned and more.
Mayor Trade thought it would be a good idea for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
review this and find any issues with it that might come up for the Council to look at.
Councilmember Bukkila stated as a tag along they will end up with a renter situation, they will
need an eviction process along with possibly of more domestic issues. Mr. Carlberg stated it
could be regulated by a rental license.
Fire Chief Streich reviewed his personal situation and the requirements in his community. He
stated with the cost of senior housing, many cannot afford it and it would break some people.
Councilmember Knight asked if they could put an age limit on it. Mayor Trade stated the person
who brought this up has a daughter who has special needs but wants to be independent.
Councilmember Bukkila did not think it will happen in volume from the start but they do not
want to be so narrow minded as to not look ahead to find out what could happen in thirty years.
Mayor Trade thought the Planning and Zoning Commission should look at this and bring it
forward to the City Council for discussion. Councilmember Bukkila stated she would like to
review this item before it went to the Planning and Zoning Commission and see other city's
ordinances regarding this.
Councilmember Holthus thought it would be good for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
look at this because they may have a different perspective of it.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would like to see more drafts from other cities before it
would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission because if they are not comfortable, as a
Council with the idea, she wondered if it is worth having the Planning and Zoning Commission
spending time on it. She thought the Council could do the first blush with staff's help rather than
give it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Consensus of the Council was to have the Planning and Zoning Commission review this and
bring it back to the Council before proceeding with a public hearing on the topic.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 20, 2015
Page 3
talk with the churches regarding their plans with the structures.
9 A CCESSOR Y D WELLING UNITS (AD U)
Mr. Carlberg explained at the September 15, 2015 City Council work session, Council discussed
an article in the Star Tribune "Granny flats" may find a home in Inver Grove Heights and gave
the Planning and Zoning Commission direction to discuss the possibility of allowing ADU's
within the City of Andover.
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the staff report with the Council.
Mayor Trude thought they would want to get some public input regarding this item. She stated
no one else is doing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for these and she thought they would want
some neighborhood input to these.
Councilmember Holthus wondered if the structures would be like mobile homes. Mr. Carlberg
stated the building code has a lot of requirements that would be used for these types of structures.
He stated they would want to make sure it is more of a permanent structure rather than a portable
type of home.
The Council would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue to work on a possible
ordinance.
Mr. Dickinson ed the City of Andover 2015 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of
$9,876,575 and tota enditures of $10,364,730 (includes $26,000 of 2014 budget carry
forward); a decrease in fim3lbajance is planned.
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the information-with the Council.
SEPTEMBER 2015 CITYINVESTMENTS
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the City investments with the
Mayor Trude asked how the cash carry forward (Fund Balance) is looks Mr. Dickinson stated
it is looking good.
2016 B UDGET & 2016 -2020 CIP DEVELOPMENT UPDATES
Mr. Dickinson reviewed the 2016 budget and CIP development with the Council, in particular
available General Fund Balance.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Daninger on November 10, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Lynae
Gudmundson, Bert Koehler, Kyle Nemeth, and Jeff Sims.
Commissioners absent: Tim Cleven, Steve Peterson
Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
Others
DISCUSSACCESSORYDWELLING UNITS
Mr. Carlberg introduced Mr. Doug Determan, Andover resident and also the Deputy
Building Official with the City of Minneapolis who made a presentation to the Planning
Commission on accessory dwelling units (ADU) and the experiences the City of
Minneapolis has encountered implementing ADU regulations.
Mr. Carlberg asked what the pattern was in Minneapolis for the twenty approved ADU.
Mr. Determan stated part of the reason zoning wanted to get going on ADU is because
the rental licensing department discovered illegal units and there was no pathway to make
these legal. He noted some of the twenty approved ADU have been illegal units for
years.
Mr. Determan stated the ADU has to be owner occupied but the occupant of the other
dwelling does not have to be family. It can be a rental situation and a choice the City of
Minneapolis made. 800 square feet is the maximum size of the ADU unless it is attic
space.
Mr. Determan reviewed the regulations for ADU in Minneapolis with the Commission
and showed some photos of ADU.
Mr. Carlberg stated they will have to talk about if they want to start in the rural area of
the City with detached units so they do not start getting into duplex type of housing units
because once they have that then they start running into possible rental licensing issues.
Chairperson Daninger thanked Mr. Determan for the presentation and thought it was
interesting to see how a large city handles these types of units.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes —November 10, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Carlberg reviewed some ADU regulations the Planning Commission might want to
review.
Chairperson Daninger asked why they are considering regulating ADU. He thought it
was in order to make sure they do not get illegal units or uncontrolled structures.
Commissioner Nemeth agreed with Commissioner Gudmundson' previous statements
regarding requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and having it come before them to
get a CUP for the ADU. This will allow the City to have some input in what is being
built.
Chairperson Daninger asked what is controlling this discussion. Mr. Carlberg stated this
was driven by a question from a resident at Night to Unite and the Council's direction
was instead of just guest houses where they can't have kitchen facilities, they should start
looking at ADU to accommodate the return of the grandparents, parents or children to the
home. There has been some interest from residents but the big picture is this is becoming
a trend and they are seeing a lot of cities creating regulations in the past year and this is
something that needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Gudmundson stated from a research position there are several in Andover
that are not legal at this time. Commissioner Nemeth thought it is also a matter of safety.
He thought this was like the single family rentals and they will have to rely on people to
be honest that they are building or improving a portion of their home and coming to the
City for approval.
Commissioner Gudmundson thought what Mr. Determan said about tiny houses is a good
point and thought they should add the requirement of footings or a foundation. She
indicated she did not have a problem with attached units but she thought maybe to help
with the issue of becoming more like a duplex maybe they could do a percentage of the
above grade part of the house. This might keep it accessory sized. She thought the ADU
should be required to match the principal residence. The building codes are another thing
that would need to be addressed.
Commissioner Koehler asked what defined a kitchen. Mr. Carlberg thought it would be
cooking facilities other than a microwave. Mr. Koehler stated if the kitchen is the
defining factor, they need to define the kitchen. He did not think that the size of the
dwelling should be limited because some couples may need more than one bedroom to
live in.
Commissioner Nemeth did not think the accessory dwelling should be regulated for
related family members only because of the way relationships are today. Commissioner
Koehler agreed. Chairperson Daninger thought the home needs to be owner occupied but
agreed that the accessory dwelling would not need to be related to the owner of the
property.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — November 10, 2015
Page 3
Mr. Carlberg stated that it might be wise to have the ADU secure a rental license no
matter who is living there. The Commission agreed on that. Commissioner Nemeth
stated he did not want to box them in too much because of all of the different
circumstance that could occur.
Commissioner Koehler stated they could put limits on the number of people allowed to
live in the accessory dwelling such as two per bedroom.
The Commission discussed regulations and size of the dwelling accessory.
Commissioner Gudmundson thought they should put a limit of one bedroom because the
more bedrooms added makes it more advantageous of making it a rental and they do not
necessarily want to go that way. Mr. Carlberg stated some cities did limit the ADU based
on the square footage of the unit, but some allowed two bedrooms or a certain number of
people to occupy the unit.
Commissioner Nemeth stated another point he liked was having the ADU be a certain
percentage of the actual primary residence footprint. He was leaning towards twenty -five
percent.
Mr. Carlberg thought if the Commission wanted to use a percentage of the unit, it should
be based on the footprint of the livable portion of the residence otherwise the ADU could
be quite large.
Commissioner Nemeth stated he would like to see something regarding septic systems
and having it certified to handle the additional space. Mr. Carlberg stated there are
regulations regarding this as the septic design is based on the number of bedrooms.
Mr. Carlberg stated staff will take the information and bring it forward to another
worksession meeting in December.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Community Development Director Carlberg updated the Planning Commission on related
items.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Nemeth, seconded by Koehler, to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Cleven, Peterson) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING —
DECEMBER 8, 2015
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Daninger on December 8, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Commissioners Timothy Cleven, Bert Koehler IV, Kyle
Nemeth, and Jeff Sims (arrived at 6:39 p.m.).
Commissioners absent: Commissioners Lynae Gudmundson and Steve Peterson
Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
City Building Official Fred Patch
Others
DISCUSSACCESSORYDWELLING UNITS
Mr. Carlberg made a presentation to the Planning Commission on accessory dwelling
units (ADU) and the provisions to allow them in the City of Andover. Based on feedback
from the Commission, staff prepared a draft ordinance amendment for the Commission's
consideration. Research was carried out utilizing the ordinances of several different local
cities.
Commissioners expressed their desire that a 2.5 -acre minimum lot requirement be
maintained in this draft due to an effort to protect the privacy of adjacent neighbors. This
clarification should be added to section C.1.
Commissioner Cleven asked for clarification on why the draft ordinance would state that
the property owner must reside in the home not less than 183 days per calendar year.
There was further discussion regarding the number of days. It was determined that 185 is
required for Minnesota residency.
Commissioner Nemeth inquired as to if requiring residents to homestead would suffice
and resolve the issue.
Mr. Carlberg replied he believed that was where the draft language came from.
Commissioner Koehler inquired if a resident could homestead in an ADU.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — December 8, 2015
Page 2
The Commission discussed homestead regulations and how the draft ordinance would
potentially affect ADU owners and occupants, specifically those with two homes.
Mr. Patch indicated that it is important to have good guidelines, but if it came to
enforcement, it would be difficult.
Commissioner Koehler stated that the ordinance is more for intent than enforcement, for
example in the case of someone moving out of state.
Mr. Patch stated, in the past, that in order to qualify for homestead, one needed to reside
on the property on January 1.
Commissioner Nemeth asked to take his comment "off the table," because in the case of a
snowbird, they would still "reside" as stated in the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Koehler requested that the ordinance be "wordsmithed" to represent the
intention to reside.
The Commission discussed how to limit the size of an ADU.
Mr. Carlberg clarified that one property can have two addresses, e.g. Suite A and Suite B.
He further stated, in reference to section CA of the draft ordinance, that staff has a
preference for a maximum and minimum size for the ADU.
Chairperson Daninger recommended that the ordinance be changed to state that the floor
area be limited to 500 — 900 square feet, based on the trend research done by other cities.
Mr. Patch recommended that the wording "residential floor area" be used. He further
explained that "dwellings" are all kinds of buildings including sheds, etc. So it is useful
to distinguish what is residential from a building code standpoint.
Commissioner Koehler questioned what would happen if a big garage is attached to a
home that included residential space.
Mr. Carlberg clarified that only the residential part of the building would be considered
an ADU and that the garage itself would not be part of the ADU.
Mr. Patch said that the second floor could possibly be a separate dwelling.
Commissioner Nemeth expressed his desire to include section C.5 in the draft ordinance
amendment, which refers to the ADU not being permitted, if the building coverage
exceeds or will exceed, with the ADU, 20 percent of the lot or parcel.
Chairperson Daninger requested that section C.5 be re -written for clarity
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes —December 8, 2015
Page 3
Mr. Carlberg recommended that the section (C.5) be struck as it applies to a rural lot.
Mr. Patch stated that section C.8, regarding the number of bedrooms, is redundant to
existing provisions.
Chairperson Daninger explained that even though it is redundant, it is good to have all of
the details in one place, instead of an asterisk to another ordinance.
Commissioner Koehler asked the question, "If everything meets code, why do we care
about the number of bedrooms ?"
Chairperson Daninger stated that this question could be brought to the Council.
Commissioner Koehler expressed that there are examples of families that need affordable
housing with more bedrooms, however he is all for limiting the "frat house."
Mr. Carlberg stated that this provision was included to make the ADU accessory.
Chairperson Daninger asked that the bedroom requirement section be flagged and that the
full Commission be in attendance in order to discuss it further as there has been quite a
bit of debate.
Commissioner Koehler asked if section C.9 would limit two cars to be parked outside.
Mr. Carlberg stated that the proposed ordinance amendment would not limit the number
of cars that can be parked on a particular property, although cars must be parked on the
driveway or other allowed surfaces.
In reference to an additional garage being built, Commissioner Nemeth asked if a permit
would be required.
Mr. Carlberg confirmed that a minimum of two parking spots would be required and that
a permit would be required to build a garage.
Mr. Patch explained the differentiation between a single and two - family dwelling in
reference to section C.11. The key point is what is the separation between the two
dwellings. He continued by stating that the change of occupancy is complicated and has
a significant number of requirements related to sprinklers, etc. In this case, a home has to
remain a single family dwelling. A distinction is that the wiring, plumbing, and fire
alarm system is connected. These types of homes are already all over the state. As long
as the two living spaces are interconnected, it is considered a single - family dwelling. Mr.
Patch showed examples of homes fitting this criterion. The placement of separate
exterior doors was discussed as well. He also explained why in some ways this type of
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes —December 8, 2015
Page 4
set up can be no different than a master bedroom suite. He said that he needed to spend
more time looking at the issue from a building code perspective.
Commissioner Sims arrived at 6:39 p.m.
Mr. Patch stated that an attached ADU needs to have a door between, and if it is through
the garage, that qualifies. He told the Commission to forget about the idea of an attached
ADU, because there is already code for that. If an ADU is detached, that is another
matter, and that is what the City needs provision for.
Mr. Carlberg reminded the Commissioners that guesthouses are permitted, but they do
not have kitchens.
Commissioner Koehler asked for clarification. If an ADU is attached, was there really a
reason to discuss the matter further, because the City already has a code for that.
Mr. Patch stated that if an ADU is a completely separate building, current building code
will not allow for that. He continued by saying that state building code does not address
this situation very well.
Commissioner Cleven reiterated by saying that if you put a door inside, between units, it
is one residence.
Chairperson Daninger inquired if Mr. Patch could come to another workshop meeting, in
January, as he did not want to rush through the discussion of the rest of the draft
ordinance amendment.
Mr. Carlberg indicated that the group could hold another workshop at 6 pm before the
January 13, 2016, regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Nemeth, seconded by Cleven, to adjourn the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 - absent vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marlene White, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
9 JANUARYI3, 2016
10
11 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
12 order by Vice Chairperson Nemeth on January 13, 2016, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
13 Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
14
15 Commissioners present: Commissioners Lynae Gudmundson, Bert Koehler IV, and
16 Kyle Nemeth.
17
18 Commissioners absent: Chairperson Dean Daninger and Commissioners Timothy
19 Cleven, Steve Peterson, and Jeff Sims.
20
21 Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg
22 Building Official Fred Patch
23
24
25 CONTINUE DISCUSSION ONA CCESSOR Y D WELLING UNITS
26
27 Mr. Carlberg provided a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding accessory
28 dwelling units
29
30 Commissioner Koehler stated that the focus should be on the detached unit and the
31 attached unit that does not meet building specifications, such as separate entries that are
32 completely walled off.
