The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWK - November 29, 2016C I T Y O F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULLVARU N.W. • ANUUVLR, MINNLSUTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, November 29, 2016 Conference Rooms A & B 1. Call to Order -6:00 p.m. 2. Comprehensive Plan Update Discussions —Administration 3. 2017 Budget/Tax Levy Final Review Before Public Hearing -Administration 4. 2016 Budget Progress Reports - Administration 5. October City Investments Review -Administration 6. Other Business Closed Session 7. City Administrator Performance Appraisal 8. Adjournment Y 0 F O `` t L. 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: James Dickinson, City Administrator //JJ�f Joe Janish, Community Development ' e tor`z' / FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) Update Discussion — Rural Reserve - administration DATE: November 29, 2016 At the October 25, 2016 City Council Work Session, City Council and staff discussed a CPA request submitted by the applicants, Jake and Jon Packer. The approved meeting minutes and staff report are attached for your review. City staff has been corresponding with the applicants regarding the discussions at the City Council work session. City staff will continue discussions with the applicants at a meeting on Wednesday, November 23. The City Administrator will provide a meeting update the City Council work session. Attachments October 25, 2016 Approved Work Session Meeting Minutes October 25, 2016 Staff Report Res ectfuIlyi. , Stephanie L. Hanson ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORK -SHOP MEETING —OCTOBER 25, 2016 MINUTES The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trude, October 25, 2016, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila, Valerie Holthus and James Goodrich Councilmember absent: None Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson City Planner, Stephanie Hanson Public Works Director/City Engineer, David Berkowitz Others ( .%) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DISCUSSION � Ms. Hanson explained the City Council is requested to discuss and provide direction to staff on the City Council's desire to proceed with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and Zoning Code text amendment to address future development within the rural reserve area. Ms. Hanson reviewed the staff report with the Council. Mayor Trude thought the Packer children wanted to build on the grandma's property but it sounds like they want to subdivide the property within the estate so each child gets a portion of it. Ms. Hanson indicated that is correct. Ms. Hanson stated there are two children that want to have houses and everyone in the family is in agreement that if they can split the property and each get their share then the two children can build homes on their portion. She stated at this time the Comprehensive Plan does not allow a split of the land so the City's hands are tied and Met Council does not support that kind of subdivision in this area. Ms. Hanson stated she has been working with Met Council on a flexible development policy to see how it all works. She found out that there are 28 communities in the metro area that are similar to Andover where they have a rural reserve area and out of the 28 communities, 22 do allow development in these rural areas. Andover does not at this time. There are a lot examples of ordinances out there that communities are using. She indicated she has not reviewed all of the ordinances in depth. Mayor Trude thought the process would be simpler than it actually is. Councilmember Bukkila Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes — October 25, 2016 Page 2 asked if Ms. Hanson knew which areas the children wanted to split and build on. Ms. Hanson showed on the map where the proposed building would occur. Councilmember Bukkila indicated she did not have a problem supporting it. Councilmember Holthus asked how many acres are the lots to the west of the subject parcel. Ms. Hanson stated they are five acre properties. Ms. Hanson stated in the rural reserve at this time property owners cannot split the land into eight acre parcels as requested by the Packers because that is not provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. The best that they could do is one unit per ten acres and would be a pretty quick comprehensive plan amendment. Mayor Trude stated it would be nice if the family.could work something out together. There was discussion between the Councilmembers on how the Rural Reserve will develop over time. Councilmember Bukkila asked if the Rural Reserve as a designation is it locked in as a chunk or can pieces be pulled out of the Rural Reserve and then it meets a different standard. Mr. Dickinson explained the reason why the Met Council wants to keep this area as a Rural Reserve area. He stated the Met Council is trying to be a good steward to the sanitary sewer pipe in the ground and they want to make the sewer operation efficient throughout all the cities served. Mr. Berkowitz reviewed with the City Council the Rural Reserve and all the challenges for development. Mayor Trude stated she is not against this but thought further review needed to be done. Consensus of the Council was for staff to challenge the family for alternatives and if that does not work then to look at flexible zoning for the area in order to meet the family's needs but not to open up development to everyone at this time. Councilmember Holthus wondered if the Met Council would be open to rezoning just this area and not the entire Rural Reserve. Ms. Hanson stated if this area would be developed it would need to be replaced somewhere else in the community and there really is not any other area where replacement is available. DISCUSS WETLAND RESTORATIONPROJECTACCESS/12-23 Mr. Berkowitz explained the City Council is requested to discuss a possible access location and estimated cost for an access on the south side of the Wetland Restoration project (Old Woodland Creek Golf Course). Mr. Berkowitz reviewed the staff report with the Council MOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.AN DOVER. M N. US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers CC: James Dickinson, City Administ FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Plann SUBJECT: Discuss Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Rural Reserve -planning DATE: October 25, 2016 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss and provide direction to staff on the City Council's desire to proceed with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and Zoning Code text amendment to address future development within the rural reserve area. BACKGROUND Jake and Jon Packer submitted a CPA request to amend the existing Comprehensive Plan to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve District into parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the city Comprehensive Plan. The applicants are requesting to subdivide and create 2 — 8 acre parcels from a 40 acre parcel owned by 5 family members. The Packer family owns acreage in the City of Andover, located in the vicinity of Round Lake Blvd and 16151 Ave NW. A map is attached showing Packer owned parcels. The land is zoned Rural Residential and is located within the Rural Reserve Land Use District. Review Process City staff and the applicants' have been discussing the process and the time frame for the proposed amendment request. City staff has also been working with the Metropolitan Council staff regarding the proposed CPA request. The review period for the request ends November 19, 2016; at which time the City of Andover is required to either deny the proposed request or direct staff to begin the CPA process. If staff is directed by City Council to move forward with a CPA, staff will prepare the documents and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for review. The Metropolitan Council has 60 days to review and act on the CPA. Comprehensive Plan According to the Andover Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Reserve District was designated as an area to accommodate future urban growth beyond the planned Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA). Lot splits of less than one parcel per 20 acres and subdivisions of less than 1 parcel per 40 acres is prohibited to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude orderly MUSA expansion. The city has reached an agreement with the Metropolitan Council that areas designated for residential development in the Rural Reserve will be developed at 3 units per net acre once MUSA is available. City staff is working with the Metropolitan Council to address the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There are 3 options to consider: 1. Leave the existing regulations in the plan in place. No changes. This change will not meet the applicants' request. 2. Amend the plan to allow for 1 unit per 10 acres in the rural reserve area. The Metropolitan Council supports this change since it complies with the Council policy; however, this change will not meet the request of the applicants. This change would require an amendment to the plan and will not require changes to the zoning code. This would allow staff and City Council more time to research different flexible development options for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. *Amend the plan to allow densities greater than 1 unit per 10 acres. This will require the adoption of flexible development guidelines as part of a zoning text amendment as well. This option may or may not meet the applicants' request. *an amendment to allow densities greater than 1 unit per 10 acres would affect all parcels throughout the rural reserve land use area. Flexible Development The Metropolitan Council supports densities of 1 unit per 10 acres. However density beyond this requires layout and provisions of such an ordinance or overlay to allow for future wastewater service at a minimum density of 3 units per acre. Planning tools that would need to be considered include density bonuses, cluster ordinances or provisions, use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) to control development, requirements of build -out plans (ghost platting), and the use of deed restrictions, easements, and covenants to protect open space for future development. This .is a project the City of Andover and the Metropolitan Council staff would need to work on together to ensure compliancy with the Council policies. According to the Metropolitan Council, there are 28 communities in the metropolitan area that are designated for future wastewater service, including Andover; 22 of which have some type of ordinances in place that allows higher density development while preserving open space for future expansion of municipal services. The variations in these ordinances differ among communities to reflect their original intent for adopting the ordinance. Some communities wish to preserve expanses of undeveloped land, while others have landscapes that are restricted by limiting features, and still others have planned to accommodate future growth. Some examples of community ordinances are as follows: Scott County Scott County administers zoning for 8 townships that are within the long-term wastewater services area, similar to the designated rural reserve area in Andover. The Scott County ordinance is intended to preserve land in those areas for logical future extension of urban land uses served by public utilities. Typical rural development is allowed at a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. However, there is a possibility for the land to be developed at a gross density of 1 unit per 5 acres and a net density of at least 1 unit per 1.5 acres. This is achieved through cluster development, density bonuses and the preservation of open space. Lots may be served with individual well and septic and/or community septic. Washington County Washington County administers zoning for 2 townships that are within the long-term wastewater services area. Similar to Scott County, Washington County ordinances allow for the same type of developments with the administration of cluster development, density bonuses and the preservation of open space. The cities of Hugo, Forest Lake and Lake Elmo have adopted similar ordinances. Typical rural development is allowed at a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. However, there is a possibility for the land to be developed at a gross density of 1 unit per 5.6 acres and a net density of at least 1 unit per 1.7 acres. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to discuss the proposed comprehensive plan amendment request by Jake and Jon Packer and provide staff with direction. Attachments Maps — Packer Parcels Location Rural Reserve Location 4Resct illy Sub itted, Stephanie L. Hanson �N Packer FamilyParcels s Date Created: October 17, 2016 Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. SLI s ®v � rIG�mum _ .s 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 2017 Budget/Tax Levy Final Review Before Public Hearing November 29, 2016 INTRODUCTION City Departments by July 1st submitted to Administration/Finance their proposed 2017 Annual Operating Budgets. Department budgets were reviewed for adherence to the Council's 2017 Budget Development Guidelines. The City Council has also had a number of reviews of the 2017 Proposed General Fund Budget that will be supported by the 2017 Tax Levy. On September 6th the City Council approved the 2017 Preliminary Levy certification. This approval was the outcome of the numerous budget workshops held by the Council over the summer/fall. The Preliminary 2017 Budget proposes a total 2017 property tax levy of $11,938,555: $8,344,354 (69.89%) operational levy, $1,610,047 (13.49%) debt service levy, and $1,984,154 (16.62%) capital/watershed levy. The 2017 Proposed Property Tax Levy that was approved estimates reducing the current City tax rate by close to 2.5% but does generate additional tax revenue through growth identified in the City's tax base, this capture yield a 2.97% increase in the gross tax levy. The Council has the right to reduce or keep constant this levy until the final certification date of December 28, 2016. By the November 29th workshop, property tax statements should have been received by all of the City of Andover residents and businesses. Much of what will be covered at the workshop will be repeat information with updates to date; Administration is looking for City Council direction as the final preparation steps for the December 6, 2016 Budget/Levy Hearing for the 2017 Budget nears City Administration will review with the Council the bold italics items at the meeting. Also.. AdministratiomTinance will review with the Council the attached at the meeting,• 1. Pay 2017 Valuation Estimates (m. 8) 2. City ofAndover Property Tax Levy — 2012 to proposed 2017 (pzs 9 —10) 3. Proposed Resolution to Adopt the 2017 Budget and Tax Levy (pgs 11 —13) 4. City ofAndover 2017 Budget Summary by Fund Types (pgs 14 —23) S. Proposed 2017 General Fund Revenue & Expense Summary ( s 24 — 27) 6 Graphs that will be used at the December 6 2016 Budget Hearing (pgs 28 — 34) DISCUSSION City of Andover Financial Policies drive much of how City Staff operate departments and 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: Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City of Andover are reflecting a 4.12% increase in total taxable market value. The 2017 Proposed Property Tax Levy that was approved estimates reducing the current City tax rate by close to 2.5%. 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. The 2017 budget exceeds this guideline, also Emergency Fund Balances (approximately 3% ofplanned General Fund expenditures) are in place to stabilize a situation, not be a complete solution. 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, the 25% guideline for 2017 will be met easily as $500,000 of existing debt levy was moved to a Capital Levy for 2017 to fund planned equipment purchases. This change decreased the proposed 2017 debt levy to only 13.49% of the gross tax levy. 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 made recommendations to the City Council as part of the 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) development process. 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 offinancial 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 work plans 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 did pay special attention to focal values, commercial & residential developmentlredevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery and the livability/image of the community as part of the budget development process. Overall Budget: Administration will review with the Council at the meeting as part of the Budget Development Guideline discussion the Overall (all budgeted funds) City of Andover Budget. Please refer to the attached CitV ofAndover 2017 Budget Summary By Type. Staffing: recommending both requests and both are included in the 2017 Proposed Budget. Also there are some anticipated retirements and staff vacancies within the next few years; in response Administration has made a concerted effort to focus on appropriate succession planning, effective utilization of internship opportunities in various departments and continued cross-trainingof f City staff. Personnel Related Implications: To date the following are projected issues facing personnel related expenses: Human Resources has reviewed position -based salaries and our benefit package in detail to determine if the total package is competitive with other government entities. Administration will include a budget for market adjustments for a few positions. Pay steps for eligible employees are included in the 2017 budget proposal. A 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for non -bargaining employee, similar to the Public Works Union contract not set to expire until December 31, 2017, is included in the 2017 budget proposal. 2. A review of the health plan was conducted with our broker in September. The current employee health & dental plan provider is with HealthPartners, and while we had a second year rate increase guarantee max (15%), Administration still authorized a marketing of the plan in an effort to bring the rates in under the rate increase guarantee max. Our marketing efforts were successful in reducing the original proposals (12%) to just a 5% increase in health insurance cost over 2016 is included in the 2017 Budget, 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 and 76% for a family health insurance premium. The City does contribute annually to the employees HSA. Contractual Departments: 1. Discussion for the 2017 City Attorney contract is, 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 Sheriff's 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 Sheriff's 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 had discussions with the Anoka County Sheriff for a 2017 contract, and the Anoka County Sheriff was before the Citv Council at the May 24th workshop meeting. Direction from that workshop and subsequent workshops was for Administration to work with the Sheriff on a Status Quo Contract. Negotiations City Council meeting. Council Memberships and Donations/Contributions: The following memberships/contributions are included in the 2016 Budget, updated for 2017: • North Metro Mayors Association $15,010 • Metro Cities $ 9,512 • 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 $ 900 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. Relative to the 2017 tax levy. Administration recommendations to the Council are identified below. • 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. For 2017, Administration was notified by State that the City will receive "NO" LGA. 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 is recommending 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 is recommending 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 maintena_ nce/replacement items. In addition to the re -assigned funds an additional $43,500 of General Fund levy was assigned to Parks Repair/Replacement items for a total levy of $90,000 in 2016, that will continue again in 2017. Again, the 2016 levy is $15,000. Administration will be recommending the same for 2017. 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 and proposed to Continue in 2017: 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/Purchases: Under the Capital Projects Levy, a levy is proposed to be designated to Capital 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 $250,000 for 2017. New, for the 2017 equipment purchases Administration/Finance proposed a straight $500,000 Capital Equipment Purchases Levy for the 2017 equipment purchases rather than through debt service levy and an equipment bond. Debt Service Levy: Annually the Finance Department conducts a detailed debt service analysis to monitor outstanding debt and to look for early debt retirement or refinancing opportunities that will yield interest expense savings to the City. (Staff, along with Ehlers & Associates have completed that review and recently the Water Revenue bond was rerinanced at the November 15th City Council meeting). 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 Total $1,610,047 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 reflects a 23.35% decrease ($490,366) since the City will do a straight Capital Equipment Purchases Levy for the 2017 equipment purchases rather than an issue an equipment bomb ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. fitted, CITY OF ANDOVER Pay 2017 Valuation Estimates 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 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 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 $ 2,636,599,713 $ 27,952,797 Captured Tax Increment (327,433) (210,936) (248,327) (91,958) Fiscal Disparity Contribution (1,035,107) (998,390) (1,055,284) (1,124,218) Local Tax Rate Value 20,615,782 24,496,024 25,543,662 26,736,621 Fiscal Disparity Distribution 4,202,605 4,257,801 4,264,789 4,516,466 Total Adjusted Values $ 24,818,387 $ 28,753,825 $ 29,808,451 $ 31,253,087 15.86% 3.67% 4.85% Taxable Market Value Tax Capacity Value % Change % Change Pay 2014 $ 2,071,812,261 Pay 2014 $ 21,978,322 Pay 2015 $ 2,435,770,612 17.57% Pay 2015 $ 25,705,350 16.96% Pay 2016 $ 2,539,686,867 4.27% Pay 2016 $ 26,847,273 4.44% Pay 2017 $ 2,636,599,713 3.82% Pay 2017 $ 27,952,797 4.12% 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 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 \l Property Tax Levy Other Levies Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Requested 0.34% 5 Change Total Other Capital Projects Levy 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 %of Total $ % General Fund Lev v 210,000 210,000 210,000 250,000 - 250,000 2.09% $ - 0.00% General Operations $ 7,332,857 $ 7,332,857 $ 7,435,891 $ 7,630,892 $ 7,947,528 $ 8,254,354 .69.14% $ 306,826 3.86% Parks RepaldReplacemenl Items 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 90,000 90,000 0.75% $ 0.00% Total General Fund 7,332,857 7,332,857 7,435,891 7,630,892 8,037,528 8,344,354 69.89% $ 306,826 3.82% Debt Serves Fund. Levv 56,574 58,271 58,271 58,271 61,838 63,075 0.53% $ 1,237 2,00% 20NA G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds 405,292 381,290 - - - - 0615,782 28,496,024 ----------- 25,643,662 2004EDA Public FacilityRevenue Bonds 1,092,684 452,082 181,803 - - 2010A GO. Open Space Referendum Bonds 182,558 184,973 187,283 184,238 186,291 187,840 2011A G.O. Equipment Certificate 102,017 101,745 - - - - 37.204% 38.447% 37:4550/6 2012AGO. Equipment Certificate 125,000 125,000 140,000 140,000 142,885 - 38.314% 2012B G.O. Cap Improv Retuning Bonds - 138,339 561,015 540,120 498,435 - 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 2016A G.O. Equipment Certificate 152,529 Total Debt Service 1,907,551 1,961,474 2,071,066 2,136,065 2.100,413 1,610,047 13.49% $ (490,366) -23.35% Other Levies 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0.34% 5 0.00% Total Other Capital Projects Levy 1,336,968 1,336,968 1,376,968 1,455,984 1,984,154 16.62% $ 528,170 36.28% Gross City Levy 10,631,299 Capital Equipment/Project 210,000 210,000 210,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2.09% $ - 0.00% Capital Equipment Purchases - - - - - 500,000 4.19% $ 500,000 #Dli Parks Projects 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 15,000 15,000 0.13% $ - 0.00% Road& Bridge 1,022,817 967,197 967,197 967,197 1,089,146 1,116,079 9.35% b 26,933 2.47% Pedestrian Trall 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% 5 0.00% Total Other 1,390,891 1,336,968 1,336,968 1,376,968 1,455,984 1,984,154 16.62% $ 528,170 36.28% Gross City Levy 10,631,299 10,631,299 10,843,925 11,143,926 11,693,925 11,930,555 100% $ 344,630 2.97% Less Fiscal Disparities Distribution 1,791,496 1,798,577 1,718,153 1,846,295 1,586,747 1,736,547 Local Tax Rale Levy E 8,839,003 9,297,630 $ 10,007,178 $ 10,202,008 Less Levy Based on Market Value $ 182,558 $ 184,973 $ 187,283 $ 184,238 $ 186,291 $ 18],840 Net Local Tax Rate Levy $ 8,657,245 _L 8,647,749 $ 8,938,489 $ 9,113,392 $ 9,820,887 $ 10,014,168 Adjusted Tax Capacity Value" 20,514,674 21,155,2632 0615,782 28,496,024 ----------- 25,643,662 26,736,621 Ghana a %Chance Tax Capacity Rate- 42.200% 40.878% 43.358% 37.204% 38.447% 37:4550/6 -0.993% -2.582% Tax Capacity Rate W!0 LRRWSD 38.407% 42.090% 43.197% 37.070% 38.314% Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 38.746% 42.539% 43.657% 37.461% 38.702% Voter Approved Ref -MV 0.00588% 0.00778% 0.00841% 0.00719% 0.00699% "Adjusted Value determined by adjusting for Fiscal Dispanlies and Tax Increment estimates. '^ Blended rale due to the City of Ando ver levying for Lower Rum River Watershed District (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value is subject to change. City of Andover Gross Tax Levy $14,000,000 $13,000,000 $lz,000,000 $11,000,000 $11,938,555 159' 425 $10,856,299 $10,843,925 $11,143,925 $10,000,000 $10,856,299 $10,631,299 $10,631,299 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 BUDGET AND 2017 PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. WHEREAS, the preparation and adoption of budgets is recognized as sound financial practice; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover receives significant financial support from its residents through the payment of property taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover has the responsibility to appropriately and efficiently manage the public's funds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires the City to certify to the County Auditor an adopted tax levy and budget prior to December 28, 2016; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires the City to certify to the State of Minnesota Department of Revenue an adopted tax levy by December 28, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby adopts the 2017 City of Andover Budget and the 2017 property tax levy totaling $11,938,555 as listed on Attachment A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby establishes the 2017 City of Andover Budget by fund type as follows: REVENUES EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 10,825,139 General Fund $ 10,992,219 Special Revenue Funds 1,567,000 Special Revenue Funds 1,686,420 Debt Service Funds 1,910,047 Debt Service Funds 2,269,238 Capital Projects Funds 5,053,538 Capital Projects Funds 7,353,217 Enterprise Funds 5,315,854 Enterprise Funds 5,292,421 Internal Service Funds 1,161,507 Internal Service Funds 1,207,471 Total S 25,833,085 Total S 28,800,986 Adopted by the City of Andover this _ day of December 2016. