Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - June 28, 2016C 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANIJUVLR, MINNESUTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Conference Rooms A & B Call to Order — 6:00 p.m. 2. Presentation by Anoka County Highway Dept. - Discuss Proposed Hanson Blvd. NW Improvements from Jay St. NW to Crosstown Dr. NW /15 -16 — Engineering 3. Predatory Offender Residency Restriction Ordinance — Planning 4. Comprehensive Plan/Metropolitan Council System Statement Review — Planning 5. Discuss/Review Social Media Policy — Administration 6. 2017 -2021 CIP Development Discussion —Administration 7. 2017 Budget Development Discussion — Administration 8. May 2016 Budget Progress Reports — Administration 9. May 2016 City Investments Review - Administration 10. Other Business 11. Adjournment t �r NDOVEOF_w 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 Administratc FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of veer SUBJECT: Presentation by Anoka County Highway Dept. - Discuss Proposed Hanson Blvd. NW Improvements from Jay St. NW to Crosstown Dr. NW /15 -16 — Engineering DATE: June 28, 2016 INTRODUCTION Hanson Boulevard from Jay Street to approximately 1500 north of Crosstown Boulevard is set to begin reconstruction in 2019. DISCUSSION Jason Orcutt, Anoka County Design Engineering Supervisor, will present the proposed project details and explain the process to get the project design completed for 2019 construction schedule. ACTION REQUIRED This is for information sharing and discussion and no action is required at this time. Respectfully submitted, (ace 0. � David D. Berkowitz Cc: Doug Fischer, Anoka County Transportation Division Manager Jason Orcutt, Anoka County Design Engineering Supervisor C I T Y O F ,NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community D elop ent Director SUBJECT: Discuss Predatory Offender Residency Restriction Ordinance DATE: June 28, 2016 REQUEST The City Council is requested to review and discuss the attached draft Predatory Offender Residency Restriction Ordinance. BACKGROUND Numerous cities across the state are adopting ordinances regulating the location of where level III predatory offenders can reside in response to US District Court Judge Donovan Frank's ruling that Minnesota's program for confining predatory offenders is equivalent to permanent confinement without a clear path to release. He also ruled the program to be unconstitutional. Attached are several articles providing background information on this issue. The attached draft ordinance prohibits a predatory offender from residing within 2,000 feet of a school, park, licensed day care facility, place of assembly and other areas children will be present. Attached is a map indicating where Level III predatory offenders cannot reside based on the 2,000 foot distance requirement. The ordinance also has provisions related to the predatory offenders prohibited activities (participating in holiday event or distributing candy or other items wearing holiday costumes) and establishes a safe zone of 100 feet from facilities for children and day care facilities. ACTION Review draft ordinance and advise staff of any changes. Attachments Draft Ordinance Map Articles Respectfully Submitted, V �4 �/- e4o-� David L. Carlberg TITLE 4 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 5 PREDATORY OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS SECTION: 5 -1 -1: Findings and Purpose 5 -1 -2: Definitions 5 -1 -3: Prohibitions; Measurement of Distance; Penalties; Exceptions 5 -1 -4: Official map of prohibited locations 5 -1 -5: Restrictions Relating to Rental Property; Penalties 5 -1 -1: Findings and Purpose. Repeat predatory offenders present an extreme threat to the public safety of a community as a whole, and especially to children. Predatory offenders are likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses. Most predatory offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of predatory offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, unmistakably steep. It is the intent of this Chapter to serve the City's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the City of Andover by creating areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers and where certain predatory offenders are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. 5 -1 -2: Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following definitions will apply unless the context or intent clearly requires a different meaning: DAY CARE: Any facility, public or private, licensed by the State of Minnesota or Anoka County, in which care, training, supervision, habilitation or developmental guidance for children is provided on a regular basis and for periods less than 24 hours per day. CHILD OR CHILDREN: Any person or persons under 18 years of age, or individuals under age 21 who are in foster care. FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN: All public parks, parkways, park facilities, parkland, public or private schools, designated public school bus stops, libraries, group homes, foster homes, day care and child care facilities, public recreation centers, non - profit or commercial recreation centers, public or private playgrounds, public or commercial swimming pools, public beaches, youth centers, athletic fields used by children, crisis centers or shelters, care facilities for children's skate park or rink, movie theaters, bowling alleys, facilities for children's clubs, e.g. scouting, public recreational areas and trails including conservation areas, jogging trails, hiking trails, walking trails, bicycle trails, Offices for Child Protective Services, places of assembly, and specialized schools for children, including but not limited to, tutoring, gymnastics, dance and music schools. DESIGNATED PREDATORY OFFENDER: Any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state in which that person's risk assessment indicates a high risk of re- offense. LICENSED CHILD CARE FACILITY: Any facility, center, home or institution licensed by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. 245A, where children are cared for pursuant to the requirements of a license issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. PERMANENT RESIDENCE: A place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. An ownership interest by the person in such residence is not required. PLACE OF ASSEMBLY: A place of assembly, synagogue, temple, mosque, or other facility that is used for prayer by persons of similar beliefs or a special purpose building that is designated or particularly adapted for the primary use of conducting, on a regular basis, religious services and associated accessory uses by a religious congregation. SCHOOL: Any public or non - public educational institution providing instructional services to children, which shall include any structure, land, or facility owned, leased or used for operation of the school or school activities. TEMPORARY RESIDENCE: A place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year, and which is not the person's permanent residence, or a place where the person routinely abides, lodges, or resides for a period of four or more consecutive or nonconsecutive days in any month and which is not the person's permanent residence. 5 -1 -3: Prohibitions; Measurement of Distance; Penalties; Exceptions. A. Prohibited location of residence: It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, day care, licensed child care facility, place of assembly, or facility for children. B. Prohibition present in safety zone: It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to be present within 100 feet of any facility for children or day care facility. C. Prohibited activity: It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to participate in a holiday event involving children such as distributing candy or other items to children on Halloween, wearing a Santa Claus costume on or proceeding Christmas or wearing an Easter Bunny costume on or preceding Easter. Holiday events in which the offender is the parent or guardian of the children involved, and no non - familial children are present, are exempt from this paragraph. D. Measurement of distance: For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line form the property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence to the nearest outer property line of the school, day care, licensed child care facility, place of assembly, facility for children, or park. E. Violations: A designated predatory offender who violates this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a designated predatory offender maintains a residence in violation of this Chapter constitutes a separate violation. F. Exceptions: A designated predatory offender residing within a prohibited location, as herein described, does not commit a violation of this Chapter if any of the following apply: 1. The designated predatory offender established the permanent or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 243.166 and 243.167, or a successor statute, prior to , 2016 (date of adoption of this ordinance). 2. The designated predatory offender was a minor when he /she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. 3. The designated predatory offender is a minor. 4. The school, day care, licensed child care facility, place of assembly, facility for children or park within 2,000 feet of the designated predatory offender's residence was opened after the designated predatory offender established their permanent or temporary residence, and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 243.166 and 243.167, or a successor statute. 5. The residence is also the primary residence of the designated predatory offender's parents, grandparents, siblings or spouse. 6. The residence is a property purchased, leased, or contracted with and licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections prior to (date of adoption of this ordinance). 5 -1 -4: Official map of prohibited locations. The City Administrator, or designee, shall maintain an official map showing prohibited locations of residences as defined by this Chapter. The City Administrator, or designee, shall review annually, and if appropriate, update the map to reflect any changes in the prohibited locations. The map shall not be deemed conclusive or all- encompassing since some prohibited locations change from time to time including, but not limited to, other places where children are known to congregate. 5 -1 -5: Restrictions Relating to Rental Property; Penalties. A. It is unlawful for a property owner to let or rent any place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other conveyance, with the knowledge that it will be used as a permanent or temporary residence by any person prohibited from establishing such permanent or temporary residence pursuant to this Chapter if such place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other conveyance, is located within a prohibited location as set forth in Section 5 -1 -4 above. B. A property owner violating Section 5 -1 -5 (A) above shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Each day a property owner violates Section 5 -1 -5 (A) above constitutes a separate violation. C. If a property owner discovers or is informed that a tenant is a designated predatory offender after signing a lease or otherwise agreeing to let the designated predatory offender reside on the property, the owner or property manager may evict the offender without further liability to the offender. D. Violation of Section 5 -1 -5 may be cause to suspend or revoke the property owner's rental license. 5 -1 -6: Severability. Should any section, subdivision, clause, or other provision of this chapter be held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of this Title as a whole, or of any part thereof, other than the part held to be invalid. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2016. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor - Parks Parks Buffer (2 Day Care Ceni Schools, Churches, and Select Business Buffer (2,000 ft) Document Pats: Fed -up federal judge orders review of Minn. sex offenders - StarTribune.com Page 1 of 2 STATE. LOCAL Federal judge orders prompt review of sex offenders But judge stops short of shuttering state's MSOP program, which he has called unconstitutionaL %Chris Serres( hit p:// wwwstartr @une.mm /chris- mrres/10645926n and J. Patrick Coolican j (http: / /wwwstartd une.com /1 -pat rick- cooliran /275328091/) StarTribme staff writers OCTOBER 30. 2015 — 6:04AM Minnesota must promptly evaluate hundreds of sex offenders who are detained in its controversial state treatment program and release those who no longer pose a threat to public safety, a federal judge ruled Thursday. In a long- awaited decision, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank gave the state until the end of 2017 to conduct independent risk evaluations of all 720 offenders now confined in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The state must then prepare to release offenders who no longer require confinement and ensure that less- restrictive treatment facilities are available in the community, the judge said in a ruling that flashed with impatience. "At multiple stages ... [the state's] actions and inactions have led to the continued operation of an unconstitutional scheme that unjustifiably detains hundreds of... individuals," Frank wrote. The ruling sets the stage for a prolonged showdown between Frank and the Dayton administration, which is already pushing back against his demands. Just hours after the ruling, attorneys for the state filed a legal motion to stay, or suspend, Frank's ruling. If the stay is granted, evaluations ordered by the judge Could be delayed by 18 months or more, attorneys said. At a news Conference late Thursday, Gov. Mark Dayton made it clear the state would proceed with certain incremental reforms, but on its own timetable. "I will not take any actions that would Compromise, to the slightest degree, the safety of the people of Minnesota," Dayton said. "To release people before we've gone through these careful evaluations] ... I think is extremely inappropriate and highly offensive." Though certain to trigger more legal wrangling, Frank's ruling marks a pivotal point in a four -year legal battle over the civil rights of rapists, pedophiles and other offenders Confined indefinitely at secure treatment centers in Moose Lake and St Peter after they have completed their prison terms. For the first time, they may be put on a clear path to release, and the federal Courts will hold Minnesota to strict deadlines. Many of the changes sought by Frank had already been proposed by a state task force, the state Legislative Auditor and other specialists who have reviewed the program In Thursday's ruling, Frank indicated he is fed up with legislative and bureaucratic inertia during four years of litigation, and suggested he might resort to "a more drastic solution," including the immediate release of offenders, ifthe state fails to Comply with his order. During a six -week federal trial this summer, MSOP administrators made the surprising admission that they may be detaining untold numbers of offenders who no longer meet the statutory criteria for confinement They said that reflected insufficient staff and money to perform regular evaluations. The lack of regular risk assessments provided a pivotal basis for Frank's determination in June that the MSOP violates detainees' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. Experts on sexual deviancy who have worked with offenders at the MSOP estimate that as many as 25 percent to 35 percent no longer pose a sufficient risk to the public to justify their confinement and likely would end up being released iftheir cases were actually evaluated by independent experts. Reacting to ruling Lawyer Dan Gustafson, who represents a class of sex offenders in a lawsuit. answered reporters' questions. http:// www .startribune.comlfederal- jud -Re- orders - prompt- review -of -sex- offenders /33 8413711/ 5/20/2016 Fed -up federal judge orders review of Minn. sex offenders - StarTribune.com Page 2 of 2 In his Wiling, Frank identified three subgroups of offenders who deserve expedited evaluations: offenders who are elderly, people with substantial intellectual and physical disabilities, and adults confined for acts they committed as juveniles. Together, these groups account for 250 to 300 of the offenders held at the MSOP, attorneys familiar with the program estimate. Though Frank did not demand their immediate release, he gave the state just 30 days to develop a plan for evaluating detainees who fall into these three groups. He also gave the state until April 2016 to complete independent evaluations of these groups, and until the _ end of 2017 to review all offenders at Moose Lake and St. Peter. "Those are the populations that an independent expert would most likely say, `They don't belong behind razor wire, '" said Dan Gustafson, the lead attorney representing a class of sex offenders who sued the state. But state officials insist Frank's timetables are unrealistic Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson said her agency would need more money from the Legislature to perform all the evaluations being sought by the judge, which cost about $10,000 each. Even if the state did have the funds, it does not have enough secure community settings to receive large numbers of offenders, state officials said. In addition, any move to release offenders is likely to face fierce local opposition. Just Wednesday, the Brooklyn Center City Council passed a 120 -day moratorium limiting where high -risk offenders can live. More than 20 other communities have passed similar ordinances in recent years. Dayton said he is willing to work with the special master overseeing the MSOP case, former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, to develop a `feasible and responsible timeline" for reforms. At the same time, Dayton made it clear that he saw it as his personal responsibility to move cautiously with individuals who might reoffend. "How do you tell a 5-year-old child that she'll never see her mother again because someone who committed previous crimes was released ?" he said. "How do you go to a family and say, We intended well'" Founded 20 years ago, the MSOP has long been criticized for detaining too many people for too long. Minnesota confines more offenders per capita, and has the lowest release rate, among the 20 states that civilly commit sex offenders. The MSOP population has swelled in recent years, in part because the state has failed to develop less - restrictive treatment alternatives in the community. Each offender held at the MSOP costs the state about $120,000 a year. "The days of arguing about whether this program is constitutional are officially over," said Eric Janus, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul who wrote a book about sexual predator laws. "Mat's been established. Now it's time to act." chris.serres@startribune.com 612- 673 -4308 patrick.coolican @startribune.com 651 -925 -5042 chris.serrm@startribune.com 612- 673 -4308 ` chrisserres patrick.coolican@startribune.com 651 - 925 -5042 ' jpcoolican http : / /www.startribune.com/federal- judge- orders - prompt- review -of -sex- offenders /338413711/ 5/20/2016 Anoka limits where Level 3 sex offenders can live Published May 19, 2016 at 7:30 am By Mandy Moran - Froemming Managing Editor Mandy has been with ABC Newspapers since 2007, when she joined the staff as the editor of the Anoka County Union. She has been the managing editor of the UnionHerald and Blaine Spring Lake Park Life since 2014. Anoka is joining a list of Minnesota cities setting limits on where Level 3 sex offenders can live. The Anoka City Council unanimously passed an ordinance that would restrict these offenders from living near places where children congregate. The new rules prohibit designated Level 3 predatory offenders from establishing a permanent or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, day care, licensed childcare facility, place of assembly, children's facility or park, said Planning Director Carolyn Braun. Once the new rule is in place, Level 3 offenders will be limited to living on the fringes of the city, with nearly all of Anoka covered by the restrictions. While these offenders have served their sentences, they are considered the most likely to reoffend. The recent race for cities to put new rules in place comes after U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank ruled the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, where offenders are civilly committed, is unconstitutional. However, there has been no discussion of widespread release of civilly committed offenders. "Many communities because of that have been enacting ordinances to restrict where Level 3 predatory offenders can live," Braun said. There is a bill currently proposed in the Legislature that would give cities and counties more authority to limit where predatory offenders can live. Anoka's new ordinance is modeled after ordinances passed in 19 other cities. In her research, Braun said she learned that as many as 39 communities have established some sort of residency restrictions on Level 3 sex offenders. She said that while the distance regulations in those ordinances ranged from 500 to 2,500 feet, most were at 2,000 feet. There are exceptions. Offenders already living within these restricted areas will be allowed to stay. The rules also do not apply to state or county treatment or correctional facilities. Anoka tacked on a few additional rules, prohibiting Level 3 offenders from being present within 100 feet of a children's facility. It also forbids Level 3 offenders from participating in community celebrations where children are present, including the Halloween parades. "With all of the criteria we have here, including child care centers, it just makes sense that this is appropriate for us," Mayor Phil Rice said. "We are a city that is full of these kinds of areas — schools, parks, child care centers and churches and so forth — and of course it's our responsibility to provide a safe place." This ordinance also affects rental property regulations in Anoka, Braun said. If a property owner rents to a Level 3 offender in a restricted area, it can be cause for suspension or revocation of their rental license. Anoka currently has one Level 3 sex offender living in the city. Another offender, who has registered as homeless, has been in the city off and on over the past several months. Other cities While locally Anoka is leading the way to get new rules in place, a similar ordinance is up for discussion in Coon Rapids, where the City Council discussed a staff proposal at a recent work session. Right now there are no Level 3 sex offenders residing in Coon Rapids at this time. "We want to get out in front of this and not wait until all other cities have similar ordinances," Coon Rapids Police Chief Brad Wise said. "Now is the best time to do this. "This is about being responsible. We can't be a city that has nothing in place." City Attorney David Brodie outlined the proposed ordinance, which, he said, was modeled after laws passed in Duluth and Brooklyn Center. The ordinance would not allow a Level 3 sex offender to live within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or licensed day care, nor within 1,000 feet of an existing Level 3 offender's residence. There are some exceptions proposed in the ordinance, however. The restrictions would not apply to a Level 3 offender living in Coon Rapids at the time the ordinance goes into effect; a minor or someone who committed the offense as a minor; someone living with his or her spouse, parents, grandparents or siblings; a person living in a residence owned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections; or an offender who is already at a residence when a new school, park or day care is opened within the 1,000 -foot limit. Brodie called the ordinance a "reasonable approach" because if it was too restrictive, then it might be struck down if challenged in the courts, he said. For example, if the ordinance extended the restrictions from 1,000 to 2,000 feet, there might be nowhere for a Level 3 offender to live in Coon Rapids, and "that would be difficult to defend if it went to court," Brodie said. A map was provided to each council member showing where Level 3 offenders could live in the city under the provisions of the ordinance. "With the ordinance as it is, there could be 30 (parts of the city where offenders could live)," said Council Member Jennifer Geisler. Geisler was concerned that the 1,000 -foot school restriction might not be enough to cover children walking to and from school, she said. According to City Manager Matt Stemwedel, staff will look at tweaking the proposed ordinance and bring it back to another work session before putting it on a regular council agenda for ordinance introduction. Staff will look at extending the limit for a Level 3 offender from residing within an existing Level 3 offender's residence to 2,000 feet, as suggested by Council Member Brad Johnson, and whether the school restriction includes the distance kids walk to and from school. Peter Bodley contributed to this report mandy.froemming @ecm- inc.com Brooklyn Center City Council approves sex offender relocation ordinance I Page 1 of 3 Government • Public Safety Brooklyn Center City Council approves sex offender relocation ordinance Published April 4, 2016 at 12:37 pm By Christiaan Tarbox After a city-imposed moratorium and, study temporarily blocked the relocation of Level 11.1. ,sex offenders to Brooldyn Center, the city council voted to officially amend the city code in relation to those relocations. The Brooklyn Center City Cotmed unanimou4y voted during its,Monday, March 29 meeting to amend Chapter 12 of the City Code of ordinances to limit the residency Jocations -of Level J11 ,predator o h I cation of said no y offenders, after amoratoxium ft the p t offeaderswase octedin. early Oaober215 so the city could better -study the Issue. BroWdyn, Center officials brought about the moratorium when, the city received. a perceived disproportonate amount,of offenders moving into town. According to. Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon, Brooklyn Center saw a record seven. community. notification meetings heralding the relocation of a sex offender in 2015. "Dating back to 2008, we've consistently had one to two (notification meetings in Brooklyn Center),", said Gannon. "In 2014, we noticed an uptick of three, and in 2015, we were looking at the potential to having seven notification meetings. This is not the number of off-enders living in the city, this isjust for notifications :for new (offenders) moving into the city." City officialshave expressed concern about the. number of Level Ill.offeaders that the Department of. C=ections. havorelo rated to Brooklyn center, whichhas the se4ond MOM number of relocated, off=ders, in Hennepin. County after Minneapolis. The M4pratorium allowed the, city to study: the effects, of said. influx and what can be done to curb it in the future. https:llpost.mnsun.coml2Ol6lO4lO4ibrooklyn-center-city-council-approves-sex-offender-reloc... 5/23/2016 Brooklyn Center City Council approves sex offender relocation ordinance I Page 2 of 3 "Hennepin County Probation implemented a restrictive zip code.policy ..that precludes Level III sex offenders on probation from living in areas of Minneapolis," said Ganaon. "That, policy Impacted five of the six.curreat Level Ill,sex offenders living in the, city;" As such,. the resulting study yielded two options for the city to consider in the restrictions on Level III offenders. The first option would make it unlawful for an offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of a playground, school or childcare facility. An offender violating this edict would be guilty of a misdemeanor, and every dayan offender maintains residence within thexestricted.area would, make, for aseparate offense., Exceptions.would be made for offenders who established and reported -aresidence.prior to October 2015, if the person .was: a minor when they made. the offenseand was convicted as an. adult; if the offender - is a minor; if the public:. playground,., school or child care facility was opened after the offender established their residence; if theresidence is also,the primary dwelling, of the offender's parents,.grandparents,,siblings or spouse; and if the residence was, purchased., leased. or contracted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections prior to Oct. 1, 2015. The second option offered. to the city council was similar to the first with a major exception in that -there would be alimitation placed on the proximity of predatory offenders to other predatory offenders. "It would be unlawful for any predatory offender. to establish a permanent or temporary residence within any of the following locations. within 2,000 feet of any school, child .care facility or public playground; or within, 2,000 feet of thepermaaea residence of another designated predatoryoRbrider, unless the designated predatory offenders are residing within a licensed treatment facility," said Gannon. The penalties,, exceptions and measurements listed in the first option would all apply tv the second option. '!As 1, started, to look -into this and research this topic, I did come across a study that was done in Minneapolis ... with the University of Minnesota and the Department of Corrections.,"said.Gannon. ."They came out with an -executive, summary statement,. which. I think could be applicable to Brooklyn Center." The studyx completed in August:201! found. that there was no evidence to support, the claim thatthe, Departnient of Co mctions intentionally places offenders, in concentrated https:llpost.mnsun.coml2Ol6lO4lO4lbrooklyn-center-cit.y-council-approves-sex-offender-reloc... 5/23/2016 Brooklyn Center City Council approves sex offender relocation ordinance I Page 3 of 3 communities. Rather, the study found the phenomenon to be a by-product of current statutes, Department of Corrections policy, and the current housing market. "Lack of intentionality does notlessea the potentially does not lessen the potentially disparate impact i of pmdatory offender concentration in neighborhoods with high rates of pact. , poverty and majority people of color," the study's executive summary read. Brooklyn Center Mayor Tim Willson noted his appreciation for the ciWs discovery, of the study. "We-had a Level III that, inadvertently was relocated in Brooklyn Center, and we hadn't: been told. about it.' said Willson.; "And that led to discovering. the, zip code restrictions that went into effect in, Minneapolis,: and we have. had. frequent discussions: on how if Minneapolis is the,proverbial baUooa,,, it balloonsout.into the suburbs. This seems • to be another,�ase where that is happenin& given the fact. that Brooklyn Center has an abundance of low-income housing, which exacerbates the issue." The citycouncil ultimately chose the second option provided by Gannon!z,presentatjon, and it voted unanimously in favor of amending the ordinance. The amended ordinance will be effective Saturday, May 7. Contact Christ iaan. Tarbox at christiaan-tarbox@ecm­!nc-com or, oRow thet. Sun Post on Twitter @ecrasunpost. Filed Under: Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Center City Council -t FE Logo Advertising Information I Contact Us I -Subscribe I Jobs & Classifieds Copyright 02016 ECM Publishers, Inc. • All Rights Reserved https:llpost.nmsun.conll2Ol6lO4lO4ibrooklyn-center-city-council-approves-sex-offender-reloc... 5/23/2016 Sex offender ordinances considered across the state I Minnesota Public Radio News Page 2 of 9 Taylors Falls MPR Photo /Sea Stachura Taylors Falls is a tourist town nestled along the St. Croix River, just northeast of the Twin Cities. People come here to enjoy the beautiful river gorge and the picturesque buildings. But recently some people have been coming for more than the scenery. They've been taking a look at Mayor Mike Buchite's city ordinance that limits where sex offenders can live in the town. ht4): / /www.mpmews.org /story/2006 /04 /21 /sexofford 5/20/2016 Sex offender ordinances considered across the state I Minnesota Public Radio News ' � T SUN :... a- .. w� V yy�pp t ¢.. .a...+.iF.. ... ,. _ .. � .. a b� - .�$.MR•Y 1. Page 3 of 9 d t:. l Ua�9F !W. �. 0TH ,mod CO Taylors Falls map MPR Photo /Sea Stachura The ordinance restricts certain offenders from staying -- even overnight -- within 2,000 feet of any place children gather. That's about one -third of a mile. Buchite leans over a map of the city. "We had our city engineer identify areas on the map that were either playgrounds, a school, a church, a bus stop," he says, pointing to different locations on the map. "And then from there he took our distances from our ordinance and he drew circles around those areas. And you can tell these are the open spaces where an individual is not prohibited from living." Buchite admits the circles cover almost the entire community. http://www.mpmews.org/story/2006/04/21/sexofford 5/20/2016 Sex offender ordinances considered across the state I Minnesota Public Radio News Page 4 of 9 "It's a big portion of the city," he says. Much of the area left over has no housing. Mayor Mike Buchite MPR Photo /Sea Stachura The ordinance applies to Level Three sex offenders, who are believed to pose the greatest risk for re- offending. It also applies to anyone who has committed a sex offense against a juvenile. Mayor Buchite says this is simply to protect children. If any Level Three offender moved to his city, he'd have a way to deal with them. He disagrees with people who say the ordinance is a violation of constitutional rights. "There are cities that have smoking bans within so many feet of a park. You're talking about seat belt laws, you're talking about child restraints," Buchite says. "Any time you have broken the law, there is some type of punishment that goes along with the crime." Communities across the country are moving ahead with similar laws and ordinances. California will have a measure on its November ballot. http: / /www.mpmews.org/story /2006 /04 /21 /sexofford 5/20/2016 Sex offender ordinances considered across the state I Minnesota Public Radio News Page 5 of 9 The movement to restrict where sex offenders can live began in Iowa. In 2002, Iowa's Legislature passed a law that prohibited all people convicted of a sex crime from living near a school, daycare center or park. Many municipalities further tightened those restrictions. Detective Frank Kohl MPR Photo /Sea Stachura Offenders filed a class action lawsuit, claiming the law infringed upon their rights to interstate travel and privacy. They also said the restriction was tantamount to banishment, because available housing was either too expensive or 50 miles away. The U.S. District Court sided with the offenders, but the appelate court reversed the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up the case. The Iowa law went into effect in September 2005, and state officials say sex offenders are leaving the state. Theodore Paulson doesn't care where they live, so long as it's not near his two children. "Molesting a child, that's bad," Paulson says. "That will stay with the child forever. It's not like it goes away after a couple years." Paulson prompted Albert Lea to create a committee to write a sex offender ordinance. He's now a member of http: / /www.mpmews.org /story/2006/04/21 /sexofford 5/20/2016 Sex offender ordinances considered across the state I Minnesota Public Radio News Page 6 of 9 that committee. He says kids don't get a second chance, so why should child molesters? Paulson sits among his books on construction and wiring at the Riverland Community College library. He moved to Albert Lea from Waseca to attend college. The move was also for his kids. He says they have more to do here. When you commit a felony you give up some of your rights. Does it mean you give up all of your rights, including your right to reside? That's the issue. — Albert Lea City Attorney Steve Schwab He admits, though, he's always concerned about sexual predators. Four people in his family were molested. His fears were confirmed at an Albert Lea City Council meeting earlier this year. "And another member of the public brought it up at a council meeting," he says. "There were two of them living a block and a half away from where my son goes to school." Paulson verified the information through a Web site called Family Watchdog. The Web site maps the listed residences of registered sex offenders from states like Iowa and Wisconsin. Those states publish information about all registered offenders online. That includes people convicted of public nudity or indecent exposure as well as kidnapping and rape. Thousands of people are listed. Officials admit often the information is incomplete and inaccurate. Minnesota only distributes information about Level Three sex offenders. That's about ioo people, most of whom are locked up indefinitely. But Paulson is worried about Minnesota offenders he doesn't know about, and those from Iowa. The state border is minutes away, and five Iowa offenders have legally moved to Albert Lea. "If we don't know who they are, how can we protect-our families from the ones that are already convicted of molesting a child ?" Pauslon asks. "And since the state won't tell us who they are or where they live, that's why I ask the cities to step in and prevent them from living near places where children congregate." Albert Lea City Attorney Steve Schwab says he will draft whatever the sex offender committee wants to implement. The ordinance will likely mirror what's in effect in Taylors Falls. http: / /www.mpmeNys.org /story /2006 /04/21 /sexofford 5/20/2016 Sex offender ordinances considered across the state I Minnesota Public Radio News Page 7 of 9 Ted Paulson MPR Photo /Sea Stachura Schwab points out that Taylors Falls doesn't prevent an offender from going to a school or park. And he says this will affect people convicted of crimes like statutory rape. He's also concerned the ordinance violates an offender's constitutional rights. "When you commit a felony you give up some of your rights. Does it mean you give up all of your rights, including your right to reside? That's the issue," Schwab says. "How restrictive can the city be? Or what if we passed it statewide? Does that mean Level Threes and individuals who committed crimes against juveniles could not live in the state of Minnesota? That's an interesting legal question. Basically we'd be closing our borders." Albert Lea Police Detective Frank Kohl is in charge of all criminal sexual conduct cases. He also monitors all people in the city on the state's predatory offender list. He says laws like this are motivated by fear. Kohl has worked in the field for more than 20 years, and says he can't think of one occasion where a sex offender re- offended. National and state figures indicate 90 percent of sex offenses each year are committed by first -time offenders. And Kohl says these laws ignore another fact of sex abuse. http://www.mpmews.org/story/2006/04/21/sexofford 5/20/2016 Sex offender ordinances considered across the state I Minnesota Public Radio News Page 8 of 9 "Most of the cases I'm involved in are all victims that are familiar with their abuser or the perpetrator," Kohl says. "They are all familiar. Lot are family members. Some are just friends." Kohl worries these laws will make it less likely that sex offenses will be reported, because people who find a family member sexually abusing a relative do sometimes want to keep the family together. Kohl says pushing sex offenders into rural areas will make it harder to keep track of them and may push some of them underground. He says that will make Albert Lea more dangerous rather than less. Recently faced with similar arguments, the Austin City Council voted down an ordinance limiting where sex offenders could live. Austin Councilmember Pete Christopherson was concerned initially about people's freedoms. But what really convinced him to vote against the ordinance was Minnesota's existing sex offender monitoring. And he says the law seemed impossible to enforce. "They've always been in Austin ... they're going to be in Austin. Just educate yourself to know what to look for and educate the kids," Christopherson says. To that end, Austin will have the police chief hold meetings with students and teachers on avoiding sexual abuse. Meanwhile, the Albert Lea committee continues its deliberations. It will receive a draft of the proposed ordinance May lo. Stay Informed Subscribe to our politics newsletter. Email Address* you @email.com Zip Code Subscribe r See our Privacy Policy. Must be age 13. Broadcast dates All Things Considered 5:49 PM • Apr 24, 2006 http://www.mpmews.org/story/2006/04/21/sexofford 5/20/2016 fk , C I T Y 0 F A 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 f.WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Councilmembers James Dickinson, City Administrator David Carlberg, Community Dev opme Director Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner lc-,� Comprehensive Plan/Metropolitan Council System Statement Review June 28, 2016 REQUEST The City Council is requested to discuss and provide direction to staff on the City Council's desire to proceed with the Metropolitan Council System Statements for the City of Andover. BACKGROUND The Met Council issued the system statements to all metropolitan communities. Receipt of the system statements trigger's the communities' obligation to review and, as necessary, amend the comprehensive plan to conform to the Met Councils system plans. Updated local comprehensive plans are due to the Met Council for review by December 31, 2018. The system statements includes information specific to the City of Andover, including the community designation; forecasted population, households, and employment through 2040; affordable housing need allocation; transportation; water resources, including waste water, surface water, and water supply planning; and regional parks and trails. All sections of the Comprehensive Plan will be updated to comply with the Met Councils regional development plans and system plans for the City of Andover. City staff expects the majority of the changes will occur within the Housing, Transportation and Water Resources sections of the Comprehensive Plan. As required by the Met Council, the City of Andover is required to provide an additional 483 housing units to meet the regional needs for low and moderate income housing. City Council is requested to discuss and to provide direction to staff regarding the possible location for the required housing units. The Transportation Plan requires an update the transportation analysis zones (TAZ's) and current requirements. The Water Supply Plan will include water demand projections and water protection. Planning Assistance Grant The City of Andover is eligible up to $32,000 for the Met Council's 2016 — 2018 Planning Assistance Grant Program. As a non - competitive grant, all applications received from the eligible applicants by September 5, 2016 will be awarded funding up to the pre - determined amount. The grant can be used for costs directly associated with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. Eligible costs include staff pay, consultant and professional services, and printing and publishing. City staff is considering seeking grant assistance for the updates to the Water Supply Plan, Transportation Plan, and printing and publishing of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff will be required to complete the application and submit it to the Met Council by September 5, 2016. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff on how Council would like to proceed with the City of Andover System Statements and future work sessions to continue the review of the system statements. Attachments City of Andover System Statements Existing Land Use a Respectfully submitted, Stephanie L. Hanson 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT FOR CITY OF ANDOVER September 17, 2015 Regional Development Plan Adoption In May 2014, the Metropolitan Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040. Following adoption of Thrive, the Council adopted the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, and the 2040 Housing Policy Plan. The Metropolitan Council is now issuing system statements pursuant to State statute. Receipt of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers a community's obligation to review and, as necessary, amend its comprehensive plan within the next three years, by the end of 2018. The complete text of Thrive MSP 2040 as well as complete copies of the recently adopted metropolitan system and policy plans are available for viewing and downloading at http:// www. metrocouncil, ora /Communities/Planning.asox. Paper copies are available by calling the Council's Data Center at 651 - 602 -1140. System Statement Definition Metropolitan system plans are long -range comprehensive plans for the regional systems — transit, highways, and airports; wastewater services; and parks and open space — along with the capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater services, transportation, and regional recreation open space. System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communities prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: Within nine months after receiving a system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan system plan, and within three years after receiving a system statement issued in conjunction with the decennial review required under section 473.864. subdivision 2. each affected local governmental unit shall review its comprehensive plan to determine if an amendment is necessary to ensure continued conformity with metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is necessary, the governmental unit shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the council for review. Local comprehensive plans, and amendments thereto, will be reviewed by the Council for conformance to metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies, and compatibility, with adjacent and affected governmental units. Updated local comprehensive plans are due to the Council for review by December 31, 2018. What is in this System Statement The system statement includes information specific to your community, including: • your community designation or designation(s); • forecasted population, households, and employment through the year 2040; • guidance on appropriate densities to ensure that regional services and costly regional infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible. • affordable housing need allocation; Page -1 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER INTRODUCTION In the following sections, this system statement contains an overview of each of the system plan updates and specific system changes that affect your community. The sections are: • Transportation, including metropolitan highways, aviation, and transit • Water Resources, including wastewater, surface water, and water supply planning • Regional parks and trails Dispute Process If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions about this system statement, please contact your Sector Representative, Eric Wojchik, at 651- 602 -1330, to review and discuss potential issues or concerns. The Council and local government units and districts have usually resolved issues relating to the system statement through discussion. Request for Hearing If a local governmental unit and the Council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or district may, by resolution, request that a hearing be conducted by the Council's Land Use Advisory Committee or by the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes section 473.857, the request shall be made by the local governmental unit or school district within 60 days after receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council within 60 days, the statement becomes final. Page - 2 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER INTRODUCTION Regional Development Guide The Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040 as the new regional development guide on May 28, 2014. Thrive identifies five outcomes (�—^j that set the policy direction for the region's system and policy plans. 2040 Building on our region's history of effective stewardship of our resources, Thrive envisions a prosperous, equitable, and livable Thrive ,1'Is� region that is sustainable for today and generations to come. The Council is directing its operations, plans, policies, programs, and resources toward achieving this shared long -term vision. Three principles define the Council's approach to implementing regional policy: integration, collaboration, and accountability. These principles reflect the Council's roles in integrating policy areas, supporting local governments and regional partners, and promoting and implementing the regional vision. The principles define the Council's approach to policy implementation and set expectations for how the Council interacts with local governments. Thrive also outlines seven land use policies and community designations important for local comprehensive planning updates. The land use policies establish a series of commitments from the Council for local governments and uses community designations to shape development policies for communities. Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics based on Urban or Rural character for the application of regional policies. Together, the land use policies and community designations help to implement the region's vision by setting expectations for development density and the character of development throughout the region. Community Designation Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics for the application of regional policies. The Council uses community designations to guide regional growth and development; establish land use expectations including overall development densities and patterns; and outline the respective roles of the Council and individual communities, along with strategies for planning for forecasted growth. If there are discrepancies between the Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations Map and the Community Designation map contained herein because of adjustments and refinements that occurred subsequent to the adoption of Thrive, communities should follow the specific guidance contained in this System Statement. Thrive identifies Andover with the community designation of Emerging Suburban Edge, Diversified Rural, and Rural Residential (Figure 1). Emerging Suburban Edge communities include cities, townships and portions of both that are in the early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 3 -5 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. Diversified Rural communities are home to a variety of farm and nonfarm land uses including very large -lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms and agricultural uses. Diversified Rural communities are expected to plan for growth not to exceed forecasts and in patterns that do not exceed 4 units per 40 acres. In addition, Diversified Rural communities are expected to manage land uses to prevent the premature demand for extension of urban services, and so that existing service levels will meet service needs. Page - 3 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER INTRODUCTION -N. M Rural Residential communities have residential patterns characterized by large lots and do not have plans to provide urban infrastructure, such as centralized wastewater treatment. Many of these communities have topographical development limitations and a development pattern with lot sizes that generally range from 1 -2.5 units per acre. Rural Residential communities are expected to discourage future development of rural residential patterns and where opportunities exist, plan for rural development at densities that are not greater than 1 unit per 10 acres. Specific strategies for Emerging Suburban Edge communities, Diversified Rural communities, and Rural Residential communities can be found on Andover's Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook. Forecasts The Council uses the forecasts developed as part of Thrive to plan for regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts. Given the nature of long -range forecasts and the planning timeline undertaken by most communities, the Council will maintain on -going dialogue with communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems. The Thrive forecasts for population, households, and employment for your community are: 2010 (actual) 2014 (est.) 2020 2030 2040 Population 30,598 31,874 34,000 38,200 41,900 Households 9,811 10,273 11,400 13,500 15,400 Employment 4,669 5,051 5,400 5,800 6,200 Housing Policy The Council adopted the Housing Policy Plan on December 10, 2014, and amended the plan on July 8; 2015. The purpose of the plan is to provide leadership and guidance on regional housing needs and challenges and to support Thrive MSP 2040. The Housing Policy Plan provides an integrated policy framework to address housing challenges greater than any one city or county can tackle alone. Consistent with state statute (Minn. Stat. 473.859, subd. 2(c) and subd. 4), communities must include a housing element and implementation program in their local comprehensive plans that address existing and projected housing needs.The Council has also determined the regional need for low and moderate income housing for the decade of 2021 -2030 (see Part III and Appendix B in the Housing Policy Plan). Andover's share of the region's need for low and moderate income housing is 483 new units affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI) or below. Of these new units, the need is for 278 affordable to households earning at or below 30% of AMI, 188 affordable to households earning 31 % to 50% of AMI, and 17 affordable to households earning 51 % to 80% of AMI. Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Andover At or below 30% AMI 278 31 to 50% AMI 188 51 to 80% AMI 17 Total Units 483 Specific requirements for the housing element and housing implementation programs of local comprehensive plans can be found in the Local Planning Handbook. Page-4 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER INTRODUCTION Figure 1. Andover Community Designations Community Designations Outside Council planning authority _ Agricultural Rural Residential Diversified Rural Rural Center Emerging Suburban Edge Suburban Edge Suburban Urban Urban Center County Boundares L— I City and Township Boundaries Lakes and Major Rivers Page-5 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER INTRODUCTION TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Andover The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) is the metropolitan system plan for highways, transit, and aviation to which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant changes to these three systems, as well as other changes made to the Transportation Policy Plan since the last 2030 TPP was adopted in 2010, and highlights those elements of the system plan that apply specifically to your community. The TPP incorporates the policy direction and the new 2040 socio economic forecasts adopted by the Metropolitan Council in the Thrive MSP 2040, and extends the planning horizon from 2030 to 2040. Federal Requirements The TPP must respond to requirements outlined in state statute, as well as federal law, such as some new requirements included in the federal law known as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 211 Century Act (MAP -21). For instance, metropolitan transportation plans must now be performance based, so the TPP now includes goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in chapter 2. In previous versions of the TPP the strategies were known as policies; while some are new, the wording of many strategies are similar to the wording of policies in previous plans. Performance measurements for this plan are also discussed in Chapter 12, Federal Requirements. Federal law requires the long range plan to identify regionally significant transportation investments expected to be made over the next two decades, and to demonstrate that these planned investments can be afforded under the plan's financial assumptions. Both costs and available revenues have changed since the last plan was adopted in 2010, resulting in many changes in the plan. Federal law does allow the plan to provide a vision for how an increased level of transportation revenue might be spent if more resources become available, but the programs or projects identified in this scenario are not considered part of the approved plan. The TPP includes two funding scenarios for the metropolitan highway and transit systems: the "Current Revenue Scenario" and the "Increased Revenue Scenario.° • The Current Revenue Scenario represents the fiscally constrained regional transportation plan, which assumes revenues that the region can reasonably expect to be available based on past experience and current laws and allocation formulas. • The Increased Revenue Scenario represents an illustration of what be achieved with a reasonable increase in revenues for transportation. Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local comprehensive plans are expected to conform to the Current Revenue Scenario, which is the official metropolitan system plan. Potential improvements in the Increased Revenue Scenario can be identified separately in local plans as unfunded proposals. A more detailed description of how to handle the various improvements in this category is included under Other Plan Considerations. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire 2040 Transportation Policy Plan to ensure that your community's local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan transportation system plan. Chapter 3, Land Use and Local Planning, has been expanded and all communities should carefully review this chapter. A PDF file of the Page-6 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION entire 2040 Transportation Policy Plan can be found at the Metropolitan Council's website: htta-11www metrocouncil. or-wTmnsportation /Planning- 2/Key- Transportation- Planning- Document&Transportation- Policy- Plan- (1)/The- Adopted - 2040 - TPP- (1).aspx. The format of the plan is slightly different than past Transportation Policy Plans. An introductory Overview, Chapter 1: Existing System and Chapter 10: Equity and Environmental Justice have been added to this version of the TPP, in addition to the changes noted in the first paragraph. Please note some modifications have been made to the appendices as well. Key Changes in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January 2015, the revised 2040 Transportation Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: Metropolitan Highway System - Chapter 5 The Metropolitan Highway System is made up of principal arterials, shown in Fig 1 -1 of the TPP and also attached to this system statement. Although no new highways have been added to this system in the 2040 TPP, the last incomplete segment of this system, TH 610, is now under construction in Maple Grove. • The TPP acknowledges that congestion cannot be eliminated or greatly reduced. The region's mobility efforts will need to focus on managing congestion and working to provide alternatives. The majority of resources available between now and 2040 will be needed for preservation, management and operation of the existing highway system. • Due to increased costs and decreased revenue expectations, many long- planned major projects to add general purpose highway lanes are not in this fiscally constrained plan. While the preservation, safety, and mobility needs of these corridors are recognized, investments in these corridors will be focused on implementing traffic management strategies, lower cost -high benefit spot mobility improvements, and implementing MnPASS lanes. Some specific projects have been identified in this plan, but funding has primarily been allocated into various investment categories rather than specific projects. The highway projects specifically identified in the Current Revenue Scenario are shown in Figure 5 -8 of the TPP which is also attached to this system statement. • Modifications were made to Appendix D- Functional Classification Criteria, and Appendix F— Highway Interchange Requests. Appendix C— Project List is new and contains all of the transit and highway projects that have been identified between 2014 and 2023. Transit System - Chapter 6 The transit system plan provides an overview of the basic components of transit planning, including demographic factors, transit route and network design factors and urban design factors that support transit usage. Local governments have the primary responsibility for planning transit - supportive land use, through their comprehensive planning, and subdivision and zoning ordinances. • The TPP includes updated Transit Market Areas (shown in TPP Figure 6 -3, also attached) which reflect 2010 Census information and an updated methodology that better aligns types and levels of transit service to expected demand. These market areas identify the types of transit services that are provided within each area. • The TPP includes limited capital funding for transit expansion and modernization. Opportunities primarily exist through competitive grant programs such as the regional solicitation for US DOT Page-7 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION funding. These opportunities are guided by the strategies in the TPP and the various elements of the Transit Investment Plan. • The TPP includes an updated transitway system plan that more clearly articulates which projects can be funded within reasonable revenue expectations through year 2040 (Current Revenue Scenario as shown in TPP Figure 6 -8, which is also attached). The plan includes five new or expanded METRO lines, three new arterial bus rapid transit lines, and three corridors under study for mode and alignment but identified in the Counties Transit Improvement Board's (CTIB) Phase I Program of Projects. This system was developed in collaboration with CTIB, a major partner in regional transitway expansion. The TPP does not include operating funding for transit service expansion beyond the existing network of regular route bus, general public dial -a -ride, and Metro Vanpool. The Increased Revenue Scenario (shown TPP Figure 6 -9, which is also attached) illustrates the level of expansion for the bus and support system and transitway system that might be reasonable if additional revenues were made available to accelerate construction of the transitway vision for the region. The plan includes updated requirements and considerations for land use planning around the region's transit system. This includes new residential density standards for areas near major regional transit investments and an increased emphasis on proactive land use planning in coordination with the planning of the transit system. Aviation System - Chapter 9 The Metropolitan Aviation System is comprised of nine airports (shown in Figure 1 -9 of the TPP and also attached to this system statement) and off - airport navigational aids. There are no new airports or navigational aids that have been added to the system in the 2040 TPP. • The TPP discusses the regional airport classification system as well as providing an overview of roles and responsibilities in aviation for our regional and national partners. The investment plan in includes an overview of funding sources for projects, and an overview of projects proposed for the local airports that will maintain and enhance the regional airport system. Modifications were made to Appendix I — Regional Airspace, Appendix J— Metropolitan Airports Commission Capital Investment Review Process, Appendix K— Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plans and Appendix L — Aviation Land Use Compatibility. Other Plan Changes Regional Bicycle Transportation Network - Chapter 7 The 2040 TPP encourages the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. To that end, the TPP establishes for the first time a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN). The goal of the RBTN is to establish an integrated seamless network of on- street bikeways and off -road trails that complement each other to most effectively improve conditions for bicycle transportation at the regional level. Cities, counties, and parks agencies are encouraged to plan for and implement future bikeways within and along these designated corridors and alignments to support the RBTN vision. Page - 8 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Freight - Chapter 8 Most aspects of freight movement are controlled by the private sector, so unlike other sections of the TPP, there is not a specific plan adopted for future public sector investment in freight facilities. However, the discussion of the need for a safe and efficient multimodal freight system has been updated and expanded in the TPP to recognize challenges and opportunities for freight movement as well as the future direction of freight by mode. It acknowledges the closure of the Minneapolis Upper Harbor in 2015, leaving St Paul and Shakopee as the region's major barge terminal areas in the future. The plan also acknowledges the increase of trains since 2010 carrying oil from North Dakota on BNSF and CP rail tracks, which is expected to continue into the future. Although railroad trackage in the region was significantly decreased over the last 20 years to "right size" the system after federal deregulation, communities should not expect much additional rail abandonment. Many tracks that appear to be seldom used are owned by the smaller Class III railroads that serve local businesses by providing direct rail connections from manufacturing and warehousing /distribution facilities to the major national railroads. The major Class I railroads are approaching capacity and actually adding tracks in some locations. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Andover should consult the complete 2040 Transportation Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Andover should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. Specific system plan considerations affecting Andover are detailed below. Metropolitan Highways There are no principal arterials located within Andover. Transit System Andover includes the following Transit Market Areas: Market Area III Transit Market Area III has moderate density but tends to have a less traditional street grid that can limit the effectiveness of transit. It is typically Urban with large portions of Suburban and Suburban Edge communities. Transit service in this area is primarily commuter express bus service with some fixed -route local service providing basic coverage. General public dial -a -ride services are available where fixed -route service is not viable. Market Area IV Transit Market Area IV has lower concentrations of population and employment and a higher rate of auto ownership. It is primarily composed of Suburban Edge and Emerging Suburban Edge communities. This market can support peak - period express bus services if a sufficient concentration of commuters likely to use transit service is located along a corridor. The low- density development and suburban form of development presents challenges to fixed -route transit. General public Bial- a -ride services are appropriate in Market Area IV. Market Area V Transit Market Area V has very low population and employment densities and tends to be primarily Rural communities and Agricultural uses. General public Bial- a -ride service may be appropriate here, but due to the very low- intensity land uses these areas are not well- suited for fixed -route transit service. Page - 9 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Transitways Current Revenue Scenario Transitways The TPP's Transit Investment Plan does not show any transitway investments planned for Andover in the Current Revenue Scenario (TPP Figure 6 -8). Increased Revenue Scenario Transitways The TPP Increased Revenue Scenario shows additional transitway corridors beyond the scope of the plan's adopted and fiscally constrained Transit Investment Plan (the Current Revenue Scenario). These corridors are listed on page 6.63 of the TPP, and TPP Figure 6 -9, which is attached, shows the complete transitway vision for the region. If Andover believes it might be directly impacted by transitways in ,the Increased Revenue Scenario (for example, because they are participating in transitway corridor studies or feasibility analyses), the transitways may be acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. These additional corridors are or will be under study for mode and alignment recommendations, but they are not included in fiscally constrained plan. However, they should be clearly identified as not funded within the currently expected resources for transitways. The Council recognizes the important planning work that goes into a corridor prior to it becoming part of the region's Transit Investment Plan, especially if increased revenues were to become available. Similar to Current Revenue Scenario Transitways, communities should identify known potential stations along planned transitways and consider guiding land use policies, station area plans, and associated zoning, infrastructure, and implementation tools that support future growth around transit stations. These policies can also influence station siting in initial planning phases of transitway corridors and influence the competitiveness of a transitway for funding. Communities can find further guidance for station area planning in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook and the Transit Oriented Development Guide. Communities not in the Transit Capital Levy District Andover is not within the Transit Capital Levy District as shown in Fig 1 -3 of the TPP (Existing Transit System with Transit Capital Levy District). Regardless of the Transit Market Area or transitway corridor planning, the only transit services provided in this type of community are Transit Link dial -a -ride service and various ridesharing services. A list of Transit Link service areas and communities can be found on the Council's website: http✓/www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/ Services /Transit- Link/Transit -Link- Service - Areas. aSPx ?source =child If Andover is interested in additional transit services and a need for transit services can be identified, Andover would first have to agree to pay the regional transit capital levy, as defined in MN Stat. 473.446 and 473.4461. Aviation All communities must include an aviation element in the transportation sections of their comprehensive plans. The degree of aviation planning and development considerations that need to be included in the comprehensive plan varies by community. Even those communities not impacted directly by an airport have a responsibility to include airspace protection in their comprehensive plan. The protection element should include potential hazards to air navigation including electronic interference. Andover is not in an influence area of a regional airport. Airspace protection should be included in local codes /ordinances to control height of structures. Page - 10 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Other Plan Considerations Regional Bicycle Transportation Network TPP Figure 7 -1 shows the RBTN as established for the first time in the 2040 TPP. The network consists of a series of prioritized Tier 1 and Tier 2 corridors and dedicated alignments (routes). The process used to develop the RBTN, as well as the general principles and analysis factors used in its development, can be found in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter of the TPP. The RBTN corridors and alignments make up the "trunk arterials" of the overall system of bikeways that connect to regional employment and activity centers. These are not intended to be the only bicycle facilities in the region, and local units should also consider planning for any additional bike facilities desired by their communities. RBTN corridors are shown where more specific alignments within those corridors have not yet been designated, so local governments are encouraged to use their comprehensive planning process to identify suitable alignments within the RBTN corridors for future incorporation into the TPP. In addition, agencies should plan their local on and off -road bikeway networks to connect to the designated Tier 1 and Tier 2 alignments, as well as any new network alignments within RBTN corridors to be proposed in local comprehensive plans. Bikeway projects that complete segments of, or connect to, the RBTN are given priority for federal transportation funds through the Transportation Advisory Board's biannual regional solicitation. Figure 7 -1 shows that your community currently has one or more RBTN corridors and alignments within its jurisdiction. The Council encourages local governments to incorporate the RBTN map within their local bicycle plan maps to show how the local and regional systems are planned to work together. An on -line interactive RBTN map, which allows communities to view the RBTN links in their community at a much more detailed scale than Figure 7 -1, can be found in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook. The handbook also includes best practices, references, and guidance for all local bicycle planning. A Minor System/ Functional Classification The TPP has always recognized the A minor arterial system as an important supplement to the regional highway system, and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) continues to maintain the official regional map of these roads. The 2040 TPP does include an updated functional classification map (Fig. 1 -2 in Chapter 1) and a modified Appendix D - Functional Classification Criteria. Communities should consult the Local Plan Handbook for more information on functional classification, how to reflect the A minor arterial system in their plan, and how to request functional classification changes if necessary. Freight The Council encourages all local governments to plan for freight movement in their communities. Trucks are the major mode of freight movement in the region and across the nation to distribute consumer goods as well as move manufactured goods and commodities, and they operate in every community. Communities with special freight facilities shown on TPP Figure 8 -1, Metropolitan Freight System, (attached) should also include those additional modes and facilities in their local plan, and plan for compatible adjacent land uses. Page-11 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Figure 1 -1 of the TPP Principal Arterials 0N.0 Principal Arterial - Existi ��r'•.,` Principal Arterial - Unde Reference Items Lakes and Rivers City Boundary C-J County Boundary MUSA2040 MPO Area 2040 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN I METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Figure 1-1 METROPOLITAN C 0 U N C I L Page -12 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Figure 1 -2 of the TPP Functional Class Roads R Existing 0'%.* Principal Arterial A- MinorAugmentor A -Minor Reliever A -Minor Expander A -Minor Connector e'N../ Other Minor Arterial Planned Principal Arterial A- MinorAugmentor A -Minor Reliever A -Minor Expander A -Minor Connector Other MinorArterial Thrive Planning Areas Urban Core & Urban & Suburban Suburban Edge & Emerging Suburban Edge Rural Service Areas MPO Area outside the Seven County Area Page - 13 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION w Figure 1 -3 of the TPP Existing Transit System with Transit Capital Levy Communities Sherhurne - t -- i g Transitway Regular - Route Bus Northstar �� Express Bus 01%w/ Blue Line Local Bus OW#440 Green Line ill Red Line Transit Capital Levy Communities Page - 14 i 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER Reference Items Prine4pa1 Me W Kgh V ya Lakes aM Rners Cey Bou�kery eyCounty BOuMary ]OSO uda. Service Mea MPOMea TRANSPORTATION Figure 5 -8 of the TPP Identified Projects* in Highway Current Revenue Scenario Sherburne Reference Items Prinofpal Arterial Highways Other Trunk Highways --dada Rivers II City Boundary Wrlg lit�� County Boundary 7 2040 Urban Service Area MPO Area "Not intended to represent all projects until 2040. Hennepin Includes only those projects identified by May 2014. Subject to change and amendment. Carver 0 5 10 20 Miles r I t I II l r�l 0 2015 -2018 TIP Bridges ^0 Strategic Capacity 2019 - 2024 Bridges Roadside Infrastructure ^o Roadside Infrastructure / Safety �f°• -. 2015 -2018 TIP Pavement �1 �f Da A Nov 2014 ^o 2019 - 2024 Pavement Projects 2015 - 2018 Pavement / MnPass 00%.o 2015 - 2018 Pavement / Safety Tier 1 MnPASS Expansion Page - 15 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Figure 6 -3 of the TPP Transit Market Areas Market Area I i Emerging Market Area III Market Area II i Market Area IV iEmerging Market Area II Market Area V iMarket Area III • Freestanding Town Center Page - 16 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Figure 6 -8 of the TPP Current Revenue Scenario Transitways and CTIB Phase I Program of Projects �J Northstar Line ^0 Red Line ^/ Arterial BRT ONWO Blue Line '` Orange Line 9%��gCTIB Phase I Program of Projects understudy mode and alignment not yet specified 0%0 Green Line Gold Line Regional Multimodal Hub Page -17 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Figure 6 -9 of the TPP Increased Revenue Scenario Transitways Building an Accelerated Transitway Vision )N Figure 7 -1 of the TPP Regional Bicycle Transportation Network Vision RBTN Alignments 0%.0 Tier 1 Alignments 0� Tier 2 Alignments RBTN Corridors (Alignments Undefined) Tier t Priority Regional Bicycle Transportation Corridor Tier 2 Regional Bicycle Transportation Corridors Regional Destinations • Metropolitan Job Centers O Regional Job Centers • Subregional Job Centers • Large High Schools • Colleges & Universities. • Highly Visited Regional Parks • Major Sport & Entertainment Centers Other Trail Systems Regional Trails (Regional Parks Policy Plan) Mississippi River Trail (US Route 45) �i State Trails (DNR) Page-19 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION Figure 8 -1 of the TPP Metropolitan Freight System Page - 20 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER TRANSPORTATION r Figure 9 -1 of the TPP Airport Service Areas 1 ISA TI zZ I CHISA�GO � I � ISHERBURN �" T - I L� 'lam k� ZA rL' _1WRIIGHT ,:� r _ 4 "a ANOI�A �.. •. FOR Ll — — - -1 ANE r -`' T C O X .l1_ o ,,,,• •. — f ELM- ? H ,-NEPIN- ,.