HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - April 25, 20171685 CROSSTOWN
C I T Y O F
ND6
BOULLVAKU N.W. • AN UOVLK, MINN Lb(.) IA 55394
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Conference Rooms A & B
Call to Order — 6:00 p.m.
(76 3) 755-5100
2. Discuss Ordinance Amendment to Regulate Drug Paraphernalia —Attorney
Discuss Zoning Text Amendments for Rural Reserve — Planning
4, Discuss Storage Units (PODS) in City Parks & Residential Districts —Engineering
2018 Budget Development Discussion - Administration
6. 2017 Budget Progress Reports - Administration
7. 2017 City Investments Review -Administration
Other Business
9. Adjournment
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW. CLAN DOVER. MN. US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Jim Dickinson, City
FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development
SUBJECT: Discussion: Ordinance Amendment to Regulate Drug Paraphernalia
DATE: April 25, 2017
BACKGROUND
Cities are starting to develop ordinances that regulate drug paraphernalia. Our City Attorney
Scott Baumgartner will be present to discuss his experience with the development of this type of
ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Staff has attached the City of Anoka's ordinance related to Drug paraphernalia. The City of
Anoka was challenged on the ordinance by a local vendor; however, the judge found the
ordinance to be valid.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends the City Council review and discuss the possibility of a similar ordinance to
be adopted.
T�7xled,
Joe Janish
Community Development Director
Attachments
City of Anoka Ordinance
Judge Fredrickson's Order
CITYOFANOIG
CITY CODE
CHAPTER 46;ARTICLE V11
CHAPTER 46. OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
ARTICLE VII. Offenses Related to Drug Paraphernalia
Section 46-160 Drug Paraphernalia.
Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 152.205
(a) Definition. For the purpose of this section, the following definition shall apply unless the
context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
Drug Paraphernalia. All equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used,
primarily used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating,
growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, enhancing, converting, producing,
processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing,
concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introduce into the human body a
controlled substance in violation of M.S. Ch. 152, as it may be amended from time to
time. Drug paraphernalia does not include the possession, manufacture, delivery, or sale
of hypodermic needles or syringes. The term drug paraphernalia includes, but is not
limited to:
(1) Diluents and adulterants, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, mannite,
dextrose, and lactose, used, intended for use, or designed for use in cutting
controlled substances;
(2) Separation gins and sifters used, intended for use, or designed for use in
removing twigs and seeds from, or in otherwise cleaning or refining, marijuana;
(3) Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating,
cultivating, growing or harvesting any species of plant which is a controlled
substance or from which controlled substances can be derived;
(4) Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding,
converting, producing, processing or preparing controlled substances;
(5) Isomerization devices used, intended for use, or. designed for use in increasing
the potency of any species of plant which is a controlled substance;
(6) Testing equipment used, intended for use, or designed for use in identifying or
in analyzing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of controlled substances;
(7) Scales and balances used, intended for use, or designed for use in weighing or
measuring controlled substances;
(8) Blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, grinders, and mixing devices used,
intended for use, or designed for use in compounding, manufacturing,
producing, processing, or preparing controlled substances;
(9) Capsules, balloons, envelopes, and other containers used, intended for use, or
designed for use in packaging small quantities of controlled substances;
(10) Containers and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in
storing or concealing controlled substances or products or materials used or
intended for use in manufacturing, producing, processing, or preparing
controlled substances;
I oJ'3
CITYOFANOKA
CITY CODE
CHAPTER 46,ARTICLE Vll
(11) Objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or
otherwise introducing marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human
body, which shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or
without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal
bowls;
b. Water pipes;
C. Carburetion tubes and devices;
d. Smoking and carburetion masks;
e. Objects commonly referred to as roach clips, meaning objects used to
hold burning materials, such as a marijuana cigarette, which has
become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
f. Miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials;
g. Chamber pipes;
h. Carburetor pipes;
1. Electric pipes;
j. Air -driven pipes;
k. Chillums;
1. Bongs;
in. Ice pipes or chillers; and
(12) Ingredients or components to be used or intended or designed to be used in
manufacturing, producing, processing, preparing, testing, or analyzing a
controlled substance, whether or not otherwise lawfully obtained, including
anhydrous ammonia, nonprescription medications, methamphetamine precursor
drugs, or lawfully dispensed controlled substances.
(b) Factors to be considered in determining ifan object is drugparaphernalia. In
determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority shall
consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following:
(1) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use;
(2) Prior convictions, if any, of an owner or of anyone in control of the object under
any state or federal law relating to any controlled substance and/or drag
paraphernalia;
(3) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this
section;
(4) The proximity of the object to any controlled substance;
(5) The existence of any residue of a controlled substance on the object;
(6) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in
control of the object, to deliver it to any person whom he or she knows, or
should reasonably know, intends to use the object to facilitate a violation of this
section. The innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a
direct violation, of this act shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended
for use or designed for use as drug paraphernalia;
(7) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use;
(8) Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use;
(9) National and local advertising concerning its use;
2 of
CITYOFANOK,4
CITY CODE
CHAPTER 46, -ARTICLE VII
(10) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale;
(11) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object or objects to
the total sales of the business enterprise;
(12) The existence and scope of any legitimate use for the object in the community;
(13) Expert testimony concerning its use;
(14) Whether the owner, or any one in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier
of like or related items to the community, for example, a licensed distributor or
dealer of tobacco products; and
(15) The actual or constructive possession by the owner or a person in control of the
object or the presence in a vehicle or structure where the object is located of
written instructions, directions, or recipes to be used, or intended or designed to
be used, in manufacturing, producing, processing, preparing, testing, or
analyzing -a controlled substance.
(c) Possession ofdrug paraphernalia prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use, or to
possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow,
harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack,
repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the
human body a controlled substance in violation of M.S. Ch. 152, as it may be amended
from time to time. Any violation of this section is a petty misdemeanor.
(d) Manufacture or delivery ofdnng paraphernalia prohibited. It is unlawful for any person
to deliver, possess with intent to deliver, sell, possess with intent to sell, or manufacture
with intent to deliver or sell, drug paraphernalia, if that person knows, or under
circumstances where one reasonably should know that the drug paraphernalia will be
used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, enhance,
convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal,
inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance
in violation of M.S. Ch. 152. Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
3 of 3
STATE OF MINNESOTA
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Green Monkey Corporation DBA
RedruM Smoke Shop,
and Michael VanSlyke,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
City of Anoka
Defendant.
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF ANOKA
ORDER DENYING
PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
DENYING MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS, AND ENTERING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
CourtFile No.: 02 -CV -16-4725
The above -entitled matter came before the Honorable Tammi A. Fredrickson, Judge of
District Court, on January 10, 2017 at the Anoka County Courthouse, Anoka County, Minnesota,
on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Injunctive Relief.
Plaintiffs were represented by Sean Litman, Esq. Defendant was represented by Mary
Teitjen, Esq. and Scott Baumgartner, Esq..
The City of Anoka passed an ordinance on August 1, 2016, which would negatively
affect Plaintiffs' business. Plaintiffs filed the present action on September 13, 2016, requesting a
temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction as well as
declaratory judgment establishing rights and responsibilities under the law. On September 28,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Injunction, requesting a hearing date. A date was
set for October 17, 2016.
On October 7, 2016, Defendant objected to the hearing date as Defendant had not been
served the complaint or the motion papers. The Court struck the hearing date by an Order
Striking Hearing Date filed October 12, 2016.
A new hearing date was set for November 28, 2016. On November 1, 2016, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Injunctive Relief, requesting a
temporary restraining order and judgment on the pleadings.
At that November 28, 2016 hearing, Defendant again objected to sufficiency of service.
The Court attempted to clarify the procedural posture of the case. The Defendant agreed that it
would not bring criminal charges against Plaintiffs until the present motions were decided. The
parties agreed that this would obviate the need for a temporary restraining order or temporary
injunction. The parties agreed to continue the matter to January 10, 2017 in order to provide
Defendant an opportunity to brief the issues. The parties confirmed that the motions before the
Court would be dispositive as the matter only presented legal issues for the Court to decide.
Defendant filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive
Relief ("Defendant Memorandum") on December 29, 2016. Defendant requests that Plaintiffs'
motions be denied, that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant, and that Plaintiffs' claims be
dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Memorandum, at 18. Defendant did not file a formal
motion.
At the January 10, 2017 hearing, the Court again clarified that the parties were there for
what was essentially a motion for permanent injunction. The parties again agreed that the
motions before the Court on that day would be dispositive.
Based on the records, affidavits, files, and proceedings, the Court makes the following:
1. Plaintiffs' request for permanent injunctive relief is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
claims.
3. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs on all
4. The attached Memorandum is incorporated fully herein.
5. The Court Administrator shall serve a copy of this Order upon counsel for Plaintiffs
and Defendant. Said service shall constitute due and proper notice of its provisions for all purposes.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
Fredrickson,
BY THE COURT:Tammi (Anoka
Judge)
2017.04.05
Tamm A. Fredrickson
Judge of District Court
MEMORANDUM
The Court accepts the following undisputed facts for the purpose of deciding the issues
before it. On August 1, 2016, the City of Anoka passed a drug paraphernalia ordinance
("Ordinance"), which went into effect on August 12, 2016. The Ordinance prohibits the sale of
drug paraphernalia where the seller "knows, or under circumstances where one reasonably
should know that the drug paraphernalia will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow,
harvest, manufacture, compound, enhance, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze,
pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human
body a controlled substance." Chapter 46, Article VII, Section 46-160 Drug Paraphernalia
(2016).
The Ordinance further defines drug paraphernalia as
All equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, primarily used,
intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing,
harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, enhancing, converting, producing,
processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing,
containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introduce into
the human body a controlled substance[.]
Id. The Ordinance includes a non-exclusive list of items that would potentially violate the
Ordinance. Id. At the time the Ordinance was passed, only three stores sold such products in the
City of Anoka. One such business was Plaintiff Green Monkey Corporation, doing business as
the RedruM Smoke Shop ("RedruM"). Plaintiff Michael VanSlyke is the owner of Green
Monkey Corporation.
The Anoka Police Department determined that they would begin enforcing the Ordinance
on September 12, 2016. On or about August 29, 2016, Anoka Police Chief Philip Johanson and
Captain Eric Peterson entered RedruM during regular business hours with the purpose of
delivering a letter explaining the Ordinance to the business. During the meeting, the officers
stated that several items for sale in RedruM would violate the Ordinance because they "could be
used to ingest marijuana." Aff. of Mike VanSlyke in Support of Request for Injunctive Relief, at
2 ("Aff. of VanSlyke"). Further, "[t]he officers also stated it was their belief that a majority of
the products offered for sale inside Redrum [sic], are in violation of the new ordinance." Id.
While neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs' employees have been charged with violation of the
ordinance, the "police have assured the store that it is in violation of the ordinance just by virtue
of the fact that they sell products that could be used to ingest illegal substances[.]" Petition, at 7.