33
34 Mr. Patch statedthatwould ehange the designation from IRC1 to IRC2, noting that it
35 would be inconceivable to make the units one.
36
37 Mr. Carlberg stated that the City only allows a single family home on a single - family lot
38 and does not allow for duplexes on that type of lot. He stated that staff is recommending
39 to residents that wish to have that type of dwelling addition to keep the addition attached
40 to the home and have a common access way in order to comply with the ordinance.
41
42 Mr. Patch stated that the home could have multiple kitchens and could have shared or
43 separate facilities as long as it is all connected. He specified that the Code would allow
44 for up to five unrelated individuals living in the home as a family and still be considered
45 a single family home.
46
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — danuary 13, 2016
Page 2
1 Mr. Carlberg confirmed the consensus of the Commission to only consider detached units
2 and reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinances per the previous discussion of the
3 Commission. He referenced the requirement that specifies the owner must reside in the
4 home for no less than 185 days per calendar year and asked if the Commission would
5 want to include that in the ordinance. He confirmed that the state statute defines
6 residency as living in a place for no less than six months of the year and that statute
7 would remain in place to govern should this language not be included in the ordinance. It
8 was the consensus of the Commission to leave the first sentence stating "the property
9 owner must reside in either the primary residence or the ADU as their permanent
10 residence as according to state law" and delete the second sentence in its entirety.
11
12 Mr. Carlberg referenced the condition regarding bedrooms for the ADU, which limits
13 bedrooms at two.
14
15 Commissioner Koehler stated that he would be in favor of not including a number of
16 bedrooms as the City Code would guide that aspect and he would not want to limit the
17 design as long as code requirements are met.
18
19 Mr. Patch stated that it is important that the primary structure remain as the primary
20 structure in size. He noted that there are specifications for septic requirements that are
21 tied to the number of bedrooms as well.
22
23 Commissioner Koehler stated that is his point exactly; there are other specifications that
24 will limit that aspect on its own.
25
26 Mr. Patch provided an example of a pool house that a resident was building this past fall
27 that would be used for multiple uses. He stated that his worry would be that the person
28 could then load that small structure with a number of beds.
29
30 Commissioner Koehler stated that if a person is willing to invest the funds to enlarge the
31 septic to the required size to support the number of bedrooms and meet the other Code
32 requirements, the City should not care about the number of bedrooms.
33
34 Mr. Patch stated that he would like to think about that a bit further. He stated that he
35 believes that it would be self - limiting under the current building codes as well but just
36 wants to ensure that mass sleeping "bunk houses" would not be constructed. He noted
37 that there are safety concerns for that type of setup.
38
39 Mr. Carlberg stated that the City would have two opportunities to review the application
40 through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review and the building permit review. He
41 noted that it would be a large investment for a resident to build a structure of this size,
42 because of the minimum size of 500 square feet, and to go through the process that will
43 be required with a CUP. It was the consensus of the Commission to not include a
44 maximum number of bedrooms. Mr. Carlberg referenced the item regarding addresses
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — January 13, 2016
Page 3
1 and it was the consensus of the Commission to follow up with the Fire Department to
2 determine their opinion on the matter.
3
4 Mr. Patch noted that it would also be difficult to add in additional addresses as that can
5 cause confusion for mail delivery and GPS use.
6
7 Mr. Carlberg stated that his intent would be to bring this item to the City Council at a
8 February worksession to review.
9
10 Mr. Patch stated that in his opinion perhaps the minimum size for an ADU could be
11 reduced from 500 square feet to 400 square feet based on the availability and design of
12 construction materials. The Commission agreed.
13
14
15 OTHER BUSINESS.
16
17 Mr. Carlberg updated the Planning Commission on related items. He distributed a flyer
18 for an upcoming meeting on Tuesday, January 26`h and will be hosted at the Coon Rapids
19 City Center by the Alliance for Sustainability. He noted that staff will be attending the
20 workshop at 3:30 p.m. He noted that interested Commissioners could also attend or find
21 more information on the website. He stated that staff can collect literature and make a
22 short presentation to the Commission at a future meeting.
23
24
25 ADJOURNMENT.
26
27 Motion by Gudmundson, seconded by Koehler, to adjourn the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
28 Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 0 -nays, 4- absent (Daninger, Cleven, Peterson, and Sims)
29 vote.
30
31
32 Respectfully Submitted,
33
34 Amanda Staple, Recording Secretary
35 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
36
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Definition
A subordinate habitable dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit has cooking facilities, sanitary
facilities and an independent means of access, attached to the single family dwelling unit/garage
(attached or detached).
Apple Valley
Permitted accessory use
Allowed in Zone 1
No more than 2 occupants provided 2 off street surface parking spaces exist
Dwelling shall not exceed 900 sf
Eagan
Permitted accessory use
Allowed in Estate District (16,000 so and RI (12,000 so
Property owner must reside in primary residence or ADU.
Dwelling shall be no more than 960 sf or 33% of the primary residences footprint, whichever is
less. An ADU shall not be less than 300 ft.
Shall not contain no more than 2 bedrooms
Must be located within or attached to the primary residence
Must be connected to municipal sewer and water
Elk River
Permitted accessory use, need license from the Fire Chief and a rental license
Property owner must reside on the property
Dwelling size must be between 250 ft —1,000 sf
No more than 2 bedrooms
No front yard entrance
Can be attached or detached from the primary residence
Farmin on -
Allowed with a conditional use permit
Allowed in the Ag District, R2 (6,000 so and R5 (40,000 sf —12 units /acre)
Property owner must reside on the property
Dwelling maximum size is 1,800 sf
Lakeville
Permitted with an Administrative Permit from the Zoning Administrator
Must be attached to primary residence with an interior connection between to the 2 living
quarters
Must have municipal sewer and water available
Must have 3 garage stalls attached to the residence
No more than 2 occupants
Minneapolis
Permitted with an Administrative Permit from Zoning Administrator
Can be internal to the principal structure, attached or detached
Internal and attached — limited to 800 sf, no external stairs
Detached — Limited to 1,000 sf, can have external stairs
Property owner must reside on property
Plvmouth
Allowed in the following districts: Rural (1 acre), urban 12,500 sf- 18,000 so
Permitted with an Administrative Permit
Must be located above an attached or detached garage
Shall not exceed 1,000 sf or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less
Property owner must reside on the property
2 off street parking spaces shall be provided
Must be connected to municipal sewer and water
Richfield
Permitted accessory use
Can be attached or detached from the primary residence
Shall be between 300 ft — 800 sf or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is
less
A minimum of 3 off - street parking spaces is required in order to add an ADU of any kind
Roseville
Allowed in the LDR -1 District (11,000 sf- 12,500 so
Allowed with a nontransferable ADU Occupancy Permit from the Community Development
Department
Property owner must reside on the property
Shall be 300 sf - 650 sf, but in no case shall it exceed 75% of the principal dwellings four season
living area
Must provide 1 off - street parking space
Occupancy is limited to 2 people
Maximum of 1 bedroom
Shoreview
Allowed in Estate and Detached single family district
Permitted with an Administrative Permit by the City Manager. Permit must be renewed upon the
sale of the home
Cannot be more than 30% of the buildings total floor area nor greater than 800 sf with a
minimum of 500 sf of living space
Maximum 2 bedrooms
Property owner must reside on the property
No front entrances shall be added to the house to access the apartment
3 off - street parking spaces shall be provided, 2 of which must be enclosed
9
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administra
FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community
SUBJECT: Discuss Solar Energy System Regulations
DATE: February 23, 2016
REQUEST
lirector
The City Council is requested to discuss and provide direction to staff on the
adoption of regulations regarding Solar Energy Systems.
BACKGROUND
The City has received a recent request to install a freestanding Solar Energy
System on a residential property. This request has prompted city staff to
investigate other city's regulations regarding Solar Energy Systems. Staff in
researching Solar Energy System regulations found the following commonalities:
• Are allowed as a permitted accessory use.
• Both roof and ground mounted are permitted.
• Height and setback requirements apply.
• Have abandonment provisions.
• Require a building permit.
• Require compliance with state building and electrical codes.
• Require certifications (Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.)
• Rooftop mounted units are required to have color matching piping to roof
or solar panel unit and may not hang over edge of roof.
• Ground mounted units are required to be screened, located in rear yard, and
may not encroach on drainage and utility easements.
Staff has attached the City of Lakeville's and the City of Rosemount's ordinances
as the most complete examples for Council review and consideration.
ACTION
Provide direction to staff on how Council would like to proceed with regulating
Solar Energy Systems.
Attachments
City of Lakeville's Ordinance
City of Rosemount's Ordinance
Respectfully Submitted,
w Z/ (194^�e
David L. Carlberg
Lakeville
11 -29 -5: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS: V) 0
A. Accessory Use:
1. Solar energy systems shall be allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning
districts in accordance with the standards in this section.
2. The following systems shall be exempt from the requirements of this section and shall
be regulated as any other building element:
a. Building integrated solar energy systems that are an integral part of a principal or
accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting
for an architectural element or structural component including, but not limited to,
photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems contained within roofing materials,
windows, skylights and awnings.
b. Passive solar energy systems that capture solar light or heat without transforming it into
another form of energy or transferring the heat via a heat exchanger.
B. System Standards:
1. Electrical:
a. All utilities shall be installed underground.
b. An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be installed at the electric meter serving the
property.
c. Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in
conformance with the national electrical code as adopted by the city.
d. No solar energy system shall be interconnected with a local electrical utility company
until the utility company has reviewed and commented upon it. The interconnection of
the solar energy system with the utility company shall adhere to the national electrical
code as adopted by the city.
2. Maximum Area: Ground mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum
area of one hundred twenty (120) square feet.
3. Color: All roof mounted solar energy systems shall use colors that are the same or
similar with the color of the roof material of the building on which the system is mounted.
C. Location:
1. Roof mounting:
a. The solar energy system shall comply with the maximum height requirements of the
applicable zoning district.
b. The solar energy system shall not extend beyond the perimeter of the exterior walls of
the building on which it is mounted.
2. Ground mounting:
a. The solar energy system shall only be located in the rear yard as defined by this title.
b. The solar energy system shall comply with the maximum height requirements for
accessory buildings for the applicable zoning district.
c. All components of the solar energy system shall be set back a minimum of five feet (5')
from interior side lot lines and ten feet (10') from rear lot lines.
d. Solar energy systems shall not encroach upon drainage and utility easements.
D. Screening: Solar energy systems shall be screened in accordance with the
requirements of section 11 -21 -13 of this title to the extent possible without affecting
their function.
E. Certification: The solar energy system shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., and comply to the requirements of the international building code.
F. Abandonment: Any solar energy system which is inoperable for twelve (12)
successive months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public
nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after
obtaining a demolition permit.
G. Building Permit: A building permit shall be obtained for any solar energy system prior
to installation. (Ord. 867, sec. 81, 5 -17 -2010)
11- 21 -13: SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: 4tl 0
All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment of residential buildings having
five (5) units or more and of nonresidential buildings shall comply with the following
standards:
A. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to
mitigate noise in compliance with section 11 -16 -25 of this title.
B. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be designed (including
exterior color) and located so as to be aesthetically harmonious and compatible with
the building. Screening of and landscaping around the equipment may be required
where the design, color, and location of the equipment are found to not effectively
buffer noise or provide aesthetic harmony and compatibility. Screening shall be
constructed of durable materials which are aesthetically compatible with the
structure and which may be an integral part of the structure. Applicable requirements
for access to the equipment shall be observed in the design and construction of the
screening.
C. Rooftop mechanical equipment less than three feet (3') in height may be exempt from
screening requirements by the zoning administrator. (Ord. 674, sec. 1, 7 -17 -2000)
11- 16 -26: NOISE: 4b 0
Noises emanating from any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the
Minnesota pollution control agency in accordance with Minnesota statutes and rules, but
in no case shall noise emanations constitute a nuisance as defined and regulated by
this code. (Ord. 897, 12 -3 -2012)
Rosemount
1 -2 -12: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS: Z 0
A. Purpose And Intent: It is the goal of the city council, as expressed in the
comprehensive plan, for Rosemount to become a more sustainable community by
encouraging activities that conserve energy and result in less /no pollution output
such as alternative energy sources. In accordance with that goal, the city finds that it
is in the public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive
impact on energy production and conservation while not having an adverse impact
on the community. Therefore, the purposes of this section include:
1. To promote rather than restrict development of alternative energy sources by removing
regulatory barriers and creating a clear regulatory path for approving alternative energy
systems.
2. To create a livable community where development incorporates sustainable design
elements such as resource and energy conservation and use of renewable energy.
3. To protect and enhance air quality, limit the effects of climate change and decrease use
of fossil fuels.
4. To encourage alternative energy development in locations where the technology is
viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be mitigated.
B. Definitions: The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this title, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM: A ground source heat pump, wind or solar
energy system.
COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN: A solar electric (photovoltaic) array that provides
retail electric power (or a financial proxy for retail power) to multiple community
members or businesses residing or located off site from the location of the solar
energy system, under the provisions of Minnesota statutes 216B.1641 or successor
statute.
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM: An active solar energy system that converts solar
energy directly into electricity.
SOLAR COLLECTOR: A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which
the primary purpose is to capture sunlight and transform it into thermal, mechanical,
chemical, or electrical energy.
SOLAR ENERGY: Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the
form of heat or light by a solar collector.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A device or structural design feature, a substantial
purpose of which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the
collection, storage and distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling,
electricity generation or water heating.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, ACTIVE: A solar energy system whose primary
purpose is to harvest energy by transferring solar energy into another form of energy
or transferring heat from a solar collector to another medium using mechanical,
electrical, or chemical means.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, BUILDING INTEGRATED: A solar energy system that
is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, replacing or substituting for an
architectural or structural component of the building. Building integrated systems
include, but are not limited to, photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems that
are contained within or substitute for roofing materials, windows, skylights, awnings
and shade devices.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, GRID INTERTIE: A photovoltaic solar energy system
that is connected to an electric circuit served by an electric utility company.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, GROUND MOUNTED: A freestanding solar system
mounted directly to the ground using a rack or pole rather than being mounted on a
building.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, OFF GRID: A photovoltaic solar energy system in
which the circuits energized by the solar energy system are not electrically
connected in any way to electric circuits that are served by an electric utility
company.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, PASSIVE: A system that captures solar light or heat
without transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat
exchanger.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, ROOF MOUNTED: A solar energy system mounted
directly or abutting the roof of a principal or accessory building.