• /lRIAMSEY _ I , AS 3 — —y 1t ; w I S FCM SG.S � CARVE-R-4 WPL :. '�' ^ti r1. d �-� •••n•••��i \ iii — - I' PIECE SCOTT I (DAKOTA i 1 _ 1 � SIDLE , �� i`t�uN L7 Y E O HUE • RICE LE SUE4IR o r Miles 0 5 10 QO Public Owned Public Use Airport / Airport Compatibility Area f a (3 NM's- Abise, Zoning, fPen .' •J Infrasr —W-) . (SNM's- LantlRls, - Wind Towers) �. MSP Mmneapolts- Sl.Paul MIC Crystal Airpol Intemational Airport .Aviation (Wo(d- Chamberlain FW0 SGS South St. Paul Airport Located in Community (Reming Field) STP St Paul DowntomAirport (Holman Fed) ELM Lake ElmaAirport ANE Anoka County - BlaineAlrport LVN Aidake Alrpod (Janes Field) FOR Forest Lake Airport FCM Flying Cloud Airport Page - 21 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT– ANDOVER Privately Owned Public Use Airport SFS Surl-Side Seaplane Base (Rim Lake) WPL Wipline Seaplane Base (Miss. Rives) OMinneapolis ClassB Airspace Boundary fPen fled Seaplane Surface Waters Wfhm 7Cau yrrea Dory) �. VOR Protection Zone 3 Tall Tower Areas .Aviation Facility Located in Community - Community Directly Affected by Facility(s) General Airspace Notifi atlon/Protectlon IL7HW0i120110+7 i!1 WATER RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS/ WASTEWATER SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Andover The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to achieve the following goal: To protect, conserve, and utilize the region's groundwater and surface water in ways that protect public health, support economical growth and development, maintain habitat and ecosystem health, and provide for recreational opportunities, which are essential to our region's quality of life. The Policy Plan takes an integrated approach to water supply, water quality, and wastewater issues. This approach moves beyond managing wastewater and stormwater only to meet regulatory requirements by viewing wastewater and stormwater as resources, with the goal of protecting the quantity and quality of water our region needs now and for future generations. The Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to: • Maximize regional benefits from regional investments in the areas of wastewater, water supply and surface water. • Pursue reuse of wastewater and stormwater to offset demands on groundwater supplies. • Promote greater collaboration, financial support, and technical support in working with partners to address wastewater, water quality, water quantity and water supply issues. • Implement environmental stewardship in operating the regional wastewater system by reusing wastewater, reducing energy use and air pollutant emissions, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid waste. Key Concepts in the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in May 2015, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for metropolitan wastewater services with which local comprehensive plans must conform. The Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: • Centers on and around an integrated approach to water supply, wastewater, and surface water planning. • Promotes the investigation of the issues and challenges in furthering our work in water conservation, wastewater and stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a more sustainable region. • Promotes the concept of sustainable water resources where, through collaboration and cooperation, the region will take steps to manage its water resources in a sustainable way aimed at: • Providing an adequate water supply for the region • Promoting and implementing best management practices that protect the quality and quantity of our resources • Providing efficient and cost effective wastewater services to the region • Efficiently addressing nonpoint and point sources pollution issues and solutions, and, • Assessing and monitoring lakes, rivers, and streams so that we can adequately manage, protect, and restore our valued resources. • Continues the Council's position that communities that permit the construction and operation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems are Page - 22 1 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed and regulated consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 -7083. • Includes requirements in Appendix C for comprehensive sewer plans, local water plans, and local water supply plans. • Establishes inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional wastewater system and requires all communities to include their inflow and infiltration mitigation programs in their comprehensive sewer plan. • Works with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration mitigation, and (2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation. Andover should consult the complete Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Andover should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Metropolitan Sewer Service Under state law (Minn. Stat. 473.513) local governments are required to submit both a wastewater plan element to their comprehensive plan as well as a comprehensive sewer plan describing service needs from the Council. Specific requirements for the sewer element of your comprehensive plan can be found in the Water Resources section of the Local Planning Handbook. Forecasts The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Andover as contained in the adopted 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan can be found at: httpJ /www.metrocouncil.orp /Wastewater- WaterlP /anning/2040- Water - Resources- Policy- Plan.aspx and on your Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook. These forecasts are for sewered development. The sewered housing forecasts were estimated using SAC data, annual city reports, current trends, existing and future local wastewater service areas and other information relating to your community. The wastewater flows are based on historical wastewater flow data, future projected wastewater generation rates, and the projected sewered population and employment data. The Council will use these growth and wastewater flow forecasts to plan future interceptor and treatment works improvements needed to serve your community. The Council will not design future interceptor improvements or treatment facilities to handle peak hourly flows in excess of the allowable rate for your community. Andover, through its comprehensive planning process, must decide the location and staging of development, and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to serve this development. The Council will use its judgment as to where to assign growth within your community to determine regional system capacity adequacy. If Andover wishes to identify specific areas within the community to concentrate its growth, it should do so within its Comprehensive Sewer Plan. You should also note that urban development at overall densities that are substantially lower than those identified for your community in the Community Designation Section of this Systems Statement will also be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service. Description of the Metropolitan Disposal System Serving Your Community Figure 1 shows the location of the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) serving your community. Wastewater flow from Andover is treated at the Metropolitan WWTP. Page-23 I SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Description of the Regional Inflow /Infiltration (1 /1) Program The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan states that the Council will establish 1/1 goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the MIDS. Communities that have excessive 1/1 in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate excessive 1 /I. The Council will continue the implementation of its on -going 1/1 reduction program. Communities identified through the program as needing to eliminate excessive 1/1 will be required to submit a work plan that details work activities to identify and eliminate sources of 1 /1. The Council can limit increases in service within those communities having excess 1/1 that do not demonstrate progress in reducing their excess 1 /I. The Council will meet with the community and discuss this alternative before it is implemented. It is required that those communities that have been identified as contributors of excessive 1 /I, and that have not already addressed private property sources, do so as part of their 1/1 program. Significant work has been accomplished on the public infrastructure portion of the wastewater system. The Council will pursue making funds available through the State for 1/1 mitigation, and promote statutes, rules and regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation. Management of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) and Private Systems The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires the sewer element of the local comprehensive plan to describe the standards and conditions under which the installation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems will be permitted and to the extent practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private systems. The appropriate density for development with subsurface sewage treatment systems depends on the suitability of the soils to treat wastewater and whether space is available for a primary and back up drain field. It is the Council's position that all municipalities and counties allowing subsurface sewage treatment systems should incorporate current MPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapter 7080 -7083) as part of a program for managing subsurface sewage treatment systems in the sewer element of their local comprehensive plan and implement the standards in issuing permits. Andover should adopt a management program consistent with state rules. An overview of Andover's management program must be included in the community's local comprehensive plan update. If adequate information on the management program is not included; the comprehensive plan will be found incomplete for review until the required information is provided to the Council. Specific requirements for the local comprehensive plan can be found in the Local Planning Handbook. Small private treatment plants are located throughout the Metropolitan Area serving such developments as individual industries, mobile home parks, and other urban type uses. The Council's position is that such private wastewater treatment plants should be permitted only if they are in areas not programmed for metropolitan sewer service in the future and they are provided for in a community's comprehensive plan that the Council has approved. Furthermore, the community is responsible for permitting all community or cluster wastewater treatment systems consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080- 7083 and MPCA standards. The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these systems fail. Andover should include in the sewer element of its local comprehensive plan the conditions under which private treatment plants or municipal treatments would be allowed, and include appropriate management techniques sufficiently detailed to ensure that the facilities conform to permit conditions. Andover is responsible for ensuring that permit conditions for private treatment plants are met and financial resources to manage these facilities are available. Page - 24 1 SYSTEM STATEMENT— ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Surface Water Management In 1995, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.859, subd. 2 was amended to make the local water plan (often referred to as local surface water management plans) required by section 103B. 235 a part of the land use plan of the local comprehensive plan. Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, updated in July of 2015, includes the requirements for local water management plans. The main change that you need to be aware of is that all communities in the metropolitan area must update their local water plan between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. This means that Andover must update its local water plan as part of the comprehensive plan update. The community's updated local water plan should be submitted to the Council for its review concurrent with the review by the Watershed Management Organization(s) within whose watershed(s) the community is located. Failure to have an updated local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found incomplete for review until the required plan is provided to the Council. Local water plans must meet the requirements for local water plans in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. In general, local surface water plans need to include a summary of the priorities and problems in the community; structural, nonstructural and programmatic actions to take to address the priorities and problems; and clearly identified funding mechanisms to fix the problems. More detailed guidance for the local water plans can be found in Appendix C of the Council's 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan and in the Council's current Local Planning Handbook. In addition, the Council has also updated its priority lake list that was first developed in the 1980s as part of the Water Resources Policy Plan update. Figure 2 shows the priority lakes for Andover. The Council uses the priority lake list to focus its limited resources. The list is also used in the environmental review process. Where a proposed development may impact a priority lake, the project proposer must complete a nutrient budget analysis for the lake as part of the environmental review process. Also included on Figure 2 is the watershed organization(s) that Andover is part of and a list of impaired waters in the community for use in development of your local water plans. Other Plan Considerations Water Supply Local comprehensive plans also address water supply (Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859). For communities in the metropolitan area with municipal water supply systems, this local comprehensive plan requirement is met by completing the local water supply plan template, which was jointly developed by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR). FOR COMMUNITIES WHO OWN /OPERATE A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM: Because your community owns /operates a municipal community public water supply system (PWS), the local water supply plan must be updated as part of the local comprehensive plan (Minn. Stat., Sec 103G.291). The updated local water supply plan should include information about your community along with information about any neighboring communities served by your system. You should update your local water supply plan upon notification by DNR. Local water supply plan due dates will be staggered between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Your updated local water supply plan should be submitted to the DNR. DNR will share the plan with the Council, and it will be Page -25 1 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES reviewed concurrently by both agencies. This schedule allows the local water supply plans to be completed and included in the local comprehensive plan. Failure to have an updated local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found incomplete for review until the required plan is provided to the Council. The water supply plan template fulfills multiple statutory obligations including: • Minn. Stat., Sec. 103G.291 to complete a water supply plan including demand reduction • Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859 to address water supply in local comprehensive plans • Minn. Administrative Rules 4720.5280 to address contingency planning for water supply interruption The plan must be officially adopted by your community, and if applicable the utility board, as part of the local comprehensive plan. At a minimum, the updated local water supply plan must use the joint DNR and Metropolitan Council template and include water demand projections that are consistent with the community's population forecast provided in the introductory section of this system statement. Potential water supply issues should be acknowledged, monitoring and conservation programs should be developed, and approaches to resolve any issues should be identified. Guidance and information for water supply planning can be found in the Appendix C of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, the Local Planning Handbook, and the Council's Master Water Supply Plan. The Council's Master Water Supply Plan provides communities in the region with planning assistance for water supply in a way that: • Recognizes local control and responsibility for owning, maintaining and operating water systems • Is developed in cooperation and consultation with municipal water suppliers, regional stakeholders and state agencies • Protects critical habitat and water resources over the long term • Meets regional needs for a reliable, secure water supply • Highlights the benefits of integrated planning for stormwater, wastewater and water supply • Emphasizes and supports conservation and inter - jurisdictional cooperation • Provides clear guidance by identifying key challenges /issues /considerations in the region and available approaches without dictating solutions Figures 3 -5 illustrate some water supply considerations that the community may consider as they develop their local water supply plans, such as: aquifer water levels, groundwater and surface water interactions, areas where aquifer tests or monitoring may be needed to reduce uncertainty, regulatory and management areas, and emergency interconnections. Page - 26 1 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Figure 1. MCES Sanitary Sewer Meter Service Areas City of Andover, Anoka County �r 0 05 a Mies Interceptors by Type — Gravity — Forcemain — Siphon iAreas of Unmetered Flow Into the Community Rural Center W WfP Service Areas 2040 MUSA — Outfall M Meters — Low Head Crossing A Lift Stations — Bypass CM MCES Wastewater Treatment Plants Intercepw Meter ServiceMas To MOW %100 Areas Nn' S, I County Boundaries OCity and Township Boundaries S Lakes and Rivers NCompass Street Centerfines I: Park, Recreational or Preserve Golf Course '2i2015 Page-27 I SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES I I I I I I I I I Andover I i i To Meter %M302 I S 7 To Meter %M218 0� To Meter %M308 � Anoka To Meter % M215 �r 0 05 a Mies Interceptors by Type — Gravity — Forcemain — Siphon iAreas of Unmetered Flow Into the Community Rural Center W WfP Service Areas 2040 MUSA — Outfall M Meters — Low Head Crossing A Lift Stations — Bypass CM MCES Wastewater Treatment Plants Intercepw Meter ServiceMas To MOW %100 Areas Nn' S, I County Boundaries OCity and Township Boundaries S Lakes and Rivers NCompass Street Centerfines I: Park, Recreational or Preserve Golf Course '2i2015 Page-27 I SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Figure 2. Surface Water Resources Andover, Anoka County Nowthen Rogers Oak UPPER Grove o „aa i RIVER er Rum a1„ Ward Leman LOWER RUM RIVER C Andover Ramsey Round COON coon Creek CREEK Ham i Lake --------------- 7"--'- Bunker Anoka It= ad ' '- Coon Rapids ^r, o as l+E III Miks to Watershed Management Organization Boundaries Watershed Management Organization Type County Watershed District Watershed Management Organization 0 Impaired Lakes (2014 Draft MPCA 303(d) List) -I%.— Impaired Rivers 8 Streams (2014 Draft MPCA 303(d) List) S 2014 Priority Lakes County Boundaries LCity and Township Boundaries Other Lakes and Major Rivers ^ti-- Other Streams NCompass Street Centerlines Page - 281SYSTEM STATEMENT – ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Figure 3. Surface water features and interaction with the regional groundwater system, and state- protected surface water features Andover �'Y� 0 0.5 t 2 3 d I Mlas Lakes and Major Rivers . Spring (DNR) Surface water type (regional screening by Met Council) ® Disconnected from the regional groundwater system • Calcareous Fen (DNR) - Recharges aquifers Trout Stream (DNR) _ Rooeives and discharges groundwater • Karst Feature (DNR) _ Supported by upwelling groundwater Page - 29 1 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Figure 4. Availability of MN Department of Natural Resources groundwater level and MN Department m Health aquifer test data Andover l Lakes and Major Rivers Observation well showing no tend m annual minimum values wm* Observation wall showing = upward trend /" annual minimum values (Dwn) observation well showing a downward tend mannual minimum valve,pww 0 Observation well with insufficient data m evaluate " trend m annual minimum values (Dwn) AAquifer Test (MDH) Page 30 | SYSTEM STATEMENT —ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Ramsey Andio�e Hyam Lake Anoka Coon,Rapids Blaine l Lakes and Major Rivers Observation well showing no tend m annual minimum values wm* Observation wall showing = upward trend /" annual minimum values (Dwn) observation well showing a downward tend mannual minimum valve,pww 0 Observation well with insufficient data m evaluate " trend m annual minimum values (Dwn) AAquifer Test (MDH) Page 30 | SYSTEM STATEMENT —ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES Figure 5. Municipal public water supply system interconnections and regulatory management areas 4ndover Nowthen = Oak Grove i L r"ut� {�! gun uuu:u!ou�u �. �•, .... ,. i url:iGl! !!n I'm1r �!�.Lm��n!-'� !un 1 1 o.., .... _. _ %_ — s,, l Ramsey ?eq s ar Andover =Ham Lake ��n 1 enru:._ .:-y - m�t sw =FI��tU� not �, -, ItINDWiuUrl'a0 �'h� nnnmua i�mltnuillunlfi�rp�• - alum _ Anoka ■faruimil� lamgim IIINIIIIINI )nniigllUAIiJIIIkIImIIAlIQ1 1glllllg►IOIIIIIIgO�uwmli - % --- __t z Coon.Rapids ®laine i =^ =;l,a 0 05 1 2 J 4 M1ukz Lakes and Major Rivers - The community's most recent local water supply plan reports that the public water supply system has no interconnections The community's most recent local water supply plan reports that the public water supply system has one or more interconnections ® Special well and Boning Construction Area (MDH) North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area (DNR) _ Moderate to Highly Vulnerable Drinking water Supply Management Area (MDH) Drinking Water Supply Management Area for Minneapolis/St. Paul Page -31 I SYSTEM STATEMENT - ANDOVER WATER RESOURCES REGIONAL PARKS SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Andover The Regional Parks System includes 62 regional parks, park reserves, and special recreation features, plus more than 340 miles of regional trails that showcase the unique landscapes of the region and provide year -round recreation. The Regional Parks System is well -loved by our region's residents and attracted over 48 million annual visits in 2014. The organizational structure of the Regional Parks System is unique, built upon a strong partnership between the Council and the ten regional park implementing agencies that own and operate Regional Parks System units. The regional park implementing agencies are: Anoka County Ramsey County City of Bloomington City of Saint Paul Carver County Scott County Dakota County Three Rivers Park District Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Washington County The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan was developed based on furthering the Thrive MSP 2040 outcomes of Stewardship, Prosperity, Equity, Livability, and Sustainability. Thrive MSP 2040 states that the Council will collaborate with the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, the regional park agencies, and state partners to: • Expand the Regional Parks System to conserve, maintain, and connect natural resources identified as being of high quality or having regional importance, as identified in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. • Provide a comprehensive regional park and trail system that preserves high - quality natural resources, increases climate resiliency, fosters healthy outcomes, connects communities, and enhances quality of life in the region. • Promote expanded multimodal access to regional parks, regional trails, and the transit network, where appropriate. • Strengthen equitable usage of regional parks and trails by all our region's residents, such as across age, race, ethnicity, income, national origin, and ability. Key Concepts in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes the following policies, each with specific associated strateg ies: • Recreation Activities and Facilities Policy: Provide a regional system of recreation opportunities for all residents, while maintaining the integrity of the natural resource base within the Regional Parks System. Page-32 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER REGIONAL PARKS • Siting and Acquisition Policy: Identify lands with high - quality natural resources that are desirable for Regional Parks System activities and put these lands in a protected status so they will be available for recreational uses and conservation purposes in perpetuity. • Planning Policy: Promote master planning and help provide integrated resource planning across jurisdictions. • Finance Policy: Provide adequate and equitable funding for the Regional Parks System units and facilities in a manner that provides the greatest possible benefits to the people of the region. • System Protection Policy: Protect public investment in acquisition and development by assuring that every component in the system is able to fully carry out its designated role as long as a need for it can be demonstrated. The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement highlights the elements of the system plan which apply specifically to your community. Find the complete text of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan on the Council's website. 2040 Regional Parks System Facilities The Regional Parks System is comprised of four main types of facilities: regional parks, park reserves, special recreation features and regional trails. Regional Parks Regional parks most notably contain a diversity of nature -based resources, either naturally occurring or human - built, and are typically 200 -500 acres in size. Regional parks accommodate a variety of passive recreation activities. Park Reserves Park reserves, like regional parks, provide for a diversity of outdoor recreation activities. One major feature that distinguishes a park reserve from a regional park is its size. The minimum size for a park reserve is 1,000 acres. An additional characteristic of park reserves is that up to 20 percent of the park reserve can be developed for recreational use, with at least 80 percent of the park reserve to be managed as natural lands that protect the ecological functions of the native landscape. Special Recreation Features Special recreation features are defined as Regional Parks System opportunities not generally found in the regional parks, park reserves or trail corridors. Special recreation features often require a unique managing or programming effort. Regional Trails Regional trails are classified as 1) destination or greenway trails and 2) linking trails. Destination or greenway trails typically follow along routes with high - quality natural resources that make the trail itself a destination. Linking trails are predominately intended to provide connections between various Regional Parks System facilities, most notably regional parks or park reserves. Page - 33 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER REGIONAL PARKS 2040 Regional Parks System Components The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies six components which together comprise the vision for the Regional Parks System in 2040, as described below. Existing Regional Parks System Facilities: include Regional Parks System Facilities that are open for public use. These facilities include land that is owned by regional park implementing agencies, and may include inholding parcels within the boundaries of these parks and trail corridors that have not yet been acquired. Existing regional trails may include planned segments that will be developed in the future. Planned Regional Parks System Facilities (not yet open to the public): include Regional Parks System Facilities that have a Council- approved master plan and may be in stages of acquisition and development, but are not yet open for public use. Regional Parks System Boundary Adjustments: include general areas identified as potential additions to existing Regional Parks System Facilities to add recreational opportunities or protect natural resources. Specific adjustments to park or trail corridor boundaries have not yet been planned. Regional Park Search Areas: include general areas for future regional parks to meet the recreational needs of the region by 2040 where the regional park boundary has not yet been planned. Regional Trail Search Corridors: include proposed regional trails to provide connections between Regional Parks System facilities where the trail alignment has not yet been planned. 2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor System Additions: include regional trail search corridors that were added to the Regional Parks System as part of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. Key Changes in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in February 2015, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: Identify all proposed regional trails as regional trail search corridors All proposed regional trails that are not yet open to the public and do not have a Metropolitan Council approved master plan are represented as a general regional trail search corridor. The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan depicted these trails with a proposed alignment. The alignment of these regional trails will be determined in the future through a planning process led by the regional park implementing agency. The alignment of these trails is subject to Metropolitan Council approval of a regional trail master plan. Acquire and develop ten new regional trails or trail extensions to meet the needs of the region in 2040. The 2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor Additions include: Carver County: • County Road 61 • Highway 41 Page - 34 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER REGIONAL PARKS Three Rivers Park District: • CP Rail Extension • Dakota Rail Extension • Lake Independence Extension • Lake Sarah Extension • Minnetrista Extension • North -South 1 • North -South 2 • West Mississippi River The 2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map is depicted in Figure 1. Andover should consult the complete 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Andover should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Regional Parks System Components in your community The following Regional Parks System Components within Andover as identified in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan are listed below. Regional Parks, Park Reserves, and Special Recreation Features Bunker Hills Regional Park: This is an existing regional park with an established boundary. The regional park boundary as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Rum River Central Regional Park: This is an existing regional park with an established boundary. The regional park boundary as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Regional Trails Central Anoka Regional Trail: This is a regional trail that includes segments that are open to the public as well as planned segments that will be developed in the future. The regional trail travels through Ramsey, Andover, Ham Lake, Blaine, Lino Lakes, and Centerville as it connects Mississippi West Regional Park, Rum River Regional Trail, Bunker Hills Regional Park, East Anoka County Regional Trail and Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve. The regional trail alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Rum River Regional Trail: This is a regional trail that includes segments that are open to the public as well as planned segments that will be developed in the future. The regional trail travels through Anoka, Andover, Oak Grove and St. Francis. Connects Mississippi River Regional Trail, Central Anoka County Regional Trail, Rum River Central Regional Park, North Anoka County Regional Trail Search Corridor, Sugar Hills Regional Trail Search Corridor and Lake George Regional Park. The regional trail alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Please contact Anoka County for more information regarding Regional Parks System Components in Andover. Page-35 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT — ANDOVER REGIONAL PARKS r Figure 1. 2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map Regional Parks System Twin Cities Metropolitan Area _..___. Anoka � \ _. County f ��.IN- - • !_ I 3� IN NIL k i '�� • ( I -� f. j,. ;�.. ..N!.-- L- -- ---- ..``' I T''•Ra'}sey- .jam•:!: +,FirF" c �C ,.. oWashington \ •i I T.'ri; ��.1 t Three •`Cou�ty Rivers .� L:�..a L I I County e. - -- . '� j - -- --- --; - -- I In St. I _ ... St.' '6 I I I �• �- � `�. � Paul 1 I i Cary er ; Bloomington - - F— —County Da S. Y ,Y,nZ "��" "• .. I'.> Seott I . :,?.. + r • m r , y ... . County 1 i �•���_ I I I Gil kill�' F •I Y'� _�I I I I ; ,; li� P - -- °-'L °-' rY 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 c s A�iks Regional Parks Regional Park Search Areas and Existing State Trails Regional Parks Regional Trail Search Corridors - Lakes and Major Rivers Park Reserves • Boundary Adjustments Minnesota Valley National VWIdlife Refuge Special Recreation Features i State Parks Planned Units • Search Areas State Wildlife Management Areas Regional Trail Corridor Land (Publicly Accessible) Regional Trails - .. Regional Trail Search Corridors *_V. Scientific and Natural Areas (SNA) — Exisfing Other Parks and Preserves - -- Planned Regional Trails- 2040 System Additions Page-36 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT - ANDOVER REGIONAL PARKS Figure 2: Regional Parks System Facilities in and adjacent to Andover Regional Parks System City of Andover, Anoka County "� o cs 2 Regional Parks Regional Parks i Park Reserves 71' Special Recreation Features Planned Units Regional Trail Corridor Land Regional Trails — Existing — Planned Regional Park Search Areas and Regional Trail Search Corridors I* Boundary Adjustments • Search Areas Regional Trail Search Corridors Regional Trails - 2040 System Additions Existing State Trails Street Centerlines (NCompass) Lakes and Major Rivers Minnesota Valley National Vldlife Refuge i State Parks State Wildlife Management Areas (Publicly Accessible) Scientific and Nature] Areas (SNA) Other Parks and Preserves Page-37 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT - ANDOVER REGIONAL PARKS e I C xument Path: H MW It ure 2.4 Future Land Use.mxd I "Ja(, ii'h m'.rn.ux ,mmn,F ,n-rx.uz ,Mrx ar , ,a.r ar ,Jwx.ux , u!n,art ' IaVIII AIF ' 1111 41t v. C I T Y O P NDOVEA Incorporated 1974 FUTURE LAND USE MAP me Information represented on this map displays the wntents of the City aAndover Proposed Land Use Map. This rap Will replace Figure 2.4 Existing Land Use Map when the 2000 Comprehensive Plan is adopted. This map is a graphical depiction. The Planning Office should be referenced for specific question concerning the content of the map. Land use designations are subject to Grange. For questions or warrants please canted the City of Andover City of Andover -Planning Department 1686 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 66304 (763)76&5100 Map Date: February 2014 L E G E N D Land Use Acres % of Total RR- Rural Residential 10,847.22 48s% URL - Urban Residential Low 3,069.79 13.75% URM - Urban Residential Medium 75.259 .33% Gross Residential Density Range by Land Use Land Use Density Range RR -Rural Residential - URH - Urban Residential High 111.869 .50% TR- Transitional Residential 14172 6.35% LC - Limited Commercial 1.461 .007% - LCIMD - Limited CommerclaOMedlum Density 7942 04% NC - Neighborhood Commercial 27 467 12% - GC - General Commercial 300.557 1.35% ® TC - Transitional Commercial 16.591 .07% LI - Light Industrial 75.516 .44% P - Public 468.54 2.1% RRR -Rural Reserve 970.404 4.35% OS - Open Space 1,357.6 6.09% - AG- Agricultural 934.2 4.19% Water 468.93 2.19', Right ofWay 2,162.29 9.69 %1 MUSA Boundary City Limits 22,312.39 100% Gross Residential Density Range by Land Use Land Use Density Range RR -Rural Residential 0.0 to 0.4 units per acre URL - Urban Residential Low 1.75 to 3.6 units per acre PUD maximum density Is 4 units per acre URM - Urban Residential Medium 3.6 to 6 units per acre PUD maximum density is 6 units per acre - URH - Urban Residential High 6 to 12 units per acre PUD maximum density is 14.4 units per acre 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW. CLAN DOVER. MN. US TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Councilmembers Jim Dickinson, City Administrator Discuss/Review "Draft" Social Media Policy June 28, 2016 INTRODUCTION At the March 22, 2016 Council workshop it was discussed that the City of Andover should research and see what type of social media policies where being used by other cities. The City of Andover does have a Social Media User Policy (approved June 16, 2015) that is used for the City Facebook and Twitter pages. DISCUSSION Since the March workshop, City Administration via the Human Resources Manager asked area cities to share with the City of Andover their social media policies, only a few were received, the most comprehensive policy being received was from the City of St. Michael. Also during that time I was informed that the League of Minnesota Cities was close to finalizing research on the topic. The League announced their "Model Social Media Policy" in May 9, 2016 LMC Cities Bulletin. Working with the City Attorney attached is a draft of a Social Media Policy for your review. Also attached are other reference documents provided by the League of Minnesota Cities that were reviewed and provide a broader background on the use and impact of social media for cities. Documents attached are as listed: 1. "Draft" City of Andover Social Media Policy 2. City of Andover Social Media User Policy (approved June 16, 2016) 3. LMC Model Social Media Policy 4. LMC information memo Computer and Network Loss Control 5. LMC information memo excerpt from Meetings of City Councils references in #4. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to discuss /review the attached draft City of Andover Social Media Policy and provide direction to staff. 