On September 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and
Injunctive Relief ("Petition"), stating as causes of action violations of the Minnesota State
Constitution, articles 7 and 10, the Due Process Clause and the prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures. The Petition additionally states that the Ordinance is a legal taking.
Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Declaratory Judgment Petition for
Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs' Memorandum additionally alleges that the Ordinance is preempted,
a bill of attainder, and an ex post facto law.
I. Plaintiffs are not entitled to permanent injunctive relief where they cannot succeed
on the merits
In evaluating whether a party is entitled to permanent injunctive relief, the Court is
required to examine the following factors:
1. The probability that the plaintiff will eventually succeed on the merits;
2. The presence of immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintiff;
3. The possibility of injury to the defendant; and
4. Any public interest involved.
Minn. Pub. Interest Research Grp. v. Butz, 358 F.Supp 584, 625 (D.Minn. 1973), aff d, 498 F.2d
1314(8 1h Cir 1974) cited with approval Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Leger, No. A04-260, 2004 WL
2711391, at *25 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2004).
These factors are addressed in turn below.
A. The probability that the plaintiff will eventually succeed on the merits
The Court will examine the merits of Plaintiffs' causes of action in turn. In the Court's
view, and reading Plaintiffs' Petition liberally, Plaintiffs have only properly forwarded three
causes of action: violations of Minnesota Constitution Articles 7 and 10 and an unlawful taking.
However, while Plaintiffs' claim of preemption was not properly raised and is not properly
before the Court, Defendant has briefed the issue and the Court will consider it along with
several other issues raised in Plaintiffs' Memorandum in the interest of judicial economy.
The Ordinance is presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of proving
unconstitutionality is on the Plaintiffs. McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 831 N.W.2d 518, 522
(Minn. 2013).
1. No taking has occurred where the government has made a legitimate use of its
police power to combat a nuisance to the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the people of the City of Anoka
Because the City of Anoka has not condemned or physically appropriated the property,
the taking complained of must be a regulatory taking. Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'I
Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 326 (2002). Government action may be tantamount to a
regulatory taking even though the government has not physically taken or entered the property.
DeCook v. Rochesterintern'l Airport Joint Zoning BJ, 796 N.W.2d 299, 305 (Minn. 2011).
"Modern regulatory takings law stems from the nebulous notion that when the exercise of state
police power regulation of private property `goes too far' it will amount to a taking." Zeman v.
City of Minneapolis, 552 N.W.2d 548, 552 (Minn. 1996). According to the Minnesota Supreme
Court,
[T]he analysis used to determine whether a landowner is entitled to compensation
for a regulatory taking under the United States Constitution depends on the effect
of the regulation. If the regulation has the effect of permanently denying a property
owner "all economically beneficial uses" of his property, the government is
categorically required to pay compensation.
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 109,114 (Minn. 2003) (quoting Tahoe -Sierra Pres.
Council, 535 U.S. at 320).
Where the taking is not a total denial of economic beneficial use, the Court must apply a
fact -based balancing test. Id. "The economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and,
particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment -backed
expectations are, of course, relevant considerations. So, too, is the character of the governmental
action." Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City offew York, 438 U.S. 104,124 (1978).
The Penn court recognized that government regulations will inevitably interfere with
property interests, and requiring the government to pay for each and every instance would grind
the government to a halt. See id. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that takings do not occur
where "the challenged government action caused economic harm, [but] did not interfere with
interests that were sufficiently bound up with the reasonable expectations of the claimant to
constitute `property' for Fifth Amendment purposes." Id. at 124-25.
"[I]n instances in which a state tribunal reasonably concluded that the health, safety,
morals, or general welfare would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of
land, this Court has upheld land -use regulations that destroyed or adversely affected recognized
real property interests." Id. at 125 (quotations omitted).
In line with these principles, the Supreme Court has developed the so-called "nuisance
exception," which states that even a total regulatory taking will not offend the Constitution
where the regulation is designed to protect the health and safety of the population. See Lucas v.
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1067-68 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting); see
also Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) (holding that state ban on brewing of intoxicating
beverages was not a taking even though such action was legal when brewery was formed).
This exception has been used to uphold a number of ordinances enacted to combat
various behavior viewed as detrimental to community interests. See Zeman, 552 N.W.2d at 553-
54 (disorderly uses of rental property); Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn v. DeBenedictis, 480
U.S. 470, 485-93 (1987) (coal mine subsidence); Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962)
(rock quarry excavation); Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928) (infectious tree disease);
Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915) (emissions from factory); Mutschler v. City of
Phoenix, 129 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (live sex acts); Arnold v. City of Spartanburg, 23
S.E.2d 735 (S.C. 1943) (intoxicating liquors).
In the present case, assuming arguendo that the Ordinance deprives Plaintiffs of all
economic beneficial use of their property, the Ordinance does not constitute a taking. This is
because the Ordinance is a valid use of the City of Anoka's police power. The City of Anoka has
a valid interest in protecting the people of Anoka from illicit drugs and has the power to do so by
banning the sale of drug paraphernalia.
2. Plaintiffs have not advanced an argument sufficient to meet their burden in
proving the unconstitutionality of the Ordinance
Plaintiffs advance a series of paragraphs copied and pasted from unrelated appellate and
Minnesota Federal District Court cases. This has resulted in an argument ranging from confusing
to incomprehensible.
Plaintiffs argue that Minn. Stat. §§ 152.093 and 152.01, subd. 18 as well as the Ordinance
are, "as drafted, .. , unconstitutionally vague as construed and applied to Plaintiff [sic] in this
case." Plaintiffs' Mem., at 7. Plaintiffs continue "that the statute can only be constitutional if an
item not only has the requisite physical characteristics of drug paraphernalia, but also is
possessed or distributed with the specific intent that it be used with controlled substances." Id. at
11. These assertions were lifted from City of Saint Paul v. Various Items of Drug Paraphernalia,
474 N.W.2d 413, 416-17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991), where the Court of Appeals indeed found that
the statutes in question were constitutional but read into the statutes an element that the
distributor of paraphernalia intend that the paraphernalia be used in one of the enumerated ways.
The same logic cannot be applied here where the Ordinance already requires that the seller
knows or has reason to know that the paraphernalia will be used in an illicit manner.
Plaintiffs then concede that the ordinance is constitutional as written:
Plaintiffs concede that the Ordinance is constitutional as written. That conclusion
is difficult to avoid given the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Posters N' Things,
Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513, 114 S.Ct. 1747, 128 L.Ed.2d 539 (1994), which
upheld a very similar drug paraphernalia statute. Plaintiffs argue, however, that the
City's "announced practice to enforce the Ordinance against all of Plaintiffs
products based upon their physical characteristics alone, regardless of the intent of
the seller or purchasers" would run contrary to rulings of the Supreme Court and
the Eight Circuit. (Plaintiffs Mem. at 7.)
Plaintiffs' Mem., at 12. Plaintiffs borrow this entire paragraph verbatim from Disc & Tape, Inc.
v. City of Moorhead, Minn., Civil No. 12-171, 2012 WL 591668, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 22, 2012).
However, the Disc & Tape court went on to reject the very same argument two pages later,
stating,
[Tjhe Supreme Court rejected the argument now advanced by Plaintiffs .... The
Court instead made clear that "[t]he objective characteristics of some items
establish that they are designed specifically for use with controlled substances."
Posters N' Things, 511 U.S. at 518. "Such items, including bongs, cocaine freebase
kits, and certain kinds of pipes, have no other use besides contrived ones (such as
use of a bong as a flower vase)." Id. These items—specifically enumerated in the
federal statute contested in Posters N' Things and also in the Ordinance at issue
here—are `per se drug paraphernalia."
Id. at *5. Thus, the quoted language makes clear that the City of Anoka's enforcement policy is
constitutional even where the City of Anoka bases its decisions on the physical characteristics of
the alleged paraphernalia alone.
Plaintiffs additionally cite to Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffinan Estates,
Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) for the proposition that drug paraphernalia ordinances require a
scienter element in order to be constitutionally valid. This is a misreading of the case. Hoffman
Estates carefully analyzed the intent requirements of the ordinance in question as "a scienter
requirement may mitigate a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to
the complainant that his conduct is proscribed." Id. at 499. Thus, Plaintiffs have erroneously
turned a sufficient condition into a necessary one.
Contrary to the position of Plaintiffs, the Model Drug Paraphernalia Act on which the
Ordinance is based has been upheld against every constitutional challenge. Garner v. White, 726
F.2d 1274, 1278-79 (8th Cir. 1984) (citing Camille Corp. v. Phares, 705 F.2d 223 (7th Cir.
1983); Stoianoff v. Montana, 695 F.2d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 1983); Weiler v. Carpenter, 695 F.2d
1348 (10th Cir. 1982); Kansas Retail Trade Coop. v. Stephan, 695 F.2d 1343 (10th Cir. 1982);
General Stores, Inc. v. Bingaman, 695 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1982); Tobacco Accessories &
Novelty Craftsmen Merchants Ass'n v. Treen, 681 F.2d 378 (5th Cir. 1982); Levas and Levas v.
Village of Antioch, 684 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1982); New England Accessories Trade Assn, Inc. v.
City of Nashua, 679 F.2d 1 (1 st Cir. 1982); Florida Businessmen for Free Enterprise v. City of
Hollywood, 673 F.2d 1213 (11th Cir. 1982)).
In light of the above and the overwhelming number of federal cases holding similar
language constitutional, the Court cannot find that Plaintiffs have advanced any meritorious
argument that would meet their heavy burden in establishing that the Ordinance is
unconstitutional.
3. Preemption does not exist here where the Legislature did not intend to occupy the
field and the Ordinance does not impermissibly conflict with any statute
Plaintiffs argue that that the Ordinance is preempted by Minn. Stat. §§ 152.093 and
152.01, subd. 18.
Minn. Stat. § 152.093 (1982) makes it a misdemeanor "for any person knowingly or
intentionally to deliver drug paraphernalia or knowingly or intentionally to possess or
manufacture drug paraphernalia for delivery." Minn. Stat. § 152.01, subd. 18 (2016) defines drug
paraphernalia.
Minn. Stat. § 152.205 (1988) states that "Sections 152.01, subdivision 18, and 152.092 to
152.095 do not preempt enforcement or preclude adoption of municipal or county ordinances
prohibiting or otherwise regulating the manufacture, delivery, possession, or advertisement of
drug paraphernalia."
It appears as though Plaintiffs are arguing field and conflict preemption. Field preemption
exists where "a city ordinance attempts to regulate conduct in a field that the state legislature
intended the state law to exclusively occupy[,]" while conflict preemption exists where "a city
ordinance permits what a state statute forbids or forbids what a statute permits." State v.
Kulhman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
Conflict preemption arises under two circumstances. First, conflict preemption occurs
where a party cannot simultaneously obey both the statute and the ordinance. See Housing &
Redevelopment Auth. of Duluth v. Lee, 852 N.W.2d 683, 687 (Minn. 2014) (discussing conflict
preemption as applicable to state and federal statutes). Second, conflict preemption occurs where
an ordinance is an obstacle to fulfilling the purpose of the state law. See id.