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Julie Trude - Mayor Michelle Harmer — Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 2017 Property Tax Levy 2017 Levy General Fund Levy General Operations $ 8,254,354 Park Repair/Replacement Items 90,000 Total General Fund 8,344,354 Debt Service Funds Levy 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 187,840 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds 974,418 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificate 295,260 2016A G.O. Equipment Certificate 152,529 Total Debt Service 1,610,047 Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equipment/Project 250,000 Capital Equipment Purchases 500,000 Parks Projects 15,000 Road & Bridge 1,116,079 Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 63,075 Lower Rum River Watershed 40,000 Total Other 1,984,154 Gross City Levy $ 11,938,555 0 Attachment A 55 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF ANDOVER I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Andover, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached Resolution No. adopting the City of Andover 2017 Budget and 2017 Property Tax Levy with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be true and correct transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand this _ day of December 2016. Harmer — Deputy City Clerk General Fund Revenues: $10,825,139 Expenditures: $10,992,219 -General Government Public Safety Public Works Fund Definitions CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 Budget Summary By Fund Type City of Andover - Budgeted Funds Total Revenues: $25,833,085 Total Expenditures: $28,800,986 I Governmental Funds I Special Revenue Funds Revenues: $1,567,000 Expenditures: $1,686,420 -EDA -Drainage & Mapping -LRRWMO -Forestry -ROW Mgmt / Utility -Construction Seal Coating -Community Center -CDBG -Charitable Gambling Debt Service Funds Revenues: $1,910,047 Expenditures: $2,269,238 Improvement Bonds State Aid Bonds Equip Certificates Referendum Bonds Abatement Bonds Capital Projects Funds Revenues: $5,053,538 Expenditures: $7,353,217 =r Trunk n Sewer ar Trunk J & Bridge & Transportation Equip Reserve Increment Dedication Projects Notes / Bond Projects Proprietary Funds Enterprise Funds Revenues: $5,315,854 Expenditures: $5,292,421 Sewer Fund Water Fund Storm Sewer Fund Internal Service Funds Revenues: $1,161,507 Expenditures: $1,207,471 Equipment / Malnt. Management General Fund - accounts for the revenues and expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the City such as general government, public safety, public works, and other. Special Revenue Funds - accounts for revenue sources that finance particular functions and projects. Debt Service Funds - accounts for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of general long-term debt. Capital Projects Funds - accounts for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities financed mainly with governmental fund sources, general obligation debt, special assessments, and other. Enterprise Funds - accounts for activities that consist of rendering services or providing goods to the public for which a fee or charge is collected. Internal Service Funds - accounts for goods and services that are provided to other City departments, or to other governments, on a cost reimbursement basis. Fund Balance/Net Assets, January 1 Revenues & Other Sources General Special Revenue Debt Service Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total Revenues & Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures & Other Uses General Special Revenue Debt Service Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total Expenditures & Other Uses: Fund Balance/Net Assets, December 31 CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures Fund Summary Actual 2015 $ 35,638,453 10,155,767 1,597,537 2,433,363 5,004,773 5,282,379 1,217,927 25,691,746 61,330,199 10,089,997 1,535,499 2,289,598 2,754,927 4,598,039 1,086,807 22,354,867 $ 38,975,332 Adopted 2016 $ 38,975,332 10,390,411 1,562,200 2,479,273 4,896,471 5,153,096 1,113,344 25,594,795 64,570,127 10,697,788 1,740,686 2,316,271 6,935,077 4,912,499 1,167 967 27,770,288 $ 36,799,839 Estim ate 2016 $ 38,975,332 10,720,236 1,509,700 2,403,830 5,979,313 5,277,465 1,123,564 27,014,108 65,989,440 10,893,062 1,581,363 2,312,268 7,111,669 4,912,499 1,177,967 27,988,828 $ 38,000,612 Budget 2017 $ 38,000,612 10,825,139 1,567,000 1,910,047 5,053,538 5,315,854 1,161,507 25,833,085 63,833,697 10,992,219 1,686,420 2,269,238 7,353,217 5,292,421 1,207,471 28,800,986 $ 35,032,711 1P CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures by Fund Type Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In 196,930 Special Debt Capital 54,226 Internal 1,004,977 Bond Proceeds General Revenue Service Projects Enterprise Service Total Fund Balance/Net Assets, January 1 $ 7,095,078 $ 597,779 $ 1,308,862 $ 21,033,420 $ 7,275,072 $ 690,401 -$ 38,000,612 Revenues 196,930 300,000 453,819 54,228 1,004,977 General Property Taxes 8,420,354 40,000 1,610,047 1,944,154 - - 12,014,555 Tax Increments - - - 118,480 - - 118,480 Special Assessments - - - 887,000 - - 687,000 Licenses and Permits 367,705 - - - - - 367,705 Intergovernmental 766,150 37,500 - 1,314,902 - - 2,118,552 Charges for Services 7733950 687,200 - - 5,119,626 1,156,507 7,739,283 Fines 100,750 - - - - - 100,750 Investment Income 75,000 5,800 - 163,000 46,000 3,000 292,800 User Charges - - - '270,183 - - 270,183 Meters - - - - 13,000 - 13,000 Permit Fees - - - _ _ _ - Penalties - - - - 16,000 - 16,000 Miscellaneous _ 124,300 796,500 - 102,000 67,000 _ 1,089,800 Total Revenues: 10,628,209 1,567,000 1,610,047 4,599,719 5,261,626 1,161,507 24,828,108 Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In 196,930 - 300,000 453,819 54,226 - 1,004,977 Bond Proceeds - - _. _ _ _ _ Proceeds from Sale of Property Total Other Financing Sources: 196,930 300,000 453,819 54,228 1,004,977 Total Revenues and Other Sources: 10,825,139 1,567,000 1,910,047 5,053,538 5,315,854 1,161,507 25,833,085 Total Available: 17,920,217 2,164,779 3,218,909 26,086,958 12,5903926 1,851,908 63,833,697 Expenditures Personal Services 4,889,974 515,791 - - 1,025,217 442,639 6,873,621 Supplies and Materials 685,417 89,020 - - 308,200 404,160 1,486,797 Purchased Services 3,902,989 240,680 - 205,000 - - 4,348,669 Other Services and Charges 1,423,839 469,929 - 3,772,470 2,273,323 360,672 8,300,233 Capital Outlay 90,000 66,000 - 3,124,800 260,000 - 3,540,800 Debt Service - 2,220,419 196,719 828,751 3,245,889 Total Operating Expenditures: 10,992,219 1,381,420 2,220,419 7,298,989 4,695,491 1,207,471 27,796,009 Other Uses Operating Transfers Out - 305,000 48,819 54,228 596,930 - 1,004,977 Bond Discount - - - _ _ _ Redemption of Refunded Bonds Total Other Uses: 305,000 48,819 54,228 596,930 1,004,977 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 10,992,219 1,686,420 2,269,238 7,353,217 5,292,421 1,207,471 28,800,986 Fund Balance/Net Assets, December 31 $ 6,927,998 $ 478,359 $ 949,671 $ 18,733,741 $ 7,298,505 $ 644437 $ 35,032,711 CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures -All Funds Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2015 2016 2016 2017 Fund Balance/Net Assets, January l $ 35,638,453 $ 38,975,332 $ 38,975,332 $ 38,000,612 Revenues General Property Taxes 11,148,150 11,669,925 11,669,925 12,014,555 Tax Increments 213,020 - 118,480 118,480 Special Assessments 690,161 1,153,000 584,032 687,000 Licenses and Permits 452,616 346,205 533,660 367,705 Intergovernmental 959,790 1,524,491 1,537,412 2,118,552 Charges for Services - 7,708,800 7,463,994 7,705,933 - 7,739,283 Fines 99,304 100,750 95,750 100,750 Investment Income 406,176 300,400 291,905 292,800 User Charges 615,544 262,421 844,682 270,183 Meters 15,055 13,000 13,000 13,000 Permit Fees 4,650 3,500 3,500 - Penalties - 16,000 16,000 16,000 . Miscellaneous 1,319,342 991,300 1,381,355 1,089,800 Total Revenues: 23,633,608 23,844,986 24,795,634 24,828,108 Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In 1,204,081 1,169,809 1,345,992 1,004,977 Bond Proceeds - 580,000 520,000 - Bond Premium - _ _ Proceeds from Sale of Property 854,057 352,482 Total Other Financing Sources: 2,058,138 1,749,809 2,218,474 1,004,977 Total Revenues and Other Sources: 25,691,746 25,594,795 27,014,108 25,833,085 Total Available: 61,330,199 64,570,127 65,989,440 63,833,697 Expenditures Personal Services 6,091,488 8,527,733 6,546,006 6,873,621 Supplies and Materials 1,171,223 1,454,812 1,425,487 1,486,797 Purchased Services 4,184,144 4,486,980 4,437,040 4,348,669 Other Services and Charges 5,283,993 8,657,986 - 9,397,894 8,300,233 Capital Outlay 1,160,545 2,231,000 1,590,070 3,540,800 Debt Service 3,259,393 3,241,968 3,246,339 3,245,889 Total Operating Expenditures: 21,150,786 26,600,479 26,642,836 27,796,009 Other Uses Operating Transfers Out 1,204,081 1,169,809 1.345,992 1,004,977 Bond Discount _ _ _ _ Redemption of Refunded Bonds Total Other Uses: 1,204,081 1,169,809 1,345,992 1,004,977 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 22,354,867 27,770,288 27,988,828 28,800,986 Fund Balance/Net Assets, December 31 $ 38,975,332 $ 36,799,839 $ 38,000,612 $ 35,032,711 City of Andover 2017 Budget - General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 7,202,134 $ 7,267,904 $ 7,267,904 $ 7,095,078 7,634,715 452,616 749,570 804,684 99,304 63,709 154,239 9,958,837 8,113,528 346,205 673,248 767,950 100,750 75,000 116,800 10,193,481 8,113,528 533,660 707,868 869,900 95,750 65,000 137,600 10,523,306 8,420,354 367,705 766,150 773,950 100,750 75,000 124,300 10,628,209 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 10,155,767 17,357,901 4,191,455 575,178 3,824,655 1,298,709 9,889,997 200,000 10,390,411 17,658,315 4,623,992 692,032 3,860,945 1,430,819 90.000 10,697,788 10,720,236 17,988,140 4,628,265 668,357 3,854,505 1,401,935 90,000 10,643,062 250,000 10,825,139 17,920,217 4,889,974 685,417 3,902,989 1,423,839 90,000 10,992,219 10,089,997 10,697,788 10,893, 062 10,992,219 $ 7,267,904 $ 6,960,527 $ 7,095,078 $ 6,927,998 Change in Fund Balance $ 65,770 $ (307,377) $ (172,826) $ (167,080) 1% -4% -2% -2% MAP Actual 1 Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 2015 2016 2016 2017 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 7,202,134 $ 7,267,904 $ 7,267,904 $ 7,095,078 7,634,715 452,616 749,570 804,684 99,304 63,709 154,239 9,958,837 8,113,528 346,205 673,248 767,950 100,750 75,000 116,800 10,193,481 8,113,528 533,660 707,868 869,900 95,750 65,000 137,600 10,523,306 8,420,354 367,705 766,150 773,950 100,750 75,000 124,300 10,628,209 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 10,155,767 17,357,901 4,191,455 575,178 3,824,655 1,298,709 9,889,997 200,000 10,390,411 17,658,315 4,623,992 692,032 3,860,945 1,430,819 90.000 10,697,788 10,720,236 17,988,140 4,628,265 668,357 3,854,505 1,401,935 90,000 10,643,062 250,000 10,825,139 17,920,217 4,889,974 685,417 3,902,989 1,423,839 90,000 10,992,219 10,089,997 10,697,788 10,893, 062 10,992,219 $ 7,267,904 $ 6,960,527 $ 7,095,078 $ 6,927,998 Change in Fund Balance $ 65,770 $ (307,377) $ (172,826) $ (167,080) 1% -4% -2% -2% MAP City of Andover Special Revenue Funds 2017 Budget Summary - All Special Revenue Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for Services Investment Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 607,404 $ 669,442 $ 669,442 $ 597,779 39,927 695,681 7,533 854,396 1,597,537 1,597,537 2,204,941 527,207 82,383 210,983 414,926 1,235,499 300,000 1,535,499 $ 669,442 40,000 37,500 671,700 7,500 805,500 1,562,200 1,562,200 2,231,642 483,086 85,570 256,035 481,597 56,000 1,362,288 378,398 1,740,686 $ 490,956 40,000 669,400 5,300 795,000 1,509,700 1,509,700 2,179,142 497,086 79,920 236,035 405,522 56,000 1,274,563 306,800 1,581,363 40,000 37,500 687,200 5,800 796,500 1,567,000 1,567,000 2,164,779 515,791 89,020 240,680 469,929 66,000 1,381,420 305,000 1,686,420 $ 597,779 $ 478,359 Change in Fund Balance $ 62,038 $ (178,486) $ (71,663) $ (119,420) 10% -27% -11% -20% 6 Actual 1 Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 2015 2016 2016 2017 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for Services Investment Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 607,404 $ 669,442 $ 669,442 $ 597,779 39,927 695,681 7,533 854,396 1,597,537 1,597,537 2,204,941 527,207 82,383 210,983 414,926 1,235,499 300,000 1,535,499 $ 669,442 40,000 37,500 671,700 7,500 805,500 1,562,200 1,562,200 2,231,642 483,086 85,570 256,035 481,597 56,000 1,362,288 378,398 1,740,686 $ 490,956 40,000 669,400 5,300 795,000 1,509,700 1,509,700 2,179,142 497,086 79,920 236,035 405,522 56,000 1,274,563 306,800 1,581,363 40,000 37,500 687,200 5,800 796,500 1,567,000 1,567,000 2,164,779 515,791 89,020 240,680 469,929 66,000 1,381,420 305,000 1,686,420 $ 597,779 $ 478,359 Change in Fund Balance $ 62,038 $ (178,486) $ (71,663) $ (119,420) 10% -27% -11% -20% 6 City of Andover Debt Service Funds 2017 Budget - All Debt Service Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Investment Income Total Revenues: Other Sources Operating Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Debt Service Principal Interest Other Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out $ 1,073,535 $ 1,217,300 $ 1,217,300 $ 1,308,862 2,134, 650 (1,287) 2,133, 363 2,100,413 2.000 2,102,413 2,100,413 (8,000) 2,092,413 1,610,047 1,610,047 300,000 Actual 1 1 Adopted Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 2015 2016 2016 2017 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Investment Income Total Revenues: Other Sources Operating Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Debt Service Principal Interest Other Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out $ 1,073,535 $ 1,217,300 $ 1,217,300 $ 1,308,862 2,134, 650 (1,287) 2,133, 363 2,100,413 2.000 2,102,413 2,100,413 (8,000) 2,092,413 1,610,047 1,610,047 300,000 376,860 311,417 300,000 2,433,363 2,479,273 2,403,830 1,910,047 3,506,898 3,696,573 3,621,130 3,218,909 1,765,000 470,687 5,009 2,240,696 M, Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 2,289,598 Fund Balance, December 31 $ 1,217,300 1,770,000 439,698 2,450 2,212,148 104,123 2,316,271 $ 1,380,302 Change in Fund Balance $ 143,765 $ 163,002 13% 13% 1,770,000 1,800,000 444,144 418,419 2.375 2,000 2,216,519 2,220,419 95,749 48,819 2,312,268 2,269,238 $ 1,308,862 $ 949,671 $ 91,562 $ (359,191) 8% -27% OC City of Andover Capital Projects Funds 2017 Budget Summary - All Capital Projects Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Tax Increments Special Assessments Intergovernmental Investment Income User Charges Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Bond Proceeds Proceeds from Sale of Capital Assets Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service - Principal Retirement Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 19,915,930 $ 22,165,776 $ 22,165,776 $ 21,033,420 1,338, 858 Actual Adopted Estimate Adopted Description 1 2015 1 2016 1 2016 1 2016 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Tax Increments Special Assessments Intergovernmental Investment Income User Charges Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Bond Proceeds Proceeds from Sale of Capital Assets Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service - Principal Retirement Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 19,915,930 $ 22,165,776 $ 22,165,776 $ 21,033,420 1,338, 858 1,415,984 1,415, 984 1,944,154 213,020 - 118,480 118,480 690,161 1,153,000 584,032 687,000 210,220 813,743 829,544 1,314,902 271,437 158,400 179,805 163,000 615,544 262,421 844,682 270,183 162,574 2,000 381,755 102,000 3,501,814 3,805,548 4,354,282 4,599,719 648,902 854,057 1,502,959 5,004,773 24,920,703 510,923 580,000 1,090,923 4,896,471 27,062,247 752,549 520,000 352,482 1,625,031 5,979,313 28,145,089 453,819 453,819 5,053,538 26,086,958 148,506 370,000 346,500 205,000 1,278,383 4,193,000 5,027,867 3,772,470 1,073,070 2,085,000 1,444,070 3,124,800 196,719 196,719 196,719 196,719 2,696,678 6,844,719 7,0151156 7,298,989 58,249 2,754,927 90,358 6,935,077 96,513 7,111,669 54,228 7,353,217 $ 22,165,776 $ 20,127,170 $ 21,033,420 $ 18,733,741 Change in Fund Balance $ 2,249,846 $ (2,038,606) $ (1,132,356) $ (2,299,679) 11% -9% -5% -11% 0Q, City of Andover Enterprise Funds 2017 Budget Summary - All Enterprise Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Net Assets Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Meters Permits Penalties Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out 9 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 6,225,766 $ 6,910,106 $ 6,910,106 $ 7,275,072 5,095,857 57,291 16,055 4,650 50,277 5,224,130 58,249 5,282,379 11,508,145 951,162 216,414 1,924,080 87,475 821,978 4,001,109 596,930 4,598,039 $ 6,910,106 Change in Unrestricted Net Assets $ 684,340 11% 4,912,500 56,000 13,000 3,500 16,000 67,000 5,068,000 85,096 5,153,096 12,063,202 1,000,820 289,200 2,192,448 833,101 4,315,569 596,930 4,912,499 $ 7,150,703 $ 240,597 3% 5,046,869 46,000 13,000 3,500 16,000 67,000 5,192,369 85,096 5,277,465 12,187,571 1,000,820 289,200 2,192,448 833,101 4,315,569 596,930 4,912,499 $ 7,275,072 $ 364,966 5% 5,119,626 46,000 13,000 16,000 67,000 5,261,626 54,228 5,315,854 12,590,926 1,025,217 308,200 2,273,323 260,000 828,751 4,695,491 596,930 5,292,421 $ 7,298,505 $ 23,433 0% ■ Actual 1 Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 2015 2016 2016 2017 Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Meters Permits Penalties Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out 9 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 6,225,766 $ 6,910,106 $ 6,910,106 $ 7,275,072 5,095,857 57,291 16,055 4,650 50,277 5,224,130 58,249 5,282,379 11,508,145 951,162 216,414 1,924,080 87,475 821,978 4,001,109 596,930 4,598,039 $ 6,910,106 Change in Unrestricted Net Assets $ 684,340 11% 4,912,500 56,000 13,000 3,500 16,000 67,000 5,068,000 85,096 5,153,096 12,063,202 1,000,820 289,200 2,192,448 833,101 4,315,569 596,930 4,912,499 $ 7,150,703 $ 240,597 3% 5,046,869 46,000 13,000 3,500 16,000 67,000 5,192,369 85,096 5,277,465 12,187,571 1,000,820 289,200 2,192,448 833,101 4,315,569 596,930 4,912,499 $ 7,275,072 $ 364,966 5% 5,119,626 46,000 13,000 16,000 67,000 5,261,626 54,228 5,315,854 12,590,926 1,025,217 308,200 2,273,323 260,000 828,751 4,695,491 596,930 5,292,421 $ 7,298,505 $ 23,433 0% ■ City of Andover Internal Service Funds 2017 Budget Summary - All Internal Service Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Unrestricted Net Assets Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures and Other Uses Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 613,684 $ 744,804 $ 744,804 $ 690,401 1,112,578 7,493 97,856 1,217,927 1,217,927 1,831,611 421,664 297,248 367,895 1,086,807 1,086,807 $ 744,804 Change in Unrestricted Net Assets $ 131,120 21% 1,111,844 1,500 1,113,344 1,113,344 1,858,148 419,835 388,010 360,122 1,167,967 1,167,967 $ 690,181 $ (54,623) -7% 1,119,764 3,800 1,123,564 1,123,564 1,868,368 419,835 388,010 370,122 1,177,967 1,177,967 $ 690,401 $ (54,403) -7% 1,158,507 3,000 1,161,507 1,161,507 1,851,908 442,639 404,160 360,672 1,207,471 1,207,471 $ 644,437 $ (45,964) -7% Actual 1 Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 —Description 2015 2016 2016 2017 Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures and Other Uses Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 613,684 $ 744,804 $ 744,804 $ 690,401 1,112,578 7,493 97,856 1,217,927 1,217,927 1,831,611 421,664 297,248 367,895 1,086,807 1,086,807 $ 744,804 Change in Unrestricted Net Assets $ 131,120 21% 1,111,844 1,500 1,113,344 1,113,344 1,858,148 419,835 388,010 360,122 1,167,967 1,167,967 $ 690,181 $ (54,623) -7% 1,119,764 3,800 1,123,564 1,123,564 1,868,368 419,835 388,010 370,122 1,177,967 1,177,967 $ 690,401 $ (54,403) -7% 1,158,507 3,000 1,161,507 1,161,507 1,851,908 442,639 404,160 360,672 1,207,471 1,207,471 $ 644,437 $ (45,964) -7% CITY ANDOVER General Fund Revenue & Expense Summary EXPENDITURES Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget* Estimate Requested* Budget Change(`) General Government 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 $ % REVENUES 3,960,221 4,087,065 4,311,340 4,498,920 4,503,332 4,694,001 4,691,451 4,862,558 168,557 3.59% Property Taxes $ 7,115,936 $ 7,340,532 $ 7,376,284 $ 7,476,295 $ 7,634,715 $ 8,113,528 $ 8,113,528 $ 8,420,354 306,826 3.78% License and Permits 387,206 449,826 536,707 364,430 452,616 346,205 533,660 367,705 21,500 6.21% Intergovernmental Revenues 566,706 653,720 710,071 697,491 749,570 673,248 707,868 766,150 92,902 13.80% Charges for Current Services 866,584 973,604 1,122,460 998,150 804,684 767,950 869,900 773,950 6,000 0.78% Fines and Forfeits 99,777 97,571 96,130 94,375 99,304 100,750 95,750 100,750 - 0.00% Interest Income 130,368 95,365 (17,096) 144,876 63,709 75,000 65,000 75,000 - 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 127,509 149,857 140,983 150,759 154,239 116,800 137,600 124,300 7,500 6.42% Transfers 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES 9,491016 9,957,405 10162,469 10123,306 10,155767 10,390,411 10720,236 10,825139 434,728 4.060/6 EXPENDITURES General Government 2,271,094 2,223,773 - 2,308,882 2,481,927 2,511,970 2,828,272 2,792,859 2,883,511 55,239 1.95% Public Safety 3,960,221 4,087,065 4,311,340 4,498,920 4,503,332 4,694,001 4,691,451 4,862,558 168,557 3.59% Public Works 2,451,850 2,482,490 2,759,342 2,819,372 2,817,981 3,105,187 3,088,424 3,175,822 70,635 2.27% Other 30,631 663,372 210,510 81,185 256,720 70,328 320,328 70,328 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,713,796 9,456700 9,590,074 9,881,404 10090,003 10,697,788 10,893,062 10992,219 294,431 2.75% UNDER OVER BUDGET $ 777,220 $ 500,705 $ 572,395 $ 241,902 $ 65,764 $ 307377 $ 172,826 $ 167,080 $ 140,297 11/14/2016 CITY OF ANDOVER Revenue Comparison -General Fund Actual Actual Actual REVENUES Budget Estimate Budget Property Taxes $ 7,376,284 $ 7,476,295 $ 7,634,715 $ 8,113,528 $ 8,113,528 $ 8,420,354 License and Permlts 536,707 364,430 452,616 346,205 533,560 367,705 Intergovernmental Revenues 710,071 697,491 749,570 673,248 707,868 765.150 Charges for Services 1,122,460 998,150 804,684 767,950 869,900 773,950 Fines and Forfeits 96,130 94,375 99,304 100,750 95,750 100,750 Interest income (17,096) 144,876 63,709 75,000 65,000 75,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 140,983 150,759 154.239 116,800 137,600 124,300 Transfers 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 196,930 TOTAL REVENUES $ 10,162,469 $ 10,123,306 S 10,155767 $ 10,390411 $ 10,720,236 5 10,825,139 City of Andover 2017 Revenue Comparison - General Fund Pr eny Taxes LicenSE 5 8 Permits n ergav'I Rev Char es for Svcs Fin 5 8 Forfeits ImE vst IncomeMisc. Rev Transfers -$2.00 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 510.00 Mons o Budget 2017 ■Estimate 2016 III[Actua12015 • Actual 2014 •Actua12073 C(� S City of Andover 2017 Revenue by Source - General Fund Transfers Misc, Rev Interest Income 2% 1% 1% Fines 8 Forfeits 1% Charges for Svcs 7% Intergov'I Rev 7% Licenses & Permits 3% Property Taxes 78% EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Public Works Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES Actual CITY OF ANDOVER Expenditure Comparison - General Fund Actual Actual 2014 2015 Budget Estimate Budget 2016 2016 2017 $ 2,308,882 24% $ 2,481,927 25% $ 2,511.970 25% $ 2,828,272 26% It 2,792,859 26% $ 2,883,511 26% 4,311,340 45% 4,498,920 46% 4,503,332 45% 4,694,001 44% 4,691,451 43% 4,862,558 44% 2,759,342 29% 2,819,372 29% 2,817,981 28% 3,105,187 29% 3,068,424 28% 3,175,822 29% 210,510 2% 81,185 1% 256,720 3% 70,328 1% 320,328 3% 70,328 1% $ 9,590,074 $ 9,881,404 $ 10,090,003 $ 10,697,788 $ 10,893,062 $ 10,992,219 City of Andover 2017 Expenditure Comparison - General Fund General Gov't Public Safety Public Warks Other au.uu s1.uu 5z.uu 2a.uu pn.uu sb.uu au.uu Millions OBudget 2017 MEslimate 2016 MActual 2015 11Ac1ua12014 aActua12013 City of Andover 2017 Expenditures by Function - General Fund General Gc 26% Other 1% Public Safety 44% clic Works 29% 161 CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Expenditure Budget Summary Totals - By Department Budget Year 2017 0 PUBLIC WORKS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget" Estimate Requested* Change (*) Streets and Highways 2011 .2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 $ % GENERAL GOVERNMENT 434,603 420,175 630,799 637,154 442,078 563,587 563,587 568,257 4,670 0.83% Mayor and Council $ 101,373 $ 83,622 $ 83,595 $ 84,650 $ 85,060 $ 88,780 $ 87,030 $ 89,991 1,211 1.36% Administration 135,523 140,048 147,503 169,218 172,296 192,778 191,364 199,541 6,763 3.51% Newsletter 22,897 22,336 17,677 20,974 21,042 26,000 24,650 26,000 0 0.00% Human Resources 31,855 12,485 17,907 18,038 15,908 35,260 32,685 27,913 (7,347) -20.84% Attorney 171,062 170,930 173,244 177,427 180,313 187,640 179,000 191,360 3,720 1.98% City Clerk 100,697 101,377 108,312 128,861 134,775 157,075 155,875 148,599 (8,476) -5.40% Elections 6,399 39,614 11,352 41,508 14,497 57,919 83,019 63,881 5,962 10.29% Finance 207,032 207,337 215,215 230,639 240,319 261,016 260,516 268,129 7,113 2.73% Assessing 143,693 143,338 144,561 145,051 146,315 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0.00% Information Services 142,964 136,025 135,982 146,984 131,744 173,483 169,233 175,722 2,239 1.29% Planning & Zoning 324,303 318,523 349,489 387,308 406,045 435,606 435,606 462,212 26,606 6.11% Engineering 413,818 427,339 452,788 460,872 464,843 509,514 509,514 535,715 26,201 5.14% Facility Management 469,478 420,799 451,257 470,397 498,813 553,201 514,367 544,448 (8,753) -1.58% Total General Gov 2,271,094 2,223,773 2,308,882 2,481,927 2,511,970 2,828,272 2,792,859 2 883 511 55,239 1.95% PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection 2,615,407 2,693,896 2,740,899 2,818,132 2,918,308 2,936,467 2,936,467 2,962,551 26,084 0.89% Fire Protection 974,988 1,015,825 1,126,979 1,264,018 1,165,223 1,284,795 1,284,795 1,422,522 137,727 10.72% Protective Inspection 342,437 354,753 423,495 390,908 391,951 441,807 441,807 446,688 4,881 1.10% Emergency Management 16,301 14,088 13,930 21,836 24,352 22,982 22,982 24,847 1,865 8.12% Animal Control 11,088 8,503 6,037 4,026 3,498 7,950 5,400 59950 (2,000) -25.16% PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 594,294 570,630 572,753 600,313 629,724 650,237 650,237 691,473 41,236 6.34% Snow and Ice Removal 434,603 420,175 630,799 637,154 442,078 563,587 563,587 568,257 4,670 0.83% Street Signs 175,833 170,200 162,861 187,935 204,495 204,193 204,193 215,244 11,051 5.41% Traffic Signals 26,569 27,457 26,241 34,901 30,170 35,000 35,000 37,000 2,000 5.71% Street Lighting 32,317 33,439 31,702 32,646 30,664 36,400 36,400 38,400 2,000 5.49% Street Lights - Billed 189,144 195,197 210,331 203,148 201,500 217,500 217,500 217,500 0 0.00% Park & Recreation 889,180 912,750 946,545 1,009,373 1,151,314 1,257,247 1,257,247 1,275,530 18,283 1.45% Natural Resource Preservatiot - - - - - 10,096 10,096 10,197 101 1.00% Recycling 109,910 152,642 178,110 113,902 _ 128,036 130,927 114,164 122,221 (8,706) -6.65% OTHER 30,631 663,372 210,510 81,185 256,720 70,328 320,328 70,328 0 0.00% Total Other 30,631 663,372 210,510 81,185 256,720 70,328 320,328 70,328 0 0.00% GRAND TOTAL $ 8,713,796 7 9,456,700 $ 9,590,074 $ 9,881,404 $ 10,090,003 $ 10,697,788 $ 10,893,062 $ 10,992,219 294,431 ' 2.75% ■ MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN ANOKA COUNTY Proposed 2017 City Tax Rate Comparison Munici alities Onl Hilltop 94.7 Centerville 69.564 Columbia Heights 8.267 Lexington 66. 