9 Rio Li City of Andover Social Media Policy Purpose Social networking in government serves two primary functions: to communicate and deliver messages directly to citizens and to encourage citizen involvement, interaction, and feedback. Information which is distributed via social networking must be accurate, consistent, and timely and meet the informational needs of the City's customers. Since social media is used for social networking, this policy seeks to ensure proper use of the City of Andover's social media sites by its representatives. The City of Andover wishes to establish a positive and informative social media presence. As such, City representatives have the responsibility to use the City's social media resources in an efficient, effective, ethical and lawful manner pursuant to all existing City and departmental policies. This policy also provides guidelines and standards for City representatives regarding the use of social media for communication with residents, colleagues and all other followers. Policy The City of Andover will determine, at its discretion, how its web -based social media resources will be designed, implemented and managed as part of its overall communication and information sharing strategy. City social media sites may be modified or removed by the City at any time and without notice, as described in this document. City of Andover social media accounts are considered a City asset and administrator access to these accounts must be securely administered in accordance with the City's Computer Use policy. The City reserves the right to shut down any of its social media sites or accounts for any reason without notice. All social media web sites created and utilized during the course and scope of an employee's performance of his/her job duties will be identified as belonging to the City of Andover including a link to the City's official web site. Scope This policy applies to any existing or proposed social media web sites sponsored, established, registered or authorized by the City of Andover. This policy also covers the private use of the City's social media accounts by all City representatives, including its employees and agents, Council Members, appointed board or commission members and all public safety volunteers to the extent it affects the City. Questions regarding the scope of this policy should be directed to the City Administrator. Definition Social media are internet and mobile -based applications, websites and functions, other than email, for sharing and discussing information, where users can post photos, video, comments and links to other information to create content on any imaginable topic. This may be referred to as "user- generated content" or "consumer- generated media." Social media includes, but is not limited to: a, • Social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and online dating services /mobile apps a- • Blogs • Social news sites such as Reddit and Buzzfeed • Video and photo sharing sites such as YouTube, Instagram, SnapChat, and Flickr • Wikis, or shared encyclopedias such as Wikipedia • An ever emerging list of new web -based platforms generally regarded as social media or having many of the same functions as those listed above As used in this policy, "employees and agents" means all City representatives, including its employees and other agents of the City, such as independent contractors or Council Members. Rules of Use City employees and agents with administrator access are responsible for managing social media websites. Facilities or departments wishing to have a new social media presence must initially submit a request to the City Administrator in order to ensure social media accounts are kept to a sustainable number and policies are followed. All approved sites will be clearly marked as the City of Andover site and will be linked with the official City website www.andovennn.gov. No one may establish social media accounts or websites on behalf of the City unless authorized in accordance with this policy Administration of all social media web sites must comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies as well as proper business etiquette. City social media accounts accessed and utilized during the course and scope of an employee's performance of his/her job duties may not be used for private or personal purposes or for the purpose of expressing private or personal views on personal, political or policy issues or to express personal views or concerns pertaining to City employment relations matters. No social media website may be used by the City or any City employee or agent to disclose private or confidential information. No social media web site should be used to disclose sensitive information; if there is any question as to whether information is private, confidential or sensitive, contact the Human Resources Manager When using social media sites as a representative of the City, employees and agents will act in a professional manner. Examples include but are not limited to: • Adhere to all City personnel and Computer Use policies • Use only appropriate language Be aware that content will not only reflect on the writer but also on the City of Andover as a whole, including elected officials and other City employees and agents. Make sure information is accurate and free of grammatical errors. • Not providing private or confidential information, including names, or using such material as part of any content added to a site. • Not negatively commenting on community partners or their services, or using such material as part of any content added to a site. • Not providing information related to pending decisions that would compromise negotiations. �✓ • Be aware that all content added to a site is subject to open records /right to know laws and discovery in legal cases. • Always keep in mind the appropriateness of content. • Comply with any existing code of ethical behavior established by the City. Where moderation of comments is an available option, comments from the public will be moderated by City staff, with administrative rights, before posting. Where moderation prior to posting is not an option, sites will be regularly monitored by City staff. City of Andover's staff with administrative rights will not edit any posted comments. However, comments posted by members of the public will be removed if they are abusive, obscene, defamatory, in violation of the copyright, trademark right or other intellectual property right of any third party, or otherwise inappropriate or incorrect. The following are examples of content that may be removed by City staff before or shortly after being published: • Potentially libelous comments • Obscene or racist comments • Personal attacks, insults, or threatening language • Plagiarized material • Private, personal information published without consent • Comments totally unrelated to the topic of the forum • Commercial promotions or spam • Hyperlinks to material that is not directly related to the discussion Personal Social Media Use The City of Andover respects employees and agents' rights to post and maintain personal websites, blogs and social media pages and to use and enjoy social media on their own personal devices during non -work hours. The City requires employees and agents to act in a prudent manner with regard to website and internet postings that reference the City of Andover, its personnel, its operation or its property. Employees and agents and others affiliated with the City may not use a City brand, logo or other City identifiers on their personal sites, nor post information that purports to be the position of the City without prior authorization. City employees and agents are discouraged from identifying themselves as City employees when responding to or commenting on blogs with personal opinions or views. If an employee chooses to identify him or herself as a City of Andover employee, and posts a statement on a matter related to City business, a disclaimer similar to the following must be used: "These are my own opinions and do not represent those of the City." Occasional access to personal social media websites during work hours is permitted, but employees and agents must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the City's Computer Use policy and the City's Respectful Workplace policy. Employees and agents should also review the Ownership section of this policy (below). There may be times when personal use of social media (even if it is off -duty or using the employee's own equipment) may spill over into the workplace and become the basis for employee coaching or discipline. Examples of situations where this might occur include: • Friendships, dating or romance between co- workers • Cyber- bullying, stalking or harassment • Release of confidential or private data; if there are questions about what constitute confidential or private data, contact the Human Resources Manager • Unlawful activities • Misuse of City -owned social media • Inappropriate use of the City's name, logo or the employee's position or title • Using City-owned equipment or City-time for extensive personal social media use Each situation will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis because the laws in this area are complex. If you have any questions about what types of activities might result in discipline, please discuss the type of usage with your immediate supervisor, the HR manager, or the City Administrator. Data Ownership All social media communications or messages composed, sent, or received on City equipment in an official capacity, are the property of the City and will be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. This law classifies certain information as available to the public upon request. The City of Andover also maintains the sole property rights to any image, video or audio captured while a City employee is representing the City in any capacity. The City retains the right to monitor employee's social media use on City equipment and will exercise its right as necessary. Users should have no expectation of privacy. Social media is not a secure means of communication. Policy Violations, Violations of the Policy may subject the employee to disciplinary action up to and including discharge from employment, or in the event of an elected official, censorship. The City further reserves the right to restrict any employee or elected official's access to any social media websites sponsored, established, registered or authorized by the City, for violations of this policy. a 8�3 City of Andover Social Media User Policy: I The City of Andover uses social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, as a means to provide two -way communication with the public. Although the City welcomes participation/comments from the public on its Facebook and Twitter pages, these pages are not a public forum. The City reserves the right to delete comments that: • contain vulgar language • are personal attacks of any kind • are offensive • are prejudiced or hurtful remarks made toward any person or entity, including any ethnic, racial or religious group • are spam • include sales /promotion of goods or services, or links to other sites • are off -topic • advocate illegal activity • promote services, products or political organizations • infringe on copyrights or trademarks • contains private or confidential data • creates fear, panic Please note that comments by others expressed on the City's social networking sites do not reflect the opinions or positions of the City of Andover, its employees or elected officials. The City of Andover has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided on its Facebook page. However, several factors that are beyond the City's control (including inaccurate or misleading posts /comments from users, unauthorized modification of electronic data, transmission errors, browser incompatibilities, information that has been cached on the local computer or storage device, or other aspects of electronic communication) can affect the quality of the information displayed on this site. For that reason, the City does not guarantee the accuracy of the information provided on its Facebook and Twitter pages and is not liable for any reliance on this information. Data Practices and Records Retention: To the extent that any content on social media is government data, such data are transitory communication and will not be retained. Adopted June 16, 2015 C I T Y O F ND OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.AN DOVER. MN. US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers CC: James Dickinson City Administrator FROM: Dana Makinen, Human Resources Manager SUBJECT: Approve Social Media User Policy DATE: June 16, 2015 INTRODUCTION Social networking in government serves two primary functions: to communicate and deliver messages directly to citizens and encourage citizen involvement; and to provide a mechanism for interaction and feedback from citizens. Information which is distributed via social networking must be accurate, consistent, and timely, with its intended purpose to meet the information needs of the City's customers. It is also important for the City to establish user guidelines and regulations relative to the use of the City's social media sites to protect the City from potential liability for inappropriate posts. Currently, the City of Andover does not have such a User Policy, which should be contained within its social media sites, advising users of prohibited posts and limiting the City's liability for inappropriate or incorrect information contained within the site. DISCUSSION After reviewing policies from metro area cities, I am proposing the below policy for the City's sponsored Facebook and Twitter sites. This policy has been reviewed by the City Administrator and City Attorney; their recommended changes have been included. City of Andover Social Media User Policy: The City of Andover uses social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, as a means to provide two -way communication with the public. Although the City welcomes participation/comments from the public on its Facebook and Twitter pages, these pages are not a public forum. The City reserves the right to delete comments that: contain vulgar language are personal attacks of any kind are offensive • are prejudiced or hurtful remarks made toward any person or entity, including any ethnic, racial or religious group • are spam • include sales /promotion of goods or services, or links to other sites • are off -topic • advocate illegal activity • promote services, products or political organizations • infringe on copyrights or trademarks • contains private or confidential data • creates fear, panic Please note that comments by others expressed on the City's social networking sites do not reflect the opinions or positions of the City of Andover, its employees or elected officials. The City of Andover has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided on its Facebook page, However, several factors that are beyond the City's control (including inaccurate or misleading posts /comments from users, unauthorized modification of electronic data, transmission errors, browser incompatibilities, information that has been cached on the local computer or storage device, or other aspects of electronic communication) can affect the quality of the information displayed on this site. For that reason, the City does not guarantee the accuracy of the information provided on its Facebook and Twitter pages and is not liable for any reliance on this information. Data Practices and Records Retention: To the extent that any content on social media is government data, such data are transitory communication and will not be retained. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to approve the Social Media User Policy for the City's sponsored Facebook and Twitter sites. Respectfully submitted, Dana Makinen (c: Model Social Media Policy Before adopting this policy, a city should be familiar with the contents of the LMC information memo, Computer and Network Loss Control. This model policy assigns duties to certain departments and staff titles. Suggestions are offered in parentheses. Use departments and staff positions that are appropriate for your city. You may modify other provisions to conform to your city's situation as needed. This model contains a number of provisions with legal implications. Before adopting a city policy based on this model, please review it with your city attorney. The League of Minnesota Cities thanks the City of St. Michael for allowing us to use its policy as the basis for this version of the League's model policy. City of Social Media Policy Purpose Social networking in government serves two primary functions: to communicate and deliver messages directly to citizens and to encourage citizen involvement, interaction, and feedback. Information which is distributed via social networking must be accurate, consistent, and timely and meet the information needs of the City's customers. Since social media is used for social networking, this policy seeks to ensure proper use of the City of 's social media sites by its representatives. The City of wishes to establish a positive and informative social media presence. City representatives have the responsibility to use the City's social media resources in an efficient, effective, ethical and lawful manner pursuant to all existing City and departmental policies. This policy also provides guidelines and standards for city representatives regarding the use of social media for communication with residents, colleagues and all other followers. Policy The City of will determine, at its discretion, how its web - based social media resources will be designed, implemented and managed as part of its overall communication and information sharing strategy. City social media sites may be modified or removed by the City at any time and without notice, as described in this document. City of social media accounts are considered a City asset and administrator access to these accounts must be securely administered in accordance with the City's Computer Use policy. The City reserves the right to shut down any of its social media sites or accounts for any reason without notice. All social media web sites created and utilized during the course and scope of an employee's performance of his/her job duties will be identified as belonging to the City of , including a link to the City's official web site. League of Minnesota Cities Computer and Network Loss Control 2/24/2016 Scope This policy applies to any existing or proposed social media web sites sponsored, established, registered or authorized by the City of . This policy also covers the private use of the City's social media accounts by all City representatives, including its employees and agents, Council members, appointed board or commission members and all public safety volunteers to the extent it affects the City. Questions regarding the scope of this policy should be directed to the [City Administrator, Communications Director, etc. ] Definition Social media are internet and mobile -based applications, websites and functions, other than email, for sharing and discussing information, where users can post photos, video, comments and links to other information to create content on any imaginable topic. This may be referred to as "user- generated content" or "consumer- generated media." Social media includes, but is not limited to: • Social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and online dating services /mobile apps • Blogs • Social news sites such as Reddit and Buzzfeed • Video and photo sharing sites such as YouTube, Instagram, SnapChat, and Flickr • Wikis, or shared encyclopedias such as Wikipedia • An ever emerging list of new web -based platforms generally regarded as social media or having many of the same functions as those listed above As used in this policy, "employees and agents" means all City representatives, including its employees and other agents of the city, such as independent contractors or Council members. Rules of Use City employees and agents with administrator access are responsible for managing social media websites. Facilities or departments wishing to have a new social media presence must initially submit a request to [the City Administrator /Manager /Council/ or other designee] in order to ensure social media accounts are kept to a sustainable number and policies are followed. All approved sites will be clearly marked as the City of site and will be linked with the official City website (www. ). No one may establish social media accounts or websites on behalf of the City unless authorized in accordance with this policy Administration of all social media web sites must comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies as well as proper business etiquette. City social media accounts accessed and utilized during the course and scope of an employee's performance of his/her job duties may not be used for private or personal purposes or for the purpose of expressing private or personal views on personal, political or policy issues or to express personal views or concerns pertaining to City employment relations matters. League of Minnesota Cities Computer and Network Loss Control 2/24/2016 � CS No social media website may be used by the City or any City employee or agent to disclose private or confidential information. No social media web site should be used to disclose sensitive information; if there is any question as to whether information is private, confidential or sensitive, contact When using social media sites as a representative of the City, employees and agents will act in a professional manner. Examples include but are not limited to: • Adhere to all City personnel and Computer Use policies • Use only appropriate language Be aware that content will not only reflect on the writer but also on the City of as a whole, including elected officials and other city employees and agents. Make sure information is accurate and free of grammatical errors. • Not providing private or confidential information, including names, or using such material as part of any content added to a site. • Not negatively commenting on community partners or their services, or using such material as part of any content added to a site. • Not providing information related to pending decisions that would compromise negotiations. • Be aware that all content added to a site is subject to open records /right to know laws and discovery in legal cases. • Always keep in mind the appropriateness of content. • Comply with any existing code of ethical behavior established by the City. Where moderation of comments is an available option, comments from the public will be moderated by City staff, with administrative rights, before posting. Where moderation prior to posting is not an option, sites will be regularly monitored by City staff. City of 's staff with administrative rights will not edit any posted comments. However, comments posted by members of the public will be removed if they are abusive, obscene, defamatory, in violation of the copyright, trademark right or other intellectual property right of any third party, or otherwise inappropriate or incorrect. The following are examples of content that may be removed by City staff before or shortly after being published: • Potentially libelous comments • Obscene or racist comments • Personal attacks, insults, or threatening language • Plagiarized material • Private, personal information published without consent • Comments totally unrelated to the topic of the forum • Commercial promotions or spam • Hyperlinks to material that is not directly related to the discussion League of Minnesota Cities Computer and Network Loss Control 2/24/2016 U� C�5 Personal Social Media Use The City of respects employees and agents' rights to post and maintain personal websites, blogs and social media pages and to use and enjoy social media on their own personal devices during non -work hours. The City requires employees and agents to act in a prudent manner with regard to website and internet postings that reference the City of , its personnel, its operation or its property. Employees and agents and others affiliated with the City may not use a city brand, logo or other city identifiers on their personal sites, nor post information that purports to be the position of the City without prior authorization. City employees and agents are discouraged from identifying themselves as city employees when responding to or commenting on blogs with personal opinions or views. If an employee chooses to identify him or herself as a City of employee, and posts a statement on a matter related to City business, a disclaimer similar to the following must be used: "These are my own opinions and do not represent those of the City." Occasional access to personal social media websites during work hours is permitted, but employees and agents must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the City's Computer Use policy and the City's Respectful Workplace policy. Employees and agents should also review the Ownership section of this policy (below). There may be times when personal use of social media (even if it is off -duty or using the employee's own equipment) may spill over into the workplace and become the basis for employee coaching or discipline. Examples of situations where this might occur include: • Friendships, dating or romance between co- workers • Cyber- bullying, stalking or harassment • Release of confidential or private data; if there are questions about what constitute confidential or private data, contact • Unlawful activities • Misuse of city -owned social media • Inappropriate use of the city's name, logo or the employee's position or title • Using city -owned equipment or city -time for extensive personal social media use Each situation will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis because the laws in this area are complex. If you have any questions about what types of activities might result in discipline, please discuss the type of usage with [your supervisor, the HR manager, the City Administrator or another position you may name]. Data Ownership All social media communications or messages composed, sent, or received on city equipment in an official capacity are the property of the City and will be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. This law classifies certain information as available to the public upon request. The City of also maintains the sole property rights to any image, video or audio captured while a City employee is representing the City in any capacity. League of Minnesota Cities Computer and Network Loss Control 2/24/2016 5 ®p5 The City retains the right to monitor employee's social media use on city equipment and will exercise its right as necessary. Users should have no expectation of privacy. Social media is not a secure means of communication. Policy Violations Violations of the Policy will subject the employee to disciplinary action up to and including discharge from employment. League of Minnesota Cities Computer and Network Loss Control 2/24/2016 00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INFORMATION MEMO Computer and Network Loss Control Learn some of the risks in storing and sharing city data on computers, including portable devices. Find out how to protect the city from common risks such as data breaches, virus contamination, hacker attacks, and computer misuse by employees. Understand issues presented by social media such as Facebook, blogs, and Twitter. Links to a model employee computer use policy. RELEVANT LINKS LMCIT listsery for City IT Professionals is a way to keep current on computer issues. I. Elements of computer Foss control As more cities find ways to increase efficiency and communications through technology, the need for better computer security grows. Not doing anything could open the city to disastrous consequences. Even if a city has just one computer, if the city stores valuable data on the system, it probably will be exposed to computer threats. Computer threats include private data exposure, and damage or destruction of software, hardware, or data from hacker attacks, employees, or viruses. There are also physical risks to your computers, network, and data from disasters like fires, physical damage, or floods. Recommendations discussed in this memo are not a guarantee that your computers and network will be completely safe from harm, but actively managing these risks and keeping up with new developments in this area will go a long way toward controlling computer -based losses. II. Security risks A. Physical and electronic security You can have the best policy in place and trustworthy city staff, but that does not protect you from computer security risks. Even though most city data is public, it needs to be protected from accidental or malicious deletion. This is similar to paper files in that they may be public data, but you wouldn't put the file cabinet in front of city hall for anyone to browse or remove files. Simply locking the file cabinet wouldn't prevent someone from stealing the entire file cabinet or destroying it. Security threats may come from inside or outside your city. Internal threats include but are not limited to disgruntled employees, untrained employees, or former employees whose access has not been removed. External threats include but are not limited to hackers, viruses, phishing scams, and malware. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.Imc.org 2/24/2016 Saint Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 or (800) 925 -1122 © 2016 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: Wikipedia, Cloud Computing, B. Virus or malware contamination Virus contamination of computer systems is a large risk. Many viruses are undetectable without anti -virus software, and could be present for years without showing any signs of malice. Viruses or malware can cause issues in many ways. The most obvious is they could destroy city data that could be costly to restore or recreate. Other viruses may capture keystrokes or passwords and utilize them maliciously. Viruses could also allow hackers to gain unfettered access to a city's network, where data could be read, deleted or, in some cases, encrypted and held hostage for a fee. Finally, they could attack a city's network causing connectivity to become slow or unusable. Viruses replicate and can move from computer to computer via networks, email, flash drives, CDs or DVDs, or even smart phones that were created or accessed by an infected computer. If a city does not take measures to ensure a virus -free network, and private data is exposed, the city could end up in litigation for the data breach. C. Hacker attacks Poor security may allow a hacker attack of the city's computer system. A hacker may obtain private data, opening the city to a lawsuit by the subject of the data for allowing the data to become public. City data may also be destroyed or modified. A hacker can hijack the city's system to use it for a "denial of service" attack on a third party. The affected party may in turn sue the city for carelessness in allowing computers to be so easily commandeered by the hacker. Hackers may also turn computers into mail servers that send out spam email, which could cause a city's email domain to be blacklisted. This means very few email messages from city email accounts would make it to the intended recipient. D. Physical losses A city may lose data and software from an accident, natural disaster, or other event. Examples include fire, tornado, flood, lightning strike, building collapse, riot, vandalism, or theft. Any of these could leave a computer or network in a state where data cannot be recovered. E. Cloud computing Cloud computing is the "delivery of computing as a service rather than a product, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to computers and other devices as a utility (like the electricity grid) over a network (typically the Internet). Clouds can be classified as public, private, or hybrid." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: Cloud -based applications provide some potential risks, not because they are cloud- based, but because they may not be configured appropriately, or data may be stored in a way that conflicts with data practices. If a cloud provider doesn't handle data correctly, the city still could be liable for loss or release of data even though it was handled by the cloud provider. F. Computer or social media misuse Misuse of computers, such as a city employee using the city's computer to send harassing emails, can create liability for the city. Likewise, an employee may sue the city for looking at emails the employee sent or received on the city's system, claiming that she expected those communications to be treated as private. Social media is another area where misuse can become an issue. Because of the prevalence of social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter — accessible through an Internet connection —city employees may have their own social media accounts, where they may write things about work. City officials should care about social media even if their city doesn't yet have an official Facebook page or Twitter account. The lines between personal and work lives are getting blurrier each day. For better or worse, at some point an employee's personal social media activity will relate to something that happened at work. You need to help employees identify what is appropriate and inappropriate content related to city business. Good guidelines are important to keep employees —and the city —out of trouble. G. Websites and social media information Material the city posts on its website may open the city to risks such as release of private data or wider harm such as damage to city facilities. For example, the city pinpoints the location, size, and design of the city's water system facilities or emergency response practices. This information is then used by terrorist or anti -city organizations to plan an attack Social media primarily are Internet and mobile -based tools for sharing and discussing information. While accessible through the Internet, social media is generally thought of differently than a city website. A city website is the official voice of the city and is recognized as such. Cities typically assign website content development and posting duties to staff as part of their official job duties. Sometimes those duties include a supervisor's review of content before it is posted to the website. Where content sign -off isn't required, communications or other guidelines usually direct staff in the city's standards and expectations for acceptable and unacceptable website communications. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: H. Demands for data In a lawsuit or other data practices requests, a discovery demand for information will most likely include all the city's relevant email and other electronic data. Backup media may be part of the request. The city may be compelled to spend significant time and money looking for the relevant data on all systems, and redacting any non - public information. Data requests may also cover a personal computer or other technology, including personal devices used to conduct city business, or social media data that have been used to communicate on the topic of interest. Disability claims Poor ergonomics when using computers may result in employee worker compensation claims for a repetitive stress syndrome injury. These claims can be expensive and may result in permanent disabilities. J. Staffing People who. maintain the city's network may not understand data practices issues, or may not have an appropriate skill set to ensure electronic records are cared for appropriately. Poorly trained information technology staff could also unknowingly expose a city's network/computers to virus attacks or security breaches. Poorly vetted staff could steal /damage equipment, data, or software. K. Portable devices As portable devices become more prevalent in the workplace, it is important to consider them when thinking about loss control. What defines a portable device? The definition of portable devices includes any medium that can access city networks, systems, or emails. Some examples are smartphones, iPads, tablets, and netbooks. Address portable devices under the city's Computer Use Policy. The policy must cover all employees and elected officials conducting city business on portable devices. As part of the policy, password protection on the devices should be required. For example: Why should employees and elected officials make it a habit to clean the screen on their portable devices? Answer: Over time, oils from fingertips can accumulate on the device screen and create a discernable pattern potentially marking the password for that device. Portable device training must include: • Why passwords are important. • Data practices considerations with portable devices. • Ways to secure the devices. • What steps to follow if a portable device is lost or stolen. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: Office of the State Auditor E- Update, Feb. 13, 2015. The Office of the State Auditor has these recommendations about portable devices: "Notebook computers, USB flash drives, and other removable media devices are often used outside a secure network environment, which makes them particularly susceptible to loss. As a result, extra care needs to be taken to protect the devices and any `not public' data contained on them. "All computers should be secured with a strong password. To protect both the data and the computer equipment, the following security measures should also be considered: • Government data should not be stored on personal computers, personal USB flash drives, and other similar personal equipment. • `Not public' data should be stored on a notebook computer or removable media device only when there is a business need. • Data stored on a notebook computer or a removable media device should be strongly encrypted. • When removable media are no longer in use, they should be securely destroyed. • When disposing of computers, the hard drives should be securely erased. • Cable locks should be used for all computers, except while in transit. • Computers should never be left in an unattended vehicle." L. Removal from service Consider portable devices when creating the policy guiding the procedures for taking technology out of service. Quite a number of devices /machines store information on the hard drive. It is essential that the hard drives are either removed, wiped, or destroyed when the equipment gets removed from service as the hard drive may contain private data. Public entities need a written policy that addresses the disposal of these items and the specific process for destroying the information on the hard drives. Devices to consider including in this policy: • Copiers /scanners • Fax machines • Computers • Portable devices (phones, tablets, laptops, netbooks, etc.) III. Reducing computer security risks A. General security Security of a city's network needs to be addressed in three areas: physical, data, and personnel. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: Servers, switches, computers, laptops, and other data devices should all be secured from physical threats such as theft or environmental damage. Data should be secured by granting rights only to people who require access to the data. This is usually done through a system of folders and sub - folders, with appropriate security applied. This is called data mapping and is covered later in this document. Employees should have their own computer accounts granting them access to only the data they require to complete their duties. When staff leave employment, their accounts should either be deleted or, if it's an account that will be moved to a new staff person, the password should be changed. Passwords should be required for all accounts and should be complex passwords or passphrases. Shared and administrative passwords should be changed annually, or when an employee who has access to the password leaves employment with the city. See, Wikipedia, social City staff and elected officials are also key to computer security. Social Engineering (Security) for some current examples of engineering, that is, the psychological manipulation of people into this type of social performing actions or divulging confidential information, is quickly engineering. becoming one of the easiest ways for hackers to gain access to networks. City staff should be made aware of the methods used and be trained in simple security measures such as not sharing passwords, not writing them down and keeping them close to the computer, not emailing them, and not giving them out to anyone other than verified support personnel. B. Anti -virus software Ensure all devices used for city business (including ones at home if used to do city work) have current, updated anti -virus software installed. There are many vendors that offer anti -virus products and the choice of which software is the best to use will vary from city to city. A reputable company that provides support in the event of a virus outbreak should be chosen. Some vendors offer "free" anti -virus software such as AVG or Microsoft. These free programs are usually only free for personal use so, in theory, cities would have to pay for the product if they choose to use it. C. Firewalls Any connection to the Internet should be protected by a firewall. Hardware firewalls are usually provided by your Internet service provider. However, these are often simple firewalls that offer only basic protection. Cities should consider purchasing their own firewall and having a technology professional configure it to meet their needs. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/2412016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: For additional information about encryption see Wikipedia, Encryption. The default configuration of a firewall should never be used. A default configured or misconfigured firewall is almost as bad as not having one. In addition to a firewall at the point of connection to the Internet, computers should also have a software firewall configured. This is especially important for tablet and laptop computers, since they will most likely be using Internet connections not controlled by the city (e.g., hotels, coffee shops, and home connections). D. Data encryption While the majority of city data is usually considered public, encryption is critical for private data. Any mobile device or laptop that contains private information should have its storage media encrypted. Examples would include a smartphone with private emails, or a laptop containing private data. Servers generally do not require encrypted media, since they should be stored in a secure physical location. However, it is slowly becoming a best practice to encrypt server data as well. While less critical than securing end -user devices, it's another layer of protection for city data. External connections, such as VPN or webmail, should also be encrypted. E. Wireless security No wireless access point should ever be considered secure. Even "secured" access points that require passwords and that are encrypted can be easily compromised by hackers. City staff should be trained on not transmitting private data over wireless networks. F. Cloud computing Before storing any city data in a cloud -based application, it is paramount to review the usage agreement for the service to ensure data is stored appropriately. You also want to make sure that, if you are required to produce data under a data practices or e- discovery request, it will not cost too much for the city to pull the information back. This is especially important for how the data is backed up. In some e- discovery cases, backups of data were considered accessible data and needed to be produced. G. Staffing Appropriate and trained staff should be responsible for maintaining a city's network and computers. Most cities cannot afford a full -time technology professional and will need to rely on consultants. Regardless of whether that person is a contractor or city employee, a city must make sure the person has passed an appropriate background check. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24 /2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 8 (Most technology vendors require background checks and will provide documentation that they performed the check upon request). Using a high school student or relative of a city official is probably not a good idea unless they are a true technology professional. Any staff responsible for maintaining a city network should also be aware of data practices issues, and should understand the concept of the city's records retention schedule. Technology staff should generally not be the people tasked with records retention duties, but should be familiar enough with the process to advise a city on storage methodologies. H. Data mapping Data mapping is critical to keeping a network organized and reducing costs in the event of e- discovery. All city staff should be aware of the data mapping architecture. (In smaller cities, this may be as simple as a few folders on a computer such as, "Public Data," "Private Data," and "City Council Information "). Security should be applied to these folders as well. For example, personnel data should be stored in a separate folder where only city staff tasked with HR responsibilities can access it. Other data that is more public in nature would then be stored in a separate folder or area with less restrictive access. How this is set up may vary from city to city. However, having an overall plan for where data is stored is critical. Failure to protect private data appropriately is a violation of state statute. Minn. Stat. § 13.05, subd. 5. Cities must establish security measures to help ensure that private data "are State of Minnesota, only accessible to persons whose work assignment reasonably requires Information Policy Analysis access to the data, and is only being accessed by those persons for purposes Division, sample Policy for Ensuring the Security of Not described in the procedure." In addition they must follow data breach laws, Public Data. and they must perform an annual security assessment of "personal Minn. Stat. § 13.055, subd. information" the city maintains. Accessing private data without authorization 1 -6. is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation by a public employee is just cause Minn. Star. § 13.09. for suspension without pay or dismissal. I. Patches, service packs, and upgrades Patches, services packs, and upgrades need to be applied regularly to all operating systems, anti -virus clients, networking equipment, software applications, and any embedded equipment that connects to the Internet such as water /wastewater systems or security systems. If possible, updates to end - user equipment should be automated, and end users should not be given a choice of running the updates. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24 /2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 9 Updating embedded systems will often require more vendor interaction and cost, so the risks of not updating the systems should be weighed against the cost of potential breach. For example, the malicious turning off of the pump in a lift station may be a greater risk than the malicious shutdown of the system that handles the lawn sprinklers for the library. J. Data backup Regularly back up the data on the city's computers, and conduct tests to ensure backups are not corrupted. The city should back up all data to protect itself from natural disaster, failed hardware, viruses, or hacker attacks. Backup media should be stored in a secure, climate - controlled, off -site location. The location should be far enough away such that a natural disaster such as a flood or tornado would not be likely to take out both the equipment being backed up, and the off -site storage location. Storing backup media in the back of a public works shed would probably not fit the definition of a secure, climate - controlled, off -site location. The city should establish a regular backup schedule addressing frequency of backups and retention of backup media. Backups should be done on a daily basis. A complete monthly backup should be maintained on a 12 -month rotating schedule. Ultimately, the type of schedule really depends on the size of the city and the kind of operations housed in the system. Specifically address how emails and backup tapes containing emails are handled in the city's records retention schedule. Cities should back up email separately, so that emails aren't retained indefinitely along with other city data that has a longer retention need. A separate email backup also ensures any archived electronic city records do not need to be searched as part of an email eDiscovery ordered by the court. Backup media should be replaced on an annual basis. Most backup media will deteriorate after a year of use. K. Computer use and social media policies See Section rV, Developing Adopt a computer use policy, and ensure all staff are aware of the policy. a computer use policy social media policy, and section Make sure it includes use of social media for personal and professional III -L, Website and social purposes. Decide whether the city has an official presence in social media, media policies. and whether you will use a centralized or decentralized strategy. Make sure LMC information memo, city employees are aware of the policy, and consistently enforce it. Consider Meetings of City Councils, Section II-G-8, "Telephone, voluntary policy language to govern elected officials' use of social media and email and social media". other electronic communications. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC Model, Computer Use Policy. LMC Model, Social Media Policy. L. Website and social media policies Think about the kind of information posted on the city's website. Recommendations include making sure there is no private data, and that data is accurate. Even if data is legally public (e.g., the location, size, and design of your water system), it may not be a good idea to post it on the website. Only post information that is legitimately useful to citizens and constituents. Social media largely is perceived as a less formal method of communication than a website. Cities that are using social media to communicate official city- sponsored messages should be managing that official social media content in much the same way they manage the city newsletter or website. The following are recommendations to help cities avoid problems related to social media. Social media as a city business tool Because social media is relatively new, experts are only now beginning to understand the associated liability issues. Cities should be mindful that any forays into social media — whether as an official voice of the city, voice for elected officials, or as personally used by staff —could create an embarrassing situation for the city. Above all, employees should consider anything they post to be permanent and public. It is a good idea to advise employees to refrain from sending or posting information that they would not want their boss or other employees to read, or that they would be embarrassed to see in the newspaper. In some instances, the city could face legal challenges if incorrect, false, or non - public information is posted on a site used officially by the city or personally by employees or elected officials. In other settings, the city may face data requests that could include content posted to social media sites on city and /or personal computers, depending upon where content was posted and who posted it. Before considering social media use as a tool for city business, a city should weigh benefits against risks. Answering the following questions will help set a course for identifying who should speak for the city, when the city wishes to use social media, where it wants to engage, and more. Is social media different from the city website? Social media is different from a city website. The city's website functions as an official voice of the city. Often city websites include formal communication about city events, projects, policies, and ordinances. City websites primarily are one -way forms of communication where cities "push" information out to the public, and websites rarely offer opportunities League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: Computer and Network Loss Control 2124/2016 Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: to directly comment on information on the site. Most sites offer email addresses for visitors to send comments to. Social media can be used as an official voice of the city, but it's different. Social media can be accessed simply, through the Internet. One of the primary goals of social media is to encourage two -way communication. Information shared in a social media setting typically happens in real time. Social media information is "pulled" by followers. Simply put, in social media, people choose who they want to connect with by deliberately "following" or "friending" them. The act of following someone on a microblog or friending someone on Facebook means that when they visit their accounts, they will see information posted by the people, groups, and organizations they follow, and can comment right away on what they see. hear, and read they can have a conversation in real time. b. Should the city use social media? "Two-Way Street: What is Determining whether social media is a good way for the city to communicate your City's Approach to Social Media," Minnesota with residents is an individual city decision. Factors that may impact a city's Cities (May-June 2013). decision could include staffing levels, communications needs, overall city goals, technology support, staff interest (or lack of interest) in social media, and other unique considerations. In some instances, social media may complement current communications vehicles such as newsletters and the city website, reach audiences the city otherwise wouldn't connect with, or replace (partially or fully) some existing communications tools. It might even help the city gather valuable input from residents about programs and services, or communicate emergency messages. When considering how to integrate social media, the city should consider whether electronic media can actually replace print media. It's likely that not all residents have access to electronic forms of communication, so eliminating some of the city's existing communications tools could actually decrease its ability to connect with residents. It's also important to think about what types of communication to distribute via social media as each is developing a niche. Currently, microblogs are emerging as a tool for making announcements about such things as upcoming meetings and events, communicating with people in real time and on the go, and learning what others are doing or saying; blogs are being used to relay information that is more subjective in nature; and sites such as Facebook are being used for sharing information and photos. c. When should the city use social media? There are many opportunities for a city to use social media in an official manner. Ultimately, the answer depends upon each city. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: Some cities might choose to use social media to announce upcoming changes to services such as swimming pool hours or additional ball fields; provide updates on projects such as street improvements and skate park construction; announce city - related festivals; provide in -depth information on certain policies such as assessments and zoning; gather feedback and input from residents on projects, services, and ordinances; or any number of other city - related topics. d. What social media tools should the city use? The tools a city chooses to use will depend upon the type of information the city wants to communicate. Generally speaking, different tools work well for different types of things. (1) Microblogs Microblogs such as Twitter work well for taking the pulse of current events such as breaking news and legislative policy issues. Microblogs also work well for sharing announcements about projects such as a street being closed for resurfacing, reminding residents about parking rules during snow emergencies, and registration opening for parks and recreation programs. The value of microblog comments is enhanced when links are included to more information about the projects, policies, and programs that are already posted on the city website. Microblogs can also work well for getting a snapshot of what people are thinking about at the moment to help get a sense for a trend. Carefully cultivating who a city follows can help increase the visibility of the city among groups such as the media, political leaders, and residents. (2) Social networks Social networks, such as Facebook, work well as a gathering place for people interested in the city, and for building affinity for the city. Social networks can serve as a place to post information and pictures of a community celebration, a project that succeeded because of volunteer efforts, or even of various city staff performing interesting aspects of their jobs. These spaces also could be used to gather input and ideas from residents on projects, services, and ordinances. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2124/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: (3) Video sites Video sites, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Report, allow users to post, rate, and comment on videos. Posting videos can be a way to provide a comprehensive picture of a city event, such as award ceremonies, and even be a virtual way to show residents the range of work done by city staff. (Videos shouldn't be posted of any individual without that person's knowledge and consent). (4) Photo sharing sites Photo sharing sites, such as Flickr and Instagram, allow users to post, rate, and comment on photos, can help create a comprehensive picture of a city event such as award ceremonies, and even be a virtual way to show residents the range of work done by city staff. (Photos shouldn't be posted of any individual without that person's knowledge and consent). (5) Wikis Wikis, such as Wikipedia, can be used to develop information on a range of topics such as about the city's founding residents, historic sites, and so on. Wikis are encyclopedia -like applications in which entries are created and edited by multiple people. 2. Centralized or decentralized approach to social media A city should consider whether it wants an official social media presence and, if so, in what social media venues. The city should think about when and how it wants to use social media, whether to have an official city voice, and whether to use a centralized or decentralized approach. The manner in which social media fits with other official forms of communication also should be considered. It may be the case that having multiple city social media users —or a decentralized approach —makes sense for a city because it allows subject matter experts to talk about issues related to their areas of expertise. For example, the city clerk might blog about changes to polling sites and announce openings for various committees and commissions, while the police chief talks about the city's K -9 officer. Microblogs might be used by public works staff to alert residents to snow parking emergencies, while parks and recreation staff announce enrollment openings for new programs. A consolidated --or centralized— approach assigns social media responsibilities to one or two people. Depending upon the city, this approach could create a significant workload for those individuals, who may not have the time to support such a task. On the other hand, a centralized approach probably would provide the city with a more controlled, consistent, and uniform social media presence. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: 3. Records retention Handbook, Chapter 27. Keep the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act in mind when using social media. Much of what is posted likely does not need to be kept unless it serves as the official record of government action. For example, a posting announcing an upcoming registration for a city program has a link to a downloadable form on the city website. If the city is linking from social media to an official government record posted on the city website, the records retention schedule likely applies to the record itself and not the website or the social media outlet in which the link was posted. The communications medium doesn't change the nature of a government record. It's important that cities remember that if they keep something not required under records retention, such as a transitory email or Facebook message that is not an official government record, it would still be considered government data and probably classified as public. So, to the extent a city keeps more than it is required to keep, the city may have to produce that information. Not all information posted will be conversational, of course. Some information will be official in nature and, therefore, will need to be maintained. An example might be taking public comment via the city's Facebook page or Twitter account on a proposed development in the city. IV. Developing a computer use and social media policy LMC model, Computer Use An effective computer use policy takes a comprehensive look at employee Policy, use of a city's technology. It governs employees' use of city - provided LMC model, Social Media technology resources, including city- managed email; electronic Polity. communications; social media and Internet access; precautions to take against things like computer viruses; and consequences for breaking the policy. Ideally, a computer use policy is developed in consultation with technology and human resources experts. Technology considerations might include issues of managing equipment, access and protection of the city's computer network and data. Human resources might have input regarding allowable personal use of city resources and ramifications of inappropriate employee computer use. A good computer use policy can: • Ensure city staff understand technology responsibilities. • Protect city technology and data assets. • Increase employee productivity by not having to clean up things like virus outbreaks and junk emails. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2124/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: • Help employees avoid inappropriate information exchanges through electronic communications such as social media. • Prevent liability if your city's computer system infects someone else's, or your confidential files are breached. A. Human resources concerns There are many areas in a computer use policy that cross boundaries between technology and human resources policies. As you think about an appropriate computer use policy for your city, you might weigh some of the following considerations. Be realistic It may be impractical to forbid personal use of the city's computer. Employees are unlikely to follow this, and you might not be able to monitor or enforce the policy. Try to strike a balance between the need for security and cumbersome rules. 2. Balance technology and performance issues It might be tempting to try solving a performance issue, like an employee who spends too much time surfing the Internet, by implementing a technology policy against personal use of the city's Internet connection. Make sure your computer use policy is about computers, and use other policies to address employee performance. 3. Focus on education Most employees won't deliberately introduce viruses or other nasty stuff into the city's computer system, but the majority of them might not understand how visiting a website for online gaming can be dangerous to the network. Explain it to them and they'll be more likely to follow procedures. Think about frequent communications and updates as a way to remind employees about the policy you've put in place. 4. Simplicity A computer use policy should be specific, and include easy -to- understand guidelines and examples. Think about when to roll something into your existing policy and when to create a new policy. For example, should you include rules about city -owned cell phones in a computer use policy or create a stand -alone policy for phone use? League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: 5. User policies versus network standards Supplement the computer use policy with appropriate computer network management standards and protocols. It's tempting to blend a computer use policy with a computer network standard that's meaningful to the technology staff, particularly in areas of overlap like password management or security patches. Try to keep the computer use policy focused on areas of importance to all employees and make sure you have supplemental technology or network standards and protocols for technology staff to perform their work. 6. Employee monitoring Make sure the policy provides employees with notice that their files and communications are not private, and that the city may monitor employee use and communications. Think about whether monitoring use will provide employees with a disincentive to tell you when they experience problems (for fear they might be disciplined). Consider how you will handle an investigation of employee behavior and what you will do with sensitive information you might uncover. 7. Elected officials LMC information memo, You may have elected officials conducting electronic conversations via email Meetings of City Councils, Section 11 -G -8, "Telephone, or social media, creating documents or recording their information using email and social media". technology tools. Be sure you think about how these documents and discussions are managed and merged with other city information. If the city provides equipment for elected officials, you might need to also communicate expectations and limitations about how that equipment is used. B. Technology concerns Because technology and technology risks change so rapidly, you'll have to take a careful look at your computer use policy more frequently than other policies you may have. The League recommends yearly review. 1. Items to include An effective computer use policy should include the following: • When and how often staff can use city computers for personal reasons. • Personal use that is acceptable and unacceptable. • Who, other than staff, can use city computers (e.g., family members). • Examples and types of websites staff can and cannot visit. • Whether and to what extent staff can receive personal email at city email address. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2124/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: • Guidelines for appropriate email and social media content, language, etc., for messages sent and received by staff, both personal and work - related, including following city respectful workplace, data practices, and political activity policies. • How to handle "Spam" or junk email. • Appropriate passwords, how often they should be changed, where they should be stored, and with whom they can be shared. • Guidelines on software procurement and installation. • Where and how to save city electronic data, including email, and a mention of the city's records retention schedule. • Whether or not removable media, such as portable disks, DVDs or flash drives, is allowed. If allowed, steps to take before using disks, recordable CDs/DVDs, flash drives, or other forms of removable media. • Standards for encrypting confidential data on laptops and other removable devices, e.g., portable drives or flash drives. • Appropriate use of remote access to city network resources if available. • Whether staff are allowed to access the city network or data from personal computer equipment. • How personal and business use of city computers will be monitored. • Level of privacy staff have in conducting city or personal business on city computer system (the answer should be "none "). • Ramifications of violating the policy. • How to protect the physical security of city computer equipment. 2. Customizing your policy Make the policy specific to your circumstances. A sample or model policy only helps to a certain point. Your city is probably operating a specific kind of anti -virus software, you may or may not have automatic updates of your operating system, your email system may be different from another city's, and your city probably has different uses for social media sites. See LMC Model Computer The League's model policy guidelines are a good place to start. Before using Use Policy. the provisions in this sample policy, a city may need to make changes or adaptations appropriate for its management style, staff resources, and computer network structure. The sample reflects one set of solutions to the issues that a computer use policy should address, but different solutions might be a better fit in your city. Specific things in the sample policy to check before using in your city include: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 17 RELEVANT LINKS: • Whether duties and functions identified as being performed by the city clerk, technology department, and supervisor are appropriate for your city. For cities with a human resources director, some functions may be better performed by that role. Consider whether you want supervisors to play an additional role in enforcement of the policy. • Whether the technical and vendor references to policy items like anti- virus software or allowable downloads are valid in your city (this policy references some vendors you might not use). • What level of employee discipline is appropriate in your city for policy violations. • Whether you will allow personal documents to be stored on the city's equipment. • Whether the city will allow storage of any personal files that contain copyright material such as mp3 files. • What software or system downloads you will permit, including security updates and patches to individual computer equipment. • What other related policies should be referenced, included, or attached (such as policies about records retention or data practices). • How often you will perform back -ups of city email and how long you will retain those back -ups. It's recommended that you back up email systems separately from all other system back -ups. • Whether you will provide or permit any communication by instant messaging (IM). • Whether you will permit access to social media sites for personal or city use. • How you will store and manage protected or private information in accordance with data practices laws. It's recommended that you implement storage techniques to identify public and private data. • Whether you want to utilize encryption for files on removable media or laptops containing confidential information • Whether you want to block any particular Internet sites or web protocols (traffic) from employee access. • What password management guidelines you will use (required characters, password length, required change of passwords). • How you will provide and manage remote access, including mobile devices, VPN, and webmail. • Whether you will allow personal computer equipment to be used for conducting city business. If you do allow it, you should include a statement notifying employees that if personal equipment is used for city business, it may make the equipment discoverable for data practices purposes or e- discovery purposes. • Whether there are other technology resource management standards or computer network protocols that need to be communicated to employees. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: - 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 18 RELEVANT LINKS: C. Social media 1. Included or not LMC Model, Social Media Determine whether you want to incorporate your social media policy into Policy. your computer use policy, or create a separate policy. The more official use of social media permitted, the more likely a separate policy is needed. LMC Model, Fire Some city functions, such as the fire department or EMS, may benefit from Department and EMS Social Media Policy. additional social media policies tailored to their unique work duties and situations. 2. Official city presence An official city presence in social media probably would be dedicated to communicating information only on official city business such as upcoming city council meetings and events, programs in the parks and recreation department, public works projects like road closures, and so on. The city would determine whether it wanted a centralized or decentralized social media strategy. A centralized strategy would have a single department or person responsible for all official social media postings. Decentralized would allow various departments or staff to communicate their individual postings. Regardless of which strategy is chosen, there should be an official list of who is allowed to represent the city in social media. Among other expectations, staff with social media responsibilities would be expected to avoid posting information or comments that are critical, false, or disparaging, or could be damaging to the city's reputation. Access to social media sites through city technology and during regular work hours would be approved, and may even be allowed from personal technology so that timely postings to social media can happen in accordance with the city's guidelines. For instance, an employee in charge of using social media for snow emergency plowing notices might need to access the city social media sites after normal hours and, therefore, would be allowed to do so from home or from a web - enabled phone. When staff are assigned to serve as the official voice and required to access social media after hours, the city should consider what posting official city business from personal technology means in the context of the city's records retention policies. It might make sense to encourage that any communications related to official city business be retained in a separate file so that it is easy to produce all city - related business information posted to social media should there be a request made under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for all communication related to a particular topic. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 19 RELEVANT LINKS: It also would be helpful to provide etiquette guidelines for expected behavior by staff charged with using social media on behalf of the city. Etiquette guidelines might include the following: a. Account names General social media pages, such as Facebook pages should clearly indicate they are tied to the city. Staff charged with representing the city could be expected to clearly illustrate on their account that they work for the city. This could be done by requiring all staff who use social media to include a city - designated prefix on their account names, much like the conventions set up for email years ago. For example, if John Doe, the public works director, is maintaining a public works Facebook page for the city, the page might be named "Mosquito Heights Public Works John Doe" and his Twitter account might be "MH- JohnDoe." Sally Deer, the clerk, might be "Mosquito Heights Clerk Sally Deer" on Facebook and "MH- SallyDeer" on Twitter. Profile information for pages maintained by designated staff should include staff s city job title, and could include the city's website address, street address, and other relevant information. b. Transparency Personal opinions don't belong in an official city social media communication unless the city has asked a person to share personal views and comments. If that's the case, the person sharing his or her comments should clearly identify the comments as the poster's own opinions, not those of the city. A good precautionary principle for the city and it's official communicators to follow — regardless of the city policy on posting opinions —is that if you'd be embarrassed to see your comment appear in the news, don't post it. Honesty When posting information on social media, city representatives should be honest, straightforward, and respectful while being mindful of the need to maintain confidentiality and privacy when appropriate. Individuals should be sure that efforts to be honest don't result in sharing non - public information related to co- workers, personnel data, medical information, claims or lawsuits, or other non - public or confidential information. Where questions exist, staff should consult with their supervisor or city attorney. d. Mistakes If a city representative makes a factual mistake on social media, the individual should correct it as soon as he or she is aware of the error. Corrections should be upfront and as timely as possible. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/2412016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 20 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC Model, Social Media Policy. LMC Model, Fire Department and EMS Social Media Policy. If the individual is correcting a blog entry, the author may choose to modify an earlier post, and make it clear the posting has been corrected. The web contains a permanent record of mistakes, so attempting to disguise a mistake likely will make things worse. To prevent errors, a city employee should fact check official communications before they are posted in social media. Potential errors could create city issues ranging from minor to significant, and some may create unforeseen liability issues. For example, posting to Facebook the wrong opening date for enrollment in a parks and recreation program likely will create confusion, inconvenience, and even frustration among residents who try to enroll their kids in a program too early and essentially end up wasting their time, or who find a program full because they tried to enroll their kids too late for a program. It's unlikely this type of mistake would create city liability. But posting incorrect information about a new city ordinance related to land use zoning stands a greater chance of creating liability if someone acts based upon that incorrect information, and later is penalized for the action they took based upon the incorrect information officially posted by the city. Legal requirements and city policies Make sure not to post material that may violate federal or state laws. Follow city guidelines closely. Examples of cautions in this area include the following: • Do not upload, post, transmit, or make available content you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent. All statements should be true and not misleading. Do not post photos that infringe on trademark, copyright, or patent rights of others. • Non - public and confidential information such as information related to co- workers, personnel data, medical information, claims, or lawsuits against the city should never be shared. Posting such information could create liability issues for the city and the person posting the information. • Do not post content that violates existing city policies, that exhibits hate, bias, discrimination, pornography, libelous, and /or otherwise defamatory content. • Only post content that is suitable for readers and viewers of all ages. Do not post content that a reasonable citizen may not consider to maintain the dignity and decorum appropriate for government. Do not post information that affiliates the city with or advocates for a political party or candidate running for council. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 21 RELEVANT LINKS: • Do not post any photo or video without permission of each person in the photo or video. Do not post the name of any individual without permission from that person. f. Third -party sites Only post to third -party sites when it is relevant to the city. g. Media contact Employees who are contacted by the media should follow city media relations /communications protocols. 3. City staff personal use LMC model, Social Media City staff without official social media responsibilities likely use social Policy. media to keep in touch with friends, family, colleagues, and groups with LMC Model, Fire mutual interests. As part of their personal use of social media, it's not Department and EMS Social Media Policy. difficult to imagine that sometimes city staff may comment on city- related issues. Such a scenario often starts out innocently enough, but can lead to problems down the road. An example of use of a personal social media account that crosses the line from strictly personal to city - related could be of the public works director who has a personal Twitter account. The public works director created the account to talk about and follow others with shared interests on topics such as hobbies, raising kids, and professional sports. After being on Twitter a while, the public works director finds an official account for a professional group that he belongs to —the American Public Works Association. He already regularly visits the APWA website, but following the APWA on Twitter means he gets real -time updates about things that impact his job — national wastewater rule changes, upcoming conferences, and job openings. He's now started to merge his personal and professional lives. Now consider that he's developed a following on Twitter that includes his friends who live in the city, and some of their friends start to follow him. One day the public works director realizes he has a broad network of people interested in what he has to say, and some folks are following him just because he works for the city. He starts to see Twitter as a way to communicate important information to residents about snow emergencies or ice rinks opening, and he does so. His following grows because people know they can get important city- related news when it matters most. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: Computer and Network Loss Control 2/24/2016 Page 22 RELEVANT LINKS: At first, the city information being communicated is straightforward, doesn't bear any real negative impact for the city, and actually helps the city do its work — residents are moving their vehicles before plowing begins! a. Employee right to speak publicly This is not a new issue. Employees have always had the ability to communicate on city issues. Previously, employees could write a letter to the editor or circulate a flyer. However, social media has dramatically increased the speed, audience size, and impact of these communications. In the scenario above, the city should still consider what it means that the public works director has started to use personal social media for official city business. The city could determine it would like to make use of social media part of the public works director's official job duties. Some questions to consider in this scenario include: • What happens if the public works director is disgruntled because a new equipment request is denied, and he posts information blasting the council? • What if he comments negatively about a staff member, or shares non- public information about that person in his personal social media accounts? • What happens if the city faces a data request, and a personal computer or other technology has been used to communicate on the topic of interest? • What happens if he takes a job in another city, and the city loses those connections to the public that he developed via social media? City staff generally have the right to speak publicly as private citizens on "matters of public concern." Such speech, even if made in the workplace or as part of official duties, may be constitutionally protected if the interests of the employee, in commenting upon matters of public concern, outweigh the city's interests in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Be careful to balance these interests before taking any action against an employee for the content of the speech he or she publicizes on social media sites. Of course, not everything is defined as a matter of public concern — comments on private matters with no impact on the greater public generally are not considered protected speech. Cities should consult with their city attorneys as appropriate on this issue. Staff never have the right to reveal non - public or private data. b. Etiquette guidelines Etiquette guidelines for staff who use social media on a personal basis might include the following: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 23 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC Model, Social Media Policy. (1) Account names Personal social media account names should not be tied to the city. This will help clarify that the individual is not speaking officially on behalf of the city. For example, the personal Twitter account for John Doe, the Mosquito Heights public works director, should be just "JohnDoe," his Facebook page "John Doe's," and so on. Staff interested in using social media officially on behalf of the city should talk with their supervisor. (2) Legal requirements and city policies Individuals who use personal social media accounts are not immune from the law, or from the need to follow existing city policies and guidelines related to harassment prevention, media relations, computer use, and other city policies. Examples of cautions in this area include the following: • Individuals should be encouraged to refrain from uploading, posting, transmitting, or making available content known to be false, misleading, or fraudulent. They should be encouraged not to post photos that infringe on trademark, copyright, or patent rights of others. • Individuals never have the right to post non - public and confidential information such as information related to coworkers, personnel data, medical information, claims, or lawsuits against the city. • Individuals should not use city-owned equipment to post to personal sites content that violates existing city policies, that exhibits hate, bias, discrimination, pornography, libelous, and/or otherwise defamatory content. • Individuals should be encouraged to post to personal sites only that content which is suitable for readers and viewers of all ages. 4. Elected officials' social media use Some elected officials already use blogs, microblogs, Facebook, and other social media to connect with constituents and to promote political agendas. This is a reasonable use of social media, but elected officials should not use official city social media sites for campaigning purposes, just as they would not use the official city website or newsletter for campaigning. It would be useful for elected officials to consider the effect personal comments about official city business can have on the city as a whole. Just as with face -to -face comments, electronic comments via social media can serve to "stir the pot" when an official speaks in opposition to an official city position adopted by a vote of the council. The city council might consider voluntary policy language to prevent this kind of awkward situation. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 24 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC information memo, Meetings of City Councils, Section II -G -B, Telephone, email and social media. Elected officials should also be mindful of the risks of electronic communication in relation to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law. They should consider adopting a policy on electronic communications between councilmembers, and a policy on computer use for elected officials. Remember, two -way communications among elected officials should be strictly avoided due to the possibility of serial meetings in violation of the Open Meeting Law. The Open Meeting Law has been amended to allow for elected officials to post in a social media context with less chance of violating the law. However it's still recommended that elected officials keep issue debate within the confines of a public meeting. Additional guidelines for elected officials' use of social media include the following: Account names Personal social media account names should not be tied to the city. This will help clarify that the individual is not speaking officially on behalf of the city. For example, the personal Twitter account for Jane Deer, the Mosquito Heights mayor, should be just "JaneDeer," her Facebook page "Jane Deer's," and so on. b. Transparency Elected officials who use personal social media accounts should be encouraged to complete profiles on those sites, and to reveal that they are elected officials for the city. They should be encouraged to include a statement that any opinions they post are their own, not those of the city. They should be aware that —even though they are revealing their affiliation with the city —they will inherently create perceptions about the city among visitors to their personal account sites. Individual actions, whether positive or negative, will impact how the city is viewed. A good rule of thumb to encourage them to follow is that if they would be embarrassed to see their comment appear in the news, they shouldn't post it. c. Honesty Encourage elected officials who use personal social media accounts to be honest, straightforward, and respectful. Educate them that if they choose to comment on city issues, they are personally responsible for what they post. They should be mindful of the need to abide by privacy and confidentiality laws in all postings. Officials should be sure that efforts to be honest don't result in sharing non - public information related to colleagues on the council, personnel data, medical information, claims or lawsuits, or other non - public or confidential information. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 25 RELEVANT LINKS: d. Mistakes, liability, and claims against the city If an elected official makes a factual mistake, it should be corrected as soon as the official is aware of the error. Corrections should be upfront and as timely as possible. If the elected official is correcting a blog entry, he or she may choose to modify an earlier post, and make it clear the posting has been corrected. If correcting an error in Twitter, the posting might include something designating the corrections, such as "Fixed link" or "Fact correction" before the corrected information. The web contains a permanent record of mistakes, so attempting to disguise a mistake likely will make things worse. To help prevent errors, elected officials should not post official information about the city. Potential errors could create city issues ranging from minor to significant, and some may create unforeseen liability issues. An example discussed earlier in this document applies here. Posting the wrong opening date for enrollment in a parks and recreation program likely will create confusion, inconvenience, and even frustration among residents who try to enroll their kids in a program too early and essentially end up wasting their time, or who find a program full because they tried to enroll their kids too late for a program. It's unlikely this type of mistake would create city liability. But posting incorrect information about a new city ordinance related to land use zoning stands a greater chance of creating liability if someone acts based upon that incorrect information, and later is penalized for the action they took based upon the incorrect information officially posted by the city. If an elected official makes an error related to official city business, he or she should contact the top appointed official to divulge the error and consult on the best manner in which to communicate the correct information. Depending upon the type of error, the city may choose to correct the information in a range of official city communication vehicles such as the city newsletter, website, during a council meeting, and potentially even with the local media to ensure the corrected information is broadcast as widely as possible. Elected officials also should recognize that using personal technology to communicate on official city business could become inconvenient if a request for data is made on a particular topic, and that elected official has commented through his or her own equipment, including computers and phones. The official could be in a situation where his or her hard drive is subpoenaed during an investigation of a claim or lawsuit against the city. Such a situation would be inconvenient at best. Elected officials should consider maintaining a separate email from their personal email and consider keeping documents and emails that are city - related separated from their personal information. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 26 RELEVANT LINKS: e. Add value There may be times when elected officials use social media to promote a position on a city issue such as a controversial ordinance being considered, to gather feedback from constituents, and /or to campaign. When this occurs, elected officials should be encouraged to add value to the conversation by staying focused on the issue. They should not post comments that amount to name - calling or ridiculing of colleagues, staff, or residents. While it's common and even natural to seek to respond to attacks on their viewpoints or personality, elected officials should be encouraged to avoid conversations that clearly add no value to discussion of city issues. For instance, the elected official who essentially is called an "idiot" or some other baited term, should ignore the comment regardless of whether it happens in the social media realm or not, and regardless of who says it. Responding to such comments only serves to inflame discussions, makes all the participants look silly and petty, and casts a long shadow on the view the public has of the city and its elected leaders. Elected officials should seek to elevate conversation, and to be leaders by being respectful, thoughtful, and open- minded. f. Legal requirements and city policies Elected officials who use personal social media accounts are not immune from the law, or from the need to follow existing city policies related to electronic communication among councilmernbers, and guidelines related to use of city -owned technology. In addition, any information posted or responded to by elected officials should be done so in a manner that does not IPAD 09 -020, violate the letter or spirit of the Open Meeting Law. Remember, two -way communications among a quorum of a public body should be strictly avoided due to the possibility of violating the Open Meeting Law --even if the quorum has that discussion between only two members at a time. Elected officials should be encouraged not to upload, post, transmit, or make available content known to be false, misleading, or fraudulent. They should be encouraged not to post photos that infringe on trademark, copyright, or patent rights of others. Elected officials never have the right to post non - public and confidential information such as information related to colleagues on the council, personnel data, medical information, claims, or lawsuits against the city. Elected officials should not use city-owned equipment to post to personal sites content that violates existing city policies, that exhibits hate, bias, discrimination, pornography, libelous, and /or otherwise defamatory content. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 27 RELEVANT LINKS: Elected officials should be encouraged to post to personal sites only that content which is suitable for readers and viewers of all ages. g. Stop comments on city issues There may be instances in which an elected official should not comment on city issues. This could occur, for example, if the discussion might violate laws, regulations, or confidentiality, or if a claim or lawsuit has been filed against the city. Contact by media Elected officials who are contacted by the media on a topic of official city business should follow city media relations /communications protocols. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/24/2016 Computer and Network Loss Control Page 28 RELEVANT LINKS: Compare St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d I (Minn. 1983) and A.G. Op. 63a -5 (Feb. 5, 1975). A.G. Op. 63a -5 (Feb. 5, 1975). Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). IPAD 09 -020. O'Keefe v. Carter, No. Al2- 0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished decision). S A city that wants to hold private interviews with applicants for city O� y employment should first consult with its city attorney. 7. Training sessions Whether the participation of a quorum or more of councihnembers in a training program should be considered a meeting under the open meeting law would likely depend on whether the program includes a discussion of general training information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual city. The attorney general has advised that a city council's participation in a non- public training program devoted to developing skills at effective communication was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law. However, the opinion also stated that if there were to be any discussions of specific city business by the attending members, such as where councihnembers exchange views on the city's policy in granting liquor licenses, such discussions would likely violate the open meeting law. 8. Telephone, email, and social media It is possible that communication through telephone calls, email, or other technology could violate the open meeting law. The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone calls could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has advised that back -and -forth email communication among a quorum of a public body in which official business was discussed violated the open meeting law. However, the opinion also advised that "one -way communication between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as when the chair or a staff sends meeting materials via email to all board members, as long as no discussion or decision - making ensues." In contrast, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, has concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting law because they are written communications and are not a "meeting" for purposes of the open meeting law. The decision also concluded that even if the email messages were subject to the open meeting law, the substance of the emails in question did not contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited "meeting" to have occurred. The decision noted that the substance of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead, it related to a relatively straightforward operational matter. The decision also noted that the town board members did not appear to make any decisions in their email messages. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/9/2015 Meetings of City Councils Page 20 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 13D.065. (A4+Nk a Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N. W.2d 510 (Minn 1983). See Section n. G. 6. - Serial meetings. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 7. Q E)� L) Because this decision is unpublished, it is not binding on other courts. In addition, the outcome of this decision might have been different if the substance of the emails had related to something other than operational matters, for example, if the emails were attempting to build agreement on a particular issue that was going to be presented to the town board at a future meeting. In 2014, the open meeting law was amended to provide that "the use of social media by members of a public body does not violate the open meeting law as long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public." Email is not considered a type of social media under the new law. The open meeting law does not define the term "social media," but this term is generally understood to mean forms of electronic communication, including websites for social networking like Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace as well as blogs and microblogs like Twitter through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, and other content. It is important to remember that the use of social media by city councilmembers could result in other claims, in addition to open meeting law claims, such as claims of defamation or of bias in decision making. As a result, councilmembers should make sure that any comments they make on social media are factually correct, and they should not make any comments demonstrating bias on issues that will come before the council in the future for a quasi-judicial decision, such as the consideration of whether to grant an application for a conditional use permit. It is also important to remember that serial discussions between less than a quorum of a public body that is subject to the open meeting law could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Therefore, city councils and other groups to which the open meeting law applies should take a conservative approach and avoid using letters, telephone conversations, email, and other such technology if the following circumstances exist: • A quorum of the council will be contacted regarding the same matter. • City business is being discussed. Another thing councilmembers should be.careful about is which email account they use to receive emails relating to city business because such emails would likely be considered government data that are subject to a public- records request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). The best option would be for each councilmember to have an individual email account that the city provides and city staff manage. However, this is not always possible for cities due to budget, size, or logistics. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/9/2015 Meetings of City Councils Page 21 e o� L, RELEVANT LINKS: If councilmembers don't have a city email account, there are some things to think about before using a personal email account for city business. First, preferably only the councilmember should have access to the personal email account. Using a shared account with other family members could lead to information being inadvertently deleted. Also, since city emails are government data, city officials may have to separate personal emails from city emails when responding to a public- records request. Second, if the account a city councilmember wants to use for city business is tied to a private employer, that private employer may have a policy that restricts this kind of use. Even if a private employer allows this type of use, it is important to be aware that in the event of a public- records request under the MGDPA, or a discovery request in litigation, the private employer may be compelled to have a search done of a councilmembers' email communication on the private employer's equipment or to restore files from a backup or archive. See Handbook for Minnesota Cities, Chapter 27 for more What may work best is to use a free, third -party email service, such as gmail information about records or Hotmail, for your city account and to avoid using that email account for management. any personal email or for anything that may constitute an official record of city business since such records must be retained in accordance with the state records - retention requirements. H. Advisory opinions 1. Department of Administration Minn. stat. § 13.072, subd. 1(b). See IPAD for an index The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has of advisory opinions by topic. authority to issue non - binding advisory opinions on certain issues related to the open meeting law. A court or other tribunal must give deference to an advisory opinion. A $200 fee is required. The Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) of the Department of Administration handles these requests. See Requesting an Open Meeting Law Advisory A public body subject to the open meeting law can request an advisory Opinion from IPAD. opinion from the commissioner. In addition, a person who disagrees with the manner in which members of a governing body perform their duties under the open meeting law can also request an advisory opinion. 2. Minnesota Attorney General Minn. Stat § 8.07. See index of Attorney General Advisory The Minnesota Attorney General is authorized to issue written advisory opinions from 1993 to opinions to city attorneys on "questions of public importance." The Attorney present. General has issued several advisory opinions on the open meeting law. Star Tribune Co. v. Univ. of Opinions of the Attorney General are not binding on the courts but are MinnesotaBd of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 289 (Minn. entitled to careful consideration when they are of long standing. 2004). League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11!912015 Meetings of City Councils Page 22 � 4 t-i MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 13D.065 13D.065 USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA. The use of social media by members of a public body does not violate this chapter so long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public. For purposes of this section, e- mail is not considered a type of social media. History: 2014 c 274 s 2 Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. ? C I T Y 0 F r; , 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2017 -2021 CIP Discussion DATE: June 28, 2016 INTRODUCTION In late March, Administration/Finance distributed baseline worksheets to Department Heads for the 2017- 2021 CIP kick -off. Subsequent discussions have centered on the 2017 -2021 CIP development and the need of other committees (Vehicle Purchasing & Facility Management Committees) and commissions (Parks and Recreation & Community Center Advisory) to complete their work. DISCUSSION To assist with the 2017 -2021 CIP discussion. I have attached for the Council's reference a preliminary 2017 -2021 CIP proiect listing and preliminary maior Capital Funds Proiected fund balance analysis. Throughout the summer a significant amount of time will be spent on evaluating utility infrastructure, transportation improvements, trail improvements, building maintenance, equipment and park and recreation needs. Each of these items is to be supported by a detailed fund balance analysis of funding sources (based on various assumptions and estimates) that will be presented to the Council for review at future workshops. At this time the Staff will again secure the Council's priorities to assure that those priorities are taken into consideration while staff develops a draft 2017 -2021 CIP. Staff will also discuss with the Council the current capital proiect concerns and new Proiect fundinz options that will require Council action on a future Rezular Council Agenda. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to review the various attachments, receive a brief presentation, and provide direction to staff on Council priorities for the 2017 -2021 CIP. eectfully submitted, Dickinson - 2017 -2021 CIP Listing - Capital Equipment Reserve Projected Fund Balance -Park Improvement Fund Projected Fund Balance -Trail Fund Projected Fund Balance -Road & Bridge Funds Projected Fund Balance (5 pgs) -Storm Sewer System Financial Projections - Sanitary Sewer System Financial Projections (2 pgs) -Water System Financial Projections (2 pgs) City of Andover, MN O Capital Plan 2017 thru 2021 PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Building Replacement- Small Extended Cab Pick Up #8 19- 42300 -01 1 35,000 35,000 Equipment Bond 35,000 35,000 Building Total Central Equipment Replacement - Service Truck #371 18 -48800 -01 2 Equipment Bond Central Equipment Total 35,000 35,000 Community Center Replacement- Exterior Garbagel Bike Racks/rables 17 -04000 -02 Comm CU Operations Replacement - Point of Sale (POS) System 17- 44000 -03 Comm Ctr Operations Exterior Painting 17- 44000 -05 Comm Ctr Operations 15,000 Replacement- Ice Arena Locker Room Hardware 17 -04300 -03 Comm Ctr Operations 15,000 Replacement- Carpeting 18114000 -01 Comm Ctr Operations 8,000 Replacement - Skate Sharpener 18- 44200 -01 Comm Ctr Operations 8,000 Replacement- Pickleball Inserts /Net System 18 -04400 -01 Comm Ctr Operations 6,000 New - InOatables 18- 44400 -03 Comm Ctr Operations - 6,000 Replacement - All Community Center Doors 19 -04000 -02 G.O. Bond 10,000 ACC/YMCA Expansion 19 44000 -03 G.O. Bond 10,000 Refacing Rink Boards 19-04300 -01 Comm Ctr Operations Repaint Ice Arena ceiling 19- 44300-Oi Comm Ctr Operations Replacement- Ice Arena Refrigeration Replacement 19 -04300 -0: G.O. Bond Replacement - Heat Exchangers - Munters Unit 19- 44300 -04 Comm Ctr Operations Replacement - Zamboni Battery Pack 19 -04300 -OE Comm Ctr Operations Replacement - Scissor Lift 20- 44000 -01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 35,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 18,000 12,000 30,000 18,000 12,000 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 15,000 15,000 0 Department Project# Priority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Equipment Bond 18,000 New Development Projects 15,000 Sewer Trunk Fund 15,000 Replacement - Lobby Furniture 2044000 -02 1 15,000 Road & Bridge Funds 15,000 Comm Ctr Operations 17 -01600 -0: Grant 15,000 Trail Funds 15,000 Replacement - Roof 20- 44000 -03 1 500,000 Pedestrian Curb Ramp Replacements 500,000 G.O. Bond 55,000 LED Crosswalk Warning System 500,000 Road & Bridge Funds 500,000 Replacement - Kaivac Cleaning System 20 -04000 -05 1 10,000 400,000 10,000 Comm Ctr Operations 265,000 10,000 10,000 Replacement - Camera/Security System 20- 4000 -06 1 12,000 400,000 12,000 G.O. Bond 80,000 100,000 12,000 140,000 12,000 Replacement - Zamboni Room Water Heater 20-04300 -02 1 25,000 140,000 25,000 G.O. Bond 16,000 17,000 25,000 19,000 25,000 Replacement- Floor Scrubber 21 -04000 -01 1 18,000 15,000 15,000 Comm Ctr Operations 15,000 15,000 Repaint Field House Ceiling 21- 44200 -01 1 25,000 25,000 Comm Ctr Operations 33,500 25,000 25,000 Replacement- Munters Desiccant Wheel 21-04300 -01 1 10,000 10,000 Comm Ctr Operations 569,500 607,000 1,088,000 10,000 10,000 Replacement - Electric Edger 21 -04300 -02 1 8,000 8,000 Comm Ctr Operations 8,000 8,000 Replacement - Evaporative Condenser 21-04300 -03 1 60,000 60,000 Comm Ctr Operations 60,000 60,000 Replacement - Field House Floor 21 -04400 -02 1 150,000 150,000 Comm Ctr Operations 150,000 150,000 Community Center Total 39,000 48,000 8,154,000 589,000 268,000 9,098,000 Emergency Management Emergency Operations Center Improvement 17 -02400 -01 Capital Equipment Reserve Replacement- Emergency Sirens 17- 42400 -02 Capital Equipment Reserve Emergency Management Total Engineering 18,000 New Development Projects 17 41600 -01 Sewer Trunk Fund 18,000 Water Trunk Fund 65,500 Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 17- 41600 -02 Road & Bridge Funds 180,000 New Pedestrian Trail and Sidewalk Segments 17 -01600 -0: Grant 180,000 Trail Funds 63,000 Pedestrian Trail Reconstruction 17 -01600 -04 Road & Bridge Funds 65,000 Pedestrian Curb Ramp Replacements 17 -01600 -0: Road & Bridge Funds 55,000 LED Crosswalk Warning System 17- 41600 -OE Road & Bridge Funds 300,000 Replacement - Data Collector/Total Station 18 41600 -01 Equipment Bond 710,000 Engineering Total Facility Management 1 40,000 18,000 7,500 65,500 40,000 18,000 7,500 65,500 1 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 180,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 180,000 85,000 63,000 52,500 45,000 245,500 1 160,000 160,000 165,000 175,000 180,000 840,000 117,000 117,000 120,000 125,000 125,000 604,000 43,000 43,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 236,000 1 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 300,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 300,000 1 565,000 225,000 265,000 710,000 400,000 2,165,000 265,000 265,000 565,000 225,000 710,000 400,000 1,900,000 1 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 500,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 500,000 1 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 85,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 85,000 1 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 1 33,500 33,500 33,500 33,500 871,000 569,500 607,000 1,088,000 809,000 3,944,500 Facility Management Total 235,000 630,000 15,525,000 115,000 40,000 16,545,000 Fire Department Project# Priority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Annual Parking Lot Maintenance 17- 41900 -01 1 90,000 130,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 310,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 17- 42200 -02 1 30,000 130,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 250,000 Comm Ctr Operations 60,000 60,000 Replacement - CarpetITile 17- 41900 -02 2 10,000 85,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 10,000 85,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Replacement - Security Management System 17 -01900 -03 1 100,000 85,000 100,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 100,000 85,000 100,000 Public Works Facilty/Vehicle Maint. Shop Construct 17 -01900 -04 1 35,000 500,000 15,000,000 15,535,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 35,000 400,000 35,000 G.O. Bond 19- 42200 -03 1 500,000 15,000,000 15,500,000 Building A - Seal Floor 1941900 -01 1 25,000 25,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 19-42200 -05 2 25,000 25,000 Pedestrian Tunnel Under Crosstown Blvd. 19 -01900 -05 1 450,000 450,000 G.O. Bond 20- 42200 -01 1 450,000 130,000 450,000 Memorial - Veterans Memorial 19- 41900 -06 1 10,000 130,000 10,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 20- 42200 -02 1 10,000 35,000 35,000 10,000 Surface Seal all Brick Structures 2041900 -01 1 85,000 35,000 85,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 20- 42200 -03 1 48,000 48,000 Comm Ctr Operations 12,000 12,000 Water Fund 100,000 190,000 510,000 25,000 55,000 25,000 Facility Management Total 235,000 630,000 15,525,000 115,000 40,000 16,545,000 Fire Replacement - Turnout Gear 17- 42200 -01 1 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 General Fund 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 Replacement- Extrication (Rescue) Equipment 17- 42200 -02 1 80,000 80,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 80,000 80,000 Replacement - Grass #31 18 -02200 -01 1 85,000 85,000 Equipment Bond 85,000 85,000 Replacement - Grass #21 18- 42200 -02 1 85,000 85,000 Equipment Bond 85,000 85,000 Replacement - Tanker #11 19 -02200 -01 1 400,000 400,000 Equipment Bond 400,000 400,000 Replacement- Grass Utility Vehicle (UTV) #4813 19- 42200 -03 1 45,000 45,000 Equipment Bond 45,000 45,000 Replacement -1999 GMC Sonoma Truck (U -10) #4810 19-42200 -05 2 45,000 45,000 Equipment Bond 45,000 45,000 Replacement - SCBACompressors 20- 42200 -01 1 130,000 130,000 Equipment Bond 130,000 130,000 Replacement -800 MHz radios 20- 42200 -02 1 35,000 35,000 70,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 35,000 35,000 70,000 Replacement - Engine 21#4884 20- 42200 -03 1 450,000 450,000 Equipment Bond 450,000 450,000 Fire Total 100,000 190,000 510,000 635,000 55,000 1,490,000 Information Technology Smartboard Addition 18- 41420 -01 1 12,000 12,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 1 ;000 12,000 Information Technology Total 12,000 12,000 Park & Rec - Operations Replace /Repair Play Structures - VariousParks 17 -05000 -01 1 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Department Project# Priority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total General Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Replace /Repair Major Park Projects - Various Parks 1745000 -02 1 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 General Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Replacement - One Ton Crew Cab Pickup #502 17 -05000 -03 1 50,000 50,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 50,000 50,000 New -Trail Machine 17 -05000 -04 1 150,000 150,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 150,000 150,000 Replacement- One Ton Truck wl Plow #599 18- 45000 -01 1 80,000 80,000 Equipment Bond 80,000 80,000 New - Wood Chipper Tow - Behind 18- 45000 -02 1 20,000 20,000 Equipment Bond 20,000 20,000 Replacement - Bobcat Track Loader 18 -45000 -03 1 55,000 55,000 Equipment Bond 55,000 55,000 Replacement - Small Extended Cab Truck #76 18 -05000 -04 1 55,000 55,000 Equipment Bond 55,000 55,000 New - "V" Snow Plow for #09 -589 18 -05000 -05 1 15,000 15,000 Equipment Bond 15,000 15,000 Replacement - Water Tanker #161 19 -45000 -01 1 150,000 150,000 Equipment Bond 150,000 150,000 Replacement - Trailer #T -555 19 -05000 -02 1 16,000 16,000 Equipment Bond 16,000 16,000 Replacement - Cush man Field Dresser #547 20 -05000 -01 1 27,000 27,000 Equipment Bond 27,000 27,000 Park & Rec - Operations Total 275,000 300,000 241,000 102,000 75,000 993,000 Park &Rec - Projects Annual Miscellaneous Park Projects 17- 45001 -01 1 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Park Dedication Funds 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Fox Meadows Park - Renovation 17-45001 -02 1 200,000 200,000 Park Dedication Funds 200,000 200,000 Pine Hills North - Phase II 17-45001 -03 1 100,000 400,000 500,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 280,000 280,000 Donations 100,000 100,000 Park Dedication Funds 120,000 120,000 Irrigation Projects - Small Parks 17-45001 -04 1 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 Park Dedication Funds 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 City Campus Rinks - Pave Hockey Rink & Parking Lot 18 -05001 -01 1 150,000 150,000 Park Dedication Funds 150,000 150,000 Langseth Park Trail Improvement 19 -05001 -01 1 20,000 20,000 Park Dedication Funds 20,000 20,000 Wild Ids Park Irrigation and Water Service 19 -05001 -02 1 42,500 42,500 Park Dedication Funds 42,500 42,500 Park & Rec - Projects Total 335,000 185,000 55,000 457,500 15,000 1,047,500 Planning & Zoning Replacement - Planning Vehicle #7 17 41500 -01 1 30,000 30,006 Capital Equipment Reserve 30,000 30,00( Planning & Zoning Total 30,000 30,006 Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer Extensions 17- 48200 -01 1 105,000 500,000 605,006 Assessments 105,000 105,00( Department Project# Priority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Sewer Trunk Fund 500,000 500,000 Replacement - JeWac Truck #99 17 -08200 -02 1 460,000 1,865,000 460,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 230,000 230,000 Sewer Trunk Fund 230,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 230,000 Lift Station #4 Upgrade 17 -08200 -03 1 50,000 60,000 50,000 Sewer Trunk Fund 302,000 50,000 50,000 Yellow Pine Lift Station 18 -08200 -01 1 650,000 650,000 Sewer Trunk Fund Replacement - Tymco Street Sweeper #172 18- 48300 -01 650,000 650,000 Replacement - One Ton Utility Truck #69 18- 48200 -02 1 100,000 100,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 100,000 100,000 Sanitary Sewer Total 615,000 1,250,000 1,865,000 Storm Sewer Storm Sewer Improvements 17 -48300 -01 1 55,000 60,000 60,000 62,000 65,000 302,000 Storm Sewer Fund 55,000 60,000 60,000 62,000 65,000 302,000 Replacement - Tymco Street Sweeper #172 18- 48300 -01 1 220,000 220,000 Equipment Bond 220,000 220,000 Replacement - Elgin Street Sweeper #169 19 -08300 -01 1 200,000 200,000 Equipment Bond 200,000 200,000 Storm Sewer Total 55,000 280,000 260,000 62,000 65,000 722,000 Street Signs Sign Design Software and Plotter 17- 43300 -01 2 10,000 10,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 10,000 10,000 Street Signs Total 10,000 10,000 Streets / Highways Annual Street Seal Coat Project 17- 43100 -01 1 725,000 250,000 260,000 275,000 285,000 1,795,000 Road &Bridge Funds 725,000 250,000 260,000 275,000 285,000 1,795,000 Annual Street Crack Seal Project 17 -03100 -02 1 160,000 170,000 245,000 290,000 375,000 1,240,000 Construction Seal Coat Fund 17,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 55,000 Road &Bridge Funds 143,000 161,000 235,000 280,000 365,000 1,185,000 Annual Pavement Markings 17 -03100 -03 1 42,000 44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000 230,000 Road& Bridge Funds 42,000 44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000 230,000 Annual Curb Replacement 17 -03100 -04 1 50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 270,000 Road &Bridge Funds 50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 270,000 Municipal State Aid Routes / New & Reconstruct 17- 43100 -05 1 1,300,000 820,000 1,690,000 350,000 290,000 4,450,000 Assessments 243,000 75,500 144,000 15,000 15,000 492,500 Municipal State Aid Funds 1,057,000 744,500 1,546,000 335,000 275,000 3,957,500 Annual Street Reconstruction 17 -03100 -06 1 1,236,000 821,000 1,143,000 1,092,000 1,268,000 5,560,000 Assessments 309,000 205,000 286,000 273,000 317,000 1,390,000 Road &Bridge Funds 927,000 616,000 857,000 819,000 951,000 4,170,000 Intersection Upgrades 17- 43100 -07 1 285,000 2,075,000 2,360,000 Grant 1,600,000 1,600,000 Municipal State Aid Funds 285,000 475,000 760,000 Gravel Road Improvements 17- 43100 -08 1 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Road &Bridge Funds 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Replacement- One Ton Truck wl Plow #134 1743100 -11 1 80,000 80,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 80,000 80,000 New - One Ton Truck wl Regular Box w/ Lift & Plow 17- 43100 -12 1 55,000 55,000 Capital Equipment Reserve 55,000 55,000 New - Bobcat paver 17 43100 -13 1 20,000 20,000 Department Project# Priority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Capital Equipment Reserve 17 -08100 -01 1 20,000 50,000 50,000 20,000 Street Overlays 18 -03100 -01 1 400,000 400,000 800,000 Assessments 50,000 50,000 100,000 Replacement - Dodge Dakota #95 100,000 200,000 Road &Bridge Funds 300,000 300,000 600,000 New - Dump Truck w/ snow removal 19 -03100 -01 1 220,000 220,000 Equipment Bond Water Fund 220,000 220,000 Replacement - Dump Truck w/ Snow removal #198 20- 43100 -01 1 Replacement - 3/4 Ton Utility Truck #66 18- 48100 -02 220,000 220,000 Equipment Bond 60,000 220,000 220,000 Replacement - Bobcat S185 #120 20 -43100 -02 1 50,000 50,000 Equipment Bond 18 -08100 -03 1 48,000 50,000 50,000 Replacement - One Ton Truck w/ Plow #133 20- 43100 -03 1 80,000 80,000 Equipment Bond 16,000 Storm Sewer Fund 80,000 80,000 Replacement - Backhoe Loader #80 20 -03100 -04 2 110,000 110,000 Equipment Bond - 16,000 110,000 110,000 Replacement - Dump Truck w /Snow removal #200 21 -03100 -01 1 1 220,000 220,000 Equipment Bond 1,350,000 Assessments 220,000 220,000 Streets / Highways Total 710,000 3,683,000 2,857,000 3,673,000 2,986,000 4,636,000 17,835,000 Water Rehabilitation of Wells 17 -08100 -01 1 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Water Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Replacement - Dodge Dakota #95 17 -08100 -02 1 30,000 30,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 15,000 15,000 Water Fund 15,000 15,000 Replacement - 3/4 Ton Utility Truck #66 18- 48100 -02 1 60,000 60,000 Water Fund 60,000 60,000 Replacement - Side by Side UTV #70 18 -08100 -03 1 48,000 48,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 16,000 16,000 Storm Sewer Fund 16,000 16,000 Wafer Fund 16,000 16,000 Water Main Improvements 1848100 -04 1 640,000 710,000 1,350,000 Assessments 500,000 710,000 1,210,000 Water Trunk Fund 140,000 140,000 Water Meter Reading System AMI /AMR 19- 48100 -01 2 900,000 900,000 Water Fund 900,000 900,000 Water Total 80,000 798,000 1,660,000 50,000 50,000 2,638,000 GRAND TOTAL 6,413,000 7,222,500 30,772,500 6,129,500 6,013,000 56,550,500 CITY OF ANDOVER /� '17 f C 0 r Capital Equipment Reserve Fund " \� 111 ! J /�� Projected Fund Balance / f ) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS Projected Sources of Revenue Capital Projects Levy 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,500,000 Capital Equipment Purchases Levy - 500,000 - - - - 500,000 ^ Donations 2,000 2,000 - - - - 4,000 ' Miscellaneous Revenues 6,000 - - - - - 6,000 Operating Transfers In Total Revenues Available 258,000 752,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2,010,000 Projected Commitments Annual Parking Lot Maintenance 30,000 30,000 130,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 280,000 Andover Lions Park 19,980 19,980 Pine Hills North Parking Lot 134,488 280,000 414,488 Replacement - Crooked Lake School Hockey Rink 7,490 7,490 Microsoft Upgrade 15,000 15,000 Public Works / Community Center Master Planning 11,484 11.484 Replacement - SCBAs 250,000 250,000 Add /Replace - Server 20,000 20,000 Replacement -800 MHz Radios 35,000 35,000 35,000 105,000 Sign Design Software 8 Plotter 10,000 10,000 Replacement - Security Management System 100,000 100,000 Replacement - Planning Vehicle #7 30,000 30,000 Public Works Facility/Vehicle Maintenance Shop Construction 35,000 35,000 Replacement - Extrication (Rescue) Equipment 80,000 80,000 Replacement - One Ton Truck w/ Plow #134 80,000 80,000 New - One Ton Truck wl Regular Box w/ Lift 8 Plow 55,000 55,000 New - Bobcat Paver 20,000 20,000 Replacement - One Ton Crew Cab Pickup #502 50,000 50,000 New - Trail Machine 150,000 150,000 Replacement - CarpetMie 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Replacement - Emergency Sirens 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 180,000 Emergency Operations Center Improvements 40,000 18,000 7,500 65,500 Smartboard Addition 12,000 12,000 Building A - Seal Floor 25,000 25,000 Memorial - Veterans Memorial 10,000 10,000 Surface Seal all Brick Structures 48,000 48,000 Natural Disaster Reserve 350,000 350,000 QCTV - Council Chambers 93,663 93,663 Total Commitments 967,105 735,000 205,000 127,500 438,000 75,000 2,547,605 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (709,105) 17,000 45,000 122,500 (188,000) 175,000 Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 1,051,687 Fund Balance Brought Forward 342,582 359,582 404,582 527,082 339,082 Ending Fund Balance E 342,582 E 359,582 E 404,582 E 527,082 E 339,082 E 514,082 CITY pr ANDOVER \ J f ` _�\ J p Y�0�'j" Park Improvement Fund r 9 ,-J. pv l Projected Fund Balance 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS Projected Sources of Revenue Park Dedication Fee - Residential Units 50 25 25 25 25 Park Dedication Fee - Residential ($2,952 /unit) $ 144,950 $ 147,600 $ 73,800 $ 73,800 $ 73,800 $ 73,800 $ 587,750 Park Dedication Fee - Commercial - - - - - - - Donation /Contribution - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Capital Projects Levy - Park Improvements 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 Total Revenues Available 159,950 262,600 88,800 88,800 88,800 88,800 777,750 Projected Commitments Rose Park - tower rental fee 4,635 4,635 Lions Park - irrigation 17,042 17,042 Kelsey Round Lake Park - Master Plan 9,665 9,665 Timber Trails Park - Renovation 284,000 284,000 Terrace Park - Irrigation & Water Service 35,000 35,000 Sunshine Park - Scoreboard Wiring & Design 27,000 27,000 Irrigation Project - Small 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 Nordeen's Park - Basketball court 7,500 7,500 Fox Meadows - Reconstruction 457,300 457,300 Pine Hills North - Phase II Storage Building (Donations) 100,000 100,000 Parking Lot w/ Curb (30% Park Dedication) 120,000 120,000 Wild Iris Park - Irrigation & Water Service 42,500 42,500 Annual Miscellaneous Projects 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 Total Commitments 392,342 599,800 35,000 36,000 177,500 15,000 1,254,642 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (232,392) (337,200) 53,800 53,800 (88,700) 73,800 Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 376,632 Fund Balance Brought Forward 144,240 (192,960) (139,160) (85,360) (174,060) Ending Fund Balance" $ 144,240 $ (192,960) $ (139,160) $ (85,360) $ (174,060) $ (100,260) "Target - $50,000 to create a contingency for any project overages CITY OF ANDOVER Trail Fund Projected Fund Balance 7 VC, �i ���A a Projected Commitments 8' Bituminous Trail along Crosstown Blvd - Coon Creek Bridge to S. Coon Creek Dr 5' Concrete Sidewalk along Bunker Lk Blvd - Yukon St to Hidden Creek North Park 8' Bituminous Trail and Boardwalk along Crosstown Blvd - Bunker Lk Blvd to 140th Ave 8' Bituminous Trail along Andover Blvd - Bluebird St to Vale St 10' Bituminous Trail along WOE site - Kennsington Estates 7th Add. to Andover Station North 6' Bituminous Trail along Crosstown Blvd - Xeon St to railroad tracks Railroad tracks to 157th Ave 157th Ave to 159th Ave 8' Bituminous Trail along Verdin St - 161 st Ave to 163rd Lane Total Commitments Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 Fund Balance Brought Forward Ending Fund Balance" 220,000 55,000 565,000 225,000 265,000 220,000 55,000 565,000 225,000 265,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS Projected Sources of Revenue 165,000 Trail Fee $784 per unit 300,000 platted units 300,000 50 25 25 25 25 Trail Fee $ 112,300 $ 39,200 $ 19,600 $ 19,600 $ 19,600 $ 19,600 $ 229,900 Grant - - - 265,000 - - 265,000 Operating Transfer In 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Total Revenues Available 362,300 39,200 19,600 284,600 19,600 19,600 744,900 Projected Commitments 8' Bituminous Trail along Crosstown Blvd - Coon Creek Bridge to S. Coon Creek Dr 5' Concrete Sidewalk along Bunker Lk Blvd - Yukon St to Hidden Creek North Park 8' Bituminous Trail and Boardwalk along Crosstown Blvd - Bunker Lk Blvd to 140th Ave 8' Bituminous Trail along Andover Blvd - Bluebird St to Vale St 10' Bituminous Trail along WOE site - Kennsington Estates 7th Add. to Andover Station North 6' Bituminous Trail along Crosstown Blvd - Xeon St to railroad tracks Railroad tracks to 157th Ave 157th Ave to 159th Ave 8' Bituminous Trail along Verdin St - 161 st Ave to 163rd Lane Total Commitments Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 Fund Balance Brought Forward Ending Fund Balance" 220,000 55,000 565,000 225,000 265,000 220,000 55,000 565,000 225,000 265,000 `Target -10% of current years commitments to create a contingency for any project overages. It is anticipated that all projects will not be fully expended by the end of the year, and future projects will be contingent on additional revenues. 