The first step in determining whether conflict preemption exists is deciding whether the
statute and the ordinance conflict. WHLink, LLC v. City of Otsego, 664 N.W.2d 390, 395 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2003). "It is generally said that no conflict exists where the ordinance, though different,
is merely additional and complementary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute." Mangold
Midwest Co. v. Vill. of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813, 817 (Minn. 1966).
Under the language of Minn. Stat. § 152.205, it is clear that the legislature did not intend
to occupy the entire field and in fact expressly invited municipalities to pass ordinances
regulating drug paraphernalia. The Ordinance does not run afoul of field preemption.
The definition of drug paraphernalia in the Ordinance is broader than the definition in
Minn. Stat. § 152.01. Both the Ordinance and the statute list several ways in which an object
could be used that would make it drug paraphernalia. However, the Ordinance includes several
uses that the statute does not. Those acts include: compounding, converting, producing,
processing, preparing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, or concealing
illicit drugs. All the uses listed in the statute are repeated in the Ordinance. Thus, the Ordinance
does not conflict with the state law in this respect as it appears, as the Legislature envisioned in
enacting section 152.205, that the Ordinance supplements the statute by further broadening the
definition of drug paraphernalia.
The two definitions are different in one other aspect. While the statute provides that drug
paraphernalia be "knowingly or intentionally used primarily" in the manners discussed above,
the Ordinance provides that in order to meet the definition of drug paraphernalia the object be
"used, primarily used, intended for use, or designed for use" in the enumerated ways. Compare
Minn. Stat. § 152.01, subd. 18 with Chapter 46, Article VII, Section 46-160 Drug Paraphernalia.
While this element does not so neatly overlap as the preceding, it does not conflict either. The
Ordinance again broadens the definition of drug paraphernalia, but without creating conflicting
instructions for a citizen. A citizen could follow both the statute and the Ordinance at the same
time. The Ordinance and the statute therefore do not conflict.
Likewise, the Court cannot find conflict in comparing Minn. Stat. § 152.093 and the
Ordinance. The statute forbids persons from knowingly or intentionally delivering, possessing, or
manufacturing drug paraphernalia for delivery. Minn. Stat. § 152.093. The Ordinance on the
other hand, reduces—while not eliminating—the mens rea requirement and adding several
forbidden acts. These are supplemental to the statute and do not conflict as a citizen could obey
both at the same time.
4. The Ordinance is not an ex post facto law where it does not penalize past
behavior
The United State Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from passing any ex post
facto laws. U.S. Constitution Art. 1, § 9, cl. 3; see also Minnesota Constitution Art. 1, § 11. An
ex post facto law is one that makes an action a crime where it was not a crime at the time the
action was taken. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390 (1789).
As the Ordinance does not seek to criminalize behavior occurring before the effective
date of the Ordinance, but only behavior occurring after the effective date of the ordinance, it
does not violate the Constitutional prohibition again ex post facto laws. See State v. Howard, 360
N.W.2d 637, 639-41 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (holding that ordinance against keeping wild
animals was not an ex post facto law where the ordinance only sought to punish behavior
occurring after the implementation of the ordinance).
5. The Ordinance is not a bill of attainder where it applies to all future sellers of
paraphernalia and punishment can be avoided by not selling paraphernalia
The U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions further bar passage of bills of attainder. U.S.
Constitution Art. 1, § 9, cl. 3; Minnesota Constitution Art. 1, § 11. A bill of attainder is a law
which punishes a party without a trial. U.S. v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946). The law need
not name the particular person or persons who are the subject of the law to be a bill of attainder
10
provided that the targets are identifiable. Starhnvether v. Blair, 71 N.W.2d 869, 879 (Minn.
1955).
A law is not a bill of attainder simply because it applies to a small group or the subset of
a group. See Reserve Mining Co. v. State, 310 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Minn. 1981). In Reserve
Mining, in response to Reserve Mining's argument that it was being singled out, the Minnesota
Supreme Court stated, "The fact that Reserve is the only member of the class does not make the
tailings tax statute a bill of attainder. The statute could logically be applied to other tailings
producers not operating in compliance with Minn.Stat. s 298.24, subd. 2." Id. at 491.
Further, "if an affected group can escape the regulation by altering their conduct, the
proscription is not a bill of attainder, because it addresses future, not past, conduct." Council of
Indep. Tobacco Mfrs. ofAm. v. State, 685 N.W.2d 467, (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
The Ordinance is not a bill of attainder. First, Plaintiffs are not being singled out as the
Ordinance not only applies to them but also the two other businesses identified as selling
paraphernalia in the City of Anoka at the time the Ordinance was passed along with any other
business or individual that might attempt to do the same in the future. Second, Plaintiffs can
avoid punishment by not selling paraphernalia.
6. Any claim regarding an unreasonable search and seizure is frivolous as the
Plaintiffs have not been searched and no property has been seized
Plaintiffs claim of a violation of the Minnesota Constitution's proscription against
unreasonable searches and seizures is perplexing, which may explain why the parties have
chosen not to address it in their briefs. By Plaintiffs' account, the police entered the business
during regular hours in order to discuss the implementation of the Ordinance with the local
business, did not search the business beyond what was in plain sight, and have not seized any
products. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)
11
(describing a search occurring only when the person exhibits a subjective expectation of
privacy); see also U.S. v. Golden, 413 F.2d 1010 (4th Cir. 1969) (holding that warrant was not
required for treasury agent to inspect premises where business was open to the public and
defendant did not object to the inspection). Additionally, there are no allegations that during
these conversations a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. See State v. Sanger, 420
N.W.2d 241, 243 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (describing a Fourth Amendment seizure as "whether a
reasonable person would have concluded under the circumstances that he was free to leave.").
Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiffs' rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were
violated is frivolous.
For these reasons, it is unlikely that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of any of their
theories. Therefore, this factor weighs strongly in favor of Defendant.
B. The presence of immediate and irreparable iniury to the plaintiff and the
Possibility of injury to the defendant
If an injunction is not issued, Plaintiffs will suffer financial harm. Plaintiffs have been
told that most of their inventory violates the Ordinance. As a result, Plaintiffs will likely close
RedruM. Plaintiffs employ several employees whom would not receive wages. Additionally,
RedruM currently leases the store in which it is housed and still owes approximately $46,000 on
its lease.
Defendant is unlikely to suffer any monetary loss. Defendant would be unable to enforce
the Ordinance and fulfill the public purpose for which the Ordinance was enacted. Ultimately,
however, an injunction barring enforcement would only maintain the status quo for Defendant.
This factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.
D. Any public interest involved
12
Plaintiffs cite their own concern over potential blight on the downtown Anoka area to be
caused by Plaintiffs going out of business.
The Ordinance was passed by the Anoka City Council after multiple readings and
feedback from City of Anoka residents. "[T]he City of Anoka, as a community does not support
the use of controlled substances or items related to its use." Aff. of Eric Peterson, at 1. The City
of Anoka also has an interest in "maintain[ing] a positive community image, positive community
health, and ... preserv[ing] and maintain[ing] the safety for all citizens." Id. at 1-2.
This factor weighs strongly in favor of Defendant.
in weighing all factors, they balance against issuance of a permanent injunction. it must
therefore be denied.
II. Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied where the Answer
denies material allegations and asserts several affirmative defenses
"When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must accept the
allegations contained in the pleading under attack as true." Wessin v. Archives Corp., 581
N.W.2d 380, 383 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). Where the answer denies allegations in the complaint
or raises an affirmative defense, judgment on the pleadings is improper. Chilson v. Travelers'
Ins. Co., 230 N.W. 118, 119 (Minn. 1930).
In deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, if "matters outside the pleadings are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary
judgment and disposed of as provided for in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable
opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." Minn. R. Civ. P.
12.03. However, where the Court does not consider outside matters in deciding the motion, the
Court need not treat the motion as one for summary judgment. See Scheller v. City of'Anoka, --
N.W.2d--, 2017 WL 474401, at *9 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2017) (holding that district court was
13
not required to treat motion to dismiss as summary judgment motion under Rule 12.02 where the
district court did not consider affidavit while discussing the motion to dismiss).
The Court will not consider the affidavits filed by the parties for the purpose of the
Plaintiffs' motion forjudgment on the pleadings.
Defendant's Answer "[djenies each and every allegation, matter and thing contained in
Plaintiffs' Petition except as hereinafter admitted." Answer, at 1. The Answer specifically denies
Paragraph I of the Petition, which alleges the existence of the business entities and the identity
of the individual owner. This is a material allegation as it touches standing. The Answer further
alleges several affirmative defenses, including immunity, ripeness, contributory negligence, and
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As the Answer has denied material
claims in the Petition and posited several affirmative defenses, judgment on the pleadings is
improper.
For these reasons Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied.
III. Summary judgment is proper here where there are no material facts in dispute and
Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all counts
A trial court has inherent authority "to dispose summarily of litigation when there
remains no genuine issue as to any material fact and judgment must be ordered for one of the
parties as a matter of law." Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell, 230 N.W.2d 588, 591-92 (Minn.
1975). This is true where "the absence of a formal motion creates no prejudice to the party
against whom summary judgment is entered." Modern Heating & Air Condit g v. Loop Belden
Porter, 493 N. W.2d 296,299 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
In Defendant's Memorandum, Defendant requested that judgment be entered against
Plaintiffs. This memorandum was served in accordance with Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115.03. The
memorandum was served on December 29, 2016, 11 days before the hearing. Both parties agreed
14
that the current motions before the Court would dispose of all issues between the parties.
Additionally, both parties submitted affidavits in support of these motions, as envisioned under
Rule 56 and not considered under Rule 12.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are not prejudiced as they had sufficient notice as well
as the opportunity to submit documents envisioned by Rule 56 and did in fact submit those
documents. The mere fact that Defendant did not submit a formal motion should not stall the
disposition of the case.
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and
one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. "The party opposing
summary judgment may not establish genuine issues of material fact by relying upon unverified
and conclusory allegations, or postulated evidence that might be developed at trial, or
metaphysical doubt about the facts." Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., 689 N.W.2d 779, 783
(Minn. 2004). "A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record
reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff's claim." Lubbers v.
Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995). Thus, "[s]ummaryjudgment is properly rendered
only where there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and where a determination of the
applicable law will resolve the controversy." Gaspord v. Washington Cnty. Planning Comm'n,
252 NW.2d 590, 590 (Minn. 1977).
That is such the case here. First, Plaintiffs have not raised any factual issue that
necessitate trial. The facts of the case are discrete, uncontested, and well -described in the various
affidavits of the parties. Plaintiffs' claims only raise questions of law, which are the province of
the Court. Second, Plaintiffs, as a matter of law, are not entitled to relief on any of their claims.
While the reasoning is fully laid out above and incorporate here by reference, it is worth reciting
as applied to the claims raised in Plaintiffs' Petition and Memorandum.