36 Bethel 63.83 Circle Pines 59.441 St. Francis 54.19 Spring Lake Park 52.394 Columbus 50.221 a N Fridley 8.167 z 0 East Bethel 1 4 .136 U Lino Lakes 46. 07 Coon Rapids 44.16 Ramsey 42.404 Anoka 40.853 Andover 3 .328 Blaine 34.9 8 Linwood 31.744 Nowthen 26.390 Oak Grove 25.596 Ham Lake 25.555 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 100.000 TAX RATE ■ CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 Proposed Tax Rate Breakdown Other School District 4.08% 19.25% County 38.05% City 38.62% PERCENTAGES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO REFLECT 100% RATHER THAN ACTUAL AMOUNT OF 96.659%. Does not include voter approved referendum levy based on market value. Miscell 1 License & Permits 3% CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 General Fund Revenue Types Interaovernmental Fines & Forfeits Property Taxes 78% es ov, Publi 2£ CITY OF ANDOVER 2017 General Fund Expenditures by F Other General Government Public Safety 44.2% 9 M CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - General Government Expenditures Council Facility Mgmt Administration Newsletter 6.9% Ne00.9% Human Resources 18.9% 1.0% Attorney City Clerk 5.2% Elections 2.2% Finance 9.3% Engineering 18.6% Assessing Planning & Zoning 5.2% 16.0% Information Systems 6.1% Fire Protection 29.3% CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Public Safety Expenditures .. Cmcrncnnv RAonon .m + Animal (:nntml 60.9% L� CITY OF ANDOVER Natural Resource General Fund - Public Works Expenditures Preservation Recycling 0.3% 3.8% Parks & Recreation 40.2%— Streets 0.2%_ Streets & Highm 21.8% '-,—Street Signs Street Lights - BilledTraffic Signals 6.8% 6.8% Street Lighting 1.2% 1.2% Snow & Ice 17.9% 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 October 2016 General Fund Budget Progress Report November 29, 2016 INTRODUCTION The City of Andover 2016 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $10,390,411 and total expenditures of $11,003,788 (includes $56,000 of 2015 budget carry forwards primarily for elections and facility management and a Council approved $250,000 transfer to the Trail Fund ); a decrease in fund balance is planned. Monthly reporting of the City Budget progress to the Goveming 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 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, CA- . Dickinson CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Budget Summary Totals Budget Year 2016 2015 1 2016 REVENUES Budget Oct YTD %Bud YE Budget Oct YTD %Bud General Property Tax $ 7,706,892 $ 3,985,563 52% $ 7,634,714 $ 8,113,528 $ 4,226,438 52% Licenses and Permits 316,588 367,110 116% 452,422 346,205 508,999 147% Intergovernmental 633,015 699,378 110% 749,570 673,248 665,483 99% Charges for Services 748,550 690,345 92% 804,228 767,950 737,929 96% Fines 100,750 82,270 82% 99,304 100,750 72,255 72% Investment Income 75,000 28,225 38% 63,709 75,000 28,249 38% Miscellaneous 98,850 140,065 142% 154,890 116,800 145,182 124% Transfers In 196,930 196,930 100% 196,930 196,930 196,930 100% Total Revenues S 9,876,575 $ 6,189,886 63% $ 10,155767 S 10,390,411 S 6,581,465 63% Total Expenditures $ 10,364,730 $ 8,667,101 84% S 10,089,997 $ 11,003,788 $ 9,265,590 84% NET INCREASE (DECREASE) S (488,155) $ (2,477,215) $ 65,770 S (613,377) S (2,684,125) 2015 2016 EXPENDITURES Budget Oct YTD %Bud YE Budget Oct YTD %Bud GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 87,154 $ 76,152 87% $ 85,061 $ 88,780 $ 75,596 85% Administration 180,888 141,463 78% 172,296 192,778 154,114 80% Newsletter 26,000 19,216 74% 21,042 26,000 19,255 74% Human Resources 40,156 14,545 36% 15,909 35,260 14,639 42% Attorney 182,000 139,517 77% 180,313 187,640 138,717 74% City Clerk 135,359 116,374 86% 134,776 157,075 123,650 79% Elections 57,492 13,044 23% 14,496 82,919 44,413 54% Finance 239,981 202,550 84% 240,317 261,016 211,920 81% Assessing 150,000 143,431 96% 146,315 150,000 143,883 96% Information Services 172,239 110,301 64% 131,745 173,483 123,906 71% Planning & Zoning 412,937 327,662 79% 406,045 435,606 345,260 79% Engineering 470,631 384,508 82% 464,842 509,514 420,678 83% Facility Management 579,802 366,908 63% 498,813 568,201 335,871 59% Total General Gov 2,734,639 290559671 75% 2,511,970 298689272 291519902 75% PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection 2,918,308 29918,308 100% 2,918,308 29936,467 2,936,467 100% Fire Protection 1,192,330 993,461 83% 1,165,221 1,294,795 1,097,276 85% Protective Inspection 423,161 319,023 75% 391,948 441,807 334,497 76% Civil Defense 39,189 23,037 59% 24,352 22,982 16,090 70% Animal Control 9,950 2,875 29% 3,498 7,950 2,447 31% Total Public Safety 4,582,938 4,256,704 93% 4,503,327 4,704,001 4386,777 93% PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 625,664 536,185 86% 629,724 656,237 610,197 93% Snow and Ice Removal 539,770 356,021 66% 442,077 563,587 384,572 68% Street Signs 203,533 175,935 86% 204,494 204,193 134,714 66% Traffic Signals 35,000 21,771 62% 30,169 35,000 18,913 54% Street Lighting 36,400 23,016 63% 30,664 36,400 28,254 78% Street Lights - Billed 216,000 151,970 70% 201,501 217,500 148,564 68% Park & Recreation 1,185,338 952,188 80% 1,151,313 19257,247 1,017,282 81% Natural Resource Preservation - - 0% - 10,096 50 0% Recycling 135,120 105,947 78% 128,038 130,927 101,758 78% Total Public Works 2,976,825 2,323,033 78% 2,817,980 3,1119187 2,444,304 79% OTHER Miscellaneous 31,728 15,693 49% 221,478 281,728 258,107 92% Youth Services 38,660 16,000 41% 35,242 38,600 24,500 63% Total Other 70,328 31,693 45% 256,720 320328 282,607 88% Total Expenditures $ 10,364,730 $ 8,667,101 84% S 10,089,997 $ 11,003,788 $ 9,265,590 84% NET INCREASE (DECREASE) S (488,155) $ (2,477,215) $ 65,770 S (613,377) S (2,684,125) 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 October 2016 City Investments Review November 29, 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 October 2016, the October 2016 Investment Detail Report, and the October 2016 Money Market Funds Report. These attachments are intended to assist with discussion when reviewing the October 2016 investments. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to review and provide feedback to staff. s%tfully submitted, Dickinson Investment Maturities - October 2016 Maturities (in Years) Credit Fair Less Than Credit Fair Less Than More Than Investment Type Rating Value 1 1 - 5 6-10 10 Money market funds N/A $ 1,611,651 $ 1,611,651 $ - $ - $ - MN Municipal Money Market Fund (4M) N/A 5,000 5,000 Premier Banks Money Market Fund N/A 260,704 260,704 Certificates of deposit FDIC 11,435,562 7,377,372 4,058,190 - - Local governments A/Al/A2 1,065,476 383,542 514,716 61,757 105,461 AAI/AA2/AA3 7,596,960 1,261,266 4,525,807 1,277,196 532,692 AAA 3,298,439 408,591 2,462,299 427,548 - - 224,174 - - State governments A/Al/A2 - - - AAl/AA2/AA3 2,594,634 832,381 1,538,080 AAA 400,649 202,166 .198,483 - - U.S. agencies AAA 4,013,597 1,081,162 2,805,026 - 127,409 FNMA REMIC N/A 3,931 - 3,931 - - U.S. agencies N/A 1,455,798495,905 959,893 - - Total investments $ 33,742,400 $ 13,919,739 $ 17,066,424 $ 1,990,675 $ 765,562 Deposits 2,241,879 Total cash and investments $ 35,984,279 October 2016 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit RatinglF DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity/ Due Date Bank of Bridger NA 06424WGH1 3495FTAE9 05961SGX6 2224 _ _ 34401 35498 CD CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.500% 245,002.45 245,002.45 245,017.15 maturity 08/11/16 08/12/16 none none none 11/10/16 _ Fortis Private Bank 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.500% 0.450% 0.700% 0.750% maturity 11/14/16 Banc of Calif NA Irvine CD maturity 07/15116 12115/16 TCF National Bank 872278RE8 28330 34697 33202 33204 CD CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,039.68 248,042.16 245,000.00 maturity 12/16/15 none 12116116 12/16/16 12/16/16 12/16/16 Wex Bank 92937CDJ4 2055214401 248,000.00 248,000.00 245,000.00 248,000.00 maturity 12/16/15 none 1 Year CD -Premier Bank Rochester CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.600% maturity 12/16/15 none 1 Year CD -Premier Bank MN 3041574901 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.600% 245,000.00 maturity 12/16/15 none 1 Year CD - Premier Bank 1091003210 21714 CD 250,000.00 250,000.00 250.000.00 0.600% 250,000.00 maturity 12/16115 none 12/16/16 Community First Bk 20368VAH8 7953 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.550% 245,024.50 maturity 06117116 none 12119/16 First Niagara Bk Nall Assn 33583CVP1 16004 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.550% 245,024.50 maturity 06/17/16 none 12/19/16 Cardinal Bank NA 14147VGB6 X733 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.500% 245,029.40 maturity 06/29/16 none 12/29/16 Beal Bk _ Georgia Bank & Trust Sterling Bank of Poplar Bluff _ ZB NA Bank of India NY Everbank BMO Harris Bank NA Discover Bk Greenwood Del _ Whitney Bk New Orleans LA First State Community Bank Homestreet Bank TCM Bank Amex Centurion Bank CIT Bank NA Bank of America Capital One NA 07370T2G7 32574 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.600% 0.600% 0.600% 0.550% 0.600% 0.600% 0.600% 245,051.45 245,036.75 245,031.85 244,982.85 245,029.40 245,056.35 244,955.90 245,056.35 maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity maturity 07/06116 07/08/16 07/08/16 08/09/16 07/18/16 07/14/16 07/15/16 07/13/16 01/27/16 05/27/16 05/27/16 05131116 none 01104/17 373128FV4 27574 CD 245,000.00 none 01/09/17 85916VAW5 _ 57813 2270 33648 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 none none none none none none none 06/27/16 01/09117 01/09117 01/11/17 01112117 01/13117 01113117 01/27/17 02/27/17 02127/17 98878BDF2 06279HNB5 CD CD 245,000.00 29976DN97 34775_ _ _16571 5649 12441 17323 32489 34535 27471 58978 3510_ 4297 CD 245,000.00 05581WHK4 254672664 966594AP8 33708UBZ1 437850HZ9 872308CB5 02587DE61 12556LAA4 06051 VZY5 14042E400 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.600% CD CD CD CD CD CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 248,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 248,000.00 245,000.00 0.850% 0.500% 0.500% 0.650% 0.900% 0.650% 0.700% 1.150% 247,242.06 245,071.05 245,078.40 245,117.60 248,409.20 245,249.90 245,000.00 245.000.00 245,000.00 248.000.00 06/27/16 none 03/31/17 04/28117 05/31/17 semi-annual 10/28/15 04/28/16 245,000.00 245,000.00 maturity 05/31/16 none CD 245,000.00 245,237.65 maturity 06/02/16 none 06/02/17 CD 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,000.00 248,686.96 semi-annual 07/15/15 01/15/16 07117/17 Investors Savings Bank 46176PFF7 58733ADB2 _ 28892 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 _0.650%° 0.900% _1.050% 6.217% 4.000% 5.250% 2.000% 245,264.60 maturity 07/21/16 none 07/21/17 Mercantil CommerceBank _ Farmers & Merohants Svgs Bk _ North Carolina Eas_tn Mun Pwr 22953 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,271.95 semi-annual 07/12/16 12/29/16 09/29/17 30856PAG1 6581961.124 9298 A3 _ A3 A3 AA CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 250,359.54 monthly 01/22/16 02/22/16 10/23/17 local 323,218.40 323,218.40 310,000.00 312,687.70 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 03/16/16 06/28/16 03/07/12 07/01/08 none 01/01/17 02/15/17 Kaufman TX Augusta ME Chaska MN 486206KKO 61,128.00 61,128.00 60,000.00 60,500.40 10,354.00 75,088.50 051411ND4 _local 11,250.00 11,250.00 10,000.00 none 06/01/14 10/01/17 12/01/16 161664DU8 _local local 76,434.00 76,434.00 75,000.00 08/15/13 North Mankato MN Port Auth Com 660760AG4 AA local 107,657.00 107,657.00 100,000.00 4.000% 100,643.00 semi-annual 09/10113 none 02/01117 Philadelphia PA Auth Zero Coupon 71781LBJ7 AA local 161,700.00 161,700.00 245,000.00 243,530.00 25,321.25 maturity 01/12/10 none 04/15/17 Osseo MN ISD#279 688443,127 AA1 local 30,103.25 30,103.25 25,000.00 6.000% semi-annual 12/22111 none 02/01/17 McKinney TX 581646Y91 AA1 local 126,856.25 126,856.25 125,000.00 1.472% 3.750% 125,576.25 85,305.15 semi-annual 05/20115 none 08115/17 Burlington Cnty NJ 1216374H2 AA2 local 86,387.20 86,387.20 85,000.00 semi-annual 05/10/16 none 12/15/16 Buffalo MN ISO #877 119655PSI AA2 local 264,250.00 264,250.00 250,000.00 4.050% 252.042.50 semi-annual 03/10115 none 02/01/17 Waterloo IA 941647KEB AA2 local 105,594.00 105,594.00 100,000.00 3.500% 101,454.00 semi-annual 02124115 none 06/01/17 Tucson AZ 898711033 AA3 local 254,202.50 254,202.50 250,000.00 2.139% 252,305.00 semi-annual 12/09/15 none 07/01/17 7,377,372.10 CD October 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 Maple Grove MN Ramsey Cnty_MN _ Tennessee Valley_Auth 56516PNY5 AAA local 230,520.40 230,520.40 100,000.00 220,000.00 100,000.00 2.000% 1.130% 5.500% 220,631.40 100,060.00 semi-annual 01/10/13 08/01/13 02101/17 AAA local local 100,000.00 semi-annual 08112114 02/01/15 01/18/08 02/01117 _751622JG7 880591EA6 AAA 93,153.11 93,153.11 85,000.00 87,899.35 semi-annual 06/01109 07/18117 Minnesota St 604129F92 AA1 state 811,520.00 811,520.00 800,000.00 2.000% 807,368.00 semi-annual 07/05116 none 08/01117 Mississippi State 605581BV8 AA2 state 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 1.116% 25,012.50 semi-annual 09/12/13 none 12/01/16 _ Tennessee State 880541QM2 AAA state 201,894.00 201,894.00 200,000.00 2.326% 202,166.00 semi-annual 10/26/11 02/01112 06101117 Fed Nall Mtg Assn 3136GiYP8 AAA US 130,130.00 130,130.00 130,000.00 130,124.80 semi-annual 07/08/15 none 12130/16 Fanner Mac 31315PZV4 AAA US 200,584.00 200,584.00 200,000.00 _0.800% 1.140% 200,432.00 semi-annual 03/21/16 08/03112 02/03/17 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EE6A3 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.590% 200,112.00 semi-annual 12/09/15 02/06/16 02/06/17 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EATEB AAA US 99,647.00 99,647.00 100,000.00 0.900% 100,176.00 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual maturity 11/04/13 12/08/15 12/08/12 03/18/13 06/08/17 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133ECA95 AAA US 199,800.00 199,800.00 200,000.00 0.790% 200,000.00_ 250,317.50 09/18/17 Fed Home Ln Bank_ 3130A15P9 AAA US _ US US -- CD 251,187.50 295,932.00 194,572.00 251,187.50 250,000.00 1.000% 07/08/16 none none none 09/26/17 10/06/17 _ FICO Strip Prin Zero Coupon 31771KAC1 295,932.00 194,572.00 - 150,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 249,000.00 247,000.00 128,000.00 300,000.00 200,000.00 297,543.00 198,362.00 10/23/15 03116115 FICO Strip Pm -4 Zero Coupon - 31771 EAD3 maturity 10/06/17 91944RAE8 140420ZQ6 150,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245.000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 - 12,042,384.40 monthly semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual quarterly semi-annual semi-annual monthly semi-annual 01/22/15 01/13117 01113/17 07/22/16 12/30/16 01/02/15 12/22/17 07113118 07/13/18 01/22/19 07/01/19 Valley Cent Svgs Bk Reading OH Capital One Bank (USA) 28555 150,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245.000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 1.250% 0.900% 0.850% 1.600% 1.200% 2.050% 2.050% 1.100% 2.000% 2.050% 1.500% 2.000% 2.000% 2.050% 1.000% 2.000% 2.100% 2.750% 150,799.50 245,372.40 245,578.20 248,243.80 245,727.65 253,034.21 253,007.04 245,404.25 253,056.44 12122114 07/13/16 07/13/16 01/22/16 06/30/16 07/03/14 33954 CD Key Bank National Association BMW Bank of North America Ally Bank Midvale Utah Barclays Bank Synchrony Bank JP Morgan Chase Bank NA _ PrivateBank 8 Trust Co 49306SWQ5 05580ADR2 02006LF32 06740KHB6 87164WBT4 48125Y51.4 _74267GUQ8 17534 CD 35141 CD CD CD CD CD 57803 57203 _27314 628 07/02/19 07/11/14 01111115 10/15/16 01/21/15 07/11/19 07115119 07115/16 33306 CD 247,000.00 07/21/14 07/23/14 01/21/16 07/22/19 Goldman Sachs Bank USA _ First Federal Svgs Bk _ Victory Bank _38147JU59 33124 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 249,000.00 247,000.00 252,789.68 255,426.69 253,300.97 01/23/15 02/21/16 03/24/15 07/23119 08/21/19 32021YCH4 29690 CD 249,000.00 92644LAB8 58615 CD 247,000.00 09/24/14 11124114 09124/19 Third Federal Sa_v 8 Loan 88413QAW8 30012 CD 128,000.00 128,000.00 131,756.80 semi-annual 05/24/15 11125/19 Celtic Bank_ Steams Bank NA Citizens Alliance Bank Enerbank USA Elbow Lake MN _ 15118RJMO 57056 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 255,457.28 semi-annual 12/20/13 06/20114 12120/19 857894PB9 10988 _ CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 254,407.53 semi-annual 12/26114 06126115 12/26/19 17318LAP9 1402 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 258,093.48 256.733.94 171,223.80 monthly 06/27/14 07/18/14 07127114 06/26/20 29266NA31 284281 KC5 57293 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 monthly 07/20/20 12/01/19 A local 170,045.70 170,045.70 165,000.00 _ semi-annual 12/08/14 _08118/14 none Oshkosh Wis Storm Wb LIU 68825RBD1 Al local 101,003.00 101,003.00 100,000.00 3.250% 100,000.00 semi-annual 10/05110 05/01/11 05/01118 Oneida County NY _ _ Junction City Kansas 6824543R2 Al local 68,632.80 68,632.80 60,000.00 6.250% 63,827.40 semi-annual 08116/10 none 03/01/09 04/15119 09/01/18 481502F72 A2 local 101,558.00 101,558.00 100,000.00 5.500% 107,374.00 semi-annual 05/28/08 Kaufman TX 486206KL8 A3 local 72,922.50 72,922.50 70,000.00 4.000% 72,290.40 semi-annual _ 06/28116_ 02/15/17 02/15/18 Farmington MN _ 311297W84 AA local 102,787.00 102,787.00 100,000.00 2.000% 102,293.00 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 07106/16 none none 06/01112 02/01119 Rice Cnty MN 762698GK8 AA local 45,466.80 45,466.80 40,000.00 4.400°h 42,844.40 03107112 02/01119 06/01/18 Racine Wl 7500216D4 AA- local 101,792.00 101,792.00 100,000.00 2.1000k 101,480.00 01124/12 Minnetrista MN 604229KE3 AA+ kcal 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 2.450% 10,011.90 semi-annual 10/10/13 08/01114 02/01/19 2,053,398.50 local 1,034,546.50 state 1,577,067.30 US Less Than 1 Year 4,058,189.86 CD October 2016 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity/ Due Date Ramsey MN Rothsay MN ISD #_850 Steams Cc MN _ _ Minnebista MN Greenway MN ISD #31 Dane County WI _ Minneapolis MN 751813PB6_local 778731AZ2 857896MH4 604229KG8 39678LDF6 236091M92 60374YF93 I local local local 158,677.85 206,640.25 276,875.00 161,038.40 158,677.85 145,000.00 4.500% 3.000% 4.500% 145,417.60 semi-annual semi-annual 02/16/12 04/01/16 none none 04/01/19 208,640.25 276,875.00 195,000.00 250,000.00 207,201.15 264,217.50 07/06/16 04/17/13 02/01/20 semi-annual 06/01120 161,038.40 160,000.00 3.100% 160,208.00 semi-annual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01/21 + local 27,593.50 27,593.50 25,000.00 5.000% 27,071.50 semi-annual 07/09/13 none 03/15/21 W local 106,487.00 106,487.00 100,000.00 2.450% 101,529.00 semi-annual 07/16112 none 12101117 AA1 local 220,938.00 220,938.00 200,000.00 4.000% 208,288.00 semi-annual 03104/14 none 03/01/18 _ _ Scott County IA 809486EZ2 W local 114,450.33 112,617.00 100,000.00 4.400% 103,784.00 semi-annual 10/31/12 12/01/12 06/01/18 King Cnty WA 49474E3L5 AA1 local 224,634.00 224,634.00 200,000.00 3.980% 211.064.00 semi-annual 03/27/12 none 12/01/18 Minneapolis MN _ _ Cedar Rapids IA _ Minneapolis MN Hampton VA _ _ Middleton Wl _ Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col Regl Tmnsprtn Dist, Denver Prior Lake MN Hopkins Minn SO #270 AA1 kcal kcal 111,898.00 217,672.00 111,898.00 100,000.00 _3.250% 3.000% 104,786.00 208,850.00 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual maturity semi-annual semi-annual 06/05/12 06/11/13 12/01/11 12/01113 12/01/18 _60374YS73 150528RM1 60374YS81 AA1 217,672.00 200,000.00 06/01119 12101119 04/01120 AA1 local 278,632.50 278,632.50 100,836.00 106,979.00 50,606.00 254,312.50 250,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 3.500% 2.209% 3.750% 2.450% 2.000% 266,475.00 102,268.00 104,578.00 02/26113 01/20/16 02/24/15 none none none 12/01/14 11/01/13 12/15/15 08/01/09 02/01/17 02/01/11 12/01/13 04/01/12 02101114 none none none none 4095582,11 596782RX2_ 2500971121 759136RR7 742617CB7 439881HCO AA1 local local 100,836.00 106,979.00 50,606.00 254,312.50 230,000.00 AA1 09/01120 AA1 local local local 50,000.00 52,211.50 11/10/14 06/01121 AA2 AA2 250,000.00 252,320.00 07/12/16 05/14115 04130112 08/04116 08/05/10 06/27/13 08/16111 11/01117 12/15/17 02/01118 02/01/18 02/01/19 06/01/19 10/01/19 02/01120 05101/20 12/01/18 02/01120 06101/20 230,000.00 95,278.40 115,511.00 241,689.60 50,559.50 100,000.00 286268.00 108,967.10 157,328.00 230,000.00 1.000% 5.250% 4.000% 4.400% 2.000% 3.150% 2.400% 1.740% 3.800% 4.650% 230,057.50 84,019.20 AA2 local 95,278.40 115,511.00 241,689.60 50,559.50 100,000.00 286,268.00 108,967.10 157,328.00 80,000.00 Orono MN ISO Q78 Orange Beach ALA Waterloo IA Western Lake Superior MN Portsmouth VA Brunswick Only Kane McHenry -Cook & De Kalb Zero Cpn Moorhead MN _ Davenportlowa 687136LA7 68406PHF1 941647PA1 958522WU4 73723RSL8 117061VH1 AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 local local kcal local local local local 110,000.00 240,000.00 114,330.70 251,680.80 50,000.00 100,000.00 295,000.00 110,000.00 50,877.50 104,749.00 303,307.20 111,211.10 192,294.00 07/17/13 08/21/15 AA3 200,000.00 07/16112 11/14/11 09/13111 _484080MB9 AA3 local 108,820.00 108,820.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 102,438.00 101,996.00 _6161412R7 236388GS5 AA3 local 111,948.00 111,948.00 _ Whitewater Wis 966204KA6 AA3 local 109,541.00 115,000.00 112,114.00 109,541.00 115,000.00 112,114.00 100,000.00 115,000.00 4.850% 3.750% 111,947.00 semi-annual semi-annual 06/09/11 none 12/01/20 01/01/18 02/01/18 08115118 02/01/19 Washington County MN 937791KL4 AAA local _local local local 117.240.20 07/01110 01/01/11 Saint Louis Park MN _ Brownsville TX ISD Zero Coupon Minnetonka MN ISD #276 791740WC3 116421E46 AAA 100,000.00 3.850% 103,394.00 semi-annual maturity semi-annual 12/22/11 none none none AAA 229,640.00 37,433.20 229,640.00 250,000.00 3.100% 244,727.50 06/26/13 _ 604195RA7 AAA 37,433.20 35,000.00 36,194.20 12/22/11 Palm Beach Cnty FLA 696497TR7 AAA local 256,504.60 256,504.60 220,000.00 5.898% 235,371.40 semi-annual 07/06/11 none 06/01/19 06115/19 _ Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn 88059EWZ3 AAA local 262,890.00 262,890.00 300,000.00 288,696.00 maturity 12/27113 _ none Norwalk Conn 668844DS9 AAA local 122,464.80 122,464.80 366,832.80 120,000.00 360,000.00 4.050% 3.263% 125,913.60 semi-annual 08104110 _ 08/01/11 08/01/19 10/01/19 02/01/20 02/15/20 05/01120 Greensboro NC 39546OV21 AAA _local local 366,832.80 377,200.80 semi-annual 07115111 none Woodbury MN 97913PCQ7 AAA 123,037.35 123,037.35 115,000.00 3.250% 119,164.15 semi-annual 12/22/11 none Dallas TX Indpl Sch Dist 2353DBQK2 AAA local 116,900.00 116,900.00 100,000.00 4.450% 109,086.00 semi-annual 04/16/12 03/11/13 08/15/11 none Tenn Valley Auth Zero Cpn 88059EHD9 AAA local 263,970.00 263,970.00 300,000.00 284,196.00 maturity Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn 88059EMX9 _ AAA local 88,133.00 88,133.00 100,000.00 94,154.00 maturity 03/18/13 none 07115120 McAllen TX Dev Carp 579086AW9 AAA local 175,000.00 175,000.00 175,000.00 1.400% 174,279.00 semi-annual 07126/16 02/15/17 08/15120 Baltimore Cnty MD 05914FME7 AAA local 51,290.00 51,290.00 50,000.00 2.0971Y. 50,959.50 semi-annual 08/31/16 none 08/01121 October 2016 Investment Detail Description Number Credit Cred Rating/F DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity Due Date New York St Mtge Agy Washington State Massachusetts State New Hampshire St Hsg New Hampshire St Hsg Kansas St Dev Fin Auth Florida St Hurricane Minnesota St Colleges & Univ 64988RHGO 93975801.9 AAA_ AA_ local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 2.375% 101,723.00 semi-annual 10/27/15 04/01/16 10/01/21 10/01/18 state 205,804.00 199,744.00 205,804.00 199,744.00 200,000.00 4.500% 2.090% 1.789% 1.939% 1.877% 2.995% 2.000% 209,564.00 204,584.00 221,265.00 121,002.00 181,368.00 281,199.60 semi-annual 01/24/12 12/17/14 04/01/12 57582P2T6 _ AA1 State 200,000.00 semi-annual 11/01/14 05/01/20 64469DWUl _ AA2 state 220,838.20 220,838.20 220,000.00 semi-annual 12/09/15 07/01/16 01/01/18 64469DWV9 AA2 state 120,715.20 120,715.20 120,000.00 semi-annual 12/09/15 07/01/16 07101/18 485429X90 AA3 state 182,743.20 182,743.20 279,439.80 180,000.00 semi-annual 07/12/16 none 04/15118 34074GDH4 AA3 state 279,439.80 270,000.00 semi-annual 11/10/15 07101113 07/01/20 60414FPJ3 AA3 state 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 101,607.00 semi-annual 02/26/15 10/01/15 10/01/20 Connecticut Slate 20772JQN5 AA3 state 214,954.00 214,954.00 200,000.00 3.517% 217,490.00 semi-annual 05/27116 02/15/14 08/15/21 Georgia State 373384ROl 882722,151 AAA AAA state 26,742.50 26,742.50 25,000.00 2.970% 2.894% 3.178% 4.100% 0.930% 1.200% 5.050% 1.080% 1.250%e 1.050% 1.300% 1.500% 1.000% 4.500% 25,877.00 103,538.00 47,728.80 21,339.40 249,655.00 200,808.00 semi-annual semi-annual 02/08/12 08/10/11 none 04/01/12 10/01/18 _ Texas State Tennessee State Virginia State state 103,089.00 103,089.00 100,000.00 10/01/18 880541 QQ3 AAA AAA AAA AAA_ AAA_ AAA AAA state 48,218.85 48,218.85 45,000.00 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 08/30/16 02/07/12 05/25/16 07/30/12 09/11/13 10130112 01/07/13 08/23/16 07/22/15 05/25/16 11/02/15 07/22/15 10/28/16 02/01/12 none 08/01/20 06101121 928109XD4 3133EFJMO state 22,126.00 22,126.00 249,750.00 200,000.00 114,000.00 20,000.00 Fed Farm Credit Bank US 249,750.00 250,000.00 04/13/16 04113118 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Mad Term Note Fed Farm Credit Bank 3134G3ZK9 US 200,000.