165,000 165,000 300,000 300,000 245,000 245,000 400,000 400,000 565,000 225,000 265,000 710,000 400,000 $ 2,440,000 275,000 87,300 (525,800) (205,400) 19,600 (690,400) (380,400) 347,400 434,700 (91,100) (296,500) (276,900) (967,300) $ 434,700 $ (91,100) $ (296,500) $ (276,900) $ (967,300) $ (1,347,700) `Target -10% of current years commitments to create a contingency for any project overages. It is anticipated that all projects will not be fully expended by the end of the year, and future projects will be contingent on additional revenues. Federal/ State Funds Assessments' LGA - Local Government Aid Tax Levy Total Revenues Available Projected Commitments I MSA - New & Reconstruct Routes MSA - Intersection Upgrades R & B - Pavement Markings R & B - Curb Replacement R & B - New & Reconstruct Routes R & B - Seal Coating R & B - Crack Sealing R & B - Gravel Road Improvements R & B - Overlays Pedestrian Trail Reconstruction Pedestrian Trail Curb Ramp Replacements Pedestrian LED Crosswalk Warning System Pedestrian Trail Maintenance Total Commitments Revenues Over(Under)Expenditures Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 Fund Balance Brought Forward Ending Fund Balance Assuming collected in same year CITY OF ANDOVER Road & Bridge Funds - Rollup Projected Fund Balance 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS $ 1,161,947 2016 Projected Sources of Revenue $ 1,161,947 Est. Annual MSA Construction Allocation $ 630,121 Est. Annual Maintenance Allocation 387,316 General Fund Commitment (227,535) Available MSA Maintenance 159,781 Total MSA Available for other Commitments 789,902 Federal/ State Funds Assessments' LGA - Local Government Aid Tax Levy Total Revenues Available Projected Commitments I MSA - New & Reconstruct Routes MSA - Intersection Upgrades R & B - Pavement Markings R & B - Curb Replacement R & B - New & Reconstruct Routes R & B - Seal Coating R & B - Crack Sealing R & B - Gravel Road Improvements R & B - Overlays Pedestrian Trail Reconstruction Pedestrian Trail Curb Ramp Replacements Pedestrian LED Crosswalk Warning System Pedestrian Trail Maintenance Total Commitments Revenues Over(Under)Expenditures Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 Fund Balance Brought Forward Ending Fund Balance Assuming collected in same year CITY OF ANDOVER Road & Bridge Funds - Rollup Projected Fund Balance 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 387,316 387,316 387,316 387,316 387,316 (234,361) (241,392) (248,634) (256,093) (263,775) 152,955 145,924 138,682 131,223 123,541 1,314,902 1,307,871 1,300,629 1,293,170 1,285,488 1,053,000 552,000 2,706 - 1,150,984 1,179,154 2,996,592 3,046,056 2,600,000 1,300,000 40,000 50,000 693,000 460,000 225,000 15,000 50,000 45,000 4,178,000 (1,181,408) 5,511,747 $ 4,330,339 42,000 50,000 1,236,000 725,000 143,000 15,000 60,000 15,000 21,000 50,000 3,657,000 (610,944) - - - 1,600,000 380,500 430,000 388,000 332,000 1,204,119 1,231,405 1,259,523 1,288,503 2,892,490 2,962,034 2,940,693 4,505,991 820,000 1,690,000 350,000 285,000 - - 44,000 46,000 48,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 821,000 1,143,000 1,092,000 250,000 260,000 275,000 162,000 235,000 280,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 400,000 - 400,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 3,000,000 3,620,000 2,719,000 (107,510) (657,966) 221,693 $ 6,439,856 2,323,896 (1,471,790) 852,106 789,902 1,600,000 3,135,500 2,706 7,313,688 12,841,796 290,000 7,050,000 2,075,000 2,360,000 50,000 270,000 58,000 320,000 1,268,000 6,253,000 285,000 2,255,000 365,000 1,410,000 15,000 90,000 - 800,000 140,000 550,000 19,000 85,000 - 21,000 70,000 345,000 4,635,000 21,809,000 (129,009) 4,330,339 3,719,395 3,611,885 2,953,919 3,175,613 $ 3,719,395 $ 3,611,885 $ 2,953,919 $ 3,175,613 $ 3,046,603 Projected Sources of Revenue Est. Annual MSA Construction Allocation Est. Annual Maintenance Allocation General Fund Commitment Available MSA Maintenance Total MSA Available for other Commitments Federal / State Funds Assessments* Total Revenues Available Projected Commitments MSA - New & Reconstruct Routes MSA - Intersection Upgrades Total Commitments Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 Fund Balance Brought Forward Ending Fund Balance CITY OF ANDOVER MSA Funded Projects Projected Fund Balance 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 9 TOTALS $ 630,121 $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 $ 1,161,947 $ 6,439,856 387,316 387,316 387,316 387,316 387,316 387,316 2,323,896 (227,535) (234,361) (241,392) (248,634) (256,093) (263,775) (1,471,790) 159,781 152,955 145,924 138,682 131,223 123,541 852,106 789,902 1,314,902 1,307,871 1,300,629 1,293,170 1,285,488 7,291,962 - - - - - 1,600,000 1,600,000 850,000 243,000 75,500 144,000 15,000 15,000 1,342,500 2,600,000 1,300,000 820,000 1,690,000 350,000 290,000 7,050,000 - - 285,000 - - 2,075,000 2,360,000 2,600,000 1,300,000 1,105,000 1,690,000 350,000 2,365,000 9,410,000 (960,098) 257,902 278,371 (245,371) 958,170 535,488 824,462 1,654,830 694,732 952,634 1,231,005 985,634 1,943,805 $ 694,732 $ 952,634 $ 1,231,005 $ 985,634 $ 1,943,805 $ 2,479,292 Projected Sources of Revenue Tax Levy LGA - Local Government Aid Assessments Total Revenues Available Projected Commitments R & B - Pavement Markings R & B - Curb Replacement R & B - New & Reconstruct Routes R & B - Seal Coating R & B - Crack Sealing R & B - Gravel Road Improvements R & B - Overlays Total Commitments Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 Fund Balance Brought Forward Ending Fund Balance CITY OF ANDOVER ©� Tax Levy Funded - Roadway Projects Projected Fund Balance I✓ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS 1,089,146 1,116,079 1,139,782 1,165,781 1,192,587 1,220,228 6,923,603 2,706 - - - - - 2,706 203,000 309,000 305,000 286,000 373,000 317,000 1,793,000 1,294,852 1,425,079 1,444,782 1,451,781 1,565,587 1,537,228 8,719,309 40,000 42,000 44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000 270,000 50,000 50,000 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 320,000 693,000 1,236,000 821,000 1,143,000 1,092,000 1,268,000 6,253,000 460,000 725,000 250,000 260,000 275,000 285,000 2,255,000 225,000 143,000 162,000 235,000 280,000 365,000 1,410,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 - - 400,000 - 400,000 - 800,000 1,483,000 2,211,000 1,744,000 1,753,000 2,166,000 2,041,000 11,398,000 (188,148) (785,921) (299,218) (301,219) (600,413) (503,772) (2,678,691) 3,642,994 3,454,846 2,668,925 2,369,707 2,068,488 1,468,075 $ 3,454,846 $ 2,668,925 $ 2,369,707 $ 2,068,488 $ 1,468,075 $ 964,303 Projected Sources of Revenue LGA - Local Government Aid Tax Levy Total Revenues Available Projected Commitments R & B - Pedestrian Trail Reconstruction R & B - Pedestrian Trail Curb Ramp Replacements R & B - Pedestrian LED Crosswalk Warning System R & B - Pedestrian Trail Maintenance Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance as of December 31, 2015 Fund Balance Brought Forward Ending Fund Balance CITY OF ANDOVER Tax Levy Funded - Pedestrian Trail Maintenance Projected Fund Balance O 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS 61,838 63,075 64,337 65,624 66,936 68,275 $ 390,085 61,838 63,075 64,337 65,624 66,936 68,275 390,085 50,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 550,000 - 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 85,000 - 21,000 - - - - 21,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 345,000 95,000 146,000 151,000 177,000 203,000 229,000 1,001,000 (33,162) (82,925) (86,663) (111,376) (136,064) (160,725) (610,915) 213,923 180,761 97,836 11,173 (100,203) (236,267) $ 180,761 $ 97,836 $ 11,173 $ (100,203) $ (236,267) $ (396,992) City of Andover Road & Bridge Fund Tax Levy Computation Overlay Proaram "Road and Bridge Analysis with capturing 1% of the tax capacity levy and increased by a 3% factor annually. "Assumes 1% tax capacity growth, to be adjusted up or down based on actuals annually. "2002 is established a the base year for computation purposes. Crack Seal & Seal Coatlna "Assumes a 2% annual Inflationary increase, with 2002 as base year Overfay Calculation 2010 2011 2012 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Base Amount 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Net Tax Capacity $ 28,726,619 $ 26,174,350 $ 23,449,581 $ 22,569,018 $ 21,978,322 $ 25,705,350 $ 26,847,273 $ 27,760,080 $ 28,315,282 $ 28,881,587 $ 29,459,219 $ 30,048,403 Growth Factor -8.65% -8.88% - 10.41% -3.76% -2.62% 16.96% 4.44% 3.40% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Less: TIF (2,284,466) (2,027,557) (1,871,512) (379,163) (327,433) (210,936) (248,327) (248,327) (248,327) (248,327) (248,327) (248,327) (95,690) Adjusted Net Tax Capacity $ 26,442,163 S 24,146,793 S 21,678,069 $ 22,189,855 $ 21,660,889 $ 25,494,414 $ 26,598,946 S 27,611,763 $ 28,066,956 $ 28,633,260 S 29,210,892 $ 29,800,076 Growth factor -9.14% -8.68% - 10.64% 2.84% -2.43% 17.75% 4.33% 3.43% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% Overfay Calculation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Base Amount $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 $ 203,269 Current Year Adjustment (42,423) 51,178 13,105 (25,956) 13,285 (15,752) 8,155 1,516 - - - - 2 % of Adj. Net Tax Capacity 544,708 497,424 444,508 457,111 446,008 525,185 547,938 566,742 578,179 589,845 601,744 613,882 -0.98% $ 705,554 $ 751,871 $ 660,882 $ 634,424 $ 662,662 $ 712,702 $ 759,362 $ 771,527 $ 781,448 $ 793,114 $ 806,013 $ 817,161 (95,690) 46,317 (90,989) (26,458) 28,138 50,140 46,660 12,165 9,921 11,666 11,899 12,137 $ 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 F 2016 $ 712,702 $ 759,362 $ Est 695,587 687,588 673,733 647,095 678,314 702,147 749,691 817,151 - 17.35% Act 747,977 700,693 647,777 660,380 662,562 710,302 751,207 14.74% 6.55% 1.60% 52,390 13,105 (25,956) 13,285 (15,752) 8,155 1,516 Irian Trails $ 51,773 $ 54,926 R & B Fund $ 1,064,959 $ 1,022,817 $ 967,197 $ 967,197 $ 967,197 $ 1,089,146 $ 1,116,079 $ 1,139,782 $ 1,165,781 $ 1,192,587 $ 1,220,228 Trait $ 54,926 $ 56,574 $ 58,271 $ 58,271 $ 58,271 $ 61,838 $ 63,075 $ 64,337 $ 65,624 $ 66,936 $ 68,275 $ 1,119,885 $ 1,079,391 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,150,984 $ 1,179,154 $ 1,204,119 $ 1,231,405 $ 1,259,523 $ 1,288,503 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 Sealing & Seal Coating $ 304,469 $ 313,088 $ 361,935 $ 332,773 $ 346,058 $ 254,495 $ 329,784 $ 344,552 $ 358,334 $ 372,667 $ 387,574 $ 403,077 -0.98% 2.83% 15.60% -806% 3.99% - 26.46% 29.58% 4.48% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% ysl Street Recon $ 698,587 $ 751,871 $ 660,882 $ 634,424 $ 621,139 $ 712,702 $ 759,362 $ 771,527 $ 781,448 $ 793,114 $ 805,013 $ 817,151 - 17.35% 7.63% - 12.10 % 4.00% -2.09% 14.74% 6.55% 1.60% 1.29% 1.49% 1M% 1.51% Irian Trails $ 51,773 $ 54,926 $ 56,574 $ 58,271 $ 58,271 $ 58,271 $ 61,838 $ 63,075 $ 64,337 $ 65,624 $ 66,936 $ 68,275 0.00% 8.09% 3.00% 3.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.12% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% $ 1,054,829 $ 1,119,885 $ 1,079,391 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,150,984 $ '1,179,154 $ 1,204,119 $ 1,231,405 $ 1,259,523 $ 1,288,503 R & B Fund $ 1,064,959 $ 1,022,817 $ 967,197 $ 967,197 $ 967,197 $ 1,089,146 $ 1,116,079 $ 1,139,782 $ 1,165,781 $ 1,192,587 $ 1,220,228 Trait $ 54,926 $ 56,574 $ 58,271 $ 58,271 $ 58,271 $ 61,838 $ 63,075 $ 64,337 $ 65,624 $ 66,936 $ 68,275 $ 1,119,885 $ 1,079,391 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,025,468 $ 1,150,984 $ 1,179,154 $ 1,204,119 $ 1,231,405 $ 1,259,523 $ 1,288,503 CITY OF ANDOVER 54o C W\ Sp W Storm Sewer System Financial Projections Actual Estimate Forecast 1 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Inflation Factor 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.01/6 3.0% New Customers 35 35 35 35 35 Residential - Urban /Rural (units) 9,668 9,668 9,697 9,749 9,750 9,785 9,820 9,855 9,890 9,925 Multiple Dwelling (acres) 223 228 232 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 Comm /Industrial (acres) 349 401 412 409 412 412 412 412 412 412 Schools /Churches (acres) 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 Rates (Qtrly) Residential - Urban / Rural - per unit $ 7.70 S 8.09 S 8.49 $ 8.91 $ 9.36 S 9.83 $ 10.32 S 1014 $ 11.38 $ 11.95 Multiple Dwelling - per acre $ 16.95 $ 17.80 $ 18.69 $ 19.62 S 20.60 S 21.63 $ 22.71 S 23.85 $ 25.04 $ 26.29 Comm / Industrial - per acre S 32.71 $ 34.35 $ 36.07 $ 37.87 S 39.76 $ 41.75 $ 43.84 S 46.03 $ 48.33 $ 50.74 Schools / Churches - per acre $ 15.39 $ 16.16 S 16.97 S 17.82 S 18.71 $ 1965 S 20.63 $ 2L66 $ 22.74 S 23.88 Residential - Urban / Rural - per unit 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.7/6 5.1% 5,0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Multiple Dwelling - per acre 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Comm / Industrial - per acre 5.00% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Schools / Churches - per acre 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5 0% 5.0% 501. 5.0% 5.0% Actual Estimate Foreast Enterprise Fund - Storm Sewer Operations 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users S 371,816 S 367,958 $ 376,260 $ 462,208 $ 424,735 S 446,365 S 469,983 $ 494,848 $ 521,024 $ 548,580 Payment to suppliers (94,942) (134,050) (412,240) (155,178) (200,535) (206,551) (212,748) (219,130) (225,704) (232,475) Payment to employees (195,321) (185,072) (192,958) (212,555) (220,375) (226,986) (233796) (240,810) (248,034) (255475) Net from operating activities 81,553 48,836 (228,938) 94,475 3,825 12,828 23,440 34,908 47,286 60,630 Cosh nows from noncapiml financing activities. Transfers out (14,000) (27,000) (27,000) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition of capital assets - (25,152) - (2,863) - - (16,000) - - - Proceeds from the sale of capital assets Net from capital and related financing activities (25,152) (2,863) (16,000) Cash flows from investing activities: Investment income 4,481 (308) 2,970 708 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 86,034 23,376 (225,968) 92,320 4,825 13,828 8,440 21,908 21,286 34,630 Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 142,271 228,305 251,681 25,713 118,033 122,858 136,686 145,125 167,034 188,319 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 S 228,305 $ 251,681 S 25,713 $ 118,033 $ 122,858 $ 136,686 $ 145,125 $ 167,034 $ 188,319 $ 222,949 Ca ilal Projects Infrastructure Storm Sewer Improvements $ 55,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 S 62,000 S 65,000 Equipment 16,000 Total $ $ $ $ S $ 55,000 S 76,000 S 60,000 S 62,000 $ 65,000 Funded by Operations S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55.000 S 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 62,000 $ 65,000 Funded by Infrastructure/frunk - - - - - - - - - - Funded by debt Total $ $ $ $ $ $ 55,000 S 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 62,000 S 65,000 CITY OF ANDOVER Sanitary Sewer System Financial Projections l� Actual Estimate Forecast Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Inflation Factor 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Acres Added 5 5 5 5 5 5 New Connections 10 10 10 10 10 10 New Customers 35 35 35 35 35 35 Residential Accounts 7,093 7,130 7,177 7,238 7,511 Commercial SACS 1,411 1,479 1,499 1,691 1,517 Total Accounts 8,504 8,609 8,676 8,929 9,063 9,098 9,133 9,168 9,203 9,238 1.23% 0.78% 2.92% 1.50% Rates Base Rate $59.37 $5937 $59.37 $59.37 $59.37 $61.15 $62.99 $64.88 $66.82 $68.83 Connection Charge $435 $435 $435 $435 $435 $452 $470 $489 $509 $529 Area Charge $1,613 $1,613 $1,613 $1,613 $1,613 $1,678 $1,745 $1,814 $1,887 $1,962 Base Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 10% 3.0% Connection/Area 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Area Charge 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Actual Estimate Forecast Enterprise Fund- Sanitary Sewer Operations 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users $ 2,035,033 $ 1,964,283 $ 1,938,680 $ 2,244,730 $ 2,152,281 $ 2,225,411 $ 2,300,991 $ 2,379,103 $ 2,459,832 $ 2,543,262 Payment to suppliers (1,051,249) (1,182,075) (1,156,406) (1,185,024) (1,320,648) (1,360,267) (1,401,075) (1,443,108) (1,486,401) (1,530,993) Payment to employees (294,583) (287,648) (295,075) (320,710) (345,663) (356,033) (366,714) (377,715) (389,047) (400,718) Net from operating activities 689,201 494,560 487,199 738,996 485,970 509,111 533,202 558,280 584,384 611,551 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Transfers out - Replacement Reserve (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) Transfers out (46,680) (46,680) (46,680) (46,680) (46,680) (46,680) (48,080 (49,523) (51,008) (52,539) Net from noncapital financing activities (446,680) (446,680) (446,680) (446,680) (446,680) (446,680) (448,080) (449,523) (451,008) (452,539) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition of capital assets (4,482) (54,573) - (81,749) - (261,000) (100,000) - - - Proceeds from the sale of capital assets - 4,000 - - - - - - - Net from capital and related financing activities (4,482) (50,573) - (81,749) - (261,000) (100,000) - - - Cash flows from investing activities: Investment income 45,390 (15,205) 68,423 31,306 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 283,429 (17,898) 108,942 241,873 79,290 (158,569) 25,121 148,758 173,375 199,012 Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 2,408,924 2,692,353 2,674,455 2,783,397 3,025,270 3,104,560 2,945,991 2,971,112 3,119,869 3,293,245 Cash and cash equiva lens - December 31 $ 2,692,353 $ 2,674,455 $ 2,783,397 $ 3,025,270 $ 3,104,560 $ 2,945,991 $ 2,971,112 $ 3,119,869 $ 3,293,245 $ 3,492,257 Capital Projects Fund - Sewer Trunk Revenues Connection Charges Area Charges Interest Special Assessment Replacement Reserve Other Total Expenses Debt Service Capital Outlay Total Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance Fund Balance - January 1 Fund Balance - December 31 CITY OF ANDOVER ^ Sanitary Sewer System Financial Projections `dl- Q Actual Estimate Forecast 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 $ 51,707 $ 103,775 $ 188,898 $ 96,094 $ 4,350 $ 4,524 $ 4,705 $ 4,893 $ 5,089 $ 5,292 - - - - 8,065 8,388 8,723 9,072 9,435 9,812 98,205 (19,019) 156,454 75,978 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 23,659 23,110 13,219 27,195 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 573,571 507,866 758,571 599,267 482,415 482,912 483,428 483,965 484,524 485,105 Total $ - $ - - $ - $ _ $ _ $ 713,000 $ 1,367,000 $ 120,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 3,296 211,190 134,943 59,130 110,000 452,000 1,267,000 120,000 125,000 125,000 3,296 211,190 134,943 59,130 110,000 452,000 1,267,000 120,000 125,000 125,000 570,275 296,676 623,628 540,137 372,415 30,912 (783,572) 363,965 359,524 360,105 4,051,214 4,621,489 4,918,165 5,541,793 6,081,930 6,454,345 6,485,257 5,701,685 6,065,650 6,425,174 $ 4,621,489 $ 4,918,165 $ 5,541,793 $ 6,081,930 $ 6,454,345 $ 6,485,257 $ 5,701,685 $ 6,065,650 $ 6,425,174 $ 6,785,278 Capital Projects , s a . e}h, ,. i �pryt mGk9pydry : mm �. AS�i1�h'� Infrastructure - $ 261,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ New Development Projects Funded by Infrastructure/Trunk - $ 117,000 $ 117,000 $ 120,000 $ 125,000 125,000 Sanitary Sewer Upsizing - 143rd Ave 1,267,000 120,000 125,000 125,000 Funded by debt Sanitary Sewer I?xt -Crosstown Blvd - _ _ 500,000 _ _ Aztec Estates Lilt Station Upgrade _ 105,000 Total $ - $ - $ Yellow Pine Lift Station - $ - $ 713,000 650,000 $ 120,000 $ 125,000 Rural Reserve Trunk 125,000 .,.::.;..�' ._ tip ... �. Equipment 491,000 100,000 Total $ - $ - - $ - $ _ $ _ $ 713,000 $ 1,367,000 $ 120,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 Funded by Operations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 261,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - Funded by Infrastructure/Trunk - - - - - 452,000 1,267,000 120,000 125,000 125,000 Funded by debt - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 713,000 $ 1,367,000 $ 120,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 .,.::.;..�' ._ tip ... �. Debt Rate 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% Term 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 AADS $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ Cumulative DS $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ Current DS $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ - $ _ s Year CITY OF ANDOVER Water System Financial Projections � A V P -r 1 Estimate Forecast 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Inflation Factor 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Ave. Use (gal per user per qtr) 41,662 37,400 32,000 34,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Acres Added 5 5 5 5 5 New Connections 10 10 10 10 10 New Customers 35 35 35 35 35 Residential Accounts 6,161 6,218 6,276 6,325 6,325 Commerciallinstitutional Accts 142 149 153 155 155 Total Accounts 6,303 6,367 6,429 6,480 6,480 6,515 6,550 6,585 6,620 6,655 1.02% 0.97% 0.79% 0.79% Rates Base Rate $11.89 $12.19 $12.50 $12.81 $13.13 $13.46 $13.79 $14.14 $14.49 $14.86 Use Rate $1.89 $1.96 $1.98 $1.98 $2.12 $2.19 $2.27 $2.35 $2.43 $2.52 Connection Charge $3,972 $4,131 $4,296 $4,296 $4,647 $4,833 $5,026 $5,227 $5,436 $5,654 Area Charge $3,640 $3,786 $3,937 $3,934 $4,258 $4,428 $4,605 $4,790 $4,981 $5,181 Base Rate 0.0% 2.5% 2.5 % 2.5% 15% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 15% Use Rate 0.0% 3.7% 1.0% 0.0% 7,1% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% Connection Charge 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% 8.2% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Area Charge 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% -0.1% 8.2 % 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Estimate Forecast Enterprise Fund - Water Operations 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users $ 2,551,954 $ 2,305,675 $ 2,178,391 $ 2,741,777 $ 2,367,984 $ 2,452,052 $ 2,543,926 $ 2,639,346 $ 2,738,448 $ 2,841,373 Paymem to suppliers (1,015,656) (742,008) (745,176) (825,038) (933,500) (961,505) (990,350) (1,020,061) (1,050,662) (1,082,182) Payment to employees (405,159) (382,518) (408,441) (408,276) (454,771) (468,414) (482,467) (496,941) (511,849) (527,204) Net from operating activities 1,131,139 1,181,149 1,024,774 1,508,463 979,713 1,022,133 1,071,109 1,122,344 1,175,937 1,231,987 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Transfers in 7,134 4,242 20,737 58,249 85,096 54,228 11,857 12,332 12,826 13,339 Transfers out (150,250) (150,250) (150,250) (150,250) (150,250) (150,250) (150,250) (150250) (150250) (150250) Net from noncapital financing activities (143,116) (146,008) (129,513) (92,001) (65,154) (96,022) (138,393) (137918) (137424) (136911) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition of capital assets _ _ _ (2,863) _ (15,000) (78,000) (900,000) - Payment on debt (7,600,675) (830,166) (828,807) (831,486) (833,101) (828,751) (833,338) (826,776) (829,045) (824,706) Proceeds from the sale of capital assets - 4,000 Net from capital and related financing activities (7,600,675) (826,166) (828,807) (834,349) (833,101) (843,751) (911,338) (1,726,776) (829,045) (824,706) Cash flows from investing activities: Investment income 286,720 (7,318) 44,576 23,913 15,000 15,000 15,000 15 ,000 15,000 15 ,000 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents (6,325,932) 201,657 111,030 606,026 96,458 97,360 36,378 (727,350) 224,468 285,370 Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 8,267,714 1,941,782 2,143,439 2,254,469 2,860,495 2,956,953 3,054,312 3,090,690 2 363 341 2,587,808 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $ 1,941,782 $ 2,143,439 $ 2,254,469 $ 2,860,495 $ 2,956,953 $ 3,054,312 $ 3,090,690 $ 2,363,341 $ 2,587,808 $ 2,873,178 CITY OF ANDOVER Water System Financial Projections 20��6 Estimate Forecast Capital Projects Fund -Water Trunk 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Revenues Connection Charges $ 118,495 $ 332,853 $ 487,928 $ 309,873 $ 46,467 $ 48,329 $ 50,262 $ 52,272 $ 54,363 $ 56,538 Area Charges - - - - 21,289 22,142 23,027 23,948 24,906 25,903 Interest 54,177 (19,830) 71,236 35,034 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Special Assessment 59,440 34,216 37,274 42,342 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Replacement Reserve - - - - - - - _ _ _ Xfer In - - - - - - _ - _ - Total 232,112 347,239 596,438 387,249 137,756 140,470 143,289 146,221 149,270 152,440 Expenses Debt Service - - - - - - - _ _ _ Capital Outlay 784 973,950 183,920 112,150 40,000 43,000 683,000 755,000 50,000 55,000 Xfer Out 7,134 4,242 20,737 58,249 85,096 54,228 11,857 12,332 12,826 13,339 Total 7,918 978,192 204,657 170,399 125,096 97,228 694,857 767,332 62,826 68,339 Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance 224,194 (630,953) 391,781 216,850 12,660 43,242 (551,568) (621,111) 86,444 84,101 Fund Balance - January 1 2,652,691 2,876,885 2,245,932 2,637,713 2,854,563 2,867,223 2,910,465 2,358,898 1,737,786 1,824,230 Fund Balance - December 31 $ 2,876,885 $ 2,245,932 $ 2,637,713 $ 2,854,563 $ 2,867,223 $ 2,910,465 $ 2,358,898 $ 1,737,786 $ 1,824,230 $ 1,908,331 Capital Projects P 1� t 1F F.,"`mC� tau {'�:Rf,^"k�Av+,W�'n4! er r ln_ ^.cvyi...b.1'..ri..C�'sn'Y`syM"' fir�'�'.��1i x t tM f? it q'4',W f >M+54 npw aM 1R ' apn wix.{ l:f ,e:.:�J Wells yl.. ls:..`. u._. Rehab Wells Trunk 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 New Development Projects 43,000 43,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 Water Main Improvements 640,000 710,000 Plant 25,000 Equipment 15,000 78,000 Automated Meter Reading System 900,000 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 108,000 $ 811,000 $ 1,705,000 $ 125,000 $ 105,000 Funded by Operations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65,000 $ 128,000 $ 950,000 $ 75,000 $ 50,000 Funded by Infrastructure /Trunk - - - - - 43,000 683,000 755,000 50,000 55,000 Funded by debt - - - - - _ _ - - - Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 108,000 $ 811,000 $ 1,705,000 $ 125,000 $ 105,000 g�,.'rr''mr."'$ .f',tu',Eo.4ti.;�:_7.'.'IYt.- 1;r.,,;"o'�.a'1''`k�'w.z'jrr� �"Ir.7fiE .;1, ,Q- , ,, t.;q,,. Debt Rate 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50 % Term 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 AADS $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ - $ _ Cumulative DS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ - $ - $ - Current DS $ 7,600,675 $ 830,166 $ 828,806 $ 831,487 $ 833,101 $ 828,751 $ 833,338 $ 826,776 $ 829,045 $ 824,706 Y O%F OVE. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.AN DOVER. MN. US TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Councilmembers Jim Dickinson, City Administrator 2017 Budget Development Discussion June 28, 2016 INTRODUCTION 0 City Administration/Finance along with the Department Heads are working on the 2017 Annual Operating Budget Development process and are looking for City Council direction as the preparation of the 2017 Annual Operating Budget proceeds. DISCUSSION The following are the 2017 Budget Development guidelines were adopted at the April 19th City Council meeting: 1) A commitment to a City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization and positioning the City for long -term competitiveness through the use of sustainable revenue sources and operational efficiencies. Note: Preliminary Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City of Andover are reflecting a 4.23% increase in total taxable market value. (See attached Citv ofAndover Pav 2017 Valuation Estimates & Property Tax Levv spreadsheet). There will be adjustments to the valuations up until the end of the year, the most substantive change will be in response to the TIF District 1 -3 & 1 -4 decertification. 2) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at no less than 45% of planned 2017 General Fund expenditures and the preservation of emergency fund balances (snow emergency, public safety, facility management & information technology) through targeting revenue enhancements or expenditure limitations in the 2016 adopted General Fund budget. Note: With property tax revenues making up close to 80% of the total General Fund revenues cash flow designations approaching 50% would be appropriate and are recommended by the City's auditor. Emergency Fund Balances are in place to stabilize the situation, not be a complete solution. Staff will review with the Council the attached 2016 General Fund Balance Analysis at the meeting. 3) A commitment to limit the 2017 debt levy to no more than 25% of the gross tax levy and a commitment to a detailed city debt analysis to take advantage of alternative financing consistent with the City's adopted Debt Policy. Note: The adopted 2016 debt levy was 18.12% of the gross tax levy, 25% will provide a reasonable margin to accommodate a 2017 Equipment and/or Improvement Bond. JALaff will review with the Council at the meeting the attached City ofAndover Debt Service Levy Summary). Staff is currently evaluating the merits of a 2017 Equipment Note versus a Capital Levy for the 2017 planned equipment purchases. 4) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost - effective replacement schedule is followed. Equipment will be replaced on the basis of a cost benefit analysis rather than a year based replacement schedule. Note: The City Vehicle Purchasing Committee has completed this analysis, and has made recommendations to the City Council as part of the 2017 -2021 Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) development process. This will be covered in more detail with the CIP discussion. 5) The use of long -term financial models that identify anticipated trends in community growth and financial resources that will help designate appropriate capital resources for future City needs. The financial models will be used in the budget planning process to ensure that key short-term fiscal targets are in line with long -term fiscal projections. Note: The City continually maintains various financial models to determine the long -term impacts of present day expenditures and financing decisions. Fiscal assumptions are based upon a complex set of financial data including growth factors, tax capacity valuations, per capita spending and debt ratios. 6) Continued commitment to strategic planning targeted toward meeting immediate and long- term operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs. Note: A strategic planning session was held with the City Council in 2015, with a final Council Community Vision and Organizational Goals and Values document approved by the City Council. Direction provided in that document is integrated into various department workplans and budgets. 7) A management philosophy that actively supports the funding and implementation of Council policies and goals, and a commitment to being responsive to changing community conditions, concerns, and demands, and to do so in a cost effective manner. Note: Management will pay special attention to fiscal values, commercial & residential development or redevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery and the livability /image of the community. Staffing: Department head deadline to submit new staffing requests for the 2017 Budget is July 1st. To date a request has been made for a new Public Works Maintenance Worker for the Streets Department and by the Fire Department to consider an expansion of hours of the Fire Department Duty Crew. Also there are some anticipated retirements in the next few years; there will need to be a focus on appropriate succession planning, that will include effective utilization of internship opportunities in various departments and continued cross - training of City Hall office staff. Personnel Related Implications: To date the following are projected issues facing personnel related expenses: 1. Human Resources is reviewing position -based salaries and our benefit package in detail to determine if the total package is competitive with other government entities. As part of the budget process, pay steps for eligible employees will be included in the December 31, 2017. 2. A midyear review of the health plan will be conducted with our broker in July. The current employee health & dental plan provider is HealthPartners. The City currently offers the employees a high deductible plan ($5,000 family, $2,500 single for in network expenses) with a health spending account (HSA). As part of the program, the City pays for 100% of the single health insurance premium for an accountable care plan and 76% for a family health insurance premium. The City does contribute annually to the employees HSA. Contractual Departments: 1. The City Attorney 2016 contract included a 2.5% increase over the 2015 rate. Discussion for the 2017 contract will indicate, if City employees are granted a COLA, the legal service contract would be treated the same. 2. The City of Andover has a Law Enforcement Contract with the Anoka County Sheriffs Office. The 2016 budget for the contract is $2,936,467 and is offset by a Police State Aid of $124,800 and School Liaison revenue of $91,820 reflecting a net tax levy impact of $2,719,847. The 2016 Sheriff s contract provides for: a. 80 hours per day of patrol service b. 6 hours per day of service provided by a Community Service Officer c. School Liaison Officers in the middle school and high school d. 2 Patrol Investigators e. 50% of the Crime Watch Program's coordinator position. It should be noted that the Sheriffs Department always provides the required number of deputies for all hours contracted by the City. If the Sheriffs Department has a vacancy or a deputy is injured etc.., they still provide the City with a deputy at straight time even though they may have to fill those hours with overtime which at times may cost the Sheriff's Department additional, but is not billable per the contract The 2016 contract maintained status quo service when compared to 2015, but significant attention was done relative to equipment purchasing and maintenance. The 2016 contract reflected a 0.62% increase ($18,159) over the 2015 contract. Staff has had discussions with the Anoka County Sheriff for a 2017 contract, and the Anoka County Sheriff was before the City Council at the May 24th workshop meeting. Direction from the workshop was for Administration to work with the Sheriff and bring back a few costing options to a future workshop. Administration will review four (4) costing options in detail with the Council at the workshop. A summary of the options are listed below: 1. Status Quo Contract: the 2017 contract would reflect a 0.71% increase ($19,844) over the 2016 contract. 2. Status Quo Contract, plus add a Drug Task Force Deputy: the 2017 contract would reflect a 5.01% increase ($141,855) over the 2016 contract. 