15
A. There has been no taking where the sovernment exercises its police powers for the
health and morals of the community
Plaintiffs have not disputed "that the City of Anoka, as a community, does not support
the use of controlled substances or items related to its use[,]" or "that in order to maintain a
positive community image, positive community health, and reserve and maintain the safety for
all citizens, the City of Anoka was introducing an ordinance that would prohibit the possession,
manufacture, and sale of drug paraphernalia." Aff. of Eric Peterson, at 1-2.
It thus appears that no factual issue exists to be tried and, in keeping with case cited
above, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment must therefore
be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' claims that the Ordinance
amounts to an unlawful taking.
B. Defendant is entitled to summary iudement on Plaintiffs' claim that the Ordinance is
unconstitutional
The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law for the Court. State v. Clarke
Plumbing and Heating, Inc., 56 N. W.2d 667, 671 (Minn. 1952).
The Aff. of Eric Peterson establishes that the products identified by the City of Anoka
Police to be paraphernalia were, based upon the officers "training and experience[,] ... items
used for smoking controlled substances. These items included, but were not limited to glass
pipes, bongs, hookahs, grinders, rolling papers, dugouts, and one -hitters." Aff. of Eric Peterson,
at 2. The Aff. of VanSlyke alleges that officers entered RedruM on August 30, 2016 and
informed the employees "that glass pipes and hookah pipes sold in the store were in direct
violation of the new City ordinance, because they `could be used to ingest marijuana' and as
such were viewed by the officers as drug paraphernalia." Aff. of Mike VanSlyke, at 2. While the
two incidents occurred on different days, they are consistent with the City's policy of enforcing
16
the Ordinance as written. This is further consistent with Supreme Court precedence, which
allows that certain objects are "per se drug paraphernalia." Posters 1V' Things, 511 U.S. at 518.
Thus, incorporating the case law discussed in Section I.C.2 supra, the Court must
conclude that the Ordinance is constitutional as a matter of law and there are no triable factual
issues with regard to Plaintiffs' claim that the Ordinance is void for vagueness. Summary
judgment must therefore be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs.
C. The Ordinance is not preempted by statute where the Legislature has not intended to
occupy the field and the Ordinance is supplement to the statute
Preemption is a question of law. Dahl v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., 742 N. W.2d 186,
197 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). Such an issue is reserved for the Court. There can be, therefore, no
determination for a jury. See Black's Law Dictionary 1366 (9th Ed. 2009) (defining question of
law as "An issue that, although it might tum on a factual point, is reserved for the court and
excluded from the jury[.]").
For the reasons stated above, the Ordinance is not preempted by statute. The Legislature
fully intended that municipalities would adopt their own ordinances with regard to drug
paraphernalia. Additionally, the Ordinance does not contradict any statute but is supplemental to
it.
Summary judgment is proper here in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs.
D The Ordinance is not an ex post facto law where it does not punish past behavior
The existence of an ex post facto law involves the constitutionality of such law and is
therefore a question of law. State v. Manning, 532 N.W.2d 244,247 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
Relying on cases cited and the analysis above, as a matter of law, the Ordinance is not an ex post
facto law. The Ordinance is designed to affect future and not past behavior.
17
Summary judgment is appropriately entered on this claim in favor of Defendant and
against Plaintiffs.
Whether a law represents a bill of attainder is a matter of the constitutionality of that law
and therefore a question of law. State v. Melde, 725 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Minn. 2006) cited in
Pearson v. 2005 Chev Aveo, KLIT062853209, No. A11-574, 544 CTC, MN, 2011 WL 400832,
at * 1 (Minn. Ct. App. September 12, 2011). Relying on cases cited and the analysis above, as a
matter of law, the Ordinance is not a bill of attainder. The Ordinance not only applies to Plaintiff
but also to all persons and entities currently selling paraphernalia and who might sell
paraphernalia in the future.
Summary judgment is appropriately entered on this claim in favor of Defendant and
against Plaintiffs.
F. Plaintiffs' Petition does not contain any allegations of an unreasonable search or
seizure
Plaintiffs have not advanced any facts through affidavit or allegations in their Petition
that could sustain a claim of an unreasonable search or seizure.
Summary judgment is appropriately entered on this claim in favor of Defendant and
against Plaintiffs.
For the above reasons, the Court must sua sponte enterjudgment against Plaintiffs and in
favor of Defendant.
F
T.A.F.
ANL6
Y6O F A -
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers �k `,, — `
CC: Jim Dickinson, City
FROM: Joe Janish, Community
SUBJECT: Discussion: Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) Rural Reserve
DATE: April 25, 2017
(2
BACKGROUND
At the October 25, 2016 City Council work session, City Council discussed a CPA request by
Jake and Jon Packer to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve District into
parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council
provided direction to staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address future development
within the rural reserve area.
Since that time the Planning Commission and City Council have approved a Comprehensive
Plan amendment to address for higher density and further subdivision of property within the
Rural Reserve District. At our March 21, 2017 work session, City Council provided some
direction on the development of the amendment.
Staff has provided a "draft" version of the proposed language for discussion this evening.
DISCUSSION
a. Splitting Process Highlights
Staff has proposed adding a new section with Title 13 while modifying the existing section.
This creates a lA and 1B. The creation of two 1's will allow for folks to continue to split
land as they do currently in other areas of the city and 1B will apply to property within the
Rural Reserve area. Direction provided to staff included create a "hybrid" platting process.
Reviewing our current Lot Split Application, many of the items that are included in the draft
ordinance are listed as required items in the application. Staff is proposing to be a bit more
open to include the use of "public" information on the remnant parcels. This in theory
should help to keep costs down for applicants that desire to split property within the Rural
Reserve, yet still provide enough detail for the city to perform an appropriate review.
Staff is requesting that splits within the Rural Reserve that create 5 acre parcels provide a
deed restriction to make up for the 1 per 10 density that Met Council has approved (see
Example A). This "Density" deed restriction would include language that prohibits future
dwellings until public services are available.
Example A.
The parcel created and deed restricted area would equal 10 acres.
One item that the proposed ordinance would be much more restrictive than other
communities and Met Council requirements would be the need for a blanket easement. The
majority of communities that have this type of development place a restriction that the
property can not be further subdivided until future utilities are avialable.
b. Zoning District
Staff is clarifying the zoning regulations within the Rural Reserve. This information is
similar to R-1 Single Family -Rural with the exception of a 5 -acre minimum lot size.
Clarification on other sections of the ordinance have been inserted as well.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends the City Council review and discuss the proposed zoning text amendment.
Specifically consider the requirement of a blanket easement for future utilities and roadways, or
use of a deed restriction that the property would not be further subdivided until utilities are
available.
Re p ctfu Submitted,
Joe Janish
Community Development Director
Attachments
Draft Title 13 Changes
Draft Title 3, 7, 12, 13 Changes
Andover City Council Meeting Minutes March 21, 2017
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes March 28, 2017
TITLE 13
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Subject
Chapter
Splitting Lots, Parcels Or Tracts Of Land Generally. 1A
Splitting Lots, Parcels Or Tracts Of Land Within
Rural Reserve.................................................1 B
Agricultural Preservation............................................2
Planned Unit Development (PUD) .............................3
Shoreland Management.............................................4
Bluffland And Riverland Development .......................5
Buffer Strips And Standards For Protection
Of Wetlands And Storm Water Ponds.......................6
CHAPTER 1
SPLITTING LOTS, PARCELS OR TRACTS OF LAND GENERALLY
SECTION:
13-1A -1:
Definition
13-1A -2:
Minimum Lot Requirements
13-1A -3:
Frequency Of Splitting Lots
13-1A -4:
Application For Lot Split
13-1A -5:
Fees
13-1A -6:
Review And Recommendations
13-1A-7:
Variances
13-1A -8:
Compliance With Provisions
13-1A -9:
Application And Term Of Provisions; Conflicts
13-1A -10:
Enforcement And Penalty
13-1A-1: DEFINITION: A "lot split' is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of
land into not more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or
exceed the minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning
district. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
13-1A-2: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: No lot, parcel ortract of land
shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the minimum width, depth
and square footage as required for any parcel of land in the zoning district
wherein the lot is located. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
13-1A-3: FREQUENCY OF SPLITTING LOTS: No owner may utilize this
method of land division on any parcel more than one time in any three (3) year
period. A three (3) year waiting period for a lot split is required on all lots, parcels
or tracts from the date they were created by previous lot splits under this chapter.
(Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
A. Exceptions. A lot split may be applied for within the three (3) year waiting
period provided the following conditions are met:
1. The property owner has owned the property for more than five years.
2. A one year waiting period shall be required between splits.
3. A maximum of three lots shall be created including the original lot.
4. City infrastructure and utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer,
water main and streets are in place.
5. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared that
properly address how drainage will be handled on the site as well as
the affect on adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City.
(Amended 431, 10-15-13)
13-1A-4: APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT: The applicant shall provide the
following information:
A. The scale and north direction.
B. Dimensions of the property.
C. Names and locations of adjacent streets.
D. Location of existing buildings on and within one hundred feet (100') of
subject property.
E. Current zoning and legal description.
F. Sufficient proof that the lot has not been split within the last three (3)
years.
rr_r_�sn'rn_resasr_r_Esre�.�ew .
#G. Such other information as may be required to fully represent the
intent of the lot split. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
13-1A-5: FEES:
A. There shall be a single charge as set forth by ordinance plus
consultant's fees, if any, for a lot split application'.
B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original
parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land
dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have
been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the fee, as set forth by
ordinance for each lot created under this chapter, may be assessed for
park fees2. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977; amd. 2003 Code)
13-1A-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Planning And Zoning Commission Review: The proposed lot split shall first
be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and
recommendation. Such recommendations shall consider land uses, traffic
control, zoning regulation, future developments, and conformance with the
' See subsection 1-7-3H of this code.
2 See subsection 1-7-3G of this code.
comprehensive development plan, and any other criteria deemed pertinent
by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
B. Notice To Adjacent Property Owners: Upon receipt of an application for a
lot split, the Community Development Director shall notify by mail all
property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property of the
date of the review of such lot split. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977; amd.
2003 Code)
C. Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation To City Council: The
division of a lot may be recommended for approval; provided that such
split is in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan, does not
interfere with orderly planning, is not contrary to the public interest and
does not nullify the intent of this chapter.'
D. City Council Action:
1. Following review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the request for a lot split shall be placed on the agenda of
the City Council in the following manner:
a. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the
agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the
following month.
b. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on the fourth Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda
of the City Council at the third Tuesday meeting of the following
month, unless there are five (5) Tuesdays in the given month from
which the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
is made, in which case, the recommendation shall be placed on the
agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the
following month.
2. Within sixty (60) days following receipt of the proposed lot split from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council shall approve or
disapprove by resolution. If approved, a certified copy of the resolution
approving the lot split shall be forwarded to the petitioner.
E. Record Of Lot Split: The lot split, together with a certified copy of
the resolution, shall thereafter be filed with the County Recorder's
office.
F. Time Limit On Implementing Lot Split: If the City Council determines that
the conditions of approval are not met within twelve (12) months, the lot
split will be null and void. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
13-1A-7: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this title, Title
11: Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12: Zoning Regulations, may be granted
by the City Council as provided in City Code 12-14-7, except that any variance
request shall be made as a part of the lot split approval process. (Amended Ord.