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 semi-annual 01130113 none 01/30/13 03/04/13 11/23/16 none 11/25/16 none 07/30/18 _ 31331Y4S6 US 114,000.00 107,017.00 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual quarterly maturity semi-annual maturity semi-annual semi-annual monthly 08/01/18 01/30/19 03/04/19 08/23/19 10/15/19 11/25/19 11/29/19 02/10/20 11/30/20 08/25/18 11/02/17 05/11/18 06/15118 _ Fed Nall Mtg Assn 3136GOY70 US 199,300.00 199,300.00 99,587.00 200,000.00 185,568.00 199,600.00 950,527.00 99,500.00 300,132.60 3,939.07 215,452.16 529,947.00 2,398.57 93,140.00 200,000.00 200,384.00 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EC5N0 US 99,587.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 198,836.00 192,954.00 199,320.00 955,800.00 100,132.00 300,120.00 3,931.35 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note RFCSP Strip Principal Zero Coupon Fed Fame Credit Bank Fed Home Ln Mlg Corp Zero Cpn Fed Home Ln Bank Fed Home Ln Bank Fed Not Mill Assn Remic _ FICO Strip Cpn-E Zero Coupon FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon ___31771 Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp 3134G96U6 76116FAA5 3133EGBKO 31340OBV4 3130A3XL3 313OA6RE9 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA US US US US US US 200,000.00 185,568.00 199,600.00 950,527.00 99,500.00 300,132.60 204,187.50 200,000.00 200,000.00 1,000,000.00 100,000.00 300,000.00 3,858.27 08/10/15 05/31/16 31393EAL3 US 07/30/03 none 31771JXM7 _ _ _ A3 US 215,452.16 224,000.00 221,639.04 540,930.50 2,385.28 97,915.00 97,023.00 17,066,424.33 maturity maturity 12/11/14 06109114 none none EAA9 US 529,947.00 550,000.00 31393VMQI US 153,656.25 2,341.49 4.500% 3.000% 4.000% 6.000% monthly 06/30/03 FICO Strip cpn13 Zero coupon 31771C2G9 US 93,140.00 100,000.00 maturity 12/29/14 none 12/27/18 FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon 31358BAA6 486206KR5 US 94,480.00 94,480.00 61,821.00 100,000.00 maturity 04/17/15 none 02/01/19 02/15/23 02/01/24 60,000.00 110,000.00 Kaufman TX local 61,821.00 61,756.80 semi-annual semi-annual 06/28/16 09108114 02/15/17 Chaska MN 161663653 AA local 115,122.70 115.122.70 116.702.00 _ 115,493.40 none Mitchell SO Sch Dist #17-2 606687EHO _ AA local 116,702.00 100,000.00 109,018.00 semi-annual 12120/11 06/15/19 06115124 Minneuista MN 604229KJ2 AA+ local 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 3.850% 40,058.40 semi-annual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01/23 Savage Minn 80465PAN4 _ _ AA+ AA+ local 198,018.00 198,018.00 200,000.00 4.800% 209,794.00 semi-annual 06/17/10 02101111 02/01/24 02/01/25 Lake City Minn ISD #813 508084DW7 local 103,933.00 103,933.00 100,000.00 5.000% 105,946.00 semi-annual 05/11/11 none Minneapolis MN 60374YG68 AAI local 110,419.00 110,419.00 100,000.00 4.700% 107,099.00 semi-annual 10/31/11 none 03/01123 Minneapolis MN 60374YG76 AAI local 72,201.35 72,201.35 65,000.00 4.800% 69,635.80 semi-annual 12/09/14 none 03/01/24 Alexandria MN ISD#206 015131LQ6 AA2 local 279,760.50 279,760.50 270,000.00 3.000% 284,682.60 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%1 29,925.30 semi-annual 12/05112 08/01/13 02/01/25 7,502,821.50 local 1,736,562.80 state 3,768,850.17 US 1- 5 Years October 2016 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit RatinglF DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity/ Due Date W Palm Beach FL 955116BE7 420218PL7 199492CS6 AA3 local local 101,245.00 111,480.00 39,956.40 1012245.00 100,000.00 2.264% 4.800% 2.133% 6.750% 100,713.00 104,830.00 40,614.40 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 07/05116 10/01116 none none none none 10/01/22 Hawkins Cnty TN _ _ Columbus OH Tennessee Valley Aulh Ser E _ AA3 111,480.00 39,956.40 121,500.00 100,000.00 03/13/12 02/20/15 03/19/09 05/01/24 AAA local 40,000.00 100,000.00 12/01/21 AAA local 121,500.00 136,934.00 11/01/25 _ Ice Deposit - National Sports Center Florida St Dept Environmental _880591CJ9 none local 250,000.00 250,000.00 217,800.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 maturity 02/06/08 01/01/26 34160WUA0 AA3 state 217,800.00 200,000.00 6.206% 224,174.00 seml-annual 08/30/10 07/01/10 07/01122 1,990,674.70 5.550% 5.650% 6.430% 5.250% 105,461.00 Itasca County Minn 465452GP9 A kcal 105,024.00 105,024.00 100,000.00 07/12/11 none 02/01/28 _ Milaca Minn ISO #912 _ _ Van Buren Mich Public Schools _598699NT9_ 920729HD5 9690780M9 AA+ local 106,941.00 106,941.00 100,000.00 108,472.00 110,750.00 313,470.00 _semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual maturity semi-annual 07/22/11 07/17/09 08/25/09 02/26/10 none 11/01/09 none none 02/01/27 AA1 local 102,750.00 159,000.00 106,030.45 102,750.00 100,000.00 05/01/29 11/01/27 Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon Fed Farm Credit Bank AA2 AAA local US 159,000.00 106,030.45 500,000.00 31331VLC8 100,000.00 127,409.00 765,562.00 04/21/28 31,865,045.43 1,766,500.70 local 224,174.00 state 6 -10 Years 638,153.00 local 127,409.00 US 10+ Years INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds October 31, 2016 Description Current Market Value'' YTD Interest Wells Fargo 1 1wells Fargo Government Money Market Fund 1$1,611,650.75 $223.05 4M 1 14M 1 1,893.951 1.43 4M PLUS 1 14M Plus 1 3,105.73 1 4.88 Premier Bank 1 jPremier Bank Money Market 260,704.291 666.89 Grand Total Money Market Funds 1 $1,877,354.72 1$896.25 Updated: 1111412016 AC I T Y 0 F NLD6 06 VWE A 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: Discuss City Administrator's Performance DATE: November 29, 2016 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss the 2016 performance of City Administrator James Dickinson All employees are required to have an annual review. The City Councilmember's were requested to evaluate Mr. Dickinson in the areas of Council relations, fiscal management, personnel, supervision, leadership, intergovernmental relations and community relations. Responses were then sent to the Human Resources Manager to complete. The complied version of the performance review is attached. A copy of this report has been provided to Mr. Dickinson. ACTION REQUESTED Council is requested to discuss Mr. Dickinson's 2016 performance. Respectfully submitted, Dana Makinen 1 DIP 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 Met Council Governance Reform Update November 29, 2016 The City Administrator was in attendance at the November 16th Met Council Governance Reform meeting that was put on by the Local Government Coalition for Met Council Governance Reform. The City Administrator will provide an update at the City Council workshop meeting. To assist with discussion, I have attached the materials from the recent meeting, a history on Andover City Council discussion/actions and the draft proposed 2017 Metro Cities Metropolitan Agencies legislative policies. submitted, Local Government Coalition for Metropolitan Council Governance Reform Meeting #1- November 16, 2016 5:OOpm-8:OOpm Meeting #2 -December 14, 2016 5:OOpm-8:OOpm Facilitated by: Jeff Reinert - Lino Lakes Mayor and Chris Gerlach - Dakota County Commissioner Meeting #1 Agenda Welcome and Introductions Jeff Cities and Counties working together Setting the stage for the next two meetings — Goals Chris - Recognition of the problem - Proposed solution - What detractors are saying - Counter -arguments Recent history of reform efforts Chris Principles Metro Cities position and activity Citizens League Task Force Legislative action General questions and discussion Jeff / Chris Examination of options — refer to draft options chart for some ideas - consensus agreement on some today - set aside others for decision at Meeting #2 1. Districts/ Membership Jeff 2. Appointment Authority Chris 3. Terms of Office Jeff 4. Voting Methods Chris Meeting #2 Agenda Finalize proposed framework which can be written into bill form and introduced in the 2017 Legislative Session. October 20, 2016 To Whom It May Concern: You may recall receiving a save -the -date from us last month for two upcoming meetings to develop a legislative bill to reform the Metropolitan Council. With recent developments surrounding the Southwest Light Rail line we are more excited than ever to come together to develop a workable proposal for a Metropolitan Council that is truly accountable to metro -area residents. And so we would like to reiterate our invitation for one representative of your city to attend two work sessions, taking place on: Wednesday, November 16 5:00 to 8:00 PM Metropolitan Mosquito Control District 2099 University Ave. W St. Paul, MN 55104 Light refreshments will be served. Wednesday, December 14 5:00 to 8:00 PM Metropolitan Mosquito Control District 2099 University Ave. W St. Paul, MN 55104 We are also attaching materials to review before the meeting, including a chart of potential reform options. The chart is by no means comprehensive; it is intended as a starting point for discussion. Even if you do not plan on attending the meeting, we would like to hear your opinions on the options laid out in this chart. We would appreciate if you could complete this survey by Friday, November 11. An appendix to the chart is also attached, with aspects of Metropolitan Council reform that are not addressed in the chart, but that we may want to address in the final legislative proposal; we will discuss both the chart and the appendix at our first meeting. Thank you again for your interest in reform, and we look forward to seeing you or another representative from your city on November 16. Please contact Claire Pritchard at Claire.Pritchard@co.dakota.mn.us or at 651.438.4540 to confirm your city's participation (if you have not already done so) or send regrets. Regards, Rhonda Sivarajah Matt Look Anoka County Board of Commissioners Anoka County Board of Commissioners a t ;j Scot chulte Randy�hnik Ano a County Board of Commissioners CarverCountyBoard of Commissioners 1 V Tom orkman Nancy Scho ter Carver County Board of Commissioners Dakota County Board ooff^Commissioners Liz rkman Chris Gerlach Dako a County Board of Commissioners Dakota County Board of Commissioners Mike Beard Jb Ulnch Scott County Board of Commissioners ScottLZs my Board of Commissioners Metropolitan Governance Reform Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition -Statement of Objectives - A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has joined together to develop a position statement and a set of principles for improving metropolitan governance in the Twin Cities. The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council. The Coalition's objectives for its collective effort to improved governance are: To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governance—as represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council i. To align local government interests behind a reform effort—through formation of a broad coalition of metropolitan Cities and Counties—and a common position. 3. To be prepared for any efforts—legislative and otherwise—to reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Attached is the Coalition's Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform. Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective Metropolitan Council should reflect the following principles, which were developed based on the group's core Statement of Belief (printed below). STATEMENT OF BELIEF: The Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions. It should not operate as a state agency—as it does in its current form—answerable to only one person, the Governor. Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region. II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council. III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council. IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor. V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government. VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Background and Justification of Position The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the region's growth and to provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Council or diminish the importance of regional collaboration. However, the Council's management of growth, and in particular the coordination and delivery of regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved. Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development, farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and the 800 MHz radio network. The Council's recent focus on reducing poverty and disparities makes it even more essential that within the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs --- which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development/employment, counseling, public health, nutrition and family "home visiting" services, workforce and specialized housing programs and many other anti -poverty and human services. In these and many other circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues. Thus, while a strong regional approach is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non -elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder. The best way to ensure that the interests of citizens of the metropolitan -area are represented is to have a preponderance of locally elected officials on the Council --individuals that do not serve exclusively at the pleasure of the Governor. This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to meet federal guidelines to serve as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council "more directly accountable to its public'." Regional governance is vital to the metropolitan area's continued success. However, in order for a regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of suburban counties is working tojoin the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity. ' Letterfrom representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 Options for Metropolitan Council Reform by Adopted Reform Principle A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Principle I: Majority of Councilmembers elected Principle II: Cities directly control appointment of city Principle IV: Staggered terms Principle VI: Voting based on population, with checks and officials representatives not contiguous with Governor balances Principle V: Representation from every metro Principle III: Counties directly appoint county county government representatives All): B(I): C(I): Staggered 4 -year terms, Dill: One person one vote (either through membership • 16 city representatives (1 from each current • Counties directly appoint Commissioner representatives not contiguous with the composition or weighting), with a supermajority Council district) • Metro Cities appoints city representatives through a Governor's requirement (on some or all issues) • 7 county representatives (1 from each metro nominating process county) Pros: Large number of districts allows for diverse Pros: Metro Cities is an established organization; could Pros: Term length allows time Pros: Does not allow the most populous cities/counties to areas/interests to be represented make nominating process easier to develop expertise in dominate Council matters Cons: Difficult for citizens to determine their Cons: Not all metro -area cities are members of Metro Cons: May lead to situation Cons: Supermajority requirement would make it more district Cities where a local government difficult to take action member on the Council falls to be reelected midway through his/her Council term A(11): Bill): C(II): Two-year terms, Dili): One person one vote (either through membership • Counties as districts • Counties directly appoint Commissioner representatives appointment aligning with composition or weighting), with a requirement that at least • 1 city and 1 county rep from each • League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) appoints city election years 2 suburban counties agree representatives Pros: Allows citizens to easily discern their Pros: Pros: Would minimize Pros: Does not allow the most populous cities/counties to district; stronger relationship between Council • LMC Is an established organization; could make situations where a Council dominate and citizens nominating process easier member fails to get re-elected • Nearly all MN cities are members to his/her local govt position A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Cons: Cons: Cons: Cons: • Districts are not evenly divided by population • LMC is a statewide organization; no metro -area focus • Would NOT align with • Could make it more difficult to take action (could be mitigated with weighted voting) • LMC Is a voluntary organization; not all cities are Principle IV • Would make it more difficult to achieve buy -in from cities • Districts would be largerthan current districts; members • Does not allow much time to each member would represent a large and develop expertise diverse population Alit): B(III): Other Option D(i): Potential Add -On: Cities/counties given V of vote • 7 county districts • Counties directly appoint Commissioner representatives share (with weighted voting), non -local government • City districts divided based on Met Council • Cities develop process for appointing city members (e.g. MVTA representative) given X of vote share community designations (e.g. Urban Center, representatives Suburban, etc.) Pros: Pros: Pros; Pros: Incorporates opinions of non -local government entities • Would ensure representation from a wide • Allows all metro cities to participate, whether or not they which still giving local governments the most influence variety of communities are members of organizations • Interests of groups are likely aligned in many ways, making It easier for delegates to represent the opinions of their constituencies Cons: Cons: Cons: Cons: Non -local government members would get minimal • No assurance of even geographical distribution • Would require coordination/time/money to establish influence, may not fulfil spirit of federal law of members nomination process • Districts would not be evenly divided by population (could be mitigated with weighted voting) A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Aft): Potential add-on: Additional members to B(IV): D(ii): Potential Add-on: Non -local government members meet Metropolitan Planning Organization • Counties directly appoint non -elected representatives given equivalent weight as the median local government (MPO) requirements' `the Federal Government requires MPOs to have • Cities (through nominating committees, etc.) appoint non -elected city representatives representative public agency and State officials, as well as local government officials Pros.. Pros: Negates the arguments against elected officials Pros: • Could allow for more diverse perspectives, service • May help achieve buy -in from the Governor expertise on Council • Would meet federal requirements • Fulfills the spirit of Federal law Cons: Non -elected officials would still have a role Cons. Cons: in levying taxes, etc. • Does NOT comply with Principles I and II • Non -elected officials would continue to have significant • Non -elected officials would still have a role in levying taxes, etc. influence on Met Council policy A(ii): Potential add-on: Additional B(V): Governor appoints all members but is constrained to D(iii): Potential Add -On: Non -local government members representatives for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties and/or Minneapolis and St. Paul a list of nominees from cities and counties only allowed to vote when the Council acts as an MPO Pros: Pros: Would help achieve buy -in from the Governor Pros: Would prevent non -elected officials from being • Would help achieve buy -in from these cities/counties • Acknowledges the large population centers • Could allow for broader perspectives on the Council involved beyond what is required for federal law A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Cons: Could mean disproportional representation Cons: Cons: of these cities/counties on the Council • Would require a change in current law • Non-local government members may have valuable • Would preserve ties between the Council and the insights on non-MPO issues Governor • May be logistically challenging • Would NOT conform with Principles I and 11 Other Option BVI): Chair appointed by Governor D(iv): Potential Add-On: Chair nonvoting except to break n tie Pros: Pros: Pros: If Chair is an appointed position most of the influence • Would help achieve buy-in from the Governor would still be with elected officials • Allows Chair to be a full-time position cons: Cons: Cons: If Chair is appointed position a non-elected official • Non-elected individual would still have a significant role in could still wield slgniflcant Influence the Council • Would preserve ties between the Council and the, Governor B)VII): Chair appointed by Metropolitan Council members Other Option: Pros: Chair would be accountable to the metro-area Pros: constituency Cons: If Chair was also a local elected official the role of the Cons: Chair would have to be scaled back significantly B(i): Potential Add-0n: Additional members appointed by the Governor A. Districts/Membership B. Appointment Authority C. Terms D. Voting Pros: • Would help achieve buy -in from the Governor • Could help broaden the range of perspectives/expertise on the Council Cons: • Non -elected individual would still have a significant role in the Council • Would preserve ties between the Council and the Governor B(H): Potential Add -On: Additional members appointed by other organizations (e.g. MVTA) Pros: Could help broaden the range of perspectives/expertise on the Council Cons: Non -elected individual would still have a significant role in the Council B(f l): Potential Add -On: Govemor has veto authorhy for appointments Pros: Would help achieve buy -in from the Governor Cons: Would preserve ties between the Council and the Governor Other Option Pros: Cons: Appendix: Other Met Council Options Not Covered in Chart - Council's role and responsibilities - Changes to territory (7 -county metro area or beyond) - Member time commitment - Member compensation - Role of any advisory committees (a la TPAC) - Procedure if a member resigns or is not re-elected - Procedure to remove a member - Any citizen input on who should make up the Council Principles on Metropolitan Council Reform: List of Adoptees (as of July 11, 2016) Cities Andover Lino Lakes Bethel Loretto Blaine Mayer Centerville Mendota Heights Chanhassen Mound Chaska New Germany Coates New Prague Cologne Norwood Young America Columbus Nowthen Crystal** Oak Grove Elko New Market Plymouth* Farmington Prior Lake Forest Lake Ramsey* Greenwood Shakopee Ham Lake St. Bonifacius Hamburg St. Francis Hampton Victoria Jordan Watertown Counties Anoka Dakota Carver Scott *Modified Principles adopted **No official resolution was passed, but a letter supporting the Principles was signed by the majority of City Councilmembers and the Mayor CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R038-16 A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL GOVERNANCE MODEL WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's .scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partner for regional development and progress. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Andover supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor; V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government; VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Adopted by the Andover City Council on the 5th day of April 2016. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: 4 1 &e Trude - Mayor Michelle Hartner — Deputy City Clerk Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Bukkila Seconded by: Goodrich Voted in favor of: Bukkila, Goodrich, Holthus, Knight, & Trude Voted against: N/A Abstained: N/A Absent: N/A Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota, at a meeting held on April 5, 2016. Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —April S, 2016 Page 3 by Bukkila, Seconded by Goodrich, approval of the Consent Agenda as read. Mo;idn'carried APPROVE NAN]MkOF CANOE LANDING AS BRA DLEYLAUNCH/,S'FROOTMANPARK Mr. Berkowitz discussed a re st to approve the naming of the cano anding, in Strootman Park, as "Bradley Launch." Mayor Trude shared information about Bradle nd his contributions to the Andover Community. Councilmember Knight stated that Mr. Brvery de ruing of the honor, having been a combat pilot in two wars. Councilmember Holthus added that f e is quite a historian and real�knows the area Councilmember Knight ind' ated that Mr. Bradley was named in the boo "Marine Wings: Stories of /recomended s Written By the Pilots." Mayor Truthat the City unveil a plaque at the canoe landing when e weatheris nice and ats for the family. Mr. Berkowitz will bring some signage exa les back to the Coue into account the natural setting. Knight, Seconded by Holthus, to approve the naming of the canoe launch at Park as "Bradley Launch," in honor of Mr. Bradley. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS/CONSIDER RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR MET COUNCIL GOVERNANCE REFORM Mr. Dickinson gave background information and then shared possible options for the Council's consideration, along with any number of potential modifications that could be made to each as it relates to a potential resolution of support for Metropolitan Council governance reform. The Council could also take no action. At a previous Council Workshop there had been a request to have more discussion regarding Metropolitan Council governance concerns and potential support for related legislative efforts. The Council did review a proposal in February and no action was taken at that point. At the most recent Workshop meeting, the Council asked Mr. Dickinson to put together a resolution and a "vanilla" document for review at the tonight's Council meeting. Mr. Dickinson stated that a decision would be a policy directive and that he is waiting to hear from the Council about what direction to go from a staff perspective. Mr. Dickinson reviewed the options from the agenda packet including: Option # I — Word-for-word what was recommended by the Four - County Coalition and what was discussed at the Workshop meeting in February, Option #2 - Supporting Metro Cities Policy 4-B on Metropolitan Council Governance, Option #3 - A resolution, Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes—April S, 2016 Page 4 drafted by Mr. Dickinson on behalf of the Council, summarizing specific concerns raised by Councilmembers at previous meetings where this issue was discussed. Mr. Dickinson gave an update on the current status of the bills at the legislature on this topic, noting they are subject to change. Councilmember Knight asked what prompted all of this effort. Mr. Dickinson expressed that these are not new concerns, and that staggered terms for members of the Metropolitan Council came up last legislative session, but it did not gain much ground. There are new initiatives coming forward. He stated that many counties and cities feel that there has been overreach by the Metropolitan Council. More recently a Four -County Coalition is bringing the issue forward. Councilmember Goodrich stated the importance of this issue and expressed his support for Option 1, even though there are a few pieces that Councilmembers do not like at this point. He noted that this is a resolution and not legislation that the Council would be expressing their support for. He reiterated that the Councilmembers all agree that they want change and that supporting Option 1 would carry more weight in the legislative effort and that the timing is right to support it. He asked his fellow Councilmembers to also support Option 1. Councilmember Holthus expressed concerns around the plans for and lack of specificity around the nominations committee. Councilmember Knight asked whether the Govemor would lose his opportunity to appoint members. Mr. Dickinson indicated there are still some details to be worked out. Currently with the bills being reviewed at the legislature the Governor would still select the chairman and members but a process has not yet been identified. Councilmember Holthus stated she would like to be certain that cities have representation on the nomination committee or Metropolitan Council. She stated a preference for Option 3 because it included parts of Option 1 and 2. Mayor Trude invited Anoka County Commissioner Schulte and Gamache to the podium. Commissioner Schulte stated this is a moving item at the legislature. He stated support, as a Council, for any of the 3 resolutions is going to be critical to the effort. He stated he feels Option 1 carries the most weight, would bring about the most change, and brings together both elected officials from cities and counties on to the Metropolitan Council. He asked Mr. Dickinson for clarification on the four quadrants related to the nomination committees (7 members on 4 committees for a total of 28). He stated they are more concerned at this time about who they are going to nominate, rather than the nominations process. They would really want someone with knowledge on the Metropolitan Council. The group feels strongly about Option 1 and believes that the endorsement of similar resolutions will carry more weight with the legislature. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes—April S, 2016 Page 5 Councilmember Bukkila dialogued with Commissioner Schulte regarding the time and effort that started 2 years ago. Commissioner Schulte stated that the committee work began with 7 counties, 2 (Hennepin and Ramsey) broke off because they did not want reform, 1 other stepped out later (Washington County), and 4 counties went forward. They invited others to join, they gathered to discuss common concerns, and it eventually became a county and city movement together. He stated there are a multitude of cities across the 7 -county area that would like to be involved, but "they don't make rooms that big." Councilmember Bukkila stated bills are now coming in from other places and so the work is becoming more about how to lobby with what is on the table currently. Commissioner Schulte confirmed that this was the case and that they have asked that the principles in the resolution (Option 1) be added to the bills already in committee and that work is happening now. Commissioner Schulte stated the group's priority is that cities are a major part of the Metropolitan Council. He continued by stating that cities are actually affected more by the work of the Metropolitan Council and that incorporating cities into their plan was a priority in working with the Senators to put the bill through. He noted that the governor's support would still be needed, or his successor. Commissioner Gamache stated he wanted to make a point that it is the legislature that is going to have to pass the bill to bring about change. The four counties are working together to make a push, but they are not necessarily designing all of it. The basis of the work is the need for representation on the Metropolitan Council. They are starting to see counties and cities come together, for a regional concept, so the legislators are taking it seriously. This is a regional effort (example given of Highway 10) and elected officials are needed in those roles. Mayor Trude stated she does not believe that the north metro fares as well as the south metro on the Metropolitan Council and efforts need to be taken to make sure representation is by region. Commissioner Schulte stated that voting would be based on population. Even though Hennepin and Ramsey have a large population, it would take three counties to make a decision. Commissioner Schulte stated if he was appointed to the Metropolitan Council, he would no longer serve on TAB. He commented that there are a number of mayors that are retired or retiring that could serve that would be well rounded and knowledgeable. Councilmember Bukkila thanked Commissioner Schulte for taking the initiative on this effort recognizing that it's been a big job and that it is a leap of faith on some level. She commented the spirit behind it is good. Councilmember Knight asked if there were explicit reforms. Commissioner Schulte referred to the resolution (Option 1) and stated the key reforms are: staggered terms, elected city officials appointed by Metro Cities (9), Metro counties each appoint one member (7), terms of office not the same years Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes—April S, 2016 Page 6 as the Governor, membership from every county government, entire region be represented, voting based on population, and no two counties can control a vote. He thanked the Council for really doing their research and taking up the issue as a Council. He stated he had talked to a number of the Councilmembers. Mayor Trude stated she had not talked to Commissioner Schulte. Councilmember Holthus also confirmed she had not spoken to him previously about the issue. Commissioner Schulte confirmed he had spoken to Councilmember Bukkila and had talked to other City officials via text. Councilmember Goodrich stated the timing of addressing this issue at this meeting is important as the legislative session is brief this year. He reiterated that the options before the Council are to support a resolution, not legislation. Mayor Trude asked Commissioner Schulte if it made more sense to support a resolution or the legislation. Commissioner Schulte replied that Option 1 is essentially in support of the Albright Bill in the house as it has taken up the principles of their resolution. Mayor Trude stated the Metropolitan Council reviews a lot of city plat work. Commissioner Schulte replied it is really the Metropolitan Council staff that does the work and the officials do the policy work. Mayor Trude stated the Met Council Representatives do have the power, as a representative, to come to the City and negotiate and she does not like that role. Commissioner Schulte stated he agreed that former Met Council Member Steffen was "remarkable that way." He continued by stating with this structure, Andover would have as much or more power than it ever has before. Mayor Trude confirmed the Council as a whole supports the Metropolitan Council reform and staggered terms and concern was expressed regarding the appointment process and allocation. Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Goodrich, to approve Option 1, a resolution in support of Metropolitan Council reform. Councilmember Holthus identified elements she liked in Option 1 and Option 2 and then expressed an overall preference for Option 3. Mayor Trude identified Option 3 as what was discussed at the most recent Council Workshop meeting. Mr. Dickinson outlined the difference between the 3 options. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes—April S, 2016 Page 7 Councilmember Bukkila pointed out that the bill has now changed since they received a copy so she believes it is best to support a consistent resolution to give the best opportunity for success. Councilmember Goodrich pointed out the legislation is not on the docket for the meeting. He stated to get more support for the bill, he feels it is better to get behind a consistent resolution to have more influence. Mayor Trude stated she is more in support of Option 1, than not, believing that sometimes it is important to go for the solution that gives you the most influence. Councilmember Knight stated he could support Option I because there is room for adjustment. Mayor Trude noted this action is really on lobbying and that the draft bill is very strong and she likes what she sees in it. Councilmember Holthus reiterated that she is adamant about city representation on the nomination committee. Motion carried unanimously. (See Resolution R038-16) Commissioner Schulte apologized stating he would be happy to be in closer communication, not wanting to bother Councilmembers and stated he will contact the city administrator going forward with issues and concerns. SCHEDULE JOINT MEETING WITH PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION /DISCUSS KELSEY ROUND LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN/15-11 Mr. Dickinson requested the Council schedule a Workshop Meeting to discuss topics as detailed in the staff report. The Council discussed the draft agenda and available dates. Motion by Goodrich, Seconded by Knight, to schedule a Workshop Meeting on April 14, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Staff updated the Council on the administration and city department activities, legislative updates, updates on development/CIP projects, and meeting reminders/community events. (Meetings Attended) Mr. Dickinson stated he has been attending a number of meetings on behalf of the City, including the Highway 10 Coalition, which also includes Anoka County and the cities of Ramsey, Anoka and Coon Rapids. He referred to a consensus document being used 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (753) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discuss/Consider Resolution of Support For Met Council Governance Reform DATE: April 5, 2016 ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to discuss and consider whether the City Council is interested in approving a resolution of support for Met Council Governance Reform. DISCUSSION Attached to this staff report are three potential resolutions of support the Council could consider: 1. Option 1: "A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL GOVERNANCE MODEL" This resolution is what was distributed to individual Council Members via the Anoka County Board of Commissioners Chair, Rhonda Sivarajah on behalf of the Four Counties Coalition and was discussed at the February 23rd City Council Workshop. 2. Option 2: "A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING METRO CITIES POLICY 4-B ON REGIONAL GOVERNANCE - METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL" This resolution is a sample resolution provided by Metro Cities and was recently approved by the City of Minnetonka and is being considered by other metro suburbs. 3. Option 3: " A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE" This resolution is City Administration's attempt to capture the past discussions and concerns of the City Council and integrate County involvement into the selection process and for representation. The last attachment is what was distributed to the City Council at the February 23rd City Council Workshop meeting. tfully submitted, Option I CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL GOVERNANCE MODEL WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor,_ effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partner for regional development and progress. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and Option 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of .Andover supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; IV. The terns of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor; V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government; VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Adopted by the Andover City Council on the 5th day of April 2016. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Julie Trude - Mayor Michelle Hartner — Deputy City Clerk Option 1 Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota, at a meeting held on April 5, 2016. Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Option 2 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING METRO CITIES POLICY 4-B ON REGIONAL GOVERNANCE - METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) has been the regional policy- making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for the seven -county Twin Cities region for nearly 50 years; and WHEREAS, a seventeen -member board appointed by the Governor guides the strategic growth of the metro area, adhering to the council's mission of fostering efficient growth for a prosperous region. Elected officials and citizens share their expertise with the council by serving on key advisory committees; and WHEREAS, the city of Andover is a member of Metro Cities, an organization serving as a voice for metropolitan cities at the legislature and Met Council; WHEREAS, Metro Cities has adopted Policy 4-13 — Regional Governance Structure as follows: Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the Governor. Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials. Consideration should be given to the creation of four separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of the region. Members of each committee should include three city officials, appointed by Metro Cities, one county commissioner appointed by the Association of MN Counties or a comparable entity, and three citizens appointed by the Governor. At least three of the local officials should be elected officials. Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner and commit to meet with local government officials regularly, and who understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision-making. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover Council discussed and concurred with the Regional Governance Structure policy at its April 5, 2016 meeting; and Option 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby supports Metro Cities Policy 4-13 — Regional Governance Structure. Adopted by the Andover City Council on the 5th day of April 2016. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Julie Trude - Mayor Michelle Hartner — Deputy City Clerk Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota, at a meeting held on April 5, 2016. Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Option 3 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members currently resides solely with the Governor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council regional planning is effective, responsive, and accountable to the region. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council should not operate as answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and Option 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Andover supports reform of the Metropolitan Council Governance Structure that adheres to the following principles: I. Supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials. Consideration should be given to the creation of four separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of the region. Members of each committee should include city officials, a county commissioner, and three citizens appointed by the Governor. At least three members of each committee should be elected officials. lI. Supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the ability to work with cities and counties in a collaborative manner and commit to meet with local government officials regularly, and who understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision-making; 1II. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor; Adopted by the Andover City Council on the 5th day of April 2016. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Julie Trude - Mayor Michelle Hartner — Deputy City Clerk Option 3 Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota, at a meeting held on April 5, 2016. Michelle Harmer, Deputy City Clerk 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 65304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discuss Four Counties' Metro Governance Proposal DATE: February 23, 2016 ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to discuss the attached Four Counties' Governance Proposal that was recently distributed to individual City Council Members and then provide direction to City Administration on bow the Andover City Council would like to respond/react. DISCUSSION Attached to this staff report is what was distributed to individual Council Members via the Anoka County Board of Commissioners Chau, Rhonda Sivarajah on behalf of the Four Counties. Included is: 1. Cover letter 2. Template Resolution: Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 3. Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition - Statement of Objectives & Principles 4. Frequently Asked Questions: Metropolitan Council Reform Principles Within the documents provided by the Four Counties', a reference is made to the Metro Cities Policy position. The City of Andover is a member of Metro Cities, Council Member Knight is on the Metro Cities Board and I am the Current Chair of the Metropolitan Agencies Committee. I have attached the Metro Cities Metropolitan Agencies legislative policy (in particular review 4- B Regional Governance Structure) for your reference and have also include a recent email distributed to Metro Cities members from Metro Cities Executive Director, Patricia Nauman that responds to the Four Counties Proposal. The last attachment is the North Metro Mayors Association 2016 Legislative Action Plan, the Governance section of this document identifies the North Metro Mayor's Association legislative position on Metropolitan Council Governance. submitted, Anoka County COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Respectful, Innovative, Fiscally Responsible Rhonda SivarajahI February 8, 2016 Chair, District #5 Dear Council \{ember. We are part of a coalition of count' and city leaders front the suburban metropolitan arca when have become increasingly concerned with a lack of accountability from the \len'opolitaa Council, especially as its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues continue to expand. It is our belief that an updated {Metropolitan Council governance stmcture, one that snakes the Council accountable to the regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit this region greatly. We seek your support for the attached principles for reform dint would increase local participation and collaboration to help guide orderly growth and economic development in our region. We ask that you adopt die attached resolution calling for substantive rlhange to the Council. Structure Limits Local Representation Metropolitaa Council members are non -elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that his often been elected %vidhout majority support from nnetropolitan-area voters, We believe die Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and ev\payers of the area it represents ratter than a single officeholder and should feanmre strong county representation and representation from other local elected officials. This call for eefomi echoes the 2011 conclusion of die nonpardsan Office of the Legislative Auditor. In the evaluation report Gannmme ofTranrii in Ilx Thin C(m Revimh, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council with a mix of gubematorinl appointees and elected officials from the region- Substantial egion.Substa tial Changes in Role of Council Since 1967 The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provide regional planning services for is Tw41 Cities area. however, at the sante time die Council's management of groimb, and in particular its coordination of regional services, has changed dramatically. The Council's scope has increased, but not its level of accountability to the local govermncnts and citizens of die metropolitan area, \fang citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the present \levopolitan Council, undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. In closing, we hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the attached resolution with principles to strengthen regional planning and development. We welcome the opportunity to meet wdeh you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Claire Pritchard at 651-4313-4540 (or at CLaim.Pritchardecndakota.nnu:) for more information oc to schdule a presentation hs an elected official to your Council or Board. We look fmiiard to working with you Int this effort to unite the region for continued grnaill and Prosperity. Please make every effort to return the adopted resolution to Claire.PritcbardCco,dakota.rnn us by Tuesday, March 8, or as early as possible given your approval process. Rhonda Sivarajah, Chair Brinn Kirkham a Reinert Anoka County Board of Commissioner Bcdml City Council Dlayor, Lino Lakes Government Center A 2100 31" Avenue, Suite 700 A Anoka, NIN 55303-5024 a www.anokaeounty.us Office: 763323-5700 A Fax 763323-5582 A TOO T1': 763323-5289 Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer v TEMPLATE RESOLUTION: Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities mostdirectly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Govemor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should be the responsibility of local govemment elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure thatthe Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partner for regional development and progress. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those Impacted by Its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: I. A majority, of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; IL Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor, V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government; VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shalt be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. C4) Metropolitan Governance Reform Twin Cities' Local Govemment Coalition -Statement of Objectives - A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has Joined togetherto develop a position statement and a set of principlesfor improving metropolitan governance in the Twin Cities. The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council. The Coalition's objectives for its collective effortto improved governance are: 1. To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan govemance—as represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council z. To align local government interests behind a reform effort—through formation of a broad coalition of metropolftan Cities and Counties—and a common position. 3. To be prepared for any efforts—legislative and otherwise—to reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Attached is the Coalition's Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform. o Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective Metropolitan Council should reflect the following principles, which were developed based on the group's core Statement of Belief (printed below). STATEMENT OF BELIEF: The Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions. It should not operate as a state agency—as it does in its current form—answerable to only one person, the Governor. Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region. II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council. III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council. IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall E- be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor. V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government. vi. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. 2 0C Background and Justification of Position The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the region's growth and to provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Councilor diminish the Importance of regional collaboration However, the Council's management of growth, and in particular the coordination and delivery of regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved. Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development, farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and the 800 MHz radio network. The Council's recent focus on reducing poverty and disparities makes it even more essential that within the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs -- which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development/employment, counseling, public health, nutrition and family "home visiting" services, workforce and specialized housing programs and many other anti -poverty and human services. In these and many other circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues. Thus, while a strong regional approach Is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non -elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents ratherthan a single officeholder. The best way to ensure that the interests of citizens of the metropolitan -area are represented is to have a preponderance of locally elected officials on the Council—individuals that do not serve exclusively at the pleasure of the Governor. This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to meet federal guidelines to serve as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council .more directly accountable to Its public'." Regional governance is vital to the metropolitan area's continued success. However, in orderfor a regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of suburban counties is working to join the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity. Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goeringof Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug.9 2o15 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFORM PRINCIPLES I) Whynow? Reform of the Metropolitan Council has been an issue on the minds of many local governments for manyyears. However, political realities have created obstaclesthat thwarted many previous attempts at reform. The release of ThriveMSP2040 reinvigorated the drive for reform in many cities and counties who were unhappy with aspects of the plan. However, our call for change is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. Councllmembers do not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one: the Governor. We realized this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst that renewed our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 2) Who makes up the coalition? The coalition originated with officials from Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott Counties, who share a collective opinion that the Metropolitan Council must be more accountable to the regional constituency. They made the decision to develop principles for reform, and, knowing it was important to have the perspective of cities represented as well, invited certain city officials with interest in reform to join the group. The city officials (listed in Attachment A) represent themselves alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of their entire councils. Together this group developed a mutually -agreed-upon set of principles for reform. 