SOLAR FARM: A commercial facility that converts sunlight into electricity, whether
by photovoltaic (PV), concentrating solar thermal devices (CST), or other conversion
technology, for the principal purpose of wholesale sales of generated electricity.
SOLAR HOT WATER SYSTEM (Also THERMAL SYSTEM): A system that includes
a solar collector and a heat exchanger that heats or preheats water for building
heating systems or other hot water needs, including residential domestic hot water
and hot water for commercial processes.
SOLAR RESOURCE: A view of the sun from a specific point on a lot or building that
is not obscured by any vegetation, building, or object for a minimum of four (4) hours
between the hours of nine o'clock (9:00) A.M. and three o'clock (3:00) P.M. standard
time on any day of the year.
C. Solar Energy Systems: The following standards apply to solar energy systems,
subject to standards of the applicable zoning district in which they are located.
1. Exemptions: Passive or building integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the
requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element.
2. Uses: Roof mounted solar energy systems are an accessory use in some districts.
Ground mounted solar energy systems are an accessory use in the agricultural,
residential, PI - public and institutional, and industrial districts. Community solar gardens
or solar farms as defined in this section are an interim use in the following zoning district
outside the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA): AG - agricultural, PI - public and
institutional, LI - light industrial, GI - general industrial and HI - heavy industrial.
3. Setbacks: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the setbacks
requirement for the applicable zoning district and structure type (principal or accessory)
on which they are mounted and may encroach those setbacks per subsection 11-5 -
2C1a, "Special Structural Elements ", of this title. Ground mounted solar energy systems
shall comply with the accessory structure setback standards for the applicable zoning
district in which they are located. Community solar gardens or solar farms shall comply
with the principal structure setback standards for the applicable zoning district in which
they are located.
4. Height: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the height standards of
the applicable zoning district. Roof mounted solar energy systems may be mounted at
an angle to the roof to improve their efficiency; however, the highest point of a solar
panel in any residential district shall not be more than three feet (3'), measured in a
straight line, above the roof upon which the panel is mounted. This three foot (3') height
limitation does not apply to roof mounted solar energy systems located in nonresidential
districts or on nonresidential uses. Ground mounted solar energy systems shall not
exceed fifteen feet (16) in height.
5. Aesthetics: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall be designed to blend into the
architecture of the building, provided that design considerations shall not diminish
energy production. The color of the solar collector is not required to be consistent with
other roofing materials. Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away
from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address
glare.
6. Screening: Roof mounted solar energy systems located in nonresidential districts or on
nonresidential uses shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of section
11 -2 -5 of this chapter and the screening requirements of the applicable zoning district to
the extent possible without reducing their efficiency. Ground mounted solar energy
systems, community solar gardens or solar farms shall be screened from view of the
public right of way to the extent possible without reducing their efficiency by setback,
berming, landscaping, walls or a combination thereof.
7. Coverage: Roof mounted solar energy systems shall not cover more than eighty
percent (80 %) of the south facing or flat roof upon which the panels are mounted and
shall be set back a minimum of one foot (1') from the edge of the roof. The surface area
of ground mounted systems shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage standard of the
applicable zoning district.
8. Feeder Lines: All power lines shall be placed underground within the interior of each
parcel.
9. Compliance With Building Code: All active solar energy systems shall meet approval of
local building code officials, consistent with the state of Minnesota building code, and
solar thermal systems shall comply with HVAC related requirements of the energy code.
10. Compliance With State Electric Code: All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the
Minnesota state electric code.
11. Compliance With State Plumbing Code: Solar thermal systems shall comply with
applicable Minnesota state plumbing code.
12. Certifications: Solar electric system components shall be certified by Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., and solar thermal systems shall be certified by the Solar Rating And
Certification Corporation, or other appropriate certification(s) as determined by the city.
The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed solar energy systems
deemed to have inadequate certification.
13. Utility Connection: All grid intertie systems shall have an agreement with the local
utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible external disconnect must be
provided if required by the utility. Off grid systems are exempt from this requirement.
14. Abandonment: If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a
continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall
constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their
expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire
structure including transmission equipment.
15. Permits: No solar energy system shall be erected, altered, improved, reconstructed,
maintained or moved in the city without first securing a permit from the city. Community
solar gardens or solar farms as defined in this section shall also require an interim use
permit.
16. Deviations: Deviations from the required standards for a solar energy system may be
addressed though a variance. (Ord. B -231, 3 -4 -2014)
• F A
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO:
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Councilmembers
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Dave Carlberg, Community Develc
Brett Angell, Associate Planner
Discuss Animal Regulations - Planning
February 23, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The City of Andover recently was contacted by a resident regarding a neighboring property
which keeps chickens. The report stated that during the warmer weather months, the chickens are
often allowed to roam freely across property lines and onto the adjacent roadways and properties.
Upon research of the Andover City Code, there are no ordinances that currently restrict animals,
beyond cats and dogs, from running at large.
A courtesy letter was sent to the property with chickens on February 8, 2016, asking the property
owners to ensure any poultry are not allowed to roam beyond property lines.
RESEARCH
City staff is currently researching the animal regulations for the cities of Blaine, Eagan, Eden
Prairie, Lakeville and Rosemount to see how each city regulates animals. Upon review of each
city, the regulations vary in terms of the types of animals regulated and what requirements must
be met for each animal.
ACTION
If requested by the City Council, staff will look to create a new section of the City Code in
regards to the general care of animals. The new section of the code will likely be placed under
Title 5: Police Regulations, Chapter 1: Animal Control and Article E: Care of Animals (5 -IE). A
copy of a draft ordinance is attached.
Respectfully,
Brett Angell
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
ARTICLE E. CARE OF ANIMALS
SECTION
5 -1 E -1:
General Provisions
5 -1 E -2:
Animal Restraint
5 -1 E -3:
Nuisances
5 -1 E -4:
Violation; Penalty
5 -1 E -1: General Provisions:
A. Animals kept within the City shall be properly cared for by a person of sufficient
age, knowledge and experience to adequately and safely care for and control the
animal(s).
B. No owner of any animal shall fail to provide with:
1. Sufficient food, potable water, or proper diet appropriate for its species.
2. Proper shelter and protection from the weather appropriate for its species.
3. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and maintain the normal
health of the animal.
4. Humane care and treatment.
C. No person shall:
1. Abandon any animal anywhere within the city.
2. Beat, treat cruelly, torment or otherwise abuse any animal.
3. Cause or permit any animal fights.
4. Leave any animal unattended in a standing or parked motor vehicle in a
manner that endangers the animal's health or safety.
5 -1 E -2: Animal Restraint:
A. No person owning or keeping an animal may permit the animal to run at large or
enter upon the premises of another without permission, nor may any such animal
be kept raised or permitted to go on any street, park, lake or public pond area
without proper restraint.
B. Animals which are permitted to roam and /or graze about a property must have a
suitable fencing system in place so as to restrain the animals from roaming
and /or grazing to the property of the person keeping or maintaining the animals.
1. The fence shall be of sufficient type so as to effectively control the animals
therein and to prevent an animal from crossing the boundaries established by
the fence.
2. Such a fence shall also be in compliance with all fencing regulations as set
forth in City Code Title 12 Chapter 7.
5 -1 E -3: Nuisances:
A. No person shall keep or harbor any animal in any unsanitary place or condition,
or in a manner that results in noisome odors or that annoys others by barking,
crying, howling, fighting or other similar noises.
B. No person shall feed animals in a manner that attracts wild animals, causes
property damage, allows for excessive amounts of feed to accumulate, or poses
a public health threat.
C. Property owners are required to clean all feces from their property as often as
necessary to prevent contamination to animals or humans and to avoid
nuisances from odors and breeding of insects, but in no case less than weekly.
5 -1 D -3: VIOLATION; PENALTY: Any person who shall violate
any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law.
• ,.� �
_
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Council Members
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Discuss Four Counties' Metro Governance Proposal
February 23, 2016
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to discuss the attached Four Counties' Governance Proposal that was
recently distributed to individual City Council Members and then provide direction to City
Administration on how the Andover City Council would like to respond /react.
DISCUSSION
Attached to this staff report is what was distributed to individual Council Members via the
Anoka County Board of Commissioners Chair, Rhonda Sivarajah on behalf of the Four Counties.
Included is:
1. Cover letter
2. Template Resolution: Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council
3. Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition - Statement of Objectives & Principles
4. Frequently Asked Questions: Metropolitan Council Reform Principles
Within the documents provided by the Four Counties', a reference is made to the Metro Cities
Policy position. The City of Andover is a member of Metro Cities, Council Member Knight is
on the Metro Cities Board and I am the Current Chair of the Metropolitan Agencies Committee.
I have attached the Metro Cities Metropolitan Agencies legislative policy (in particular review 4-
B Regional Governance Structure) for your reference and have also include a recent email
distributed to Metro Cities members from Metro Cities Executive Director, Patricia Nauman that
responds to the Four Counties Proposal.
The last attachment is the North Metro Mayors Association 2016 Legislative Action Plan, the
Governance section of this document identifies the North Metro Mayor's Association legislative
position on Metropolitan Council Governance.
ed,
Rhonda Sivaralah
Chair. District #6
Anoka County
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Respectful, Innovative, Fiscally Responsible
February 8, 2016
Dear Council Member:
We are part of a coalition of county and city leaders from the suburban metropolitan area who have
become increasingly concerned with a lack of accountability from the Metropolitan Council, especially
as its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues continue to expand. It is our belief that an
updated Metropolitan Council governance structure, one that makes the Council accountable to the
regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit this region greatly. We seek
your support for the attached principles for reform that would increase local participation and
collaboration to help guide orderly growth and economic development in our region.
We ask that you adopt the attached resolution calling for substantive change to the Council.
Structure Limits Local Representation
Metropolitan Council members are non - elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office
that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. We believe the
Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to
the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature
strong county representation and representation from other local elected officials. This call for reform
echoes the 2011 conclusion of the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor. In the evaluation
report Gournance of'Transit in the Twin Cities Region, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council
with a mix of gubernatorial appointees and elected officials from the region.
Substantial Changes in Role of Council Since 1967
The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provide regional planning services for the Twin
Cities area. However, at the same time the Council's management of growth, and in particular its
coordination of regional services, has changed dramatically. The Council's scope has increased, but
not its level of accountability to the local governments and citizens of the metropolitan area. Many
citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the present Metropolitan Council,
undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance
body.
In closing, we hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the attached resolution with
principles to strengthen regional planning and development. We welcome the opportunity to meet
with you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Claire Pritchard at
651- 438 -4540 (or at Claire.Pritchard(a co.dakota.mn.us) for more information or to schedule a
presentation by an elected official to votu Council or Board. We look forward to working with you in
this effort to unite the region for continued growth and prosperity.
Please make every effort
to return the adopted resolution to
Claire.Pritchard@co.dakota.mn.us by
Tuesday, March 8, or as early as possible given your
approval process.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Sivarajah, Chair
Brian Kirkham e Reinert
Anoka County Board of Commissioner
Bethel City Council Mayor, Lino Lakes
Government Center A 2100 31d Avenue, Suite 700 ♦ Anoka. MN 55303 -5024 ♦ www.anokacounty.us
Office: 763- 323 -5700 ♦ Fax: 763- 323 -5682 . TDDrF Y: 763- 323 -5289
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
TEMPLATE RESOLUTION: Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council
WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the
Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis -St.
Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set
regional policy; and
50
WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions
of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has
expanded significantly over the years; and
WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible,
and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and
WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor,
effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and
responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and
WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy
should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and
WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and
accountable partner for regional development and progress.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy
authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency
answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that
adheres to the following principles:
A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed
from cities and counties within the region;
II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to
the Metropolitan Council;
III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan
Council;
IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be
staggered and not coterminous with the Governor;
V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan
county government;
VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be
structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances.
1
C4)
Metropolitan Governance Reform
Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition
- Statement of Objectives-
A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has joined together to
develop a position statement and a set of principles for improving metropolitan governance
in the Twin Cities.
The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but
seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council.
The Coalition's objectives for its collective effort to improved governance are:
1. To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governance —as
represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan
Council
2. To align local government interests behind a reform effort — through formation of a
broad coalition of metropolitan Cities and Counties —and a common position.
3. To be prepared for any efforts— legislative and otherwise —to reform the
governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council.
Attached is the Coalition's Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform.
Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition
Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform
The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a
coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective
Metropolitan Council should reflect the following principles, which were developed based on the group's
core Statement of Belief (printed below).
STATEMENT OF BELIEF:
The Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional
constituency of those impacted by its decisions. It should not operate as a state agency —as it does in
its current form — answerable to only one person, the Governor.
Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform:
I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed
from cities and counties within the region.
II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to
the Metropolitan Council.
III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan
Council.
IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall
be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor.
V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every
metropolitan county government.
VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be
structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances.
FA
O
Background and Justification of Position
0
The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin
Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the region's growth and to
provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the
concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Council or diminish the importance of
regional collaboration.
However, the Council's management of growth, and in particular the coordination and delivery of
regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved.
Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and
solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional
highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development,
farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and
the 800 MHz radio network.
The Council's recent focus on reducing poverty and disparities makes it even more essential that within
the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs-- -
which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development /employment,
counseling, public health, nutrition and family "home visiting" services, workforce and specialized
housing programs and many other anti - poverty and human services. In these and many other
circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to
provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues.
Thus, while a strong regional approach is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional
governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local
elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non - elected individuals answerable only to
the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area
voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be
answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder.
The best way to ensure that the interests of citizens of the metropolitan -area are represented is to
have a preponderance of locally elected officials on the Council -- individuals that do not serve
exclusively at the pleasure of the Governor. This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to
meet federal guidelines to serve as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move encouraged
by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council
"more directly accountable to its publics."
Regional governance is vital to the metropolitan area's continued success. However, in order for a
regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body
effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan
Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of
suburban counties is working to join the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the
region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity.
'Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug-3 2015
3
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFORM PRINCIPLES
1) Why now?
Reform of the Metropolitan Council has been an issue on the minds of many local governments
for many years. However, political realities have created obstacles that thwarted many previous
attempts at reform.