407,6-21-11)
13-1A-8: COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS:
A. The effect of this chapter shall not work to preclude compliance with
utilities hookup, payment of levied and pending assessments, and
performance of any other requirements of the ordinances of the city.
B. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not divide any lot or
parcel for the purpose of sale, transfer, or lease with the intent of evading
the provisions of this chapter.
C. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not sell or otherwise
convey said parcel with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter
or circumventing attempts to plat acreage or otherwise subdivide tracts of
land within the city. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
■ \6T��I.T.II�1fdP.7Tt�GT.T.
_ _
ffl-e2:-;04--e
13-1A-9: APPLICATION AND TERM OF PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS:
A. This chapter shall apply to and govern the entire city during the period for
which it is in effect. This chapter, during its effective period, shall replace
and supersede provisions in all other ordinances and regulations
applicable to the city which are in conflict or inconsistent with the
provisions herein. All ordinances and provisions therein which are not in
conflict with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall continue in full
force and effect.
13-1A-10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation
violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law. The lot
splitting not in accordance with the requirements of this chapter may be enforced
by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of
competent jurisdiction. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977)
CHAPTER 1B
SPLITTING LOTS, PARCELS OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE RURAL
RESERVE DISTRICT
13-1 B-1:
Definition
13-1 B-2:
Minimum Lot Requirements
13-1 B-3:
Frequency Of Splitting Lots
13-1 B-4:
Application For Lot Split
13-1 B-5:
Fees
13-1 B-6:
Review And Recommendations
13-1 B-7:
Variances
13-1 B-8:
Compliance With Provisions
13-1 B-9:
Application And Term Of Provisions. Conflicts
13-1 B-10:
Enforcement And Penalty
13-1 B-1: DEFINITION: A 'lot split' is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of
land into more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed
the minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning district.
13-1 B-2: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: No lot, parcel or tract of land
shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the minimum width, depth
and square footage as required for any parcel of land in the zoning district
wherein the lot is located.
13-1 B-3: FREQUENCY OF SPLITTING LOTS: No owner may utilize this
method of land division on any parcel more than one time in any three (3) year
period. A three (3) year waiting period for a lot split is required on all lots, parcels
or tracts from the date they were created by previous lot splits under this chapter.
A. Exceptions. A lot split may be applied for within the three (3) year waiting
period provided the following conditions are met:
1. The property owner has owned the property for more than five years.
2. A one year waiting period shall be required between splits.
3. A maximum of three lots shall be created including the original lot.
4. City infrastructure and utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer,
water main and streets are in place.
5. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared that
properly address how drainage will be handled on the site as well as
the affect on adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City.
(Amended 431, 10-15-13)
13-1 B-4: APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT: The applicant shall provide the
following information:
A. The scale and north direction.
B. Dimensions of the property.
C. Names and locations of adjacent streets.
D. Location of existing buildings on and within one hundred feet (100') of
subject property.
E. Current zoning and legal description.
F. Sufficient proof that the lot has not been split within the last three (3)
years.
G. Flood plain shall be identify if applicable within the lot(s) proposed to have
a home and an overlay may be used on the remnant parcel.
H. Existing topography shall be shown and proposed grading of the site (if
necessary) Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) contour information may
be used for the remnant parcel.
Wetland delineation for the lot(s) that intend to have homes located on
them. National Wetland Information (NWI) is acceptable for remnant
parcel.
J. When applicable, a deed restriction, with language restricting residential
and commercial structures within an area based on density until future
rezoning that would eliminate the need for the density restriction.
K. When applicable, a blanket easement stating that future roads, trails, city
utilities, and future park areas may be located in this area on remnant
parcel.
L. Proof of sewerability for lots proposed to have home(s) by showing
locations of two type I drainfields and corresponding soil borings.
M. Geotechnical Report. A standard geotechnical report with a history and
recommendations regarding the sites. In addition, the report shall include
SCS soil types, mottled soil elevations or highest anticipated water table,
existing groundwater elevation, and soil borings to a minimum depth of 20
feet for the lots proposed to have homes on them.
N. Sketch of how the lot(s) can be further subdivided to allow for a higher
urban residential density (3 units per acre or greater).
O. Such other information as may be required to fully represent the intent of
the lot split.
13-1 B-5: FEES:
A. There shall be a single charge as set forth by ordinance plus
consultant's fees, if any, for a lot split application.
B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original
parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land
dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have
been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the fee, as set forth by
ordinance for each lot created under this chapter, may be assessed for
park fees2.
13-1 B-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Andover Review Committee (ARC): The proposed lot split shall first be
reviewed by ARC. The applicant shall make modifications based upon
ARC's comments and then resubmitted for consideration at a Public
Hearing for Planning and Zoning.
B. Notice To Adjacent Property Owners: Upon receipt of a completed
application for a lot split, the Community Development Director shall notify
by mail all property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the
property of the date of the public hearing at the Planning Commission of
such lot split.
C. Planning And Zoning Commission Review: The Planning and Zoning
Commission for its review and recommendation shall conduct a public
hearing. Such recommendations shall consider land uses, traffic control,
zoning regulation, future developments, and conformance with the
comprehensive development plan, and any other criteria deemed pertinent
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
D. Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation To City Council: The
Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and provide for a
recommendation to the City Council. The division of a lot may be
recommended for approval; provided that such split is in conformance with
the City Comprehensive Plan, does not interfere with orderly planning, is
not contrary to the public interest and does not nullify the intent of this
chapter.
E. City Council Action:
See subsection 1-7-3H of this code.
z See subsection 1-7-3G of this code.
1. Following review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the request for a lot split shall be placed on the agenda of
the City Council in the following manner:
a. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the
agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the
following month.
b. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held on the fourth Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda
of the City Council at the third Tuesday meeting of the following
month, unless there are five (5) Tuesdays in the given month from
which the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
is made, in which case, the recommendation shall be placed on the
agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the
following month.
2. Within sixty (60) days following receipt of the proposed lot split from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council shall approve or
disapprove by resolution. If approved, a certified copy of the resolution
approving the lot split shall be forwarded to the petitioner.
E. Record Of Lot Split: The lot split, any deed restrictions required,
any easements required, together with a certified copy of the
resolution, shall thereafter be filed with the County Recorder's
office.
F. Time Limit On Implementing Lot Split: If the City Council determines that
the conditions of approval are not met within twelve (12) months, the lot
split will be null and void.
13-1 B-7: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this title, Title
11: Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12: Zoning Regulations, may be granted
by the City Council as provided in City Code 12-14-7, except that any variance
request shall be made as a part of the lot split approval process.
13-1B-8: COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS:
A. The effect of this chapter shall not work to preclude compliance with
utilities hookup, payment of levied and pending assessments, and
performance of any other requirements of the ordinances of the city.
B. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not divide any lot or
parcel for the purpose of sale, transfer, or lease with the intent of evading
the provisions of this chapter.
C. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not sell or otherwise
convey said parcel with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter
or circumventing attempts to plat acreage or otherwise subdivide tracts of
land within the city.
13-1B-9: APPLICATION AND TERM OF PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS:
A. This chapter shall apply to and govern the entire city during the period for
which it is in effect. This chapter, during its effective period, shall replace
and supersede provisions in all other ordinances and regulations
applicable to the city which are in conflict or inconsistent with the
provisions herein. All ordinances and provisions therein which are not in
conflict with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall continue in full
force and effect.
13-1 B-10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation
violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law. The lot
splitting not in accordance with the requirements of this chapter may be enforced
by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
CHAPTER 3
ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAP
SECTION:
12-3-1:
Purpose Of Zoning Districts
12-3-2:
Zoning Districts Established
12-3-3:
Purpose Of Each District
12-3-4:
Zoning District Map
12-3-5:
Minimum District Provisions
12-3-2: ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED: For the purpose of this title, the
city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts:
Symbol Name
RR
Single Family Rural Reserve
R-1
Single Family Rural Residential
R-2
Single Family Residential Estate
R-3
Single Family Suburban Residential
R-4
Single Family Urban Residential
R-5
Manufactured Housing
M-1
Multiple Dwelling Medium Density
M-2
Multiple Dwelling
AgP
Agricultural Preserve
GR
General Recreation
LB
Limited Business
NB
Neighborhood Business
Sc
Shopping Center
GB
General Business
I
Industrial
CLR
Closed Landfill Restricted
12-3-3: PURPOSE OF EACH DISTRICT:
A. RR Single Family Rural Reserve: Rural Reserve District is approximately one
thousand acres in size to accommodate future urban growth beyond the
Previously planned Municipal Urban Service Area. This area is designated as an
area of which is restricted from urban development until a master plan has been
approved and municipal sewer and water can be constructed to serve the area.
The city prohibits lot splits and subdivisions of less than one parcel per ten acres
to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude
orderly MUSA expansion However, there are opportunities to allow for rural
reserve lot splits of 5 acres minimum in situations which ensure that the majority
of the residual land be preserved for future economical urban development as
long as the provisions of the city codes are met The intent of the ordinance is
to allow subdivision of land while preserving residual land for future economical
urban development.
R-1 Single Family Rural Residential:
1. This district is intended to provide a residential atmosphere for those persons
desiring to retain a large parcel of land. Such large lots are logical in areas where
development into smaller lots would be difficult, or where public utilities will not
be available in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, larger houses are more
costly and require larger lots. Thus, to provide an area to accommodate those
persons with the financial means to erect a large house, it is necessary to have
an area of large lots.
2. Land which is wooded, or which has a changing topography, and low land
which tends to be poor agriculturally is also the most expensive to develop for
residential sites and, after development, the sites tend to be expensive to
maintain. Such areas are the most interesting and most susceptible to large lot
development. The district also is intended to preserve productive land for
agricultural use. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-05)
B. R-2 Single Family Residential Estate: This district is intended to provide a
residential atmosphere for those persons desiring a single-family neighborhood
with a suburban density. Lots in this district created after 1978 and without City
sewer and water must be at least 2.5 acres. This zoning district was used for
rural residential developments prior to 1978. No existing properties may be
rezoned to R-2. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code, Amended Ord.
314 10-4-2005)
C. R-3 Single Family Suburban Residential: This particular district is intended to
satisfy those persons who prefer a medium sized lot. Lots in this district created
after 1978 and without City sewer and water must be at least 2.5 acres. This
zoning district was used for rural residential developments created before 1978.