3) You're asking cities to adopt these principles, knowing that they go against the position of Metro Cities. Doesn't this undermine the work of the Metro Cities organization? We believe that Metro Cities plays a vital role In advocating for city interests, and we did invite them to play a part in the development of the shared principles. However, they ultimately decided to withdraw from the group due the incompatibility of our positions. We had hoped to work togethertoward reform, and we hope to work together in the future if the position of the organization changes. However, in the meantime we are aware of many cities with positions on Metropolitan Council reform that contradict the official Metro Cities position, and we believe that those cities should have theirvoices heard in the Legislature. 4) What are the next steps? These draft principles have been distributed to every city and county in the metropolitan area, and we hope to have as many as possible adopt these principles. We are happy to discuss the principles, along with our reasons forwanting reform, with any Board or Council in the area. during the Legislative Session we will present these adopted resolutions to Legislators to illustrate how important reform is to focal governments In the metro -area, and we will work with Legislators to advance reform proposals that meet the adopted principles. 5) How do other cities do It? Every other major metropolitan area's regional planning organization (see Attachment B), as well as every other regional planning organization In Minnesota, is made up of a majority of local elected officials. 6) Is this an effort to get rid of the Metropolitan Council? Absolutely not. Regional governance is important, but it would be more effective and credible with local representation. In the current system, Metropolitan Council members are non- elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation from local elected officials. 7) Is this a reaction to the ThriveMSP2040 plan? No. Many cities and counties were unhappy with aspects of the Council's plan. However, our call for reform is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how It allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home to many what tittle incentive the Council has to take Into account the opinions of local governments. The Council does not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one- the Governor. We realized that this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst to renew our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 8) Is there other support for this? Yes, many other entities and organizations have come out in support for reform. In 2011, for example, the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a renort recommending that the Metropolitan Council be composed of a majority elected officials, citing the Council's "limited credibility" due to a governance structure that limits accountability. The City of Minneapolis also passed a resolution on January 14, 2011, asking the Legislature to reform the Council so that a `majority of council members shall be locally elected city and county officials." Furthermore, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, responsible for certifying the Council as eligible to receive federal transportation and transit funding, have encouraged reform of the Council to make it "more directly accountableto Its public." 9) Would these principles turn the Metropolitan Council into a Council of Governments (COG)? No. Councils of Governments have little authority beyond transportation planning and regional coordination of service. The level of authority that the Legislature has granted the Metropolitan Council, Including the authority to levy taxes, Is unique. None of the proposed principles diminish Council authority in anyway, and will not transform the Council into a COG. 10) Do you oppose the Governor? No. This Is not a partisan issue- we would feel the same way whether the Governor was a Republican or a Democrat. What troubles us is that the entire membership and focus of the Council can shift depending on who is in power. The Council should represent the interests of the region, not a single individual. 11) Is this about the suburbs complatning? No. This is about ensuring that the entire region feels represented by the Metropolitan Council. 12) Is the Met Council accountable to their constituents? No. Although the Met Council has the power to levy taxes on metropolitan area residents, it is not accountable to those residents and is Instead solely accountable to the Governor, an Individual that over the last five election cycles was only once elected with majority support from metro -area voters. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES: 13) Aren't local elected officials too busy to serve an the Council? There is a time commitment to serving on the Council, true, but it is only a part-time engagement. Many current Metropolitan Council members hold other full-time jobs. Furthermore, local elected officials serve on the metropolitan planning organizations of every other large city In the country. If these principles are enacted It will be part of cities and counties' role to ensure that those appointed to the Council are comfortable with the time commitment. 14) Isn't it a conflict of interest to ask an official elected by one specific city or county to represent an entire region? Local elected officials already serve In many capacities where they must consider regional Interests. The Council's Transportation Advisory Board, for example, which recommends allocation of transportation and transit funding throughoutthe region, is made up of majority of local elected officials. The Counties Transit Improvement Board and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Board are two other examples where local elected officials serve and represent the interests of an entire region. Even the structure of County Boards and City Councils requires local elected officials to represent the interests of the entire city/county, ratherthan the specific district that elected them. 15) What happens if a local elected official leaves office in the middle of his/her Metropolitan Council appointment? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get Into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. These issues will be considered as a plan develops. 16) What about the criticisms of the role of the Council? These principles don't address any of that. True, and many of us do have thoughts on the role of the Council. However, we believe that the first step is to reform the governance of the Council. Once the Council Is accountable to its metropolitan constituency we can considerthe role that it should play in the region's future. 17) You mention a system of voting and checks and balances- can you elaborate? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that Is the job of the Legislature. However, we do believe that the Council should represent all citizens in the area, without allowing the large urban core to drive all decision making. ATTACHMENTA: PARTICIPANTS IN THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP Participating County officials: Anoka County: Commissioner Matt Look Counclimember Bill Coughlin Commissioner Scott Schulte Mayor Denny Laufenhurger Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah Mayor Bob Crawford County Administratorlerry Soma Carver County: Commissioner Randy Maluchnik MayorJeffReinert Commissioner Tom Workman Mayor Ken Hedberg County Administrator Dave Hemze Dakota County: Commissioner Chris Gerlach Mayor Bill Mars Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler Commissioner Liz Workman County Manager Brandt Richardson Scott County: Commissioner Mike Beard CommisslonerJon Ulrich County Administrator Gary Shelton Participating Clty Officials: Bethel: Councilmember Brian Kirkham Burnsville: Counclimember Bill Coughlin Chanhassen: Mayor Denny Laufenhurger Elko New Market: Mayor Bob Crawford Jordan: CouncilmemberMike Franklin Lino Lakes: MayorJeffReinert Prior Lake: Mayor Ken Hedberg Rosemount: CouncilmemberJeff Weisensel Shakopee: Mayor Bill Mars i Attachment Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas �a Name Governance Structure I i I The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various j San Diego Association of state and federal agencies and other organizations. j Governments Summary: All voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consists J15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). North Jersey Transportation The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Planning Authority Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal l government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local � organizations. Metropolitan Transportation The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. Commission (Oakland CA! ii The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. _------__. -- ------—------ The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and i represe—ntative of the Independent School Districts. Houston -Galveston Area Council The local elected officials represent cities and counties in the metro area, although some cities and counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no members. s i Attachment Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas �a Name Governance Structure I i I The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various j San Diego Association of state and federal agencies and other organizations. j Governments Summary: All voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consists J15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). North Jersey Transportation The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Planning Authority Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal l government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local � organizations. Metropolitan Transportation The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. Commission (Oakland CA! ii The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. _------__. -- ------—------ The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and i represe—ntative of the Independent School Districts. Houston -Galveston Area Council The local elected officials represent cities and counties in the metro area, although some cities and counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name i IGovernance Structure I I The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. North Central Texas Council of The metro -area cities are represented by mayors orcomuilmembers; the counties are Governments represented byjudges. Boston Region MPO Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials (although there are no county elected officials- counties are represented byjudges). There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 14 local elected officials, S representatives from other governments and organizations, and 2 nonvoting representatives from the federal government. The elected officials are all mayors and selectmen of local towns; there are no county representatives. There are 2 representatives from regional planning organizations, as well as representatives from regional transit and transportation authorities and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of the voting members are local elected officials. There are also no citizen members. The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Atlanta Regional Commission There is 1 citizen representative from each of 15 districts in the metro area, elected by the 23 public officials. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are citizen members selected by local elected officials. The Council has a general assembly consisting of all elected officials from all member jurisdictions. The Assembly establishes the budget and elects representatives to the Executive Board. Puget Sound Regional Council The Executive Board consists of 30 elected officials and 2 representatives from the Washington State Transportation Commission and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are selected by local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas `y The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives government. state National Capital Region The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General i Transportation Planning Board Assemblies. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Council consists of 32 local elected officials, 4 state representatives, and 1 member of a citizen organization. The elected officials are mayors, councilmembers, etc, from metro towns, cities, and - reservations, Maricopa Association of I !' i Governments There are also 2 representatives each from the State Transportation Board and the Arizona C. Department of Transportation. Finally, there is a representative from the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member, a representative of a citizen oversight commission. ' The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at -large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, �. Southwestern Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. '.. Commission Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at -large members. The Board consists of 16 state government appointees, 24 local government elected officials and staff, and 2 attorneys. as well as a number of non-voting members. There are 4 representatives from the PA Department of Transportation and 3 from the NJ.: Delaware Valley Regional Department of Transportation. Planning Commission There are also 3 representatives from the PA Governor's Policy Office, 1 other PA j i. - Governor's appointee, 3 from the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and 2 appointees j from the NJ Governor. ( 1 Summary: The majority of voting members are either local elected officials or local government staff members. There are no citizen members. I I l s I L I f (- f l L Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Ill Name Governance Structure The Board consists of 5 local elected officials, 3 city representatives, 1 state representative, and 7 non-voting members from various federal and state agencies. : . i New York Metropolitan The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city Transportation Council representatives are heads of the New York City Transportation Authority, Department of Transportation, and Department of City Planning. The state representative is from the New York State Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials and all are appointed by local jurisdictions. There is a Citizens' Advisory Committee created by the Board, The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all members of the Los Angeles City Councn and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from Southern California Association regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials or representatives from city government. There are no citizen members. - The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state Baltimore Regional departments (3 non-voting). Transportation Board � A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. The Council has a general assembly consisting of delegates from all local governments in the region. The Executive Committee consists of local elected officials as well as representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Southeast Michigan Council of Michigan. Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Board consists of appointments from each of the metro counties- the members are a combination of elected officials and representatives of nonprofits and private industry. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for There are also 2 non-voting Governor's appointees and a non-voting representative of the Planning Regional Transportation Authority. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials and all are appointed by local jurisdictions. There is a Citizens' Advisory Committee created by the Board, The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all members of the Los Angeles City Councn and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from Southern California Association regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B1 6 Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota The Board consists of 15 local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens, and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority. Duluth -Superior Metropolitan There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of Interstate Council Superior. Summary The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. Grand Forks -East Grand Forks The Board consists of 6local elected officials as well as.2 representatives from the Metropolitan Planning Planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. Organization Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and _Fargo -Moorhead Metropolitan Moorhead Planning Commissions. Council Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. _ The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central St. Cloud Area Planning Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. Organization Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. i Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. I Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. - The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school districts, and 2 citizen members. Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. La Crosse Area Planning The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Committee Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Mankato/North Mankato Area The Board is made up of 6local elected officials. Planning Organization i Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. �, '•,u,..v..____�.. •:+..Jj..t+ry ..a.:_:.�..._a... ._ �� .z.:^ . ::. s.... '.re.f..r.'1-�.__: .... ._:._._ .?ti. �,nT .. .-SF-v I f: Metropolitan Agencies 4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to the majority of our state's population and businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. At the same time, our metropolitan region faces significant challenges and opportunities. The responses to these opportunities and challenges will determine the future success of the region and its competitiveness in our state, national and world economies. The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region, and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for focal growth and service delivery. The region's cities are the Metropolitan Council's primary constituency, with regional and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and implementation, and the delivery of a wide range of public set -vices. To function successfully, the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration with city governments. The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. City governments are responsible and best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and service delivery. Any additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council should be limited to specific statutory assignments or grants or authorization, and should not usurp or conflict with local roles or processes, unless such changes have the consent of the region's cities. Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the effective, efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services and planning throughout the metropolitan area. Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning that can be provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level than at the local level by individual local units of government. The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery, of regional services and planning and be responsive to local perspectives ort regional issues, and be required to provide opportunities for city participation on Council advisory committees and task forces. 2016 Legislative Policies 37 N Metropolitan Agencies The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and implementation mound the regional development guide, policy plans, systems statements, and local comprehensive plan requirements to ensure transparency, balance and Council adherence to its core mission slid functions. These processes should allow for stakeholder input before policies and plans are released for comment and finalized. 4-B Regional Governance Structure Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the ,/ Governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the / Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of file Governor. Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials. Consideration should be given to tate creation of four separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of the region. Members of each committee should include three city officials, appointed by Metro Cities, one county commissioner appointed by the Association of MN Counties or a comparable entity, and three citizens appointed by the Governor. At least three of the local officials should be elected officials. Mehra Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner and commit to meet with local government officials regularly, and who understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision -malting. 4-C Comprehensive Analysis of Metropolitan Council Our region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant challenges around the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure, Metro Cities believes that a comprehensive pnalysis of the Metropolitan Council is timely and appropriate, to assure that the region is equipped to address the future needs of a rapidly changing and growing metropolitan region. Metro Cities supports an objective, forward thinking analysis of the Metropolitan Council that includes the Council's authority, activities, services, and its geographical jurisdiction, and includes analysis of whether the Council is positioned to be effective in the coming decades. 4-D Oversight of Metropolitan Council Metro Cities supports the bipartisan Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Government, or another entity, to monitor and review the Metropolitan Council's activities and to provide transparency and accountability of the Metropolitan 38 2016 Legislative Policies 0 Metropolitan Agencies Council operations and functions. The Metropolitan Council should examine its scope of services to determine their benefit and efficiency, and be open to alternative methods of delivery to assure that services are provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region. 4-E Funding Regional Services The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through a combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants. The Council should set user fees via an open process that includes public notices and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a IeveI that supports effective and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for sufficient reserves to ensure longterm service and fee stability. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are collected. Metro Cities supports the use of property taxes and user fees to fund regional projects so long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return. 4-F Regional Systems Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan Council's authority over them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the focus or expand the reach of any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change. The system plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council for the regional systems should be specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to Hind that a local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. Additional regional systems should be established only if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the four existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and an established regional or state funding source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be established. Water supply does not fit these criteria. Any proposed additional regional system must have an established regional or state funding source. 2016 Legislative Policies 39 9 Metropolitan Agencies 4-G Regional Water Supply Planning The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out regional planning activities to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. A Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee that includes state agency representatives and local officials was concurrently established to assist the Council in developing a master water supply plan that includes recommendations for clarifying the roles of local, regional and state governments, streamlining and consolidating approval processes and recommending future planning and capital investments. The Master Water Supply Plan serves as a framework for assisting and guiding communities in their water supply planning, without usurping local decision making processes. Many cities also conduct their own analyses for use in water supply planning. The extension of the committee, which includes five metro area municipal officials, allows the committee to continue to play a key role in the development and direction of water supply planning activities as the Master Plan is updated and implemented with additional information and data as they become available. As the Met Council continues its assessment of the region's water supply and issues around sustainability,. the Council must work cooperatively with local policymakers and professional staff throughout the region on an on-going and structured basis, to ensure a base of information for water supply decision making that is sound, credible and verifiable, and that takes into account local information, data, cost -benefit analyses and projections before any resulting policy recommendations are issued. Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter -relationships of wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Any state and regional regulations and processes should be clearly stated in the Water Supply Plan. Further, regional monitoring and data collection benefits should be borne as shared expenses between the regional and local units of government. Metro Cities supports Metropolitan Council planning activities which address regional water supply needs and water planning activities as prescribed in statute. Metro Cities opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena. Metro Cities further opposes the elevation of water supply to "Regional System" status, or the assumption of Met Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. Metro Cities supports new laws that expand municipal representation on the water supply advisory committee, creates a technical advisory committee with municipal officials, and eliminates the requirement that city comprehensive plans be consistent with the regional water supply plan. These changes will strengthen input and collaboration around water supply planning, and help to ensure that sound scientific analyses and models are developed before legislative solutions to these issues are considered. 