The release of ThriveMSP2040 reinvigorated the drive for reform in many cities and counties
who were unhappy with aspects of the plan. However, our call for change is not a reaction to
the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home
what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments.
Councilmembers do not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one:
the Governor. We realized this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the
catalyst that renewed our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform.
2) Who makes up the coalition?
The coalition originated with officials from Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott Counties, who
share a collective opinion that the Metropolitan Council must be more accountable to the
regional constituency. They made the decision to develop principles for reform, and, knowing it
was important to have the perspective of cities represented as well, invited certain city officials
with interest in reform to join the group. The city officials (listed in Attachment A) represent
themselves alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of their entire councils. Together
this group developed a mutually- agreed -upon set of principles for reform.
3) You're asking cities to adopt these principles, knowing that they go against the position of
Metro Cities. Doesn't this undermine the work of the Metro Cities organization?
We believe that Metro Cities plays a vital role in advocating for city interests, and we did invite
them to play a part in the development of the shared principles. However, they ultimately
decided to withdraw from the group due the incompatibility of our positions. We had hoped to
work together toward reform, and we hope to work together in the future if the position of the
organization changes.
However, in the meantime we are aware of many cities with positions on Metropolitan Council
reform that contradict the official Metro Cities position, and we believe that those cities should
have their voices heard in the Legislature.
1
4) What are the next steps?
These draft principles have been distributed to every city and county in the metropolitan area,
and we hope to have as many as possible adopt these principles. We are happy to discuss the
principles, along with our reasons for wanting reform, with any Board or Council in the area.
During the Legislative Session we will present these adopted resolutions to Legislators to
illustrate how important reform is to local governments in the metro -area, and we will work
with Legislators to advance reform proposals that meet the adopted principles.
5) How do other cities do it?
Every other major metropolitan area's regional planning organization (see Attachment B), as
well as every other regional planning organization in Minnesota, is made up of a majority of
local elected officials.
6) Is this an effort to get rid of the Metropolitan Council?
Absolutely not. Regional governance is important, but it would be more effective and credible
with local representation. In the current system, Metropolitan Council members are non-
elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected
without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to
levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of
the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county
representation from local elected officials.
7) Is this a reaction to the ThriveMSP2040 plan?
No. Many cities and counties were unhappy with aspects of the Council's plan. However, our call
for reform is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead,
the experience drove home to many what little incentive the Council has to take into account
the opinions of local governments. The Council does not answer to the local constituency, but
rather to a constituency of one- the Governor. We realized that this was the core problem, and
the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst to renew our efforts to build a coalition for
governance reform.
8) Is there other support for this?
Yes, many other entities and organizations have come out in support for reform. In 2011, for
example, the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report recommending that the
Metropolitan Council be composed of a majority elected officials, citing the Council's "limited
credibility" due to a governance structure that limits accountability.
04
1�
The City of Minneapolis also passed a resolution on January 14, 2011, asking the Legislature to
reform the Council so that a "majority of council members shall be locally elected city and
county officials."
Furthermore, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration, responsible for certifying the Council as eligible to receive federal transportation
and transit funding, have encouraged reform of the Council to make it "more directly
accountable to its public."
9) Would these principles turn the Metropolitan Council into a Council of Governments (COG)?
No. Councils of Governments have little authority beyond transportation planning and regional
coordination of service. The level of authority that the Legislature has granted the Metropolitan
Council, including the authority to levy taxes, is unique. None of the proposed principles
diminish Council authority in any way, and will not transform the Council into a COG.
10) Do you oppose the Governor?
No. This is not a partisan issue- we would feel the same way whether the Governor was a
Republican or a Democrat. What troubles us is that the entire membership and focus of the
Council can shift depending on who is in power. The Council should represent the interests of
the region, not a single individual.
11) Is this about the suburbs complaining?
No. This is about ensuring that the entire region feels represented by the Metropolitan Council.
12) Is the Met Council accountable to their constituents?
No. Although the Met Council has the power to levy taxes on metropolitan area residents, it is
not accountable to those residents and is instead solely accountable to the Governor, an
individual that over the last five election cycles was only once elected with majority support
from metro -area voters.
3
lo.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES:
13) Aren't local elected officials too busy to serve on the Council?
There is a time commitment to serving on the Council, true, but it is only a part-time
engagement. Many current Metropolitan Council members hold other full -time jobs.
Furthermore, local elected officials serve on the metropolitan planning organizations of every
other large city in the country.
If these principles are enacted it will be part of cities and counties' role to ensure that those
appointed to the Council are comfortable with the time commitment.
14) Isn't it a conflict of interest to ask an official elected by one specific city or county to represent
an entire region?
Local elected officials already serve in many capacities where they must consider regional
interests. The Council's Transportation Advisory Board, for example, which recommends
allocation of transportation and transit funding throughout the region, is made up of majority of
local elected officials. The Counties Transit Improvement Board and the Metropolitan Mosquito
Control District Board are two other examples where local elected officials serve and represent
the interests of an entire region. Even the structure of County Boards and City Councils requires
local elected officials to represent the interests of the entire city /county, rather than the specific
district that elected them.
15) What happens if a local elected official leaves office in the middle of his /her Metropolitan
Council appointment?
We purposely made these principles high - level. We do not want to get into the details of a
specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. These issues will be considered as a plan
develops.
16) What about the criticisms of the role of the Council? These principles don't address any of
that.
True, and many of us do have thoughts on the role of the Council. However, we believe that the
first step is to reform the governance of the Council. Once the Council is accountable to its
metropolitan constituency we can consider the role that it should play in the region's future.
17) You mention a system of voting and checks and balances- can you elaborate?
We purposely made these principles high - level. We do not want to get into the details of a
specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. However, we do believe that the Council should
represent all citizens in the area, without allowing the large urban core to drive all decision
making.
4
ATTACHMENT A: PARTICIPANTS IN THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP
Participating County Officials:
Anoka County:
Commissioner Matt Look
Commissioner Scott Schulte
Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah
County Administrator Jerry Soma
Carver County:
Commissioner Randy Maluchnik
Commissioner Tom Workman
County Administrator Dave Hemze
Dakota County:
Commissioner Chris Gerlach
Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler
Commissioner Liz Workman
County Manager Brandt Richardson
Scott County:
Commissioner Mike Beard
Commissioner Jon Ulrich
County Administrator Gary Shelton
Participating City Officials:
Bethel:
Burnsville:
Chanhassen:
Elko New Market:
Jordan:
Lino Lakes:
Prior Lake:
Rosemount:
Shakopee:
Councilmember Brian Kirkham
Councilmember Bill Coughlin
Mayor Denny Laufenburger
Mayor Bob Crawford
Councilmember Mike Franklin
Mayor Jeff Reinert
Mayor Ken Hedberg
Councilmember Jeff Weisensel
Mayor Bill Mars
Attachment Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas OQ
The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non - voting members from various
San Diego Association of state and federal agencies and other organizations.
Governments
Summary: All voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members.
Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor.
Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council.
The Board consists of 15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1
citizen representative (position is currently vacant).
North Jersey Transportation The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's
Planning Authority Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT.
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen
member.
The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal
government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local
organizations.
Metropolitan Transportation The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency.
Commission (Oakland CA) The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen
members.
The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and 1 representative of the
Independent School Districts.
Houston - Galveston Area Council The local elected officials represent cities and counties in the metro area, although some
cities and counties are represented by judges.
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen
members.
t3
Attachment Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas
The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non - voting member of the
Texas Legislature.
North Central Texas Council of The metro -area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are
Governments represented by judges.
Boston Region MPO
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials (although there are
no county elected officials- counties are represented by judges). There are no citizen
members.
The Board consists of 14 local elected officials, 8 representatives from other governments
and organizations, and 2 nonvoting representatives from the federal government.
The elected officials are all mayors and selectmen of local towns; there are no county
representatives.
There are 2 representatives from regional planning organizations, as well as
representatives from regional transit and transportation authorities and the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Summary: The majority of the voting members are local elected officials. There are also
no citizen members.
The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non- voting representative
from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs.
Atlanta Regional Commission
There is 1 citizen representative from each of 15 districts in the metro area, elected by the
23 public officials.
Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are citizen members
selected by local elected officials.
The Council has a general assembly consisting of all elected officials from all member
jurisdictions. The Assembly establishes the budget and elects representatives to the
Executive Board.
Puget Sound Regional Council The Executive Board consists of 30 elected officials and 2 representatives from the
Washington State Transportation Commission and the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are selected by local
elected officials. There are no citizen members.
Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas
The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives from state
government.
National Capital Region The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General
Transportation Planning Board Assemblies.
S
Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen
members.
The Council consists of 32 local elected officials, 4 state representatives, and 1 member of
a citizen organization.
The elected officials are mayors, councilmembers, etc. from metro towns, cities, and
reservations.
Maricopa Association of
Governments There are also 2 representatives each from the State Transportation Board and the Arizona
Department of Transportation.
Finally, there is a representative from the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission.
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen
member, a representative of a citizen oversight commission.
The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at -large members, and
representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development,
Southwestern Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office.
Commission
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at -large
members.
The Board consists of 16 state government appointees, 24 local government elected
officials and staff, and 2 attorneys. as well as a number of non - voting members.
There are 4 representatives from the PA Department of Transportation and 3 from the NJ
Delaware Valley Regional Department of Transportation.
Planning Commission There are also 3 representatives from the PA Governor's Policy Office, 1 other PA
Governor's appointee, 3 from the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and 2 appointees
from the NJ Governor.
Summary: The majority of voting members are either local elected officials or local
government staff members. There are no citizen members.
Attachment B
6 Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas
The Board consists of 5 local elected officials, 3 city representatives, 1 state
representative, and 7 non - voting members from various federal and state agencies.
New York Metropolitan The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city
Transportation Council representatives are heads of the New York City Transportation Authority, Department of
Transportation, and Department of City Planning.
The state representative is from the New York State Department of Transportation.
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials or representatives
from city government. There are no citizen members.
The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state
Baltimore Regional departments (3 non - voting).
Transportation Board
A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges.
_ Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. _
The Council has a general assembly consisting of delegates from all local governments in
the region. The Executive Committee consists of local elected officials as well as
Southeast Michigan Council of representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast
Governments Michigan.
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen
members.
The Board consists of appointments from each of the metro counties- the members are a
combination of elected officials and representatives of nonprofits and private industry.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for There are also 2 non - voting Governor's appointees and a non - voting representative of the
Planning Regional Transportation Authority.
Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials and all are appointed by
local jurisdictions. There is a Citizens' Advisory Committee created by the Board.
The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all
members of the Los Angeles City Council and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected
representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from
Southern California Association regional transportation commissions and tribal governments.
of Governments
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen
members.
Attachment B
Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota
16
The Board consists of 15 local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens,
and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority.
Duluth- Superior Metropolitan There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of
Interstate Council Superior.
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two
citizen representatives.
_
The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the
Grand Forks East Grand Forks
Planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks.
Metropolitan Planning
Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus.
Organization
Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no
_
citizen representatives.
The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and
Moorhead Planning Commissions.
Fargo- Moorhead Metropolitan
Council
Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council.
Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen
_
representatives.
The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central
Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus.
St. Cloud Area Planning
Organization
-
Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen
representatives.
The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor.
Metropolitan Council
Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council.
The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school
districts, and 2 citizen members.
Rochester - Olmsted Council of
Governments
Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen
representatives.
La Crosse Area Planning
The Board consists of 10 local elected officials.
Committee
Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives.
Mankato /North Mankato Area The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials.
Planning Organization
All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen
PA f�fn
Metropolitan Agencies
4 -A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance
The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to the majority of our state's population and
businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. At the same time,
our metropolitan region faces significant challenges and opportunities. The responses to
these opportunities and challenges will determine the future success of the region and its
competitiveness in our state, national and world economies.
The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region,
and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and
service delivery.
The region's cities are the Metropolitan Council's primary constituency, with regional
and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and
implementation, and the delivery of a wide range of public services. To function
successfully, the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration
with city governments.
The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities
with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. City governments are
responsible and best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and
service delivery. Any additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council
should be limited to specific statutory assignments or grants or authorization, and should
not usurp or conflict with local roles or processes, unless such changes have the consent
of the region's cities.
• Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the
effective, efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services
and planning throughout the metropolitan area.
Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning
that can be provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level
than at the local level by individual local units of government.
The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery of regional services
and planning and be responsive to local perspectives on regional issues, and be
required to provide opportunities for city participation on Council advisory
committees and task forces.
2016 Legislative Policies 37
D)gq
Metropolitan Agencies
The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and
implementation around the regional development guide, policy plans, systems
statements, and local comprehensive plan requirements to ensure transparency,
balance and Council adherence to its core mission and functions. These
processes should allow for stakeholder input before policies and plans are
released for comment and finalized.
4 -113 Regional Governance Structure
Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the
Governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the
Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the Governor.
Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation
and input by local officials. Consideration should be given to the creation of four
separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of
the region. Members of each committee should include three city officials, appointed by
Metro Cities, one county commissioner appointed by the Association of MN Counties or
a comparable entity, and three citizens appointed by the Governor. At least three of the
local officials should be elected officials.
Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have
demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner and commit
to meet with local government officials regularly, and who understand the diversity
and the commonalities of the region, and the long -term implications of regional
decision - making.
4 -C Comprehensive Analysis of Metropolitan Council
Our region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant challenges
around the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure,
Metro Cities believes that a comprehensive analysis of the Metropolitan Council is timely
and appropriate, to assure that the region is equipped to address the future needs of a
rapidly changing and growing metropolitan region.
Metro Cities supports an objective, forward thinking analysis of the Metropolitan
Council that includes the Council's authority, activities, services, and its
geographical jurisdiction, and includes analysis of whether the Council is positioned
to be effective in the coming decades.
4 -D Oversight of Metropolitan Council
Metro Cities supports the bipartisan Legislative Commission on Metropolitan
Government, or another entity, to monitor and review the Metropolitan Council's
activities and to provide transparency and accountability of the Metropolitan
38 2016 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
Council operations and functions.
The Metropolitan Council should examine its scope of services to determine their benefit
and efficiency, and be open to alternative methods of delivery to assure that services are
provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region.
4 -E Funding Regional Services
The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities
through a combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants. The
Council should set user fees via an open process that includes public notices and public
hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports
effective and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards,
and allows for sufficient reserves to ensure long -term service and fee stability. Fee
proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are
collected.