No existing properties may be rezoned to R-3. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
D. R-4 Single Family Urban Residential: This district represents urban density use
by single-family detached dwellings. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
E. R-5 Manufactured Housing District: This district would permit all types of
manufactured housing including manufactured homes and modular houses,
provided public sewer and water is provided. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970)
F. M-1 Multiple Dwelling Medium Density: This district is intended to provide a
location for medium density attached dwelling units (townhouses) with private
entrances. These areas may be transitional, however, the townhouse resident
should have convenient access to all facilities provided for single-family
neighborhoods. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering
from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code,
Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
G. M-2 Multiple Dwelling District: This district is intended to provide a location for all
types of multiple dwellings. This district's location shall have convenient access
to all facilities provided for neighborhoods, open space, and buffering from less
intense uses. Access to an M-2 district shall be from a collector or arterial
roadway. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
H. GR General Recreation District: This district is intended to provide a location for
all types of commercial recreation uses such as golf driving ranges, outdoor
theaters, racetracks, and snowmobile areas, most of which require large
amounts of land and good separation from residential areas. This district's
location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses.
(Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
I. LB Limited Business District: This district is suitable only for commercial uses of
a limited (less intense) nature. This may be due to the close proximity of
residential uses. The LB district can be used as a transitional district or buffer
between non -compatible uses such as intense commercial (GB) and low density
residential uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
J. NB Neighborhood Business District: This district is used for retail sales and
services in such scale as to serve the surrounding neighborhood needs.
Locations for Neighborhood Business districts are typically small plots in close
proximity to or surrounded by residential areas. NB zoning districts do not
require frontage on an arterial roadway and can be served by local and collector
streets. However, this district shall not be served exclusively by local streets.
This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less
intense uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
K. SC Shopping Center District: This zoning classification is reserved for modern
retail shopping facilities of integrated design in appropriate locations. Locations
for the SC district are larger plots that can accommodate more intensive retail
development. Access shall be available from arterial roadways. This district's
location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses.
(Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
L. GB General Business District: These are areas containing a wide variety of
business uses including retail, service and semi -industrial. As such, they may
contain businesses that tend to serve other business and industry as well as
those catering to shopper needs.
M. I Industrial District: These are areas that have the prerequisites for industrial
development, but because of proximity to residential areas or the need to protect
certain areas or uses from adverse influences, high development standards will
be necessary. I district uses include service industries and industries which
manufacture, fabricate, assemble or store, where the process is not likely to
create offensive noise, vibrations, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other
objectionable influences. Generally, those include wholesale, service and light
industries that are dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere. An industrial
"park" which maintains high development standards would be zoned I. This
district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense
uses. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970, Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
N. CLR Closed Landfill Restricted: This district is intended to apply to former
landfills and adjacent lands which are managed under the Closed Landfill
Program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA). The purpose of the
district is to limit uses of land both actively filled and related lands, to minimal
uses in order to protect the land from human activity where response action
systems are in place. This district shall only apply to the former landfill and
pertinent adjacent lands (the limits of which are defined by the MPCA). This
district shall apply whether the landfill is in public (State, MPCA, County, City,
Township), Indian tribal, or private owners.
12.3.5: MINIMIM DISTRICT PROVISIONS
RR
R-1
R-2
I R-3
R-4
R-51
M-1
M-2
AgP
GR
LB
NB
SC
GB
Lot area per dwelling unit
(square feet)
1 -family homes
5 to 10
acres
2.5
acres
2.5
acres
2.5
acres
11,400
5,500
1 -family homes (lots
created before 10117178)
1 acre
20,000
Single-family twin homes
6,000
5,000
Single-family attached
6,000
5,000
Apartments (lot area per
unit in square feet)
1 -bedroom units
4,000
2 -bedroom units
5,000
Floor area per dwelling unit
(square feet) See floor
area definition for two story
homes
1 -family homes
960
960
1,200
960
960
960
960
Single-family twin homes
960
960
Single-family attached
960
960
1 -bedroom apartment units
700
Each additional apartment
bedroom (plus)
150
Lot dimensions
RR
R-1
R-2
R3
R-4
R-51
M-1
M-2
AgP
GR
LB
NB
SC
GB
I
Lot width -front setback line
(feet)
300
300
300
300
80
150
150
300
120
100
150
200
100
100
Lot width (lots created
before 10117/78)
165
100
Lot width (feet)
1,320
Lot depth (feet)
150
150
150
150
130
150
150
135
135
150
150
150
150
Minimum garage size
(square feet)
440
440
440
440
440
220 + 1
prk spc
220 + 1
prk spc
220 + 1
prk spc
440
Lot dimensions
RR
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-51
M-1
M-2
AgP
GR
LB
NB
SC
GB
I
(continued)
Nonresidential lot area
10
5 acres
1 acre
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
40
20,000
20,000
22,500
30,000
20,000
24,000
(acres or square feet)
acres
sf
sf
sf
sf
acres
sf
sf
sf
sf
sf
sf
Minimum district size
2 acres
5 acres
Principal structure height
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
45
45
45
(maximum) subject to City
Code 12-3-5 B.6
Land coverage (maximum
20
20
20
30
30
20
30
30
Up to 40
Up to 40
Up to 40
Up to 40
Up to 50
percent of structures)
Building setbacks?
RR
R-1
R-2
R3
R-4
R-51
M-1
M-2
AgP
GR
LB
NB
SC
GB
I
Any yard setback from
50
50
50
50
40
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
county road subject to City
Code 12-547
Front yard setback (feet)
40
40
40
35
352
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Side yard principal
10
10
10
10
10
20
30
10
104
104
104
104
104
structure setback from
interior lot linea
Side yard setback from
40
40
40
35
355
30
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
property line adjacent to
street
Attached residential
6
garage (over 20 feet wide)
from interior lot line
Rear yard setback
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
30
25
25
25
25
25
Rear yard setback for any
40
40
40
35
35
residential structure from
prop. line adjacent to street
Notes: 1. Allowed by Planned Unit Development only.
2. Unless existing structures would indicate a lesser setback to maintain uniformity.
3. An additional 5 -foot setback shall be added when plans for the principal structure accommodate an access for a deck.
4. See Section 12-5-3 of this title for setback adjacent to residential areas.
5.25 feet if it is a back-to-back lot.
6. See City Code 12-13 for exceptions allowed as a Conditional Use
7. See also City Code 12-5-4 when less than minimum required right-of-way exists
All setback measurements are from property lines.
(Ord. 273, 9-2-2003; amd. Ord. 274, 9-2-2003; amd. Ord. 314,10-4-2005; Ord. 403,12-21-10; Amended Ord. 423, 10-16-12)
CHAPTER
FENCES AND WALLS
12-7-3: FENCE HEIGHT:
A. In the rear and side yards up to the front fagade of the principal structure, fences
up to a height of six (6) feet are allowed. (Amended Ord. 386, 8/5/09)
B. Fences located closer to the front property line than the principal structure, shall
not exceed four (4) feet in height. In the RR Single -Family Rural Reserve, R-1
Single -Family Rural Residential and R-2 Single -Family Estate zoning districts,
"ornamental fences", as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this title, of up to six (6) feet
in height are permitted in all yards, provided the fence does not encroach upon
the Clear View Triangle as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this code. (Amended
Ord. 386, 8/5/09)
CHAPTER 9
HOME OCCUPATIONS
12-9-12: FARM WINERIES: The following provisions shall apply to all farm
wineries that are considered home occupations under the Conditional Use Permit
process:
Farm wineries which shall be allowed on 2'/z acre or larger parcels in the RR, R-1, R-2
and R-3 Zoning Districts.
Chapter 12
RESIDENTIAL
PERMITTED, PERMITTED ACCESSORY, CONDITIONAL, INTERIM AND PROHIBITED USES
P- Permitted Use
R -I Single Family -Rural M-2 Multiple Dwelling
PA- Permitted Accessory Use
R-2 Single Family- Estate RR Simile Family Rural Reserve
C -Conditional Use' stEroamorFs
R-3 Single Family- Suburban
X -Prohibited Use
Rd Single Family- Urban
PUD- Planned Unit Development
R-5 Manufactured Housing
I -Interim Use
M-1 Multiple Dwelling- Low
Density
If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited
Permitted, Permitted Acce%nrv. Conditions]. Interim and Prohibited
RR
Dlptriets
R-1 I R-2 R-3 R-4 s R-5 M -I M-2
Animal Therapy Facility -on properties larger than five acres in size
C
C
C
C
X
X
X
X
Commercial animal training (2.5 acre minimum residential lot size)
C
C
C
C
X
X
X
X
Commercial riding stables
C
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dog kennel license - Private (2.5 acre minimum lot size required) in
compliance with City Code 5 -IA
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Dog kennel license - Commercial (minimum 2.5 acre lot size) in compliance
with City Code 5 -IA
C
C
C
C
C
C
X
X
Domestic animals in compliance with City Code Title 5
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Farm animals up to 5 per acre, plus one additional farm animal per acre
above 5 acres on residential properties 5 acres or greater up to a maximum of
20 animals and definition under City Code 12-2
P
P
P
P
X
X
X
X
Farm animals greater than allowed as a permitted use on residential properties
5 acres or greater in compliance with City Code Title 5s and definition under
City Code 12-2
C
C
C
C
X
X
X
X
Feedlots, except Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Inc. which is a permitted
use that predates the adoption of this ordinance.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pleasure/recreation animals on residential properties at least 2.5 acres in size
in compliance with City Code Title 5 and definition under City Code 12-2
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
X
X
X
Poultry on residential properties with neither municipal sewer or water in
compliance with City Code Title 5 and definition under City Code 12-2
P
P
P
P
X
X
X
X
Dwelltn¢s
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
C
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Manufactured homes and modular homes, provided they are developed under
a planned unit development and the complex is a minimum of twenty (20)
acres in size
X
X
X
X
X
PUD
X
X
Multiple dwellings
X
X
X
X
X
X
PUD
PUD
Relocated dwelling units in compliance with City Code 9-11
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Single-family residential buildings (detached)
P
P
P
P
P
PUD
residential buildings (attached) and townhouses
X
X
X
X
X
X
tDPUDSingle-family
Temporary Family Health Care Facility
X
X
X
X
X
XTwo-family
home conversions (splits) in compliance with City Code 12-8-1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Home Occupations
Home occupations within principal structure in compliance with City Code
12-9
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Home occupations in accessory structure on a parcel of land three (3) acres or
larger utilizing an accessory structure and/or exterior storage in compliance
N City Code 12-9
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
dc
Bazbersho s and beauty salons
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P- Permitted Use R -1 -Single Family -Rural M-2- Multiple Dwelling
Bed and breakfast C
C
C
C
C
C
X
X
Boarders or roomers, up to two persons, by a resident family, with no private
PA
If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited
Permotted- Permit ed Accesso". Conditional, Interim and Prohibited Uses
RR
Z'r i.. ni.t�i'ft
R-1 R-2 R-3 r R-4 s R-5 M-1 M-2
cookingfacilities
P
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
P
Cabinet making/wood working (home occupation) in compliance with City C
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Code 12-9
Group Homes as regulated by State Statute
C
C
P
P
P
P
Commercial greenhouse C
C
C
C
X
X
X
X
PA
Daycare Centers- Home Occupation (12 or fewer children) C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
Daycare Centers -Home Occupation (13 or more children) P
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P- Permitted Use R -1 -Single Family -Rural M-2- Multiple Dwelling
PA- Permitted Accessory Use R-2- Single Family- Estate RR Single Familv Rural Reserve
C- Conditional Use' ssa Foou+atss R -3 -Single Family -Suburban
X- Prohibited Use R-4- Single Family- Urban
PUD- Planned Unit Development R-5- Manufactured Housing
I- Interim Use M-1- Multiple Dwelling- Low
Density
If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited
Permotted- Permit ed Accesso". Conditional, Interim and Prohibited Uses
RR
Z'r i.. ni.t�i'ft
R-1 R-2 R-3 r R-4 s R-5 M-1 M-2
Daycare Facility -Group Family
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Farm Wineries (subject to City Code 12-9-12)
PA
PA
C
C
X
X
X
X
Group Homes as regulated by State Statute
C
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
Office in compliance with City Code 12-9
C
C
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Therapeutic massage establishment (as a home occupation offering on site
massae services) as regulated by chapter 9 of this title and title 3, cha ter G
P
P
C
C
C
C
C
C
Schools
K-12 Schools
P
P
P
P
P
P
X
X
Post -secondary Schools
PA
PA
C
C
C
C
X
X
Schools exceeding height maximum up to 45 feet in height
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Subordinate Classroom Structures (when located on a licensed Primary
and/or Secondary school property)
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
Subordinate Classroom Structures (when located on a property where there is
a church as the principal use)
P
P
I
I
I
I
I
I
Utilities
Private utilities (gas, electric, phone, cable, etc) in Compliance with City
Code 8-2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Private utility structures and/or uses (electrical transmission lines, gas
pipelines, etc.)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Public utility uses for local services
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Other
Agricultural uses- rural (outside MUSA boundary only)
P
P
P
P
X
X
X
X
Agricultural uses- urban
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Antennas in excess of thirty-five feet (35') in height in compliance with City
Code 9-12
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Buildings (Principal) exceeding height maximum subject to City Code 12-3-5
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Bulk fuel storage (tanks greater than 1,000 gallon storage capacity) in
compliance with City Code 12-8-5
C
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Carripgrounds, clubs and ranges, archery ranges, racetracks
C
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cemeteries
P I
P
C
C
C
C
C
C
Churches
C
C
C
C
C
C
X
X
Clubs and lodges
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Crafts and antique businesses in buildings designated as historical sites by a
county, state or nationally recognized historical organization
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
Garages and Accessory Structures in compliance with City Code 12-6
PA
PA
PAI
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Golf courses and driving ranges
C
C
C I
C
C
C
C
C
Highway construction materials (temporary rocessin and storage)
I
1
I I
I
I
I
I
I
Marinas
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Publicly owned and operated property except as herein amended
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Resorts
C
C
C
C
X
X
X
X
Solar Energy Systems (ground mounted) subject to City Code 9-15
PA
PA
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solar Energy Systems (roof mounted) subject to City Code 9-15
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Swimmingpools and recreation areas or structures
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Uses which may be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
residin or workin in the vicinitWind
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JPA
Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)-as defined in and in compliance
with Title 9, Chapter 13 of this code. WECS areprohibited on WDE site.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. Ord. 81JJJ11, 7-I8-2002; Ord. 8000000, 8-5-2002; Ord.8000QQQ, 10-1-2002; Ord.