40 2016 Legislative Policies 0 Metropolitan Agencies Metro Cities supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. Any fees or taxes for regional water supply planning activities must be consistent with activities prescribed in MN Statutes 473. 1565, and support activities specifically within the region. 4-H Review of Local Comprehensive Plans In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should: • Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the four system plans; • Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan amendments and development applications; • Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for substantial impact on systems plans; • Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (LUPA); Work in a cooperative and timely manner toward the resolution of outstanding issues. When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeals process that includes a peer review. Metro Cities opposes the imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties when a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans or the plan fails to meet a statutory deadline when the city has made legitimate efforts to meet Met Council requirements; Work with affected cities and other organizations such as the Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and other stakeholders to identify common ground and resolve conflicts between respective goals for flexible residential development and achieving consistency with the Council's system plans and policies; and Require entities, such as private businesses, nonprofits, or local units of government, among others, whose actions could adversely affect a comprehensive plan, to be subject to the same qualifications and/or regulations as the city. 2016 Legislative Policies 41 E Metropolitan Agencies 44 Comprehensive Planning Process Metro Cities supports an examination of the comprehensive planning process to make sure that the process is streamlined and efficient, so as to assist in alleviating excessive cost burdens or duplicative or unnecessary planning requirements by municipalities in the comprehensive planning process, Metro Cities supports resources to assist cities in meeting regional goals as part of the comprehensive planning process. 4-J Comprehensive Planning Schedule Cities are required to submit comprehensive plan updates to the Metropolitan Council every 10 years, the most recent of which was due in 2008. A city's comprehensive plan represents a community's vision of how the city should grow and develop or redevelop, ensure adequate housing, provide essential public infrastructure and services, protect natural areas and meet other community objectives. Metro Cities recognizes the merit of aligning comprehensive plan timelines with the release of census data. However, the comprehensive plan process is expensive, time consuming and labor intensive for cities, and the timing for the submission of comprehensive plans should not be altered solely to better align with census data. If sufficient valid reasons exist for the schedule for the next round of comprehensive plans to be changed or expedited, cities should be provided with financial resources to assist them in preparing the next round of plans. Metro Cities opposes cities being forced into a state of perpetual planning as a result of regional and legislative actions. Should changes be made to the comprehensive planning schedule, Metro Cities supports financial and other resources to assist cities in preparing and incorporating policy changes in local planning efforts. Metro Cities supports a 10 -year time frame for comprehensive plan submissions. 4-K Local Zoning Authority Local governments are responsible for zoning and local officials should have full authority to approve variances to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs of their own community. Local zoning decisions, and the implementation of cities' comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other governmental agency. Metro Cities supports local authority over land use and zoning decisions, and opposes the creation of non -local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions. 42 2016 Legislative Policies 6 Metropolitan Agencies 4-1- Regional Growth The most recent regional population forecasts projects apopulation of 3,743,000 people by 2040. Metro Cities recognizes cities' responsibility to plan for sustainable growth patterns that integrate transportation, housing, parks, open space and economic development that will result in a region better equipped to manage population growth, to provide a high quality of life for a growing and increasingly diverse metropolitan area population and improved environmental health. In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate state and regional financial resources and incentives, and maximum flexibility around local planning decisions are imperative. The regional framework should assist cities in managing growth while being responsive to the individual qualities, characteristics and needs of metropolitan cities, and should encourage sub -regional cooperation and coordination. In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality of life: Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and development/reinvestment; Significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and New households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second -ring suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment. In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies: The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources, particularly in the areas of transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation ofparks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council; • The Metropolitan Council and Legislature must work to pursue levels of state and federal transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and transit needs in the metropolitan area; • The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives -based manner; • The Metropolitan Council must recognize the various needs and capacities of its many partners, including but not limited to cities, counties, economic development 2076 Legislative Pollcies 43 2� Metropolitan Agencies authorities and nonprofit organizations, and its policies must be balanced and flexible in their approach; Metropolitan counties, adjacent counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance of facilities and services such as county roads and public schools in accommodating forecasted growth; and Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the "true" metropolitan region extends beyond the traditional seven -county area and the need to work collaboratively with adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those counties. The region faces environmental, transportation, and land use issues that cannot be solved by the seven -county metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an analysis to determine the impacts of Metropolitan Council's growth management policies and infrastructure investments on the growth and development of the collar counties, and the impacts of growth in the collar counties on the metropolitan area. 4•M Natural Resource Protection Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. The state and region play significant roles in the protection of natural resources. Any steps taken by the state or Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that: • The protection of natural resources is significant to a multi -county area that is home to more than 50 percent of the state's population and a travel destination for many more. Given the limited availability of resources and the artificial nature of the metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan communities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting these resources, The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments WA) is not a regional system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, The protection of natural resources should be balanced with the need to accommodate growth and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable housing and provide transportation and transit connections; and • Decisions about the zoning or land use designations, either within or outside a public park, nature preserve or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local units of government. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the 44 2016 Legislative Policies �i Metropolitan Agencies purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. The Metropolitan Council's role with respect to climate change, as identified in the 2040 regional development guide, should be focused on the stewardship of its internal operations (wastewater, transit) and working collaboratively with local governments to provide information, best practices, technical assistance and incentives around responses to climate change. Metro Cities urges the Legislature and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources. 4-N Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) The Metropolitan Council has identified nearly half of all sewered communities in the metropolitan region to be contributing excessive inflow and infiltration into the regional wastewater system. Inflow and infiltration are terms for the ways that clear water (ground and storm) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes and gets treated, unnecessarily, at regional wastewater plants. The number of identified communities is subject to change, depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area can be affected. Another 19 cities have been identified as being near the threshold, or at risk, for contributing excessive 111 into the system. The Metropolitan Council establishes a surcharge on cities determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of I/I into the wastewater system. The charge is waived when cities meet certain parameters through local mitigation efforts. Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/1 because of its potential environmental and public health impacts, because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive In in one city can affect development capacity of another. However, there is the potential for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs in their ongoing efforts to mitigate excessive UI. Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program and supports continued reviews of the methodology used to measure excess 1/1 to ensure that the methodology appropriately normalizes for precipitation variability and the Council's work with cities on community specific issues around M. Metro Cities supports state financial assistance for Metro Area UI mitigation through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar Iegislation and encourages the Metropolitan Council to partner in support of such appropriations. Metro Cities supports continued state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal wastewater collection systems. 2016 Legislative Policies 45 ■ Metropolitan Agencies 4-0 Service Availability Charge (SAC) Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, transparency, simplification and lower rates. Metro Cities supports a "growth pays for growth" approach. to SAC as recommended by a 2010 Task Force of Met Council members and city officials, and that was subsequently adopted by the Met Council. This approach requires a statutory change. If state statutes are modified to effect a "growth pays for growth" method for SAC, the Metropolitan Council should convene a group of local officials to identify any technical changes necessary for implementing the new structure. Metro Cities supports allowing the Council to utilize the SAC `transfer' mechanism provided for in state statute, when the SAC reserve fund is inadequate to meet debt service obligations. Any use of the transfer mechanism must be done so within parameters prescribed by state law and with appropriate notification and processes to allow local official input and should include a timely `shift back' of any transferred funds from the wastewater fund to the SAC reserve fund. Metro Cities supports principles for SAC recommended by a 2014 work group that examined the overall SAC program and structure. These include support for program transparency and simplicity, equity for all served communities and between current and future users, support for cities' sewer fee capacities, administrative reasonableness, and weighing any program uses for specific goals with the impacts to the program's equity, transparency and simplicity. As such, Metro Cities opposes the use of the SAC mechanism to subsidize particular Metropolitan Council goals and objectives. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council providing details on how any changes to the SAC rate are determined. Metro Cities supports a periodic review of MCES' customer service policies, to ensure that its processes are responsive and transparent to communities, businesses and residents. Metro Cities supports continued outreach by MCES to users of the SAC program to promote knowledge and understanding of SAC charges and policies. 4-P Funding Regional Parks & Open Space In the seven -county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve as state parks, and the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improvement of these parks. State funding apart from Legacy funds should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks. Legacy funds for parks and trails should be balanced between metro and greater Minnesota. 46 2016 Legislative Policies 05 Metropolitan Agencies 4-Q Livable Communities The Livable Communities Act (LCA), administered by the Metropolitan Council, provides a voluntary, inoentive-based approach to affordable housing development, tax base revitalization, job growth and preservation, brown field clean up and mixed-use, transit -friendly development and redevelopment. Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities. Since its inception in 1995, the LCA program has generated billions of dollars of private and public investment, created thousands o£jobs and added thousands of affordable housing units in the region. Metro Cities supports a review of the LCA programs, and any necessary statutory changes, to ensure that the LCA program criteria are flexible and promote the participation of all participating communities, and to ensure that all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA). Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the LCDA in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular location and in order to support important development and redevelopment goals. Metro Cities supports the statutory goals and criteria established for the Livable Communities Act, and opposes any changes to LCA programs that constrain flexibility around statutory goals, program requirements and criteria. Metro Cities opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Program and the transfer or use of these funds for purposes outside of the LCA program. Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the LCDA to reflect the linkages among the goals, municipal objectives, and Met Council system objectives. Metro Cities supports the use of LCA funds for projects in transit improvement areas, as defined in statute, as long as funding levels for general LCA programs are adequate to meet program goals and the program remains accessible to participating communities. Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of administering the program. Remaining interest earnings not used for program administration should be considered part of the LCA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to established funding criteria, 4-12 Density Any Met Council density policy and density determination must take into account the impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities. 2016 Legislative Policies 47 Metropolitan Agencies Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy and density determination that bases density projections on local data, actual development patterns, is flexible and accommodates cities at various development stages. 48 2016 Legislative Policies James Dickinson From: Patricia Nauman [patdcia@metrocitiesmn.org] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 2:58 PM To: Patricia Nauman Subject: Four Counties' Metro Governance Proposal - Metro Cities Policy Position Good afternoon: Representatives from Dakota, Carver, Scott, and Anoka counties have sent a request to metro area city officials seeking support for their proposal to restructure the governance of the Metropolitan Council to one made up of county and city officials. Metro Cities has received requests by city officials for clarification of our policy positions on this topic. I am sending this communication so that you have an understanding of Metro Cities' policy positions and how they were generated, and Metro Cities' perspective on the four counties' proposal. Metro Cities supports the current statutory appointment process for the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor, and in contrast with current law, supports staggered terms and modifications to the selection process for Metropolitan Council members to more fully involve local officials in the selection process. Metro Cities has initiated and continues to support these legislative changes. Such changes would enhance the governance ofthe Council by providing more local official input into member selection and stabilize ideological shifts in Council membership. These are pragmatic changes that could reasonably be accepted by the Govemor and Legislature. On the surface, the proposal by Dakota, Anoka, Scott and Carver county officials, to have the Metropolitan Council made up of local officials, would appear to be a solution to the tensions that exist between a regional level of government and local governments in the metro area. However, a 2011 Metro Cities Governance Task Force identified several problematic implications for this structure and did not recommend this model of metropolitan governance. Metro Cities subsequently has not recommended this model in its positions on the governance of the Metropolitan Council. Task force members identified several concerns, primarily related to the incompatibility of holding the offices of local official and Metropolitan Council member. Concerns centered on: • Local officials who are elected in one community and are appointed to serve other communities through Metropolitan Council membership could face actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts in determining regional investments, funding and policy. • Local officials would be serving and voting on two political subdivisions, generally considered to be incompatible fimotions. • The Metropolitan Council could become overly parochial and politicized, which could hamper regional planning, and service delivery effectiveness and efficiency. • Appointments to the Metropolitan Council could potentially be geographically imbalanced, • There could be an infusion of special interests and political campaigns into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members. • Local officials would serve as both the "regulator" and `regulated" party, which are generally considered to be incompatible roles. • This governance structure could result in less scope of expertise on regional issues on the Metropolitan Council. • A Metropolitan Council with this structure could be more resistant to legislative oversight. The 2011 Task Force also identified a concern about the impracticality of having sitting city officials serve as Metropolitan Council members. Unlike county commissioners, most city officials are not full time mayors or city council members. The Task Force concluded that the practical result could be to narrow the pool of potential candidates from which to draw future Metropolitan Council members. Metro Cities' policies do align with the counties' proposal in support of staggered terms for Metropolitan Council members. Staggered terms would confer significant benefits for regional governance, providing more knowledge continuity on the Council, more political and philosophical diversity, and fewer possibilities for narrowpolicy agendas to emerge from the Metropolitan Council. Metro Cities' governance policies on the Metropolitan Council recognize the importance of a separate regional government, more input by local officials into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members, staggered terms, and a High and consistent level of collaboration and engagement between local governments. Metro Cities, through its representation of metro cities' shared interests, works to ensure that city needs are accounted for all Council functions and planning, and for local officials to have adequate input and opportunities to contribute their expertise and perspectives on regional issues. Please let me know if you would further information or if you would like to discuss these issues. 1 can be reached at 651-2154002 or email: patricia@,metrocitiesmn.or¢ Sincerely, Patricia Nauman Executive Director Metro Cities Ng6rth Metro � Mayors North Metro Mayors Association 2016 Legislative Action Plan Transportation System Improvements Transportation Funding Work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, legislative leadership and transportation committees, Governors administration, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Transportation Alliance and key congressional members and staff to secure increased transportation funding as recommended by the Governors Transportation Finance Advisory Committee. North Metro Highway Construction Projects • Assist Champlin to secure funding to reconstruct Trunk Highway 169 from Hayden Lake Road to the Anoka/Champlin bridge over the Mississippi River. • Assist Coon Rapids and Anoka to secure funding to construct third lanes on Trunk Highway 10 between Hanson Boulevard and Ts Avenue in Anoka. • Assist Ramsey and Anoka to secure funding to i construct all recommended Trunk Highway 10 jI Access Planning Study improvements. • Work with Maple Grove and surrounding communities, the Minnesota Department of 1 Transportation and the Metropolitan Council to resolve area transportation system improvement issues, including completion of Trunk Highway 610. Work with Brooklyn Center, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council to resolve Trunk Highway 252 transportation system safety and congestion issues. Assist the North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition in securing funding for implementation of recommendations of the Managed Lane Study between Minneapolis and Forest Lake. North Metro Intersection Improvement Projects Work with Blaine to support efforts to provide significant capacity enhancements to Trunk Highway 65 including upgrading major intersections along the Trunk Highway 65 corridor. Transportation Advocacy • Work to secure funding to rename Old Highway 10/ Ramsey County Road 10 roadway through Mounds View to Northtown Boulevard and install new signage. • Work to secure funding for Mounds Viewsoundwall along Trunk Highway 10 at 1-35W. • Work to secure funding for New Brighton soundwall along 1-35W. • Support efforts to build aTrunk Highway 65 coalition. • Support efforts to build a Trunk Highway 10 coalition. • Work to secure wayfinding signage on recent road improvements to assist motorists in navigating to Osseo. • Obtain street/roadway improvements at Highway 169 and County Road 81 within the Osseo boundary that reflect the character of Osseo. • Work to improve bike/pedestrian access between Osseo and neighboring communities. • Work with Blaine and the National Sports Center to resolve traffic issues related to 105th Avenue in Blaine. Rait Crossings and Rail Safety Support funding for modernization and separation of rail -vehicle traffic as a critical matter of public safety and congestion relief in the North Metro. Fiscal Policy • Work with the NMMA legislative delegation, League of Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities, Anoka County, Ramsey County and other stakeholders to be sure the collective North Metro voice is heard and ensure that the Local Government Aid and Metro Area Fiscal Disparities programs remain intact. • Advocate for NMMA perspectives in debates over comprehensive tax reform proposals. • Support opportunities for member cities economic development and TIF initiatives. • Continue to join with other county and city organizations opposing legislation providing for a future reverse referendum if a county or city increases its property tax levy. • Support legislation creating early voting opportunities that create administrative and financial efficiencies for local governments. • Oppose the delay of the effective date for the extension of the general sales tax exemption for joint powers entities and special taxing districts. Governance • Work with the League of Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities andgtberincal govemmeptp2riners in a collaborative manner to advance key local governmental legislative objectives. • Support legislation for staggeredte_rmsfor Metropolitan Council members. Conduct legislative candidate forums in NMMA member city districts to inform candidates on NMMA issues and to assist voters in determining their choices. Host NMMA legislative delegation meetings early in each legislative session and as needed while working with the delegation to advance NMMA legislative goals and objectives. Engage NMMA Community Partners in legislative efforts to more effectively carry the NMMA message to elected officials and the governors administration. Water • Support efforts of the NMMA Water Work Group to establish policy positions on water issues. • Engage NMMA stakeholders to endorse and promote regional water supply facilities. • Monitorthe Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and potential regulation changes which would make it more difficult for cities to develop dump sites. Support funding to assist cities in fighting invasive plant species in North Metro lakes and rivers. Contacts Jill Brown Becca Pryse Bob Benke Executive Director Government Relations Government Relations (612) 889-2611 (612) 490-2651 (612) 669-0274 jillcbrownemsn.com beccapeewald.com bobbenkeommcast.net Troy Olsen Government Relations (763)381-7894 troyoeewald.com Metropolitan Agencie 4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to the majority of our state's population and businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. At the same time, our metropolitan region faces significant challenges and opportunities. The responses to these opportunities and challenges will determine the future success of the region and its competitiveness in our state, national and world economies. The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region, and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and service delivery. The region's cities are the Metropolitan Council's primary constituency, with regional and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and implementation, and the delivery of a wide range of public services. To function successfully, the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration with city governments. The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. City governments are responsible and best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and service delivery. Any additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council should be limited to specific statutory assignments or grants or authorization, and should not usurp or conflict with local roles or processes, unless such changes have the consent of the region's cities. • Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the effective, efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services and planning throughout the metropolitan area. • Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning that can be provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level than at the local level by individual local units of government. • The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery of regional services and planning and be responsive to local perspectives on regional issues, and be required to provide opportunities for city participation on Council advisory committees and task forces. 