Metro Cities supports the use of property taxes and user fees to fund regional
projects so long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or
tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return.
4 -F Regional Systems
Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment
and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan
Council's authority over them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the
focus or expand the reach of any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a
statutory change.
The system plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council for the regional systems should
be specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to
allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly
state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency and the criteria that
will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact
on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans.
Additional regional systems should be established only if there is a compelling
metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the
designation. Common characteristics of the four existing regional systems include public
ownership of the system and its components and an established regional or state funding
source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be
established. Water supply does not fit these criteria. Any proposed additional regional
system must have an established regional or state funding source.
2016 Legislative Policies 39
a6
Metropolitan Agencies
4 -G Regional Water Supply Planning
The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out regional planning
activities to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. A Metropolitan Area
Water Supply Advisory Committee that includes state agency representatives and local
officials was concurrently established to assist the Council in developing a master water
supply plan that includes recommendations for clarifying the roles of local, regional and
state governments, streamlining and consolidating approval processes and recommending
future planning and capital investments. The Master Water Supply Plan serves as a
framework for assisting and guiding communities in their water supply planning, without
usurping local decision making processes. Many cities also conduct their own analyses
for use in water supply planning.
The extension of the committee, which includes five metro area municipal officials,
allows the committee to continue to play a key role in the development and direction of
water supply planning activities as the Master Plan is updated and implemented with
additional information and data as they become available.
As the Met Council continues its assessment of the region's water supply and issues
around sustainability, the Council must work cooperatively with local policymakers and
professional staff throughout the region on an on -going and structured basis, to ensure a
base of information for water supply decision making that is sound, credible and
verifiable, and that takes into account local information, data, cost - benefit analyses and
projections before any resulting policy recommendations are issued.
Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter - relationships of
wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Any state and regional
regulations and processes should be clearly stated in the Water Supply Plan. Further,
regional monitoring and data collection benefits should be borne as shared expenses
between the regional and local units of government.
Metro Cities supports Metropolitan Council planning activities which address
regional water supply needs and water planning activities as prescribed in statute.
Metro Cities opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator
in the water supply arena. Metro Cities further opposes the elevation of water
supply to "Regional System" status, or the assumption of Met Council control and
management of municipal water supply infrastructure.
Metro Cities supports new laws that expand municipal representation on the water
supply advisory committee, creates a technical advisory committee with municipal
officials, and eliminates the requirement that city comprehensive plans be consistent
with the regional water supply plan. These changes will strengthen input and
collaboration around water supply planning, and help to ensure that sound
scientific analyses and models are developed before legislative solutions to these
issues are considered.
40 2016 Legislative Policies
2f
Metropolitan Agencies
Metro Cities supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with
municipal water supply projects. Any fees or taxes for regional water supply
planning activities must be consistent with activities prescribed in MN Statutes 473.
1565, and support activities specifically within the region.
4 -H Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan
Council should:
• Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan
is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial
departure from one of the four system plans;
• Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan
amendments and development applications;
• Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for
substantial impact on systems plans;
• Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review,
but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the
Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (LUPA);
• Work in a cooperative and timely manner toward the resolution of outstanding issues.
When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met
Council's systems plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeals process that includes
a peer review. Metro Cities opposes the imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties
when a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met
Council's systems plans or the plan fails to meet a statutory deadline when the city
has made legitimate efforts to meet Met Council requirements;
• Work with affected cities and other organizations such as the Pollution Control
Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and other
stakeholders to identify common ground and resolve conflicts between respective
goals for flexible residential development and achieving consistency with the
Council's system plans and policies; and
• Require entities, such as private businesses, nonprofits, or local units of government,
among others, whose actions could adversely affect a comprehensive plan, to be
subject to the same qualifications and /or regulations as the city.
2016 Legislative Policies 41
■
Metropolitan Agencies
4 -1 Comprehensive Planning Process
Metro Cities supports an examination of the comprehensive planning process to
make sure that the process is streamlined and efficient, so as to assist in alleviating
excessive cost burdens or duplicative or unnecessary planning requirements by
municipalities in the comprehensive planning process. Metro Cities supports
resources to assist cities in meeting regional goals as part of the comprehensive
planning process.
4-J Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are required to submit comprehensive plan updates to the Metropolitan Council
every 10 years, the most recent of which was due in 2008. A city's comprehensive plan
represents a community's vision of how the city should grow and develop or redevelop,
ensure adequate housing, provide essential public infrastructure and services, protect
natural areas and meet other community objectives.
Metro Cities recognizes the merit of aligning comprehensive plan timelines with the
release of census data. However, the comprehensive plan process is expensive, time
consuming and labor intensive for cities, and the timing for the submission of
comprehensive plans should not be altered solely to better align with census data. If
sufficient valid reasons exist for the schedule for the next round of comprehensive plans
to be changed or expedited, cities should be provided with financial resources to assist
them in preparing the next round of plans.
Metro Cities opposes cities being forced into a state of perpetual planning as a result
of regional and legislative actions. Should changes be made to the comprehensive
planning schedule, Metro Cities supports financial and other resources to assist
cities in preparing and incorporating policy changes in local planning efforts.
Metro Cities supports a 10 -year time frame for comprehensive plan submissions.
4 -K Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning and local officials should have full
authority to approve variances to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs
of their own community. Local zoning decisions, and the implementation of cities'
comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan
Council or any other governmental agency.
Metro Cities supports local authority over land use and zoning decisions, and
opposes the creation of non -local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city
zoning decisions.
42 2016 Legislative Policies
(03
Metropolitan Agencies
4 -L Regional Growth
The most recent regional population forecasts projects a population of 3,743,000 people
by 2040.
Metro Cities recognizes cities' responsibility to plan for sustainable growth patterns that
integrate transportation, housing, parks, open space and economic development that will
result in a region better equipped to manage population growth, to provide a high quality
of life for a growing and increasingly diverse metropolitan area population and improved
environmental health.
In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate
state and regional financial resources and incentives, and maximum flexibility around
local planning decisions are imperative. The regional framework should assist cities in
managing growth while being responsive to the individual qualities, characteristics and
needs of metropolitan cities, and should encourage sub - regional cooperation and
coordination.
In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high
quality of life:
• Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and
development/reinvestment;
• Significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and
• New households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second -ring
suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment.
In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of
regional policies:
• The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources, particularly in
the areas of transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development,
and the preservation of parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is
not adequate, cities should not be responsible for meeting the growth forecast set
forth by the Metropolitan Council;
• The Metropolitan Council and Legislature must work to pursue levels of state and
federal transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and
transit needs in the metropolitan area;
• The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue
to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives -based manner;
• The Metropolitan Council must recognize the various needs and capacities of its
many partners, including but not limited to cities, counties, economic development
2016 Legislative Policies 43
Metropolitan Agencies
authorities and nonprofit organizations, and its policies must be balanced and flexible
in their approach;
Metropolitan counties, adjacent counties and school districts must be brought more
thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance of facilities and services
such as county roads and public schools in accommodating forecasted growth; and
Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the "true" metropolitan region
extends beyond the traditional seven - county area and the need to work collaboratively
with adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those
counties. The region faces environmental, transportation, and land use issues that
cannot be solved by the seven - county metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an
analysis to determine the impacts of Metropolitan Council's growth management
policies and infrastructure investments on the growth and development of the collar
counties, and the impacts of growth in the collar counties on the metropolitan area.
4 -M Natural Resource Protection
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain
an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the
purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical
assistance. The state and region play significant roles in the protection of natural
resources. Any steps taken by the state or Metropolitan Council regarding the protection
of natural resources must recognize that:
The protection of natural resources is significant to a multi- county area that is home
to more than 50 percent of the state's population and a travel destination for many
more. Given the limited availability of resources and the artificial nature of the
metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan
communities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing
and protecting these resources;
• The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRUA) is
not a regional system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans
under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act;
The protection of natural resources should be balanced with the need to accommodate
growth and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more
affordable housing and provide transportation and transit connections; and
Decisions about the zoning or land use designations, either within or outside a public
park, nature preserve or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility
of local units of government.
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain
an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the
44 2016 Legislative Policies
Metropolitan Agencies
purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical
assistance.
The Metropolitan Council's role with respect to climate change, as identified in the 2040
regional development guide, should be focused on the stewardship of its internal
operations (wastewater, transit) and working collaboratively with local governments to
provide information, best practices, technical assistance and incentives around responses
to climate change.
Metro Cities urges the Legislature and /or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial
assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources.
4 -N Inflow and Infiltration (Ill)
The Metropolitan Council has identified nearly half of all sewered communities in the
metropolitan region to be contributing excessive inflow and infiltration into the regional
wastewater system. Inflow and infiltration are terms for the ways that clear water (ground
and storm) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes and gets treated, unnecessarily, at
regional wastewater plants. The number of identified communities is subject to change,
depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area can be affected. Another
19 cities have been identified as being near the threshold, or at risk, for contributing
excessive 1/I into the system.
The Metropolitan Council establishes a surcharge on cities determined to be contributing
unacceptable amounts of 1/I into the wastewater system. The charge is waived when cities
meet certain parameters through local mitigation efforts.
Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because of its potential
environmental and public health impacts, because it affects the size, and therefore the
cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive 1/I in one city can affect
development capacity of another. However, there is the potential for cities to incur
increasingly exorbitant costs in their ongoing efforts to mitigate excessive I /1.
Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program and supports continued reviews
of the methodology used to measure excess 1/I to ensure that the methodology
appropriately normalizes for precipitation variability and the Council's work with cities
on community specific issues around I /I.
Metro Cities supports state financial assistance for Metro Area M mitigation
through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation and
encourages the Metropolitan Council to partner in support of such appropriations.
Metro Cities supports continued state capital assistance to provide grants to metro
area cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into
municipal wastewater collection systems.
2016 Legislative Policies 45
Metropolitan Agencies
4 -0 Service Availability Charge (SAC)
Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, transparency,
simplification and lower rates.
Metro Cities supports a "growth pays for growth" approach to SAC as
recommended by a 2010 Task Force of Met Council members and city officials, and
that was subsequently adopted by the Met Council. This approach requires a
statutory change. If state statutes are modified to effect a "growth pays for growth"
method for SAC, the Metropolitan Council should convene a group of local officials
to identify any technical changes necessary for implementing the new structure.
Metro Cities supports allowing the Council to utilize the SAC `transfer' mechanism
provided for in state statute, when the SAC reserve fund is inadequate to meet debt
service obligations. Any use of the transfer mechanism must be done so within
parameters prescribed by state law and with appropriate notification and processes to
allow local official input and should include a timely `shift back' of any transferred funds
from the wastewater fund to the SAC reserve fund.
Metro Cities supports principles for SAC recommended by a 2014 work group that
examined the overall SAC program and structure. These include support for
program transparency and simplicity, equity for all served communities and
between current and future users, support for cities' sewer fee capacities,
administrative reasonableness, and weighing any program uses for specific goals
with the impacts to the program's equity, transparency and simplicity. As such,
Metro Cities opposes the use of the SAC mechanism to subsidize particular
Metropolitan Council goals and objectives.
Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council providing details on how any
changes to the SAC rate are determined. Metro Cities supports a periodic review of
MCES' customer service policies, to ensure that its processes are responsive and
transparent to communities, businesses and residents. Metro Cities supports
continued outreach by MCES to users of the SAC program to promote knowledge
and understanding of SAC charges and policies.
4 -P Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven - county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve as state parks, and
the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and
improvement of these parks. State funding apart from Legacy funds should equal 40
percent of the operating budget for regional parks. Legacy funds for parks and trails
should be balanced between metro and greater Minnesota.
46 2016 Legislative Policies
C())-)
Metropolitan Agencies
4 -0 Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA), administered by the Metropolitan Council,
provides a voluntary, incentive -based approach to affordable housing development, tax
base revitalization, job growth and preservation, brown field clean up and mixed -use,
transit - friendly development and redevelopment. Metro Cities strongly supports the
continuation of this approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by
local communities. Since its inception in 1995, the LCA program has generated billions
of dollars of private and public investment, created thousands of jobs and added
thousands of affordable housing units in the region.
Metro Cities supports a review of the LCA programs, and any necessary statutory
changes, to ensure that the LCA program criteria are flexible and promote the
participation of all participating communities, and to ensure that all metropolitan
area cities are eligible to participate in the Livable Communities Demonstration
Account (LCDA).
Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the
LCDA in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively
market driven or market proven in their particular location and in order to support
important development and redevelopment goals.
Metro Cities supports the statutory goals and criteria established for the Livable
Communities Act, and opposes any changes to LCA programs that constrain
flexibility around statutory goals, program requirements and criteria.
Metro Cities opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Program and
the transfer or use of these funds for purposes outside of the LCA program.
Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the LCDA to reflect the linkages
among the goals, municipal objectives, and Met Council system objectives.
Metro Cities supports the use of LCA funds for projects in transit improvement
areas, as defined in statute, as long as funding levels for general LCA programs are
adequate to meet program goals and the program remains accessible to
participating communities.
Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of
administering the program. Remaining interest earnings not used for program
administration should be considered part of the LCA funds and used to fund grant
requests from the established LCA accounts, according to established funding criteria.
4 -R Density
Any Met Council density policy and density determination must take into account the
impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities.
2016 Legislative Policies 47
Metropolitan Agencies
Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy and density
determination that bases density projections on local data, actual development
patterns, is flexible and accommodates cities at various development stages.
48 2016 Legislative Policies
2R
James Dickinson
From: Patricia Nauman [patricia @metrocitiesmn.org]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 2:58 PM
To: Patricia Nauman
Subject: Four Counties' Metro Governance Proposal - Metro Cities Policy Position
C ••�IEsT� r�••�
Representatives from Dakota, Carver, Scott, and Anoka counties have sent a request to metro area city officials
seeking support for their proposal to restructure the governance of the Metropolitan Council to one made up of
county and city officials. Metro Cities has received requests by city officials for clarification of our policy
positions on this topic. I am sending this communication so that you have an understanding of Metro Cities'
policy positions and how they were generated, and Metro Cities' perspective on the four counties' proposal.
Metro Cities supports the current statutory appointment process for the appointment of Metropolitan Council
members by the Governor, and in contrast with current law, supports staggered terms and modifications to the
selection process for Metropolitan Council members to more fully involve local officials in the selection
process. Metro Cities has initiated and continues to support these legislative changes. Such changes would
enhance the governance of the Council by providing more local official input into member selection and
stabilize ideological shifts in Council membership. These are pragmatic changes that could reasonably be
accepted by the Governor and Legislature.