8RRRRRR, 10-1-
2002; amd. Ord. 8AAAAAAA, 4-15-2003; amd. 2003 Code; amd. Ord. 314 10-4-2005; amd. Ord. 385 7-21-09; amd. Ord.
388 10-20-09; amd. Ord. 390 3-16-10; amd. Ord. 397 8-17-10; Amd. Ord. 404, 1-18-11; Amd. Ord.436, 4-15-14; Amid. Ord.
463, 6-21-I6
1 Conditional use permits for uses not listed herein shall not be granted except where the city council determines that said uses are
similar in character to those listed herein. Within any of the following districts, no land or structure shall be used for the
following uses by districts except by conditional use permit and in accordance with the criteria as stated in subsection 12-15-6D
of this title.
2 Private sewer and water systems shall only be permitted on every other lot, or no more frequently than one private system for
each forty thousand (40,000) square feet where large lots are established. This shall not apply to lots of record at the time this
title is adopted. On each new plat, the lots are to be developed in accordance with this chapter and shall be so designated.
3 Private sewer and water systems shall only be permitted to replace systems on existing lots when municipal sewer and
water is not available. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-2005)
4 Provided a minimum of twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of retail floor space is constructed, except as otherwise
approved as part of a
Planned Unit Development.
5 Loading berths prohibited in the LB district.
6 After a minimum of two thousand (2,000) square feet of retail floor space is constructed, provided the site is two (2) acres or
larger.
7 See subsection 13-2-4 of this code for permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses in the AgP district.
8 Farm operations in existence on April 18, 2006 are exempt from this provision. See also City Code 124-4.
9 Sec 12-2-2 for definitions of "Continuous Operation and Non -continuous Operation". (Amended Ord. 421, 10-2-12)
10 From November 15th to January I st continuous operation will be allowed in the General Business and Industrial Zoning District.
(Amended Ord.
424, 11-7-12)
CHAPTER 13
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
12-13-21: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS': All permitted residential
structures in RR R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts shall meet the following design
criteria:
A. All structures shall have permanent concrete or treated wood foundations that
will anchor the structure, which comply with the State Building Code as adopted
in Section 9-1-1 of this code and which are solid for the complete circumference
of the house. Except, four -season porches may be constructed without the
permanent foundation, provided the porch does not exceed a maximum
coverage of twenty percent (20%) of the footprint of the habitable portion of the
principal structure.
B. Sixty percent (60%) of a residential structure shall have a minimum width of
twenty-four feet (24'). Width measurements shall not take into account overhangs
or other projections. Such width requirement shall be in addition to the minimum
area per dwelling requirements of Section 12-3-5 of this title.
C. Single-family dwellings other than approved earth sheltered homes shall have at
least a 4:12 roof pitch and shall be covered with shingles or tiles. This
requirement shall not apply to three -season porches, four -season porches,
greenhouses and solariums, provided they meet the State Building Code and are
approved by the Building Official.
D. All single-family dwellings shall have roof overhangs that extend a minimum of
one foot (1') from all the walls of the structure unless the style of the house
dictates otherwise and said plan is approved by the Building Official prior to any
permits being granted.
E. All single-family structures must be built in conformance with Minnesota
statutes sections 327.31 to 327.35 or the State Building Code as adopted in
Section 9-1-1 of this code.
F. Any metal siding upon single-family residential structures shall have horizontal
edges and overlapping sections no wider than twelve inches (12"). Sheet metal
siding shall not be permitted in such districts.
G. All exterior construction, including finish and the final grading, shall be completed
in accordance with plans and specifications within one year following date of
See also title 9, chapter 1 of this code.
permit issuance. All existing buildings not meeting the provisions of this title shall
comply within one year following adoption of this title. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-
1970; amd. 2003 Code)
REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING — MARCH 21, 2017
MINUTES
The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie
Trude, March 21, 2017, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW,
Andover, Minnesota.
Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila, Valerie Holthus (arrived at 7:14p.m.)
and James Goodrich
Councilmember absent: None
Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson
Community Development Director, Joe Janish
City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner
Others
PLEDGE OFALLEGL4NCE
RESIDENT FORUM
No one wished to address the Council.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Knight, to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES
February 28, 2017, Workshop Meeting: Correct as written.
Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Knight, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
March 7, 2016, Regular Meeting: Correct as amended.
Mayor Trude requested a correction on page 5, related to the dialogue on lines 31-33, to attribute the
text to Councilmember Bukkila. This will be corrected on line 31.
Motion by Knight, Seconded by Goodrich, to approve the minutes as indicated above. Motion
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes —March 21, 2017
Page 2
carried unanimously.
March 7, 2016, Workshop Meeting: Correct as written.
Mayor Trude asked staff to confirm the accuracy. Mr. Dickinson confirmed the minutes reflected the
discussion at the meeting regarding edits to the upcoming survey.
Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Knight, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
CONSENT ITEMS
Item 2 Approve Payment of Claims
Item 3 Approve Resolution Removing No Parking Signs Along 168th Lane NW (See Resolution
R022-17)
Item 4 Approve No Parking Resolution/168`s Lane NW/MSA Street Reconstruction Projecti17-
11 (See Resolution R023-17)
Item 5 Declare Surplus Equipment
Item 6 Approve Agreement/17-12/Reconstruction of UP Ave. NW (West of Crooked Lake
Blvd. NW)
Motion by Goodrich, Seconded by Knight, approval of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion carried
unanimously.
ANOKA COUNTYSHERIFF'S OFFICE MONTHLYREPORT
Commander Brian Podany gave the monthly Sheriffs report. With the warmer weather, Commander
Podany encouraged residents to be vigilant and to call 911 when they see anything suspicious and to
provide a description of potential suspects and vehicles. He also reminded the public about the road
closure on Bunker Lake Boulevard.
Councilmember Holthus arrived at 7:14 p.m.
ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT—RURAL RESER VERESIDENTML
LAND USE DENSITY CHANGES
At the October 25, 2016, City Council workshop, the Council discussed a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) by Jake and Jon Packer to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve
District into parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council
provided direction to staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address future development
within the Rural Reserve area.
At the February 28, 2017, City Council workshop staff provided conceptual changes to the City
Council and the City Council supported the changes. The Rural Reserve District was designated as
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes — March 21, 2017
Page 3
an area to accommodate future urban growth beyond the planned Municipal Urban Service Area
(MUSA). Lot splits of less than one unit/house per 20 acres and subdivisions of less than 1
unit/house 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/houses per net acre once MUSA is available. The Met Council supports densities of 1
unit/house per 10 acres in the rural reserve area. Density beyond this is supported by Met Council;
however, it requires provisions such as an ordinance to allow for future wastewater service at a
minimum density of 3 units/houses per acre.
Staff is proposing to retain a density of 1 unit/house per 10 acres; however, with the adoption of an
ordinance the minimum lot size may be reduced to 5 acres as long as the provisions in the ordinance
are addressed at the time of the lot split or subdivision. Planning tools that would need to be
considered in the ordinance include requirements of build -out plans (ghost platting), the location of
building pads that allow for future subdivision of the land into urban lots, and the use of deed
restrictions, easements, and/or covenants to protect the remaining land for future development. The
intent of the ordinance is to allow subdivision of land while preserving the land for future urban
development.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2017. There were public
comments that are available for review in the draft minutes of that meeting. Andover resident, Mr.
Chadwick, Jr., was not in attendance, but he submitted an email with his comments that became part
of the public record. The Commission recommended approval of the CPA request with a 5 - 0 vote
(2 absent).
City staff recommends the City Council consider the proposed CPA. If approved by the City
Council the amendment will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their formal approval.
Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report with the Council.
Mayor Trude asked Mr. Janish to address the next step, will that be the zoning code revisions. Mr.
Janish replied the next step is to go to Metropolitan Council for their approval. Part of the review
process will be for staff to describe the provision for adequate roadways, water, sewer, and
consideration of future right-of-ways. The desire is to allow use of the property today as well as to
preserve the area for urban growth at a future date.