2017 Legislative Policies 39 Metropolitan Agencies The Metropolitan Council must involve cities at all steps of planning, review and implementation around the regional development guide, policy plans, systems statements, and local comprehensive plan requirements to ensure transparency, balance and Council adherence to its core mission and functions. These processes should allow for stakeholder input before policies and plans are released for comment and finalized. 4-B Regional Governance Structure Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor with four year, staggered terms for members, to stabilize ideological shifts and provide for continuity of knowledge on the Council, which is appropriate for a long-range planning body. The appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the Governor. Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials. Metro Cities supports expanding the nominating committee from seven to 13 members, with at least six members of a 13 -member committee being local elected officials. Of the local officials appointed to a nominating committee, two thirds should be elected city officials, appointed by Metro Cities. Consideration should be given to the creation of four separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of the region. Metro Cities supports having the names of recommended nominees be made public at least 14 days prior to final selection by the Governor. Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner and commit to meet with local government officials regularly, and who understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision-making. A detailed position description outlining the required skills, time commitment and understanding of regional and local issues and concerns, should be clearly articulated and posted in advance of the call for nominees. 4-C Comprehensive Analysis and Oversight of Metropolitan Council Metro Cities supports the recent comprehensive study of the Metropolitan Council's governance structure conducted by the Citizens League. The Citizen's League recommendations are largely consistent with Metro Cities' governance policies. Our region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant challenges around the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure. Metro Cities supports an objective study of the Metropolitan Council's activities and 40 2017 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies services, as well as its geographical jurisdiction, to ensure that the Metropolitan Council's services are positioned to be effective and adequate in addressing the future needs of the region. Such work must include the participation of local officials. The Metropolitan Council should also examine its scope of services to determine their benefit and efficiency, and be open to alternative methods of delivery to assure that services are provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region. Metro Cities supports appropriate legislative oversight of the Metropolitan Council, to regularly review the Council's activities, and to provide transparency and accountability of its functions and operations. 4-D Funding Regional Services The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through a combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants. The Council should set user fees via an open process that includes public notices and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports effective and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for sufficient reserves to ensure long-term service and fee stability. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are collected. Metro Cities supports the use of property taxes and user fees to fund regional projects so long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return. 4-E Regional Systems Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan Council's authority over them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the focus or expand the reach of any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change. The system plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council for the regional systems should be specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. Additional regional systems should be established only if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the four existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and an established regional or state funding 2017 Legislative Policies 41 Metropolitan Agencies source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be established. Water supply and housing do not meet necessary established criteria for regional systems. Any proposed additional regional system must have an established regional or state funding source. 4-F Regional Water Supply Planning The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out regional planning activities to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area. A Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee that includes state agency representatives and local officials was concurrently established to assist the Council in developing a master water supply plan that includes recommendations for clarifying the roles of local, regional and state governments, streamlining and consolidating approval processes and recommending fixture planning and capital investments. The Master Water Supply Plan serves as a framework for assisting and guiding communities in their water supply planning, without usurping local decision making processes. Many cities also conduct their own analyses for use in water supply planning. The extension of the committee, which includes five metro area municipal officials, allows the committee to continue to play a key role in the development and direction of water supply planning activities as the Master Plan is updated and implemented with additional information and data as they become available. As the Met Council continues its assessment of the region's water supply and issues around sustainability, the Council must work cooperatively with local policymakers and professional staff throughout the region on an on-going and structured basis, to ensure a base of information for water supply decision making that is sound, credible and verifiable, and that takes into account local information, data, cost -benefit analyses and projections before any resulting policy recommendations are issued. While Metro Cities supports regionally coordinated efforts to address water supply issues in the metropolitan area that include ongoing input by local elected officials and staff, Metro Cities opposes the elevation of water supply to regional system status. Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter -relationships of wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Any state and regional regulations and processes should be clearly stated in the Water Supply Plan. Further, regional monitoring and data collection benefits should be borne as shared expenses between the regional and local units of government. Metro Cities supports Metropolitan Council planning activities to address regional water supply needs and water planning activities as prescribed in statute. Metro Cities opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena. Metro Cities further opposes the elevation of water supply to "Regional System" status, or the assumption of Met Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. 42 2017 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies Metro Cities supports new laws that expand municipal representation on the water supply advisory committee and eliminates the requirement that city comprehensive plans be consistent with the regional water supply plan. These changes will strengthen input and collaboration around water supply planning, and help to ensure that sound scientific analyses and models are developed before legislative solutions to these issues are considered. Metro Cities advocated for and supports 2015 laws that enacted a technical advisory committee to the MAWSAC and that maximizes participation by municipal officials. Metro Cities supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. Any fees or taxes for regional water supply planning activities must be consistent with activities prescribed in MN Statutes 473. 1565, and support activities specifically within the region. 4-G Review of Local Comprehensive Plans In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should: • Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the four system plans; • Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan amendments and development applications; • Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for substantial impact on systems plans; • Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (LUPA); • Work in a cooperative and timely manner toward the resolution of outstanding issues. When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeals process that includes a peer review. Metro Cities opposes the imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties when a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans or the plan fails to meet a statutory deadline when the city has made legitimate efforts to meet Met Council requirements; Work with affected cities and other organizations such as the Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and other stakeholders to identify common ground and resolve conflicts between respective goals for flexible residential development and achieving consistency with the Council's system plans and policies; and 2017 Legislative Policies 43 Metropolitan Agencies • Require entities, such as private businesses, nonprofits, or local units of government, among others, whose actions could adversely affect a comprehensive plan, to be subject to the same qualifications and/or regulations as the city. 4-H Comprehensive Planning Process Metro Cities supports an examination of the comprehensive planning process to make sure that the process is streamlined and efficient, so as to assist in alleviating excessive cost burdens or duplicative or unnecessary planning requirements by municipalities in the comprehensive planning process. Metro Cities supports resources to assist cities in meeting regional goals as part of the comprehensive planning process, including planning grants and technical assistance. Grants and other resources should be provided to all eligible communities through a formula that is equitable, and recognizes varying city needs and capacities. 4-1 Comprehensive Planning Schedule Cities are required to submit comprehensive plan updates. to the Metropolitan Council every 10 years, the most recent of which was due in 2008. A city's comprehensive plan represents a community's vision of how the city should grow and develop or redevelop, ensure adequate housing, provide essential public infrastructure and services, protect natural areas and meet other community objectives. Metro Cities recognizes the merit of aligning comprehensive plan timelines with the release of census data. However, the comprehensive plan process is expensive, time consuming and labor intensive for cities, and the timing for the submission of comprehensive plans should not be altered solely to better align with census data. If sufficient valid reasons exist for the schedule for the next round of comprehensive plans to be changed or expedited, cities should be provided with financial resources to assist them in preparing the next round of plans. Metro Cities opposes cities being forced into a state of perpetual planning as a result of regional and legislative actions. Should changes be made to the comprehensive planning schedule, Metro Cities' supports financial and other resources to assist cities in preparing and incorporating policy changes in local planning efforts. Metro Cities supports a 10 -year time frame for comprehensive plan submissions 4-J Local Zoning Authority Local governments are responsible for zoning and local officials should have full authority to approve variances to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs of their own community. Local zoning decisions, and the implementation of cities' comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other governmental agency. 44 2017 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies Metro Cities supports local authority over use: and -zoning decisions, and opposes the creation of non -local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions. 4-K Regional Growth The most recent regional population forecasts projects a population of 3,652,060 people by 2040. Metro Cities recognizes cities' responsibility to plan for sustainable growth patterns that integrate transportation, housing, parks, open space and economic development that will result in a region better equipped to manage population growth, to provide a high quality of life for a growing and increasingly diverse metropolitan area population and improved environmental health. In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate state and regional financial resources and incentives, and maximum flexibility around local planning decisions are imperative. The regional framework should assist cities in managing growth while being responsive to the individual qualities, characteristics and needs of metropolitan cities, and should encourage sub -regional cooperation and coordination. In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality of life: • Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and development/reinvestment; • Significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and • New households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second -ring suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment. In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies: The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources, particularly in the areas of transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation of parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council; • The Metropolitan Council and Legislature must work to pursue levels of state and federal transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and transit needs in the metropolitan area; 2017 Legislative Policies 45 Metropolitan Agencies • The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives -based manner- • The Metropolitan Council must recognize the various needs and capacities of its many partners, including but not limited to cities, counties, economic development authorities and nonprofit organizations, and its policies must be balanced and flexible in their approach; • Metropolitan counties, adjacent counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance of facilities and services such as county roads and public schools in accommodating forecasted growth; and • Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the "true" metropolitan region extends beyond the traditional seven -county area and the need to work collaboratively with adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those counties. The region faces environmental, transportation, and land use issues that cannot be solved by the seven -county metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an analysis to determine the impacts of Metropolitan Council's growth management policies and infrastructure investments on the growth and development of the collar counties, and the impacts of growth in the collar counties on the metropolitan area. 4-L Natural Resource Protection Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. The state and region play significant roles in the protection of natural resources. Any steps taken by the state or Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that: • The protection of natural resources is significant to a multi -county area that is home to more than 50 percent of the state's population and a travel destination for many more. Given the limited availability of resources and the artificial nature of the metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan communities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting these resources; • The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRI/A) is not a regional system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act; • The protection of natural resources should be balanced with the need to accommodate growth and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable housing and provide transportation and transit connections; and 46 2017 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies • Decisions about the zoning or land use designations, either within or outside a public park, nature preserve or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local units of government. ! Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. The Metropolitan Council's role with respect to climate change, as identified in the 2040 regional development guide, should be focused on the stewardship of its internal operations (wastewater, transit) and working collaboratively with local governments to provide information, best practices, technical assistance and incentives around responses to climate change. Metro Cities urges the Legislature and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources. 4-M Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) The Metropolitan Council has identified nearly half of all sewered communities in the metropolitan region to be contributing excessive inflow and infiltration into the regional wastewater system. Inflow and infiltration are terms for the ways that clear water (ground and storm) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes and gets treated, unnecessarily, at regional wastewater plants. The number of identified communities is subject to change, depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area can be affected. Another 19 cities have been identified as being near the threshold, or at risk, for contributing excessive I/I into the system. The Metropolitan Council establishes a surcharge on cities determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of I/I into the wastewater system. The charge is waived when cities meet certain parameters through local mitigation efforts. Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because of its potential environmental and public health impacts, because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive I/I in one city can affect development capacity of another. However, there is the potential for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs in their ongoing efforts to mitigate excessive I/I. Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program and supports continued reviews of the methodology used to measure excess I/I to ensure that the methodology appropriately normalizes for, precipitation variability and the Council's work with cities on community specific issues around I/I. Metro Cities supports state financial assistance for Metro Area I/I mitigation through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation and 2017 Legislative Policies 47 Metropolitan Agencies encourages the Metropolitan Council to partner in support of such appropriations. Metro Cities also supports an identification of best practices and other potential resources to local governments to address inflow -infiltration mitigation for private properties. Metro Cities supports continued state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal wastewater collection systems. 4-N Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, transparency, simplification and lower rates. Metro Cities supports a "growth pays for growth" approach to SAC as recommended by a 2010 Task Force of Met Council members and city officials, and adopted by the Met Council. This approach requires a statutory change. If state statutes are modified to effect a "growth pays for growth" method for SAC, the Metropolitan Council should convene a group of local officials to identify any technical changes necessary for implementing the new structure. Metro Cities supports allowing the Council to utilize the SAC `transfer' mechanism provided for in state statute, when the SAC reserve fund is inadequate to meet debt service obligations. Any use of the transfer mechanism must be done so within parameters prescribed by state law and with appropriate notification and processes to allow local official input and should include a timely `shift back' of any transferred funds from the wastewater fund to the SAC reserve fund. Efforts should be made to avoid increasing the municipal wastewater charge in use of the transfer mechanism. Metro Cities supports principles for SAC recommended by a 2014 work group that examined the overall SAC program and structure. These include support for program transparency and simplicity, equity for all served communities and between current and future users, support for cities' sewer fee capacities, administrative reasonableness, and weighing any program uses for specific goals with the impacts to the program's equity, transparency and simplicity. As such, Metro Cities opposes the use of the SAC mechanism to subsidize particular Metropolitan Council goals and objectives. Metro Cities supports recent changes to the SAC credit structure that enhance flexibility in the SAC credit structure for redevelopment purposes, and supports continued evaluation of SAC fees to determine if they hinder redevelopment. Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council providing details on how any changes to the SAC rate are determined. Metro Cities supports a periodic review of MCES' customer service policies, to ensure that its processes are responsive and transparent to communities, businesses and residents. Metro Cities supports 48 2017 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies continued outreach by MCES to users of the SAC program to promote knowledge and understanding of SAC charges and policies. 4-0 Funding Regional Parks & Open Space In the seven -county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve as state parks, and the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improvement of these parks in a manner that is equitable with funding for state parks. State funding apart from Legacy funds should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks. Legacy funds for parks and trails should be balanced between metro and greater Minnesota. Metro Cities supports state funding for regional parks and trails that is fair, creates a balance of investment across the state, and meets the needs of the region. 4-P Livable Communities The Livable Communities Act (LCA), administered by the Metropolitan Council, provides a voluntary, incentive -based approach to affordable housing development, tax base revitalization, job growth and preservation, brown field clean up and mixed-use, transit -friendly development and redevelopment. Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities. Since its inception in 1995, the LCA program has generated billions of dollars of private and public investment, created thousands of jobs and added thousands of affordable housing units in the region. Metro Cities supports a review of the LCA programs, and any necessary statutory changes, to ensure that the LCA program criteria are flexible and promote the participation of all participating communities, and to ensure that all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA). Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the LCDA in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular location and in order to support important development and redevelopment goals. Metro Cities supports the statutory goals and criteria established for the Livable Communities Act, and opposes any changes to LCA programs that constrain flexibility around statutory goals, program requirements and criteria. Metro Cities opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Program and the transfer or use of these funds for purposes outside of the LCA program. 2017 Legislative Policies 49 Metropolitan Agencies Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the LCDA to reflect the linkages among the goals, municipal objectives, and Met Council system objectives. Metro Cities supports the use of LCA funds for projects in transit improvement areas, as defined in statute, as long as funding levels for general LCA programs are adequate to meet program goals and the program remains accessible to - participating communities. Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of administering the program. Remaining interest earnings not used for program administration should be considered part of the LCA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to established funding criteria. 4-Q Density Any Met Council density policy and density determination must take into account the impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities. Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy and density determination that bases density projections on local data, actual development patterns, is flexible and accommodates cities at various development stages. 50 2017 Legislative Policies