On the surface, the proposal by Dakota, Anoka, Scott and Carver county officials, to have the Metropolitan
Council made up of local officials, would appear to be a solution to the tensions that exist between a regional
level of government and local governments in the metro area. However, a 2011 Metro Cities Governance Task
Force identified several problematic implications for this structure and did not recommend this model of
metropolitan governance. Metro Cities subsequently has not recommended this model in its positions on the
governance of the Metropolitan Council.
Task force members identified several concerns, primarily related to the incompatibility of holding the offices
of local official and Metropolitan Council member. Concerns centered on:
• Local officials who are elected in one community and are appointed to serve other communities through
Metropolitan Council membership could face actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts in
determining regional investments, funding and policy.
• Local officials would be serving and voting on two political subdivisions, generally considered to be
incompatible functions.
• The Metropolitan Council could become overly parochial and politicized, which could hamper regional
planning, and service delivery effectiveness and efficiency.
• Appointments to the Metropolitan Council could potentially be geographically imbalanced.
• There could be an infusion of special interests and political campaigns into the selection process for
Metropolitan Council members.
• Local officials would serve as both the "regulator" and "regulated" party, which are generally
considered to be incompatible roles.
• This governance structure could result in less scope of expertise on regional issues on the Metropolitan
Council.
• A Metropolitan Council with this structure could be more resistant to legislative oversight.
The 2011 Task Force also identified a concern about the impracticality of having sitting city officials serve as (9
Metropolitan Council members. Unlike county commissioners, most city officials are not full time mayors or
city council members. The Task Force concluded that the practical result could be to narrow the pool of
potential candidates from which to draw future Metropolitan Council members.
Metro Cities' policies do align with the counties' proposal in support of staggered terms for Metropolitan
Council members. Staggered terms would confer significant benefits for regional governance, providing more
knowledge continuity on the Council, more political and philosophical diversity, and fewer possibilities for
narrow policy agendas to emerge from the Metropolitan Council.
Metro Cities' governance policies on the Metropolitan Council recognize the importance of a separate regional
government, more input by local officials into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members,
staggered terms, and a high and consistent level of collaboration and engagement between local governments.
Metro Cities, through its representation of metro cities' shared interests, works to ensure that city needs are
accounted for all Council functions and planning, and for local officials to have adequate input and
opportunities to contribute their expertise and perspectives on regional issues.
Please let me know if you would further information or if you would like to discuss these issues. I can be
reached at 651- 215 -4002 or email: Patricia metrocitiesmn.org
Sincerely,
Patricia Nauman
Executive Director
Metro Cities
2
Noxth Metro 6D
Mayors
North Metro Mayors Association 2016 Legislative Action Plan
Transportation System Improvements
Transportation Funding
• Work with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, legislative leadership and
transportation committees, Governors
administration, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota
Transportation Alliance and key congressional
members and staff to secure increased transportation
funding as recommended by the Governors
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee.
North Metro Highway Construction Projects
Assist Champlin to secure funding to reconstruct
Trunk Highway 169 from Hayden Lake Road to the
Anoka /Champlin bridge over the Mississippi River.
• Assist Coon Rapids and Anoka to secure funding to
construct third lanes on Trunk Highway 10 between
Hanson Boulevard and 7`h Avenue in Anoka.
Assist Ramsey and Anoka to secure funding to
construct all recommended Trunk Highway 10
Access Planning Study improvements.
Work with Maple Grove and surrounding
communities, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and the Metropolitan Council to
resolve area transportation system improvement
issues, including completion of Trunk Highway 610.
• Work with Brooklyn Center, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan
Council to resolve Trunk Highway 252 transportation
system safety and congestion issues.
Assist the North Metro 1 -35W Corridor Coalition
in securing funding for implementation of
recommendations of the Managed Lane Study
between Minneapolis and Forest Lake.
North Metro Intersection
Improvement Projects
Work with Blaine to support efforts to provide
significant capacity enhancements to Trunk Highway
65 including upgrading major intersections along the
Trunk Highway 65 corridor.
Transportation Advocacy
• Work to secure funding to rename Old Highway 10/
Ramsey County Road 10 roadway through Mounds
View to Northtown Boulevard and install new signage.
Work to secure funding for Mounds View soundwall
along Trunk Highway 10 at 1 -35W.
Work to secure funding for New Brighton soundwall
along 1 -35W.
• Support efforts to build a Trunk Highway 65 coalition.
Support efforts to build a Trunk Highway 10 coalition.
• Work to secure wayfinding signage on recent road
improvements to assist motorists in navigating to
Osseo.
Obtain street /roadway improvements at Highway
169 and County Road 81 within the Osseo boundary
that reflect the character of Osseo.
Work to improve bike /pedestrian access between
Osseo and neighboring communities.
Work with Blaine and the National Sports Center to
resolve traffic issues related to 105th Avenue in Blaine.
Rail Crossings and Rail Safety
Support funding for modernization and separation
of rail - vehicle traffic as a critical matter of public
safety and congestion relief in the North Metro.
Fiscal Policy
• Work with the NMMA legislative delegation, League
of Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities, Anoka County,
Ramsey County and other stakeholders to be sure
the collective North Metro voice is heard and ensure
that the Local Government Aid and Metro Area Fiscal
Disparities programs remain intact.
Advocate for NMMA perspectives in debates over
comprehensive tax reform proposals.
• Support opportunities for member cities' economic
development and TIF initiatives.
• Continue to join with other county and city
organizations opposing legislation providing for
a future reverse referendum if a county or city
increases its property tax levy.
• Support legislation creating early voting
opportunities that create administrative and financial
efficiencies for local governments.
• Oppose the delay of the effective date for the
extension of the general sales tax exemption for
joint powers entities and special taxing districts.
15a�
Governance
• Work with the League _of Minnesota Cities, Metro
Cities and other local government partners in
a collaborative manner to advance key local
governmental legislative objectives.
Support legislation for staggered terms for
Metropolitan Council members.
Conduct legislative candidate forums in NMMA
member city districts to inform candidates on
NMMA issues and to assist voters in determining
their choices.
Host NMMA legislative delegation meetings early in
each legislative session and as needed while working
with the delegation to advance NMMA legislative
goals and objectives.
Engage NMMA Community Partners in legislative
efforts to more effectively carry the NMMA message
to elected officials and the governor's administration.
Water
Support efforts of the NMMA Water Work Group to
establish policy positions on water issues.
Engage NMMA stakeholders to endorse and promote
�
c
• F
LNDOVEA
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Councilmembers
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
January 2016 General Fund Budget Progress Report
February 23, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The City of Andover 2016 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $10,390,411 and
total expenditures of $10,697,788 (2015 budget carry forwards will be addressed with the
February 2016 report); 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
2016 reflecting year to date actual through January 2016. The attachment provided is to
assist discussion in reviewing 2016 progress; other documents may be distributed at the
meeting.
The following represents Administration's directives and departmental expectations that are in place
again for 2016:
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.
CM' OF ANDOVER
General Fund Budget Summary Totals
Budget Year 2016
2015 2016
REVENUES Budget Jan YTD % Bud YE- Unaudited Budget Jan YTD % Bud
General Property Tax
$
7,706,892
$
-
0%
$
7,634,714
$
8,113,528
$ -
0%
Licenses and Permits
316,588
18,181
6°!
452,422
346,205
13,928
4%
Intergovernmental
633,015
-
00%
749,571
673,248
(36,945)
-5%
Charges for Services
748,550
34,687
5%
749,416
767,950
28,052
4%
Fines
100,750
150
0%
99,304
100,750
-
0%
Investment Income
75,000
-
00/0
40,690
75,000
-
0%
Miscellaneous
98,850
57,756
58%
154,889
116,800
57,811
49%
Transfers In
196,930
196,930
1000.
196,930
196,930
196,930
100%
Total Revenues
S
9,876,575
S
307,704
3%
$
10,077,936
$
10,390,411
$ 259,776
3%
2016
2015
EXPENDITURES
Budget
Jan YTD
% Bud
YE- Unaudited
Budget
Jan YTD
% Bud
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Mayor and Council
$
87,154
$
31,990
37%
$
85,060
$
88,780
$ 32,582
37%
Administration
180,888
17,373
10%
172,296
192,778
18,977
10%
Newsletter
26,000
5,109
20%
21,042
26,000
3,300
13%
Human Resources
34,643
4,886
14%
15,909
35,260
5,171
15%
Attorney
182,000
-
0%
180,313
187,640
-
0%
City Clerk
135,359
17,241
13%
134,776
157,075
19,202
12%
Elections
32,492
824
3%
14,496
57,919
9,698
17%
Finance
245,494
37,455
15%
240,317
261,016
39,053
15%
Assessing
150,000
-
0%
146,315
150,000
-
0%
Information Services
172,239
9,209
5%
131,745
173,483
9,671
6%
Planning & Zoning
412,937
39,400
10%
406,045
435,606
40,849
9%
Engineering
470,631
45,248
10%
464,842
509,514
47,901
9%
Facility Management
564,802
30,992
5%
498,815
553,201
23,347
4%
Total General Gov
2,694,639
239,727
9%
2,511,971
2,828,272
249,751
9%
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection
2,918,308
-
0%
2,918,308
2,936,467
734,117
25%
Fire Protection
1,182,330
87,889
7%
1,165,221
1,284,795
111,840
9%
Protective Inspection
423,161
38,605
9%
391,948
441,807
34,233
8%
Civil Defense
39,189
3,941
10%
24,352
22,982
3,945
17%
Animal Control
9,950
ISO
2%
3,498
7,950
-
0%
Total Public Safety
4,572,938
130,585
3%
4,503,327
4,694,001
884,135
19%
PUBLIC WORKS
Streets and Highways
625,664
60,556
10%
629,724
650,237
59,730
9%
Snow and Ice Removal
533,770
106,082
20%
442,077
563,587
86,955
15%
Street Signs
203,533
14,621
7%
204,494
204,193
15,188
7%
Traffic Signals
35,000
-
0%
30,169
35,000
-
0%
Street Lighting
36,400
-
0%
30,664
36,400
-
0%
Street Lights - Billed
216,000
-
0%
201,501
217,500
-
0%
Park & Recreation
1,185,338
93,841
8%
1,151,313
1,257,247
98,462
8%
Natural Resource Preservation
-
-
0%
-
10,096
50
0%
Recycling
135,120
3,950
3%
128,038
130,927
5,769
4%
Total Public Works
2,970,825
279,050
9%
2,817,980
3,105,187
266,154
9%
OTHER
Miscellaneous
231,728
15,328
7%
221,478
31,728
-
0%
Youth Services
38,600
16,000
41%
35,242
38,600
8,500
22%
Total Other
270,328
31,328
12%
256,720
70,328
8,500
12%
Total Expenditures
$
10,508,730
$
680,690
6%
S
10,089,998
$
10,697,788
S 1,408,540
13%
NET INCREASE (DECREASE)
S
(632,155)
$
(372,986)
S
(12,062)
S
(307,377)
$ (1,148,764)
0
J
0
TT Y TO F
)OVE.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Councilmembers
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
January 2016 City Investments Review
February 23, 2016
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 January 2016, the January 2016
Investment Detail Report, and the January 2016 Money Market Funds Report. These
attachments are intended to assist with discussion when reviewing the January 2016
investments.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational. The Council is requested to review and provide feedback to staff.