3. Reduce'Patrol Coverage to 72 hours per day: the 2017 contract would reflect a 7.80% decrease ($219,198) below the 2016 contract. (Not recommended by the Sheriff) 4. Reduce Patrol Coverage to 72 hours per day, plus add a Drug Task Force Deputy: the 2017 contract would reflect a 3.44% decrease ($96,822) below the 2016 contract. Council direction on how to proceed with the Sheriff contract options will be sought at the meeting. Council Memberships and Donations /Contributions: The following memberships /contributions are included in the 2016 Budget, updated for 2017: • North Metro Mayors Association $13,709 • Metro Cities $ 9,427 • Mediation Services $ 3,366 • YMCA — Water Safety Program $ 8,500 • Alexandra House $18,328 • Youth First (Program Funding) $12,000 • NW Anoka Co. Community Consortium - JPA $10,000 • Teen Center Funding (YMCA) $24,500 • Family of Promise $ 3,000 • Lee Carlson Central Center for Family Resources $ 1,500 • Senior High Parties $ 1,000 • Stepping Stone $ 600 Council direction will be sought on how to budget for these items in 2017. Capital Projects Levy: Capital Projects Levy — The 2016 Capital Projects Levy Budget specifically designates $1,415,984 of the general tax levy to capital projects and equipment needs relating to Capital Outlay ($250,000), Road and Bridge ($1,089,146), Pedestrian Trail Maintenance ($61,838) and Park Projects ($15,000). Specific designation of the tax levy to anticipated City needs and priorities for transportation and trail maintenance, park projects and equipment outlays allows the City to strategically allocate its resources and raise the public's awareness of City spending priorities. The Road and Bridge levy is evaluated annually and along with Capital Outlay, Pedestrian Trail Maintenance and Park Levies increased/decreased according to the City Council budget guidelines. Lookin-a to 2017. Administration/Finance has recommendations identified below. but relative to 2017 equipment purchases Administration/Finance is still evaluating the merits of a 2017 Equipment note which has been the past practice versus a straight Capital Levy for the 2017 equipment purchases. Administration will review this in detail with the Council at the meeting using the City long -term financial model and City debt service summary spreadsheets. • Road and Bridge An adjustment was made to the Road & Bridge funding formula in 2014, primarily to stop the continual decrease in the levy that has been happening over the past few years due to decreases in the Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City of Andover. Based on Council discussion, consensus was to stop the decline in road funding and evaluate annually through the adopted City Council Budget Development Guidelines. It should be noted that in 2014, Local Government Aid (LGA) in the amount of $74,655 was used to help fund the Road & Bridge Fund. That State of Minnesota funding has largely gone away (down to $2,706) for 2016. Future significant increases in LGA for the City of Andover are remote. For 2016, the levy to Road & Bridge is $1,089,146 a 9.39% increase over 2015, recognizing the significant 2015 taxable market value increase and lost LGA. Administration will be proposing a 2.47% increase in the Road & Bridge levy for 2017. The 2016 levy to pedestrian trail maintenance is $61,838, that was a 6.1 % increase over 2015. Administration will be proposing a 2.0% increase in the Pedestrian Trail Maintenance levy for 2017 • Park Improvements This levy is an annual appropriation to be used to underwrite park improvement projects as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and approved by the City Council. This funding is intended to be a supplemental source of capital funding for park projects that is separately identified in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. The 2015 levy was $61,500, but only $15,000 was levied for 2016. $46,500 of the previous levy was re- assigned to the General Fund to focus on Park's maintenance /replacement items. In addition to the re- assigned funds an additional $43,500 of General Fund levy was be assigned to Parks Repair/Replacement items for a total levy of $90,000 in 2016. History of the supplemental Park Improvement Funding In 2002, City Council committed $50,000 in tax levy to underwrite park improvement projects as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and approved by City Council. That levy was intended to be a supplemental source of capital funding for park projects as development started to slow down and minimal park dedication funds were available. As of 2015, that levy was up to $61,500 of which $15,000 was designated towards miscellaneous items that come up throughout the year. New direction of the Funding in 2016: With an emphasis on maintaining /preserving parks the City currently has, through the 2016 Budget / Levy process, the City Council re- assigned $46,500 of the Park Improvement Levy to the General Fund to focus on Park's maintenance /replacement items. A residual $15,000 of levy remained to the Park Improvement Fund to take care of miscellaneous items that come up throughout the year that the Park and Recreation Commission will continue to participate in. A $90,000 tax levy ($46,500 combined with an additional $43,500 of General Fund levy funding) is now identified as part of the General Fund levy to replace playground equipment, fences, pedestrian bridges in parks, parking lot reconstruction, etc. The Parks Maintenance Department will determine which replacement items have the highest priority through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Any unused funds in any given year will be specifically designated or carried forward for future park replacement items. If a park is to be reconstructed as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and approved by City Council through the CIP process, the Park and Recreation Commission will work with the Parks Maintenance Department to determine which items are replacements and which items are considered new and /or enhancements to determine the mix of funding sources to accomplish the project. • Equipment/Projects Under the Capital Projects Levy, a levy is proposed to be designated to capital improvement /equipment project expenditures identified through the CIP process. Through this designation, the City, over time, will build a fund reserve to avoid cash flow "spikes" and address a wide range of capital improvement needs such as facility maintenance projects under a more controlled spending environment. The 2016 levy is $250,000, Administration will be recommending the same for 2017. Debt Service Levy: Annually the Finance Department conducts a detailed debt service analysis to monitor outstanding debt and to look for early debt retirement or refinancing opportunities that will yield interest expense savings to the City. (Staff along with Ehlers & Associates have completed a review and no new refinancing opportunities are available at this time; we continue to monitor). The proposed 2017 Debt Service levy is as follows: • 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum $ 187,840 • 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds $ 974,418 • 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificates $ 295,260 • 2016A G.O. Equipment Certificates $ 152,529 • Proposed New Bond Issuance $ 500,000 (Could be a Capital Levy) Total $2917 $19610,047 ( ? ?) It should be noted that the levy is offset significantly by a $635,000 YMCA annual rental payment for the Community Center bonds (2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds). The proposed 2017 Debt Service levy would reflect a .46% increase ($9,634) if the City sticks with a 2017 Equipment Bond. The proposed 2017 Debt Service levy would reflect a 23.35% decrease ($490,366) if the City does a straimht Capital Levy for the 2017 equipment purchases. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. itted, CITY OF ANDOVER Pay 2017 Valuation Estimates Taxable Market Value % Change Pay 2014 $ 2,071,812,281 Pay 2015 $ 2,435,770,612 17.57% Pay 2016 $ 2,539,686,867 4.27% e � Pay 2017 $ 2,647,133,414 4.23% (�`�J) Taxable Market Values $3,000,000,000 $2,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $500,000,000 $0 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Pay 2017 Tax Capacity Value % Change Pay 2014 $ 21,978,322 Pay 2015 $ 25,705,350 16.96% Pay 2016 $ 26,847,273 4.44% / 1 Pay 2017 $ 27,760,080 3.40% Tax Capacity Values $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Pay 2017 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Pay 2017 - Est Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Market Capacity Market Capacity Market Capacity Market Capacity Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Andover Valuation Totals $ 2,071,812,281 $ 21,978,322 $ 2,435,770,612 $ 25,705,350 $ 2,539,686,867 $ 26,847,273 $ 2,647,133,414 $ 27,760,080 Captured Tax Increment (327,433) (210,936) (248,327) (248,327) Fiscal Disparity Contribution (1,035,107) (998,390) (1,055,284) (1,149,028) 26,362,725 Local Tax Rate Value 20,615,782 24,496,024 25,543,662 Fiscal Disparity Distribution 4,202,605 4,257,801 4,264,789 4,364,789 $ 30,727,514 Total Adjusted Values $ 24,818,387 $ 28,753,825 $ 29,808,451 15.86% 3.67% 3.08% Taxable Market Value % Change Pay 2014 $ 2,071,812,281 Pay 2015 $ 2,435,770,612 17.57% Pay 2016 $ 2,539,686,867 4.27% e � Pay 2017 $ 2,647,133,414 4.23% (�`�J) Taxable Market Values $3,000,000,000 $2,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $500,000,000 $0 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Pay 2017 Tax Capacity Value % Change Pay 2014 $ 21,978,322 Pay 2015 $ 25,705,350 16.96% Pay 2016 $ 26,847,273 4.44% / 1 Pay 2017 $ 27,760,080 3.40% Tax Capacity Values $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Pay 2014 Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Pay 2017 City of Andover, Minnesota Property Tax Levy Other Levies 43.358% Tax Capacity Rate W/O LRRWSD 38.407% 42.090% 43.197% Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 38.746% 42.539% 43.657% Preliminary 0.00841% "Adjusted Value determined by adjusting for Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates. 0.00699% "'Blended rate due to the City of Andover levying for Lower Rum River Watershed District Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Requested Change 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 % of Total $ % General Fund Levv 0.00% Capital Equipment Purchases - - - - - 500,000 General Operations $ 7,332,857 $ 7,332,857 $ 7,435,891 $ 7,630,892 $ 7,947,528 $ 8,185,954 68.96% $ 238,426 3.00% Parks Repair /Replacement Items - - - 0.00% 90,000 90,000 0.76% $ 0,00% Total General Fund 7,332,857 7,332,857 7,435,891 7,630,892 8,037,528 8,275,954 69.72% $ 238,426 2.97% Debt Service Funds Levy 61,838 63,075 0.53% $ 1,237 2.00% Lower Rum River Watershed 40,000 40,000 2004A G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds 405,292 381,290 - - - - 0.00% Total Other 1,390,891 2004 EDA Public Facility Revenue Bonds 1,092,684 452,082 181,803 - - - 528,170 36.28% Gross City Levy 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 182,558 184,973 187,283 184,238 186,291 187,840 $ 276,230 2.38% 2011A G.O. Equipment Certificate 102,017 101,745 - - - _ 2012A G.O. Equipment Certificate 125,000 125,000 140,000 140,000 142,885 - E 10,238,315 20128 G.O. Cap Improv Refunding Bonds - 138,339 561,015 540,120 498,435 - $ (184,238) E 186,291 E 187,840 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds - 578,045 740,965 975,652 977,332 974,418 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificate - - 260,000 296,055 295,470 295,260 $ 10,050,475 2016A G.O. Equipment Certificate - Adjusted Tax Capacity Value" 20,514,674 152,529 L1 Total Debt Service 1,907,551 1,961,474 2,071,066 2,136,065 2,100,413 1,610,047 13.56% $ (490,366) - 23.35% Other Levies 43.358% Tax Capacity Rate W/O LRRWSD 38.407% 42.090% 43.197% Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 38.746% 42.539% 43.657% Voter Approved Ref - MV 0.00568% 0.00778% 0.00841% "Adjusted Value determined by adjusting for Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates. 0.00699% "'Blended rate due to the City of Andover levying for Lower Rum River Watershed District Capital Projects Levy Capital Equipment/Project 210,000 210,000 210,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2.11% $ 0.00% Capital Equipment Purchases - - - - - 500,000 421% $ 500,000 #DIVl01 Parks Projects 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 15,000 15,000 0.13% $ - 0.00% Road B Bridge 1,022,817 967,197 967,197 967,197 1,089,146 1,116,079 9.40% $ 26,933 2.47% Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 56,574 58,271 58,271 58,271 61,838 63,075 0.53% $ 1,237 2.00% Lower Rum River Watershed 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0.34% $ 0.00% Total Other 1,390,891 1,336,968 1,336,968 1,376,968 1,455,984 1,984,154 16.72% $ 528,170 36.28% Gross City Levy 10,631,299 10,631,299 10,843,925 11,143,925 11,593,925 11,870,155 100% $ 276,230 2.38% Less Fiscal Disparities Distribution 1,791,496 1,798,577 1,718,153 1,846,295 1,586,747 1,631,840 Local Tax Rate Levy $ 8,839,803 § 8,832,722 E 9,125,772 $ 9,297,630 $ 10,007,178 E 10,238,315 Less Levy Based on Market Value E 182,558 $ (184,973 ) $ 187,283 $ (184,238) E 186,291 E 187,840 Net Local Tax Rate Levy $ 8,657,245 $ 8,647,749 $ 8,938,489 E 9,113,392 $ 9,820,887 $ 10,050,475 Adjusted Tax Capacity Value" 20,514,674 L1 21,155,263 20,615,782 24,496,024 25,543,662 26,362,725 321% Tax Capacity Rate- 42.200% 40.878% 43.358% Tax Capacity Rate W/O LRRWSD 38.407% 42.090% 43.197% Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 38.746% 42.539% 43.657% Voter Approved Ref - MV 0.00568% 0.00778% 0.00841% "Adjusted Value determined by adjusting for Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates. 0.00699% "'Blended rate due to the City of Andover levying for Lower Rum River Watershed District (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value is subject to change VJ 00- 0 ON Chance % Chance 37.204% 38.447% 38.124% - 0.324% -0.842% 37.070% 38.314% 37.461% 38.702% 0.00719% 0.00699% VJ 00- 0 ON City of Andover 6/24/2016 General Fund 2016 Fund Balance Analysis Requested Actual $ 7,267,904 G December 31, 2015 2016 Estimated Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) (613,377) Projected December 31, 2016 6,654,527 OP Less: Snow Emergency (80,000) Public Safety (80,000) Facility Management (80,000) Information Technology (80,000) 2017 Budgeted Use of Fund Balance (350,000)J� Economic Development (300,000) Prepaids / Inventories (131,813) Working Cash Flow (5,536,105) Estimated Balance Available for Adjustments $ 16,609 2016 Working Cash Flow Designation Calculation: 2017 Requested Expenditure - Preliminary Estimate $11,072,211 % of 2017 General Fund Expenditures 50.000% $ 5,536,105 GF - Fund Balancexls CITY OF ANDOVER Debt Service Levy Summary 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 General Obligation Abatement Bonds 2012C G.O. Abatement Bonds 1,277,332.00 1,274,418.00 1,272,055.00 1,269,378.00 1,276,780.00 1,273,263.00 1,274,628.00 1,269,745.00 Transfer from Operations (300,000.00) (300,000.00) (300,000.00) (300,000.00) (300,000.00) (300,000.00) (300,000.00) (300,000.00) 977,332.00 974,418.00 972,055.00 969,378.00 976,780.00 973,263.00 974,628.00 969,745.00 Certificates of Indebtedness 2012A G.O. Equipment Certificates 142,885.00 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificates 295,470.00 295,260.00 294,945.00 294,525.00 2016A G.O. Equipment Certificates 152,529.00 143,310.00 142,837.00 143,373.00 438,355.00 447,789.00 438,255.00 437,362.00 143,373.00 Capital Improvement Bonds 2012B G.O. Cap Improvement Ref Bonds 498,435.00 Referendum Bonds 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 186,291.00 187,840.00 188,777.00 183,989.00 184,199.00 184,078.00 2,100,413.00 1,610,047.00 1,599,087.00 1,590,729.00 1,304,352.00 1,157,341.00 974,628.00 969,745.00 (490,366.00) (10,960.00) (8,358.00) (2886,377.00) (147,011.00) (182,713.00) (4,883.00) 0 \� 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: May 2016 General Fund Budget Progress Report DATE: June 28, 2016 INTRODUCTION The City of Andover 2016 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $10,390,411 and total expenditures of $10,753,788 (includes $56,000 of 2015 budget carry forwards primarily for elections and facility management); 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 May 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. submitted, REVENUES General Property Tax Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenues EXPENDTTURES CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Budget Summary Totals Budget Year 2016 2015 1 2016 Budget May YTD % Bud YE Budget May YTD % Bud $ 7,706,892 $ - 0% $ 7,634,714 316,588 177,163 56% 452,422 633,015 202,900 32% 749,570 748,550 303,457 41% 804,228 100,750 39,482 39% 99,304 75,000 (6,671) -9% 63,709 98,850 104.397 106% 154,890 196,930 196.93(1 100% 196,930 S 9,876,575 $ 1,017,658 10% S 10,155,767 15,909 2015 9,441 27% Budget May YTD % Bud YE- Unaudited $ 8,113,528 $ 267 0% 346,205 189,345 55% 673,248 197,158 29% 767,950 325,214 42% 100,750 35,902 36% 75,000 (8,643) -12% 116,800 104,006 89% 196,930 196,930 100% $ 10,390,411 S 1,040,179 10% 47% 2016 26,000 Budget May YTD % Bud GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 87,154 $ 51,309 59% $ 85,061 $ 88,780 $ 51,458 58% Administration 180,888 68,981 38% 172,296 192,778 75,001 39% Newsletter 26,000 12,264 47% 21,042 26,000 12,303 47% Human Resources 40,156 8,768 22% 15,909 35,260 9,441 27% Attorney 182,000 60,218 33% 180,313 187,640 61,571 33% City Clerk 135,359 57,029 42% 134,776 157,075 62,916 40% Elections 57,492 9,851 17% 14,496 82,919 26,167 32% Finance 239,981 106,856 45% 240,317 261,016 117,626 45% Assessing 150,000 56 0% 146,315 150,000 143,883 96% Information Services 172,239 53,994 31% 131,745 173,483 61,616 36% Planning & Zoning 412,937 160,590 39% 406,045 435,606 168,626 39% Engineering 470,631 184,949 39% 464,842 509,514 201,122 39% Facility Management 579,802 183,292 32% 498,813 568,201 165,549 29% Total General Gov 2,734,639 958,157 35% 2,511,970 2,868,272 1,157,279 40% PUBLICSAFETY Police Protection 2,918,308 1,459,154 50% 2,918,308 2,936,467 734,117 25% Fire Protection 1,192,330 398,856 _ 33% 1,165,221 1,294,795 496,083 38% Protective Inspection 423,161 156,423 37% 391,948 441,807 166,156 38% Civil Defense 39,189 19,902 51% 24,352 22,982 9,640 42% Animal Control 9,950 1,191 12% 3,498 7,950 906 11% Total Public Safety 4,582,938 2,035,526 44% 4,503,327 4,704,001 1,406,902 30% PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 625,664 234,513 37% 629,724 656,237 267,672 41% Snow and Ice Removal 539,770 242,824 45% 442,077 563,587 267,323 47% Street Signs 203,533 75,073 37% 204,494 204,193 59,104 29% Traffic Signals 35,000 9,533 27% 30,169 35,000 7,308 21% Street Lighting 36,400 10,277 28% 30,664 36,400 11,889 33% Street Lights - Billed 216,000 63,867 30% 201,501 217,500 67,878 31% Park & Recreation 1,185,338 403,314 34% 1,151,313 1,257,247 462,553 37% Natural Resource Preservation - - 0% - 10,096 50 0% Recycling 135,120 36,939 36% 128,038 130,927 41,639 32% Total Public Works 2,351,161 841,827 36% 2,817,980 3,111,187 1,185,416 38% OTHER Miscellaneous 31,728 15,443 49% 221,478 281,728 251,550 89% Youth Services 38,600 16,000 41 %ro 35,242 38,600 24,500 63% Total Other 70,328 31,443 45% 256,720 320,328 276,050 86% Total Expenditures $ 10,364,730 $ 4,101,466 40% S 10,089,997 $ 11,003,788 $ 4,025,647 37% NET INCREASE (DECREASE) $ (488,155) $ (3,083,808) S 65,770 $ (613,377) $ (2,985,468) 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 May 2016 City Investments Review June 28, 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 May 2016, the May 2016 Investment Detail Report, and the May 2016 Money Market Funds Report. These attachments are intended to assist with discussion when reviewing the May 2016 investments. ACTION REQUESTED Informational. The Council is requested to review and provide feedback to staff. tfully submitted, im ickinson Investment Maturities - May 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 $ 845,358 $ 845,358 $ $ $ MN Municipal Money Market Fund (4M) N/A 4,995 4,995 Premier Banks Money Market Fund N/A 260,406 260,406 Certificates of deposit FDIC 9,701,282 5,885,036 3,816,246 Local governments A /Al /A2 888,833 319,474 464,966 - 104,393 AAl /AA2 /AA3 7,846,238 1,776,032 4,308,304 1,233,368 528,534_ AAA 3,983,635 1,227,064 2,227,526 529,046 441,826 State governments - ----A/AI/A2 AAl /AA2/AA3 2,437,028 809,166 1,186,036 AAA 756,795 401,184 334,095 21,516 - U.S. agencies AAA 3,389,652 530,742 2,431,991 300,054 126,865 FNMA REMIC N/A 5,911 5,911 U.S. agencies N/A 1,450,309 1,450,309 Total investments $ 31,570,442 $ 12,059,456 $ 16,225,384 $ 2,525,810 $ 759,792 Deposits 2,469,996 Total cash and investments $ 34,040,439 May 2016 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating1F DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity Due Date Luana Savings Bank 549103MY2 253 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.750% 0.800% 248,173.60 248,223.20 semi - annual 08/16/13 02/16/14 08/16/16 09/06/16 Synovus Bank GA 87164DFL9 873 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 semi- annual 09/10/14 03/04/15 First Source Bank 33646CGA6 9087 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.450% 248,004.96 maturity 12115/15 none 06/15/16 Whitney Bk New Orleans LA 966594AP8 12441 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 0.850% 247,513.76 maturity 01/27/16 none 01/27/17 First Niagra Bk Natl Assn 33583CTB5 16004 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.550% 248,002.48 maturity 12111/15 none 06/13/16 First State Community Bank 33708UBZ1 17323 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.500% 245,002.45 maturity 05/27/16 06/27/16 02/27/17 Compass Bk 20451PPE0 19048 rCD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.450% 248,002.48 maturity 12/09/15 none 06/09/16 1 Year CD - Premier Bank 1091003210 21714 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.600% 250,000.00 maturity 12/16/15 none 12/16/16 Mizuho Bank USA 60688MSH8 21843 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.700% 244,958.35 maturity 01/20/16 none 10/20/16 Berkshire Bk 084601EX7 23621 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.500% 248,002.48 maturity 12/11/15 none 06/10/16 Safra National Bk 78658QSQ7 26876 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.500%1 248,000.00 maturity 12/14/15 none 06/14/16 Amex Centurion Bank 02587DE61 27471 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.900% 248,434.00 semi - annual 10/28/15 04/28/16 04/28/17 Lake Forest Bank & Trust 509685ES8 27589 CD 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.850% 200,180.00 semi - annual 08/14/13 02/14/14 08/15/16 TCF National Bank 872278RE8 28330 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.700% 248,049.60 maturity 12/16/15 none 12/16/16 Santander Bank NA 80280JKY6 29950 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.650% 249,102.09 maturity 01/20/16 none 07/20/16 Homestreet Bank 43785QHZ9 32489 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.500% 245,019.60 maturity 05/27/16 06/27/16 02/27/17 National Cooperative Bank 635573AG3 32612 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.500% 248,002.48 maturity 12/09/15 none 06 /09/16 1 Year CD - Premier Bank Rochester 2055214401 33202 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.600%1 245,000.00 maturity 12/16/15 none 12/16/16 1 Year CD - Premier Bank MN 3041574901 33204 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.600% 245,000.00 maturity 12/16/15 none 12/16/16 TCM Bank 872308CB5 34535 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.650% 245,002.45 maturity 05/31/16 none 03/31/17 Wax Bank CIT Bank NA BankUnited A Savings Mountainone Bank North Carolina Eastn Mun Pwr 92937CDJ4 34697 CD CD 248,000.00 245,000.00 249,000.00 248,000.00 245,000.00 249,000.00 248,000.00 0.750% 248,062.00 maturity 12/16115 05/31/16 none none none 12/16/16 05/31/17 12556LAA4 066519BMO 62452AAT7 658196U24 58978 58979 90253 245,000.00 0.650% 245,000.00 maturity CD 249,000.00 0.550% 249,072.21 maturity 02119/16 08/19/16 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.600% 245,227.85 319,473.60 maturity 01/28/16 none 09/28/16 A3 local 323,218.40 323,218.40 310,000.00 6.217%1 semi - annual 03/16/16 07/01/08 01/01/17 Prattville AL 740019LG7 AA local 154,417.50 154,417.50 150,000.00 4.000% 151,194.00 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% 75,562.50 semi - annual 08/15/13 06/01/14 12/01/16 North Mankato MN Port Auth Com 660760AG4 AA local 107,657.00 107,657.00 100,000.00 4.000% 101,807.00 semi - annual 09/20/13 none 02/01/17 Philadelphia PA Auth Zero Coupon 71781LBJ7 AA local 161,700.00 161,700.00 245,000.00 241,570.00 maturity 01/12/10 none 04 /15/17 Lake Mills WI 510192FAO AA- local 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 0.700% 65,024.70 semi - annual 06/22/15 none 09/01/16 Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col 250097A85 AA1 local 137,668.95 137,668.95 135,000.00 1.375% 135,000.00 semi - annual 07/30/12 12/01/12 06/01/16 Osseo MNISD #279 688443J27 AA1 local 30,103.25 30,103.25 25,000.00 6.000% 25,885.00 semi- annual 12/22/11 none 02/01/17 Met Govt Nashville & Davidson Cc TN 592112EH5 AA2 local 542,169.00 542,169.00 535,000.00 5.000% 537,027.65 semi- annual 03/17/16 none 07/01116 Grand Forks ND Sales Tax Raven 385492GQO AA2 local 104,082.00 104,082.00 100,000.00 4.000% 100,841.00 semi- annual 06/23/15 09/01112 09/01116 Burlington Cnty NJ 1216374H2 AA2 local 86,387.20 86,387.20 85,000.00 3.750% 86,387.20 semi - annual 05/10/16 none 12115116 Buffalo MNISD #877 119655PS1 AA2 local 264,250.00 264,250.00 250,000.00 4.050 °h 255,732.50 semi - annual 03/10/15 none 02/01/17 Chadotte NC Wtr& Swr Sys 161045GX1 AAA local 404,208.00 404,208.00 400,000.00 4.000% 401,192.00 semi - annual 03/17/16 01/01/09 07/01/16 Anchorage AK 033161E55 AAA local 508,285.00 508,285.00 500,000.00 5.000% 503,730.00 semi - annual 03/21/16 none 08/01/16 Maple Grove MN 56516PNY5 AAA local 230,520.40 230,520.40 220,000.00 2.000% 221,887.60 semi - annual 01/10/13 08/01/13 02/01/17 Ramsey Cnly MN 751622JG7 AAA local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 1.130% 100,254.00 semi - annuai 08/12/14 02/01/15 02/01/17 Oregon State 68608URVO AA1 state 70,194.60 70,194.60 70,000.00 0.890% 70,060.90 semi - annual 07/29/14 08/01/13 08/01/16 Ohio State 677521BJ4 AA1 state 306,807.00 306,807.00 300,000.00 5.000% 303,918.00 semi - annual 03/17/16 none 09/15/16 5,885,036.04 CD 3,322,568.75 local May 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 1 Due Date Nevada State 641461NKO AA2 state 258,305.00 258,305.00 250,000.00 4.000% 250,000.00 semi - annual 06/18/15 06/01/11 06/01/16 Mississippi State 605581BVB AA2 state 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 1.116% 25,083.50 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% 160,104.00 semi - annual 08/14/15 07/01/13 07/01/16 Ohio State Water Dev Auth Zero Coupon 67766WKK7 AAA state 199,412.00 199,412.00 200,000.00 1 200,000.00 maturity 07/28/15 none 06/01/16 Texas State 882723BT5 AAA state 211,414.00 211,414.00 200,000.00 4.000% 201,184.00 semi - annual 01/14/15 none 08/01/16 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 3136G1YP8 AAA US 130,130.00 130,130.00 130,000.00 0.800% 130,286.00 semi- annual 07/08/15 none 12/30/16 Farmer Mac 31315PZV4 AAA US 200,584.00 200,584.00 200,000.00 1.140% 200,598.00 semi - annual 03/21/16 08/03/12 02/03/17 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EE6A3 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.590% 199,858.00 semi - annual 12/09/15 02/06/16 02/06/17 10,948,697.19 Citizens Alliance Bank 17318LAP9 1402 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 2.000%1 257,221.98 monthly 06/27/14 07/27/14 06/26/20 Capital One 14042E4Q0 4297 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 1.150% 248,555.52 semi - annual 07/15/15 01/15/16 07/17/17 Farmers & Merchants Svgs Bk 30856PAG1 9298 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.050% 250,484.04 monthly 01/22/16 02/22/16 10/23/17 Steams Bank NA 857894PB9 10988 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 1.000% 253,762.86 semi - annual 12126/14 06/26/15 12/26/19 Bangor Savings Bank 060243DV1 18408 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 1.000% 245,230.30 semi - annual 07/30/14 01/30/15 07130/19 Synchrony Bank 87164WBT4 27314 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 252,752.63 semi - annual 07/11/14 01/11/15 07/11/19 Valley Cent Svgs Bk Reading OH 91944RAE8 28555 CD 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 1.250% 150,766.50 monthly 12/22/14 01/22/15 12/22/17 First Federal Svgs Bk 32021YCH4 29690 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.500%1 255,055.68 monthly 01/21116 02/21/16 08/21/19 Third Federal Sav & Loan 88413QAW8 30012 CD 128,000.00 128,000.00 128,000.00 2.000% 131,448.32 semi - annual 11/24/14 05/24/15 11/25/19 Goldman Sachs Bank USA 38147JU59 33124 CD CD CD CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 252,456.23 semi - annual 07/23/14 01/23/15 07/23/19 PrivateBank & Trust Co BMW Bank of North America Celtic Bank Barclays Bank Enerbank USA 74267GUQ8 33306 247,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.000% 252,767.45 semi - annual 07/21/14 01/21/15 07/22/19 05580ADR2 15118RJMO 06740KHB6 35141 57056 57203 245,000.00 1.600% 247,895.90 semi- annual 01/22/16 12/20/13 07/22/16 06/20/14 01/02/15 01/22/19 12/20/19 07/02/19 247,000.00 2.050% 254,958.34 semi - annual CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 252,821.79 semi - annual 07/03/14 29266NA31 57293 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 2.100%1 257,269.29 monthly 07/18114 08/18/14 07/20/20 Victory Bank 92644LA88 58615 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.000% 252,799.56 semi - annual 09/24/14 03/24/15 09/24/19 Elbow Lake MN 284281KC5 A local 170,045.70 170,045.70 165,000.00 2.750% 172,264.95 semi - annual 12/08/14 none 12/01/19 Oshkosh Wis Storm WtrUtil 68825RBD1 Al local 101,003.00 101,003.00 100,000.00 3.250% 103,051.00 semi - annual 10105/10 05/01/11 05/01/18 Oneida County NY 6824543R2 At local 68,632.80 68,632.80 60,000.00 6.250% 64,948.20 semi - annual 08/16/10 none 04/15/19 Junction City Kansas 481502F72 A2 local 101,558.00 101,558.00 100,000.00 5.500% 109,265.00 semi - annual 05/28/08 03/01/09 09/01/18 Augusta ME 051411ND4 A3 local 16,875.00 16,875.00 15,000.00 5.250% 15,436.95 semi - annual 03/07/12 none 10/01/17 Rice Crily, MN 762698GK8 AA local 45,466.80 45,466.80 40,000.00 4.400% 43,436.40 semi - annual 03/07/12 none 02/01/19 Racine WI Minnetrista MN 7500216D4 604229KE3 AA- local 101,792.00 101,792.00 100,000.00 2.100% 102,093.00 semi - annual 01/24112 06/01/12 06/01/18 AA+ local 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 2.450% 10,012.60 semi- annual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01/19 Ramsey MN 751813PB6 AA+ local 158,677.85 158,677.85 145,000.00 4.500% 145,426.30 semi - annual 02/16/12 04/01/16 04/01/19 Steams Cc MN 857896MH4 AA+ local 276,875.00 276,875.00 250,000.00 4.500% 257,297.50 semi - annual 04/17/13 none 06/01/20 Minnetrista MN 604229KG8 AA+ local 161,038.40 161,038.40 160,000.00 3.100% 160,208.00 semi - annual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01/21 Greenway MNISD #31 39678LDF6 AA+ local 27,593.50 27,593.50 25,000.00 5.000% 27,408.00 semi - annual 07/09/13 none 03/15/21 McKinney TX 581646Y91 AA1 local 126,856.25 126,856.25 125,000.00 1.472% 126,127.50 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% 102,299.00 semi - annual 07/16/12 none 12/01/17 Minneapolis MN 60374YF93 AA1 local 220,938.00 220,938.00 200,000.00 4.000% 211,340.00 semi - annual 03/04/14 none 03/01/18 Scott County IA 809486EZ2 AA1 local 114,450.33 112,617.00 100,000.00 4.400% 105,031.00 semi - annual 10/31/12 12/01/12 06/01/18 1,210,350.40 state 530,742.00 US 3,816,246.39 CD May 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 King Cnty WA 49474E31-5 AA1 local 224,634.00 224,634.00 200,000.00 3.980% 213,720.00 semi- annual 03127/12 none 12/01/18 Minneapolis MN 60374YS73 AA1 local 111,898.00 111,898.00 100,000.00 3.250% 105,881.00 semi- annual 06/05/12 12/01/11 12/01/18 Cedar Rapids 150528RM1 AA1 local 217,672.00 217,672.00 200,000.00 3.000% 210,576.00 semi- annual 06/11113 12/01/13 06101/19 Minneapolis MN 60374YS81 AA1 local 278,632.50 278,632.50 250,000.00 3.500% 268,802.50 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% 102,706.00 semi - annual 01/20/16 none 04/01/20 Middleton WI 596782RX2 AA1 local 106,979.00 106,979.00 100,000.00 3.750% 105,749.00 semi - annual 02/24/15 none 09/01/20 Waterloo IA 941647KE8 AA2 local 105,594.00 105,594.00 100,000.00 3.500% 102,630.00 semi - annual 02/24/15 none 06/01117 Prior Lake MN 742617CB7 AA2 local 230,000.00 230,000.00 230,000.00 1.000% 230,609.50 semi - annual 05/14/15 12/15/15 12115/17 Hopkins Minn ISD #270 439881HCO AA2 local 95,278.40 95,278.40 80,000.00 5.250% 85,520.80 semi- annual 04/30/12 08/01109 02/01/18 Orange Beach ALA 68406PHFI 941647PAI AA2 local 241,689.60 241,689.60 240,000.00 4.400% 254,426.40 semi- annual 08/05/10 02/01/11 02/01/19 Waterloo IA AA2 local 50,559.50 50,559.50 50,000.00 2.000% 51,175.00 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% 105,594.00 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% 304,929.70 semi - annual 07117/13 02/01/14 02/01/20 Brunswick Cnty 117061VH1 AA2 local 108,967.10 108,967.10 110,000.00 1.7400/6 111,533.40 semi - annual 08/21/15 none 05/01120 Tucson AZ 898711Q33 AA3 local 254,202.50 254,202.50 250,000.00 2.139%1 254,202.50 semi - annual 12/09/15 none 07/01/17 Kane McHenry Cook & De Kalb Zero Cpn 484080MB9 AA3 local 157,328.00 157,328.00 200,000.00 189,908.00 maturity 07/16/12 none 12/01/18 Moorhead MN 616141287 AA3 local 108,820.00 108,820.00 100,000.00 3.800% 103,029.00 semi - annual 11/14/11 none 02/01120 Davenport Iowa 238388GS5 AA3 local 111,948.00 111,948.00 100,000.00 4.650% 103,490.00 semi - annual 09113/11 none 06/01/20 WhitewaterWis 966204KA6 AA3 local 109,541.00 109,541.00 100,000.00 4.850% 113,142.00 semi - annual 06/09/11 none 12/01/20 Tennessee Valley Auth 880591EA6 AAA local 93,153.11 93,153.11 85,000.00 5.500% 89,484.60 semi - annual 06/01/09 01/18/08 07/18/17 Washington County MN Saint Louis Park MN Brownsville TX ISD Zero Coupon Minnetonka MN ISD #276 Palm Beach Cnty FIA 937791KL4 791740WC3 116421E46 604195RA7 696497TR7 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA local local local local 115,000.00 112,114.00 229,640.00 37,433.20 115,000.00 112,114.00 229,640.00 37,433.20 115,000.00 3.750% 118,301.65 semi - annual 07/01/10 12/22/11 06/26/13 01/01/11 none none 01/01/18 02/01/18 100,000.00 3.850% 104,731.00 242,945.00 semi- annual 250,000.00 maturity 08/15/18 35,000.00 3.100% 36,299.20 semi - annual 12122111 none 02101/19 local 256,504.60 256,504.60 220,000.00 5.898% 236,896.00 semi - annual 07/06/11 none 06/01/19 Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn 88059EWZ3 AAA local 262,890.00 262,890.00 300,000.00 286,473.00 maturity 12/27/13 none 06/15/19 Norwalk Conn 668844DS9 AAA local 122,464.80 122,464.80 120,000.00 4.050% 127,410.00 semi - annual 08104/10 08/01/11 08/01/19 Greensboro NC 395460V21 AAA local 366,832.80 366,832.80 360,000.00 3.263% 380,250.00 semi - annual 07115/11 none 10/01/19 Woodbury MN 97913PCQ7 AAA local 123,037.35 123,037.35 115,000.00 3.250% 120,023.20 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% 110,403.00 semi - annual 04/16/12 08/15/11 02/15/20 Tenn ValleyAuthZero Cpn 88059EHD9 AAA local 263,970.00 263,970.00 300,000.00 281,100.00 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 93,209.00 maturity 03/18/13 none 07/15/20 Washington State Massachusetts State 939758DL9 57582P2T6 AA state 205,804.00 205,804.00 200,000.00 4.500% 212,162.00 semi - annual 01124/12 04/01/12 10/01/18 AA1 state 199,744.00 199,744.00 200,000.00 2.090% 203,834.00 semi- annual 12/17/14 11/01/14 05/01/20 New Hampshire StHsg 64469DWUl AA2 state 250,952.50 250,952.50 250,000.00 1.789% 252,460.00 semi- annual 12/09/15 07/01/16 01/01/18 New Hampshire StHsg 64469DWV9 AA2 state 135,804.60 135,804.60 135,000.00 1.939% 136,710.45 semi- annual 12/09/15 07/01/16 07/01/18 Minnesota St Colleges & Univ 60414FPJ3 AA2 state 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 2.000% 101,835.00 semi - annual 02/26/15 10/01/15 10/01/20 Florida St Hurricane 34074GDH4 AA3 state 279,439.80 279,439.80 270,000.00 2.995% 279,034.20 semi - annual 11/10/15 07/01/13 07/01/20 Tennessee State 880541QM2 AAA state 201,894.00 201,894.00 200,000.00 2.326% 203,754.00 semi - annual 10/26/11 02/01/12 08/01/17 Georgia State 373384RQI AAA state 26,742.50 26,742.50 25,000.00 2.970% 26,103.25 semi- annual 02/08/12 none 10101118 Texas State 882722,151 AAA state 103,089.00 103,089.00 100,000.00 2.894% 104,238.00 semi - annual 08/10/11 04/01/12 10/01/18 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EATE8 AAA US 99,647.00 99,647.00 100,000.00 0.900%1 100,153.00 semi- annual 11/04/13 12/08/12 06/08/17 7,000,795.85 local 1,520,130.90 state May 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 Farm Credit Bank 3133ECA95 AAA US 199,800.00 199,800.00 200,000.00 0.790% 199,706.00 semi- annual 12/08/15 03/18/13 09/18117 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EFJMO AAA US 249,750.00 249,750.00 250,000.00 0.930% 249,847.50 semi - annual 05/25/16 04/13/16 04/13/18 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp 3134G46D5 AAA US 198,000.00 198,000.00 200,000.00 1.200% 199,602.00 semi- annual 06/12/13 12/12/13 06/12/18 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Mad Term Nate 3134G3ZK9 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.200% 200,902.00 semi- annual 07130/12 01/30/13 07/30/18 Fed Farm Credit Bank 31331Y4S6 AAA US 114,000.00 114,000.00 100,000.00 5.050% 108,509.00 semi - annual 09/11/13 none 08/01/18 Fed Nat Mtg Assn 3136GORB9 AAA US 294,999.00 294,999.00 300,000.00 1.375% 298,626.00 semi - annual 12/05/13 12/28/12 12/28/18 Fed Natl Mtg Assn 3136GOY70 AAA US 199,300.00 199,300.00 200,000.00 1.080% 200,044.00 semi - annual 10/30/12 01130/13 01130/19 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EC5NO AAA US 99,587.00 99,587.00 100,000.00 1.250% 99,827.00 semi- annual 01/07/13 03104/13 03104/19 RFCSP Strip Principal Zero Coupon 76116FAA5 AAA US 185,568.00 185,568.00 200,000.00 191,086.00 maturity 07122115 none 10115119 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EGBKO AAA US 199,600.00 199,600.00 200,000.00 1.300% 199,392.00 semi - annual 05/25/16 11/25116 11/25/19 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Zero Can 31340OBV4 AAA US 278,625.00 278,625.00 300,000.00 284,247.00 maturity 11/02115 none 11/29/19 Fed Home Ln Bank 313OA3XL3 AAA US 99,500.00 99,500.00 100,000.00 1.500% 100,049.00 semi - annual 07/22115 08/10/15 02110/20 Fed Nat Mtg Assn Remic 31393EAL3 US 204,187.50 5,901.58 5,780.54 4.500% 5,911.47 monthly 07/30/03 none 08/25/18 FICO Strip Prin Zero Coupon 31771 KAC1 US 295,932.00 295,932.00 300,000.00 296,118.00 maturity 10/23/15 none 10/06117 FICO Strip Pm-4 Zero Coupon 31771EAD3 US 194,572.00 194,572.00 200,000.00 197,512.00 maturity 03/16/15 none 10/06/17 FICO Strip Cpn -E Zero Coupon 31771JXM7 US 215,452.16 215,452.16 224,000.00 220,357.76 maturity 12/11/14 none 11/02/17 FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon 31771 EAA9 US 529,947.00 529,947.00 550,000.00 539,363.00 maturity 06/09/14 none 05/11/18 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp 31393VMQ1 US 153,656.25 3,435.00 3,353.25 4.500% 3,428.56 monthly 06/30/03 06/15/18 FICO Strip Cpn13 Zero Coupon 31771C2G9 US 93,140.00 93,140.00 10 , 0 . 1 97,185.00 maturity 12129114 none 12/27/18 FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon Chaska MN Mitchell SD Sch Dist #17-2 Minnetrista MN 31358BAA6 AA AA US local 94,480.00 94,480.00 100,000.00 96,345.00 maturity 04/17/15 09/08/14 none none 02/01/19 02/01/24 06/15/24 02/01/23 115,122.70 116,702.00 115,122.70 16,225,384.43 1616636S3 606687EHO 110,000.00 4.000% 116,366.80 semi- annual local 116,702.00 100,000.00 6.000% 110,556.00 semi - annual 12/20/11 06/15119 604229KJ2 AA+ local 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 3.850% 40,060.80 semi - annual 10/10!13 08/01/14 Savage Minn 80465PAN4 AA+ local 198,018.00 198,018.00 200,000.00 4.800% 211,408.00 semi - annual 06/17/10 02/01/11 02101/24 Lake City Minn ISD #813 508084DW7 AA+ local 103,933.00 103,933.00 100,000.00 5.000% 105,883.00 semi - annual 05/11/11 none 02/01/25 Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col 250097H21 AA1 local 50,606.00 50,606.00 50,000.00 2.450% 52,262.50 semi - annual 11110/14 12/01/14 06/01/21 Minneapolis MN 60374YG68 AA1 local 110,419.00 110,419.00 100,000.00 4.700% 108,575.00 semi - annual 10/31111 none 03/01/23 Minneapolis MN 60374YG76 AA1 local 72,201.35 72,201.35 65,000.00 4.800% 70,446.35 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% 281,966.40 semi - annual 01/21/15 none 02/01/23 Duluth MN 264438ZL9 AA2 local 29,767.20 29,767.20 30,000.00 2.625% 30,037.50 semi - annual 12/05/12 08101/13 02/01/25 Hawkins Cnty TN 420218PL7 AA3 local 111,480.00 111,480.00 100,000.00 4.800%1 105,806.00 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%1 101,900.00 semi- annual 10127/15 04/01/16 10/01/21 Columbus OH 199492CS6 AAA local 39,956.40 39,956.40 40,000.00 2.133% 41,091.20 semi - annual 02120/15 none 12101/21 Tennessee Valley Auth SerE 880591CJ9 AAA local 121,500.00 121,500.00 100,000.00 6.750% 136,055.00 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 Connecticut State 20772JQN5 AA3 state 214,954.00 214,954.00 200,000.00 3.517% 215,126.00 semi - annual 05127/16 02/15114 08/15/21 Florida St Dept Environmental 34160WUAO AA3 state 217,800.00 217,800.00 200,000.00 6.206% 226,700.00 semi- annual 08/30/10 07/01/10 07101/22 Virginia State 928109XD4 AAA state 22,126.00 22,126.00 20,000.00 4.100% 21,515.60 semi - annual 02/07/12 none 06/01/21 Fed Home Ln Bank 313OA6VA2 AAA US 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 2.450% 300,054.00 semi - annual 12/16/15 06/16/16 12/16/22 2,525,810.15 3,888,211.29 US 1,762,414.55 local 463,341.60 state 300,054.00 US May 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 Itasca County Minn A 465452GP9 local 105,024.00 105,024.00 100,000.00 5.550% 104,393.00 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% 107,564.00 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% 111,965.00 semi - annual 07/17109 11/01/09 05/01/29 Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon 969078QM9 AA2 local 159,000.00 159,000.00 500,000.00 309,005.00 maturity 08/25/09 none 11/01/27 Fed Farm Credit Bank 31331VLC8 AAA US 106,030.45 106,030.45 100,000.00 5.250% 126,865.00 semi - annual 02/26/10 none D4 /21/28 759,792.00 30,459,683.77 632,927.00 local 126,865.00 US INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds May 31, 2016 Description Current Market Value YTD Interest Wells Fargo 1 lWells Fargo Government Money Market Fund 1 $845,357.631 $111.27 4M 1 14M 1,892.591 0.07 4M PLUS I 14M Plus 3,102.531 1.68 Premier Bank 1 I Premier Bank Money Market 260,405.93 368.53 Grand Total Money Market Funds 1 $1,110,758.68 1 $481.55 Updated: 611012016