tf illy submitted,
A-�-
Dickinson
Investment Maturities - January 2016
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
$ 1,285,090
$ 1,285,090
$
$
$
MN Municipal Money
Market Fund (4M)
N/A
4,994
4,994
-
Premier Banks Money
Market Fund
N/A
260,115
260,115
Certificates of deposit
FDIC
11,395,018
7,385,184
4,009,834
-
Local governments
A /Al /A2
590,781
-
486,231
-
104,550
AAl /AA2 /AA3
7,869,628
1,171,518
4,760,195
1,417,508
520,407
AAA
3,411,017
335,184
2,548,829
527,005
-
229,262
21,686
_
-
-
State governments
A /Al /A2
200,670
200,670
-
AAI /AA2 /AA3
1,719,021
508,974
980,785
U.S. agencies
AAA
760,462
403,610
335,166
AAA
3,237,623
130,807
2,481,315
400,893
224,608
FNMA REMIC
N/A
7,927
-
7,927
-
-
U.S. agencies
N/A
1,151,224
1,151,224
-
Total investments
$ 31,893,570
$ 11,686,146
$ 16,761,505
$ 2,596,353
$ 849,565
Deposits
2,385,152
Total cash and investments
$ 34,278,722
January 2016 Investment Detail
Description
Cusip Number
Credit
Rating /F
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity I
Due Date
Pacific Western Bank
69506YCG2
24045
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
0.400%
248,980.08
maturity
maturity
03/06/15
12/09/15
none
none
03/04/16
03/09/16
First National Comm Bank
32107NBS2
7472
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.350%
247,942.96
Beal Bank
07370WNF9
32574
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
0.400%
248,975.10
maturity
03/11/15
none
03/09/16
Bank ofBaroda New York
06062QFQ2
33681
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.350%
247,942.96
maturity
12/09/15
none
03/09/16
RBS Citizens NA
75524KEF7
57957
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.350%
247,942.96
maturity
12/09115
none
03/09/16
Merchants Bnk of Indiana _
588493FW1
8056
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.450%
247,940.48
maturity
12/11/15
none
03/11/16
Medallion Bank Utah
5840362T2
57449
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.400%
247,930.56
maturity
12/18/15
none
03/18/16
Farmers State Bank
31034RBD6
12855
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.350%
247,893.36
maturity
12/15115
none
04/15/16
Cadence Bank
12738RCF9
4999
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
0.350%
248,900.40
maturity
10/23/15
none
04/22/16
Bank of India NY
06279HBZ5
.33648
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
0.400%1
248,892.93
maturity
10/30/15
none
04/27/16
BMO Harris Bank
05573J6A7
16571
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
0.350%
248,890.44
maturity
10/28/15
none
04/28/16
Sallie Mae Bank
795450W04
56177
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
0.400%
248,890.44
maturity
10/28/15
none
04/28/16
Compass Bk
20451PPEO
19048
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.450%
247,799.12
maturity
12/09/15
none
06/09/16
National Cooperative Bank
635573AG3
32612
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.500%
247,809.04
maturity
12/09/15
none
06/09/16
BerkshireBk
084601EX7
23621
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.500%
247,796.64
maturity
12/11/15
none
06/10/16
First Niagra Bk Nall Assn
33583CTB5
16004
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.550%
247,789.20
maturity
12/11/15
none
06/13/16
Safra National Blk
78658QSQ7
26876
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.500%
247,752.00
maturity
12/14/15
none
06/14/16
First Source Bank
33646CGA6
9087
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.450%
247,791.68
maturity
12/15/15
none
06/15/16
Santander Bank NA
80280JKY6
29950
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
200,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
250,000.00
248,000.00
245,000.00
0.650%
249,032.37
maturity
semi- annual
semi- annual
semi - annual
maturity
maturity
maturity
maturity
01/20/16
08/14/13
08/16/13
09/10/14
01/28/16
none
02/14/14
02116/14
03/04/15
none
07/20/16
08/15/16
08/16/16
09/06/16
09/28/16
Lake Forest Bank & Trust
509685ES8
27589
CD
200,000.00
200,000.00
0.850%
0.750%
200,204.00
248,121.52
248,153.76
245,049.00
244,524.70
250_,00_0.00
Luana Savings Bank
Synovus Bank GA
Mountainone Bank
Mizuho Bank USA
1 Year CD - Premier Bank
TCF National Bank
1 Year CD - Premier Bank Rochester
1 Year CD - Premier Bank MN
549103MY2
253
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
250,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
87164DFL9
62452AAT7
60688MSH8
1091003210
872278RE8
873
248,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
250,000.00
248,000.00
245,000.00
0.800%
0.600%
0.700%
0.600%
90253
21843
01/20/16
none
10/20/16
21714_
28330
12/16/15
12/16/15
none
none
12/16/16
12/16/16
0.700%
247,536.24
2055214401
3041574901
33202
245,000.00
0.600%
245,000.00
maturity
12/16/15
none
12116/16
33204
CD
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.600%
245,000.00
maturity
12/16/15
none
12116/16
Wax Bank
92937CDJ4
34697
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.750%
247,556.08
maturity
12/16/15
none
12/16/16
Whitney Bk New Orleans LA
966594AP8
12441
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
0.850%
247,145.73
maturity
01/27/16
none
01/27/17
Prattville AL
740019LG7
AA
local
154,417.50
154,417.50
150,000.00
4.000%
152,911.50
semi - annual
10/27/15
none
09/01/16
Chaska MN
161664DU8
AA
local
76,434.00
76,434.00
75,000.00
2.000%
75,876.75
semi - annual
08/15/13
06/01/14
12/01/16
Lake Mills WI
510192FAO
AA-
local
65,000.00
65,000.00
21,269.40
65,000.00
20,000.00
0.700%
65,032.50
semi - annual
semi - annual
06/22/15
08/02/11
none
09/01/16
Minneapolis Minn
60374YP35
AA1
local
21,269.40
3.250%
20,055.00
135,421.20
none
03/01/16
Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col
250097A85
AA1
local
137,668.95
137,668.95
135,000.00
1.376%
semi - annual
07/30/12
12/01/12
06/01/16
Duluth Minn ISD #709
264474CK1
AA2
local
74,939.20
74,939.20
70,000.00
4.000%
70,010.50
semi- annual
01/18/11
none
02/01/16
Duluth MN
264438ZB1
AA2
local
105,652.05
105,652.05
105,000.00
1.000%
105,005.25
semi- annual
12/05/12
08/01/13
02/01/16
Keller TX ISD Zero Coupon
487694DW8
AA2
local
249,000.00
249,000.00
250,000.00
249,977.50
maturity
03/24/15
none
02/15/16
Rowlett TX
7796986117
AA2
local
101,905.55
101,905.55
95,000.00
3.000%
95,113.05
semi- annual
07/10/12
08/15/12
02/15/16
Grand Forks ND Sales Tax Raven
385492GQO
AA2
local
104,082.00
104,082.00
100,000.00
4.000%
102,103.00
semi - annual
06/23/15
09/01/12
09/01/16
East Bethel Minn
271074HRO
AA3
local
100,941.00
100,941.00
100,000.00
3.200%
100,012.00
semi- annual
12/15/10
08/01/11
02/01/16
Three Rivers MN Park Dist
885718GG5
AAA
local
210,828.00
210,828.00
200,000.00
3.000%
200,032.00
semi- annual
12/12/13
08/01/14
02101/16
Danbury TX SID
236037ES2
AAA
local
40,348.00
40,348.00
40,000.00
4.000%
40,065.60
semi - annual
11/19/15
none
02/15/16
Richardson TX
763227EC5
AAA
local
98,031.45
98,031.45
951 000.00
3.150%
95,086.45
semi - annual
11/12/14
none
02/15/16
7,385,183.75 CD
1,506,702.30 local
January 2016 Investment Detail
Description
Cusip Number
Credit
RatinglF
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity I
Due Date
Illinois State
452152HR5
A-
state
217,312.00
217,312.00
200,000.00
4.961%
200,670.00
semi - annual
07/16/12
09/01/11
03/01/16
Oregon State
68608URVO
AA1
state
70,194.60
70,194.60
70,000.00
0.890%
70,163.80
semi - annual
07/29114
08/01/13
08/01/16
Nevada State
641461NKO
AA2
state
258,305.00
258,305.00
250,000.00
4.000%
253,230.00
semi - annual
06/18/15
06/01/11
06/01116
Mississippi State
605581BV8
AA2
state
25,000.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
1.116%
25,137.00
semi- annual
09/12/13
none
12/01/16
Florida St Hurricane
34074GDF8
AA3
state
160,836.80
160,836.80
160,000.00
1.298%
160,443.20
semi - annual
08/14/15
07/01/13
07/01/16
Ohio State Water DevAuth Zero Coupon
67766WKK7
AAA
state
199,412.00
199,412.00
200,000.00
199,792.00
maturity
07/28/15
none
06/01116
Texas State
882723BT5
AAA
state
211,414.00
211,414.00
200,000.00
4.000%
203,818.00
semi - annual
01/14/15
none
08/01/16
Fed Nat Mtg Assn
3136G1YP8
AAA
US
130,130.00
130,130.00
130,000.00
0.800%
130,807.30
semi - annual
07/08/15
none
12/30/16
10,135,947.35
Amex Centurion Bank
02587DE61
27471
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.900%
247,749.52
semi - annual
10/28/15
04/28/16
04/28/17
Capital One
14042E4Q0
4297
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
1.150%
247,672.64
semi - annual
07/15/15
01/15/16
07/17/17
Farmers & Merchants Svgs Bk
30856PAGJ
9298
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
1.050%
249,453.18
monthly
01/22/16
02/22/16
10/23/17
Valley Cent Svgs Bk Reading OH
91944RAE8
28555
CD
150,000.00
150,000.00
150,000.00
1.250%
149,974.50
monthly
12/22/14
01 /22115
12/22/17
B -Bay, LLC
05580ADR2
35141
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.600%
246,313.20
semi - annual
01/22/16
07/22/16
01/22/19
Barclays Bank
06740KHB6
57203
_CD
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
248,812.98
semi - annual
07/03/14
01/02/15
07/02/19
Synchrony Bank
87164WBT4
27314
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
248,682.07
semi- annual
07111/14
01/11/15
07/11/19
PrivateBank &Trust Co
74267GUQ8
33306
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.000%
248,625.26
semi - annual
07/21/14
01/21/15
07/22/19
Goldman Sachs Bank USA
38147JU59
33124
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
248,286.87
semi - annual
07/23/14
01/23/15
07/23/19
Bangor Savings Bank
060243DV1
18408
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.000%
245,247.45
semi - annual
monthly
semi - annual
semi - annual
semi - annual
semi- annual
07/30/14
01/21/16
09/24/14
11/24/14
12/20/13
12/26/14
01/30/15
02/21/16
03/24/15
05/24/15
06/20/14
07/30/19
08/21/19
09/24/19
11/25/19
12120/19
First Federal Svgs Bk _ _ _ _
Victory Bank
Third Federal Sav & Loan
Celtic Bank
Steams Bank NA
Citizens Alliance Bank
32021YCH4
92644LAB8
884130AW8
15118RJMO
857894PB9
17318LAP9
29690
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
_245,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
1.500%
250,658.34
248,244.88
128,904.96
249,973.88
248,645.02
58615
247,000.00
128,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
249,000.00
247,000.00
128,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
249,000.00
247,000.00
128,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.000%
2.000%
2.050%
1.000%
30012
57056
10988
06/26/15
12/26/19
1402
249,000.00
2.000%
251,298.27
monthly
06/27114
07/27/14
06/26/20
Enerbank USA
29266NA31
57293
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
2.100%
251,290.80
monthly
07/18/14
08/18/14
07/20/20
Elbow Lake MN
284281KC5
A
local
170,045.70
170,045.70
165,000.00
2.750%
171,657.75
semi- annual
12/08/14
none
12/01/19
Oshkosh Wis Storm Wtr Util
68825RBD1
Al
local
101,003.00
101,003.00
100,000.00
3.250%
103,362.00
semi - annual
10/05/10
05/01/11
05/01/18
Oneida County NY
6824543R2
Al
local
91,510.40
91,510.40
80,000.00
100,000.00
6.250%
85,576.80
semi - annual
semi - annual
08/16/10
none
04/15/19
Junction City Kansas
481502F72
A2
local
101,558.00
101,558.00
5.500%
110,116.00
05128108
03/01109
09/01/18
Augusta ME
051411ND4
A3
local
16,875.00
16,875.00
15,000.00
5.250%
15,518.40
semi - annual
none
10/01/17
North Mankato MN Port Auth Cam
660760AG4
AA
local
107,657.00
107,657.00
100,000.00
4.000%
102,574.00
semi- annual
_03/07/12
09/20/13
none
02/01/17
Philadelphia PA Auth Zero Coupon
71781LBJ7
AA
local
161,700.00
161,700.00
245,000.00
239,695.75
maturity
01/12/10
none
04115/17
Rice Cnty MN
762698GK8
AA
local
45,466.80
45,466.80
40,000.00
4.400%
43,790.00
semi - annual
03/07/12
none
02/01/19
Racine WI
7500216D4
AA-
local
101,792.00
101,792.00
100,000.00
2.100%
102,267.00
semi - annual
01/24/12
06/01/12
06/01/18
Minnetrista MN
604229KE3
AA+
local
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
2.450%
10,013.30
semi- annual
10/10/13
08/01/14
Ramsey AN
751813PB6
AA+
local
158,677.85
158,677.85
145,000.00
4.500%
145,888.85
semi - annual
02116/12
04/01/16
_02/01/19
04/01/19
Steams Cc MN
857896MH4
AA+
local
276,875.00
276,875.00
250,000.00
4.500%
258,912.50
26,291.75
semi- annual
semi - annual
04/17/13
12/22/11
none
06/01/20
Osseo MN ISO #279
688443,127
AA1
local
30,103.25
30,103.25
25,000.00
6.000%
none
02/01/17
McKinney TX
581646Y91
AA1
local
126,856.25
126,856.25
125,000.00
1.4721/0
126,041.25
semi - annual
05/20/15
none
08/15/17
Dane County WI
236091M92
AA1
local
106,487.00
106,487.00
100,000.00
2.450%
102,588.00
semi - annual
07/16/12
none
12101/17
Minneapolis MN
60374YF93
AA1
local
220,938.00
220,938.00
200,000.00
4.000%
213,332.00
semi- annual
03/04/14_
none
03/01/18
Scott County IA
809486EZ2
AA1
local
r 114,450.33 1
112,617.00
100,000.00
4.400%
105,824.00
semi - annual
10/31/12
12/01/12
06/01/18
1,113,254.00 state
130,807.30 US
Less Than 1 Year
4,009,833.82 CD
January 2016 Investment Detail
Description
Cusip Number
Credit
Rating /F
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity/
Due Date
King Cnty WA _
49474E3L5
AA1
local
224,634.00
224,634.00
200,000.00
3.980%
214,462.00
semi- annual
03/27/12
none
12101/18
Minneapolis MN
60374YS73
AA1
local
111,898.00
111,898.00
100,000.00
3.250%
106,712.00
semi- annual
06/05/12
12/01/11
12101/18
Cedar Rapids IA
150528RM1
AA1
local
217,672.00
217,672.00
200,000.00
3.000%
211,554.00
semi - annual
06/11/13
12/01/13
06/01/19
Minneapolis MN
60374YS81
AA1
local
278,632.50
278,632.50
250,000.00
3.500%
270,135.00
semi - annual
02/26/13
none
12/01/19
Hampton VA
4095582,11
AA1
local
100,836.00
100,836.00
100,000.00
2.209%
102,142.00
semi- annual
01/20/16
none
04/01/20
Middleton WI
596782RX2
AA1
local
106,979.00
100,000.00
3.750%
106,621.00
semi- annual
02124/15
none
09/01/20
Buffalo MN ISD #877
119655PS1
AA2
local
264,250.00
250,000.00
4.050%
258,175.00
semi - annual
03/10/15
none
02/01/17
Wated001A
941647KEB
AA2
local
105,594.00
100,000.00
3.500%
103,178.00
semi - annual
02/24/15
none
06/01/17
Prior Lake MN
742617CB7
AA2
local
230,000.00
F264,250.00
230,000.00
1.000%
230,223.10
semi - annual
05/14/15
12/15/15
12/15/17
Hopkins Minn ISD #270
439881HC0
AA2
local
95,278.40
0
80,000.00
5.250%
86,376.00
semi - annual
04/30/12
08/01/09
02/01/18
Orange Beach ALA
68406PHF1
AA2
local
241,689.60
240,000.00
4.400%
255,784.80
semi - annual
08/05/10
02/01/11
02/01/19
Waterloo IA
941647PAl
AA2
local
50,559.50
50,559.50
50,000.00
2.000%
51,258.00
semi - annual
06/27/13
12/01/13
06/01/19
Western Lake Superior MN
958522WU4
AA2
local
100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
3.150%
105,503.00
semi- annual
08/16/11
04/01/12
10/01/19
Portsmouth VA
73723RSL8
AA2
local
286,268.00
286,268.00
295,000.00
2.400%
305,885.50
semi - annual
07/17/13
02/01/14
02/01/20
Brunswick Cnty
117061VH1
AA2
local
108,967.10
108,967.10
110,000.00
1.740%
111,205.60
semi- annual
08/21/15
none
05/01/20
Tucson AZ
898711Q33
AA3
local
254,202.50
254,202.50
250,000.00
2.139%
254,867.50
semi - annual
12/09/15
none
07/01/17
Kane McHenry Cook & De Kalb Zero Cpn
484080MB9
AA3
local
157,328.00
157,328.00
200,000.00
188,258.00
maturity
07/16/12
none
12/01/18
Moorhead MN
6161412R7
AA3
local
108,820.00
108,820.00
100,000.00
3.800%
103,189.00
semi - annual
11/14/11
none
02/01/20
Davenport Iowa
238388GS5
AA3
local
111,948.00
111,948.00
100,000.00
4.650%
104,647.00
semi - annual
09/13/11
none
06/01/20
WhitewaterWis
Maple Grove MN _ _
Ramsey Cnty MN
Tennessee Valley Auth
Washington County MN
Saint Louis Park MN
Brownsville TX ISD Zero Coupon
Minnetonka MN ISD #276
966204KA6
AA3
local
109,541.00
109,541.00
100,000.00
4.850%
112,800.00
222,409.00
100,151.00
90,705.20
118,907.70
semi - annual
semi - annual
semi - annual
semi- annual
06/09/11
01/10/13
08/12/14
06/01/09
07/01/10
none
08/01113
02/01/15
01/18/08
01/01/11_
12/01/20
02/01/17
02/01117
07/18/17
01/01/18
02/01/18
08/15/18
02/01119
5651_6PNY5_
751622JG7
880591EA6
937791KL4
791740WC3
116421E46
60_4195RA7
AAA
230,520.40
230,520.40
220,000.00
1.00,000.00
85,000.00
115,000.00
100,000.00
2.000%
1.130%
5.500%
AAA
AAA
AAA
AAA
AAA
_local
local
local
local
local
100,000.00
93,153.11
115,000.00
112,114.00
100,000.00
93,153.11
115,000.00
112,114.00
3.750%
semi- annual
105,490.00
semi - annual
12/22/11
none
local
229,640.00
229,640.00
250,000.00
_ _3.850%
241,512.50
maturity
06/26113
none
AAA
local
37,433.20
37,433.20
35,000.00
3.100%
36,201.20
semi - annual
12122/11
none
Palm Beach Cnty FLA
696497TR7
AAA
local
256,504.60
256,504.60
220,000.00
5.898%
237,846.40
semi - annual
07/06/11
none
06/01/19
Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn
88059EWZ3
AAA
local
262,890.00
262,890.00
300,000.00
285,894.0_0
maturity
12127/13
none
06/15/19
Norwalk Conn
668844DS9
AAA
local
122,464.80
122,464.80
120,000.00
4.050%
128,982.00
semi - annual
08/04/10
08/01/11
08/01/19
Greensboro NC
39546OV21
AAA
local
366,832.80
366,832.80
360,000.00
3.263%
378,493.20
semi - annual
07/15/11
none
10/01119
Woodbury MN
97913PCQ7
AAA
local
123,037.35
123,037.35
115,000.00
3.250%
119,112.40
semi - annual
12/22/11
none
02/01/20
Dallas TX Indpt Sch Dist
235308QK2
AAA
local
116,900.00
116,900.00
100,000.00
4.450%
110,128.00
semi - annual
04/16/12
08/15/11
02/15/20
Tenn Valley Auth Zero Cpn
88059EHD9
AAA
local
263,970.00
263,970.00
300,000.00
280,125.00
maturity
03/11/13
none
05/01/20
Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn
88059EMX9
AAA
local
88,133.00
88,133.00
100,000.00
92,871.00
maturity
03118/13
none
07/15/20
Washington State
939758DL9
AA
state
205,804.00
205,804.00
200,000.00
4.500%
213,588.00
semi- annual
01/24/12
04/01/12
10/01/18
Massachusetts State
57582P2T6
AA1
state
199,744.00
199,744.00
200,000.00
2.090%
205,068.00
semi - annual
12/17/14
11/01114
05/01/20
New Hampshire St Hag
64469DWUl
AA2
state
250,952.50
250,952.50
250,000.00
1.789%
252,075.00
semi - annual
12/09/15
07/01/16
01/01/18
New Hampshire St Hsg
64469DWV9
AA2
state
135,804.60
135,804.60
135,000.00
100,000.00
1.939%
136,404.00
semi - annual
12/09/15
07/01116
07/01/18
Minnesota St Colleges & Univ
60414FPJ3
AA2
state
100,000.00
100,000.00
2.000%
101,228.00
semi - annual
02/26/15
10/01/15
10/01/20
Florida St Hurricane
34074GDH4
AA3
state
71,507.80
71,507.80
70,000.00
2.995%
72,422.00
semi - annual
11/10/15
07/01/13
07101/20
Tennessee State
880541QM2
AAA
state
201,894.00
201,894.00
200,000.00
2.326%
204,330.00
semi - annual
10/26/11
02/01/12
08/01/17
Georgia State
373384RQ1
AAA
state
26,742.50
26,742.50
25,000.00
2.970%
26,153.00
semi - annual
02108/12
none
10/01/18
Texas State
882722,151
AAA
state
103,089.00
103,089.00
100,000.00
2.894%
104,683.00 1
semi - annual
08/10/11
04/01/12
10/01/18
7,795,254.45 local
1,315,951.00 state
1
January 2016 Investment Detail
Description
Cusip Number
Credit
Rating /F
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity I
Due Date
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133EE6A3
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00_
100,000.00
0.590%
0.900%
199,654.00
semi - annual
12/09/15
02/06/16
02/06/17
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133EATE8
AAA
US
99,647.00
99,647.00
100,189.00
semi- annual
11/04/13
12/08/12
06/08/17
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133ECA95
AAA
US
199,800.00
199,800.00
200,000.00
0.790%
199,786.00
semi- annual
12/08/15
03/18/13
09/18/17
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133ECFA7
AAA
US
100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
1.080%
100,000.00
semi - annual
02/13/13
08/13/13
02/13/18
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
3134G46D5
AAA
US
198,000.00
198,000.00
200,000.00
1.200%
200,022.00
semi- annual
06/12/13
12/12/13
06/12/18
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note
3134G3ZK9
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1.200%
200,814.00
semi- annual
07/30/12
01/30113
07/30/18
Fed Farm Credit Bank
31331Y4S6
AAA
US
114,000.00
114,000.00
100,000.00
5.050%
109,903.00
semi - annual
09/11/13
none
08/01/18
Fed Net Mtg Assn
3136GORB9
AAA
US
294,999.00
294,999.00
300,000.00
1.375%
300,420.00
semi - annual
12/05/13
12/28/12
12/28/18
Fed Nall Mtg Assn
3136GOY70
AAA
US
199,300.00
199,300.00
200,000.00
1.080%
200,234.00
semi- annual
10/30/12
01130/13
01/30/19
Fed Farm Credit Bank
jCpn
3133EC5N0
AAA
US
99,587.00
99,587.00
100,000.00
1.250%
99,926.00
semi- annual
01/07/13
03/04/13
03/04/19
RFCSP Strip Principal Zer76116FAA5
AAA
US
185,568.00
185,568.00
200,000.00
189,336.00
maturity
07/22/15
none
10/15/19
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Ze313400BV4
AAA
US
278,625.00
278,625.00
300,000.00
280,860.00
maturity
11/02/15
none
11/29/19
Fed Home Ln Bank
313OA3XL3
AAA
US
99,500.00
99,500.00
100,000.00
1.500%
100,153.00
semi - annual
07/22/15
08/10/15
02/10/20
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133ECQ64
AAA
US
191,812.00
191,812.00
200,000.00
1.740%
200,018.00
semi- annual
07/23/13
11/21/13
05/21/20
Fed Nall Mtg Assn Remic
31393EAL3
US
204,187.50
7,857.67
7,696.52
4.500%
7,927.42
monthly
07/30/03
none
08125/18
FICO Strip Prin Zero Coupon
31771 KAC1
US
295,932.00
295,932.00
300,000.00
294,606.00
maturity
10/23/15
none
10/06/17
FICO Strip Prn-4 Zero Coupon
31771 EAD3
US
194,572.00
194,572.00
200,000.00
196,404.00
maturity
03/16/15
none
10/06/17
FICO Strip Cpn -E Zero Coupon _
31771JXM7
US
215,452.16
215,452.16
224,000.00
219,717.12
maturity
12/11/14
none
11/02/17
FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon
31771EAA9
US
236,235.00
236,235.00
250,000.00
244,195.00
maturity
06/09114
none
05/11/18
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
31393VMQ1
US
153,656.25
4,392.32
93_,140.00
4,287.79
4.500%
4.000%
4,408.53
monthly
maturity
_ maturity
semi - annual
semi- annual
06/30/03
12/29/14
04/17/15
none
none _
06/15/18
12/27/18
02/01/19
FICO Strip Cpn13 Zero Coupon
FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon
Chaska MN
Mitchell SD Sch Dist #17 -2 _
Minnetrista MN
31771C2G9
31358BAA6
161663653
606687EHO
AA
AA
US
93,140.00
94,480.00
115,122.70
100,000.00
100,000.00
110,000.00
96,540.00
95,353.00
16,761,505.34
_ US_
local
94,480.00
115,122.70
115,053.40
09/08114
none
02/01/24
local
116,702.00
116,702.00
100,000.00
6.000%_
110,718.00
12/20/11
06/15/19
06/15/24
604229KG8
AA+
local
161,038.40
161,038.40
160,000.00
3.100%
160,198.40
semi- annual
10/10/13
08/01/14
02/01/21
Greenway MN ISO #31
39678LDF6
AA+
local
27,593.50
27,593.50
25,000.00
5.000%
27,679.50
semi- annual
07/09/13
none
03/15/21
Minnetrista MN
604229KJ2
AA+
local
40,000.00
40,000.00
40,000.00
3.850%
40,055.20
semi - annual
10/10/13
08/01114
02101123
Savage Minn
80465PAN4
AA+
local
198,018.00
198,018.00
200,000.00
4.800%
212,252.00
annual
06/17/10
02/01/11
02/01/24
Lake City Minn ISO #813
508084DW7
AA+
local
103,933.00
103,933.00
100,000.00
5.000%
106,175.00
_semi-
semi - annual
05111/11
none
02/01/25
Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col
2500971-121
AA1
local
50,606.00
50,606.00
50,000.00
2.450%
52,424.00
semi - annual
11/10/14
12/01/14
06/01/21
Minneapolis MN
60374YG68
AA1
local
110,419.00
110,419.00
100,000.00
4.700%
108,906.00
semi- annual
10/31/11
none
03/01/23
Minneapolis MN
60374YG76
AA1
local
72,201.35
72,201.35
65,000.00
4.800%
70,694.00
semi - annual
12/09/14
none
03/01/24
Alexandria MNISD #206
015131LQ6
AA2
local
279,760.50
279,760.50
270,000.00
3.000%
277,573.50
semi- annual
01/21/15
none
02/01123
Duluth NIN
264438ZL9
_ AA2
local
29,767.20
29,767.20
30,000.00
2.625%
29,596.50
semi - annual
12/05112
08/01/13
02101/25
Hawkins Cnty TN
420218PL7
AA3
local
111,480.00
111,480.00
100,000.00
4.800%
106,182.00
semi- annual
03/13/12
none
05/01/24
New York St Mtge Agy
64988RHGO
AAA
local
100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
2.375%
100,634.00
semi- annual
10/27/15
04/01/16
10/01/21
Columbus OH
199492CS6
AAA
local
39,956.40
39,956.40
40,000.00
2.133%
41,292.80
semi - annual
02/20/15
none
12/01/21
Tennessee Valley Auth Serf
880591CJ9
AAA
local
121,500.00
121,500.00
100,000.00
6.750%
135,078.00
semi - annual
03/19/09
none
11/01/25
Ice Deposit - National Sports Center
none
local
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
maturity
02/06/08
none
01/01/26
Florida St Dept Environmental
34160WUA0
AA3
state
217,800.00
217,800.00
200,000.00
6.206%
229,262.00
semi - annual
08/30/10
07/01110
07/01122
Virginia State
928109XD4
AAA
state
22,126.00
22,126.00
20,000.00
4.100%
21,686.00
semi - annual
02/07/12
none
06/01/21
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
3128X4S36
AAA
US
105,712.00
105,712.00
100,000.00
5.400%
100,539.00
semi - annual
01/26/15
none
03117/21
3,640,466.07 US
L - 5 Years
1,944,512.30 local
250,948.00 state
January 2016 Investment Detail
Description
Cusip Number
Credit
Rating /F
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity /
Due Date
Fed Home Ln Bank
3130A6VA2
AAA
US
300,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
2.450%
300,354.00
semi - annual
12/16/15
06/16116
12/16/22
2,596,353.30
Itasca County Minn
465452GP9
A
local
105,024.00
105,024.00
100,000.00
5.550%
104,550.00
semi - annual
07112/11
none
02/01/28
Milaca Minn ISD #912
598699NT9
AA+
local
106,941.00
106,941.00
100,000.00
5.650%
107,651.00
semi- annual
07/22/11
none
02/01/27
Van Buren Mich Public Schools
920729HD5
AA1
local
102,750.00
102,750.00
100,000.00
6.430%
112,656.00
semi - annual
07/17/09
11/01/09
05/01/29
Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon
969078QM9
AA2
local
159,000.00
159,000.00
500,000.00
300,100.00
maturity
08/25/09
none
11/01/27
Fed Home Ln Bank
Fed Farm Credit Bank
313381D51
AAA
US
93,750.00
93,750.00
100,000.00
2.000%
98,816.00
semi- annual
12/23/14
none
11/23/27
31331VLC8
AAA
US
106,030.45
106,030.45
100,000.00
5.250%
125,792.00
semi - annual
02/26/10
none
04/21/28
849,565.00
30,343,370.99
400,893.00 US
6 - 30 Years
624,957.00 local
224,608.00 US
10+ Years
INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds
January 31, 2016
Current Market
Description YTD Interest
Value
Wells Fargo
I Wells Farao Government Monev Market Fund 1 $1,285,090.341 $34.24
4M'
I 4M 1,892.52 -
4M PLUS
I 4M Plus 3,101.161 0.31
Premier Bank
1 Premier Bank Money Market 260,114.70 77.30
Grand Total Money Market Funds 1 $1,550,198.72 1 $111.85
Updated: 211012016