Mayor Trude noted an email had been received from Bob and Mary Harrell. It expressed concerns
related to: few options for development of utilities, keeping enough acreage for buffering from rural
to urban, and more density being forced upon the remaining parcels - while supporting the owner's
ability to develop the land. The City will reserve the right to commit or take easements for utilities
and roads according to the Master Plan, which has relevance to the other 20 acres.
Mr. Janish reminded the Council this is the first step in a two-step process, and even with
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes—March 21, 2017
Page 4
Metropolitan Council approval it will not be effective until the City has the new ordinance language
in place. Preservation of the 20 acres for future development remains important.
Councilmember Holthus asked if there is a problem with the proposed timeline in working with the
Metropolitan Council. Mr. Janish indicated other cities are doing something similar and staff had
been working closely with the City's Met Council Representative, so we expect a smooth process.
Councilmember Knight asked if an overlay is available for viewing. Mr. Janish responded it is not
available at this time. He pointed to where the lots would be on the available map.
Councilmember Goodrich stated he supports residents being able to do what they want on their own
property; therefore, he would like to support this proposal.
Mayor Trude commented this property is multi -generational land, and is tied up by regulations. She
expressed her desire to look at the big picture and individual property owner rights.
Mr. Janish indicated ghost platting would be done as part of the review process for the new lots.
Mayor Trude pointed out that sewer is already planned and access would be about 2 miles from this
property.
Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Goodrich, to approve Resolution No. R024-17, amending the
comprehensive land use plan of the City of Andover to include the following: within the Rural
Reserve residential land use to allow one unit per ten acres with the opportunity to allow one unit per
five acres with the compliance of ordinance provisions as proposed. Motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT/COON CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT VACANCY
Mr. Dickinson reported no applications were received.
The Council discussed the appointment. Mr. Dickinson said no action can be taken because the City
must send 3 recommendations in order to be considered.
No action needed to be taken.
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.
(New Homes) Mr. Dickinson reported there have been 19 new home permits and 5 in for review for
a total of 24 this year, which is a good start.
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes —March 21, 2017
Page 5
(Commercial Construction) Mr. Dickinson reported Dunkin Donuts is now open and three more
tenant spaces are open in that building. The Andover Theater will replace their seating and go to
luxury seating. This will reduce the number of viewing seats. Walgreens is adding a "Med Express"
clinic. Arbor Oaks changed their plans and is installing a commercial kitchen as opposed to a
catering kitchen.
(Bunker Lake Boulevard) Mr. Janish described the City had received phone calls regarding the
Bunker Lake Boulevard construction project. He stated there will be a link on the City's website so
residents can get regular updates. He noted a homemade sign was taken down in the area under
construction. The County can address this kind of situation if it happens in the future.
MAYORICOUNCIL INPUT
(Road Construction) Mayor Trude stated she has had a lot of comments and frustrated people
coming to her neighborhood and home and she wondered about a sign being put up to redirect people
to Andover Boulevard. Mr. Dickinson responded the County's practice is to redirect traffic to
roadways that can handle significant amounts of traffic feeling that a major roadway is the better
alternative. The County has reported the number of complaints has not been significant, which was
attributed to using cell phones to guide them around construction. The road closure will be moving
next week, so residents should really call or find out the current status.
(Home Show) Mayor Trude indicated the North Suburban Home Show was well attended by about
1,500 people. Vendors say it is a good show for them.
(Vert Meeting) Mayor Trude confirmed the City Council will have a workshop next week with the
Planning and Zoning Commission to talk about the Comprehensive Plan. Residents are encouraged
to call and share their opinions.
(High School Sports) Councilmember Holthus commented the Andover High Schoolgirls went to
the state tournament for basketball and the boys are going to the state tournament for basketball the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Goodrich, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marlene White, Recording Secretary
ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING —MARCH 28, 2017
MINUTES
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trude,
March 28, 2017, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover,
Minnesota.
Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila, Valerie Holthus and James Goodrich
Councilmember absent: None
Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson
Community Development Director, Joe Janish
Associate Planner, Dan Krumwiede
Public Works Director/City Engineer, David Berkowitz
Planning & Zoning Commission Acting Chair, Kyle Nemeth
Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Steve Peterson
Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Scott Hudson
Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Bert Koehler
Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Jeffrey Sims
Others
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
a. Zoning Text Amendment Rural Reserve
Mr. Janish stated on March 21, 2017, City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) for the Rural Reserve area. Staff is in the process of submitting the CPA
request to the Met Council for formal approval. The CPA will allow land owners within the
Rural Reserve area the opportunity to subdivide land at a density of no more than 4 units per 40
acres. He noted landowners will have two options.
Mr. Janish reviewed the two different options and indicated they have the ability to go with
option one but option two is typically supported by the Met Council. He noted option one is
more restrictive than what the Met Council allows for because they are preserving the rest of the
land.
Mr. Janish indicated staff would like to get some feedback from both the City Council and
Planning and Zoning Commission to get some direction on the development of the zoning text
amendment.
Mr. Janish stated current city code regulations do not require a public hearing for metes and
bounds lot splits of 5 acres or more. Staff would like to know if a public hearing should be
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — March 28, 2017
Page 2
required for lot splits within the Rural Reserve area or should the lot split approvals come
through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council without a public hearing.
Councilmember Bukkila asked how frequently someone could do a lot split. If they do one lot
split is that all they can do or do they have to wait a certain period of time before doing another
one. Mr. Janish stated under their current ordinance it is a three year time period or can be done
in one year if a plat is done. He stated they do have some flexibility as far as the text amendment
goes, if they wanted to designate it to one lot split the Council could do that. Councilmember
Bukkila indicated she did not like that.
Mayor Trude thought this would open up the whole fringe issue and would chip away at the
edges of the Rural Reserve without a master plan. Commissioner Kohler agreed and stated it is
not just the chip away but it is also about what the master plan will be going forward. He
understood this area is supposed to be reserved for future urban development and if that is the
case they probably want to make sure that what is being done and how it is being split allows
them to move forward in the future with whatever the City Comprehensive Plan recommends. It
gives them the chance to review it and talk about it and apply a little bit of common sense. He is
not looking to make really strict rules but wants to leave the possibilities open in the future for
what the City needs to do. Mayor Trude agreed.
Commissioner Peterson asked if there is a difference between the notifications of local property
owners versus going through the whole process. Can people be notified and have a chance to
review it without going through the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff and City Council.
Still an opportunity for the property owners to find out what is coming their direction in their
area. Mr. Janish stated that is typically considered a neighborhood meeting and sometimes a
developer holds that meeting or City staff conducts the meeting to take notes as part of that
process. He thought if they were going to notify individuals of the meetings then maybe there
should be the public hearing process, follow that and then if there is some legality they can say
they followed a certain standard and gave a ten-day proper notice, advertised in the paper and
worse case, through the public hearing process you are going to notify more people, which is not
necessarily a bad thing.
Mayor Trude asked how many people were notified with the one that came through for the
Packer family. Mr. Janish stated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment they went 750 feet
outside of the Rural Reserve boundary and there where about 130 notices that went out and they
did advertise it in the local newspaper as well. Mayor Trude noted that was because it affected
all of that zoning district. Mr. Janish stated that was correct and typically they would notice 500
feet.
Mr. Dickinson stated as they are dealing with the Rural Reserve and set for long term, from a
staff perspective, he was a little nervous bringing this forward without having full transparency
with everyone in the area. Councilmember Holthus agreed and thought the more transparency
they have the better it is for everybody, the fairer it is for everyone, the neighbors and future
developers who may have an interest in this area.
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — March 28, 2017
Page 3
Commissioner Peterson stated in their meetings when there are cases involving the Rural
Reserve area there are generally more people at the meetings with more feedback. There is a lot
of interest in the transition areas.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she does not normally like long processes and costly steps for
people but because they do not really know how this is going to go and she did not see it
happening very frequently, in order to avoid the public hearing process they would have to have
a measured step that staff could follow and her concern is as they start to chunk away the parcels
and someone has forty acres and wants to put a ten acre strip on the side or the middle, staff tells
them no, they will appeal to the Council anyway. She did not know if they could put enough
criteria in there and she did not know if she wanted to enumerate what everyone can and cannot
do with this land because she thought every parcel will have some certain amount of subjectivity
to it and she would at least like it to be out in the public meeting section of prevue in terms of
how they make the decision.
Mayor Trude stated Councilmember Knight and herself sat through all of the Rural Reserve
planning discussions and that did involve hundreds of property owners to decide where the land
was set aside and their promise to the community was they would stop the chipping away at the
edges and they were going to have something done like The Lakes in Blaine because that is what
it is going to take to develop this area. She is worried if this is even appropriate in this area and
is there a way to even shut this down more so they don't end up with so many rural type parcels
on the edge so that the Rural Reserve does not happen. She wondered if they wanted to make it
even harder to do a lot split within the Rural Reserve. She wondered if they should go through
platting because they want to see a ghost plat for possible future development.
Mr. Janish stated if they do adopt the public hearing process, in this particular case, the Packer
Family moves forward with their two five acre parcels leaving thirty acres and if they wanted to
sell that off they would be restricted to that four for forty density or they could get two more
potential homes in there so they would not be able to come in and do some sort of urban
development because there would not be any municipal water or sewer to that site. He stated this
is meant to be a process for individuals to either provide some cash flow by splitting off a lot or
in this particular case, a family to do something with their land and to provide a home for other
family members. He thought that overall as they are planning it and they are analyzing it
whether it is through a lot split process or through a platting process, they want to analyze where
there is a potential for City infrastructure, what does the Comprehensive Plan identify for minor
and major collector roadways that are going through this area.
Mayor Trude wondered if they could do that with this process. Mr. Janish stated there are a
couple of different ways this could be done. One is through deed restrictions and the other is
through development review process. They would have to do the review process as they are
doing the splitting process.
Commissioner Kohler stated every one of these possible splits is going to be a little different and
they need to understand what the future plan is and if someone comes forward with a proposal,
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — March 28, 2017
Page 4
they need to be able to check to make sure it meets the future plan.
A map with the aerial of property lines was displayed. The Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission discussed the future of the Rural Reserve area and how lot splits would affect it.
b. Atlas 14 Discussion
Mr. Berkowitz stated Atlas 14 is new rainfall distribution data compiled by a large number of
observation stations across the country; including Minnesota. The new data has resulted in an
increase in rainfall depths and run-off volumes. The Coon Creek Watershed District has
consulted with Wenck Associates to update the existing model with the new data. The new data
suggests the floodplain with Andover, especially within the Rural Reserve area, has grown
significantly.
Commissioner Kohler asked in terms of the floodplain, what impact does this have with
development going forward. Mr. Berkowitz stated if someone wants to build in a floodplain
fringe they need to mitigate it but if it is in the 100 -year floodplain than nothing can be built on
it.
Mr. Berkowitz showed a map of the current floodplain and the new map after Atlas 14 is
updated. He reviewed the differences with the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission.
He reviewed where the 100 -year floodplain exists.
Councilmember Bukkila stated when talking about expanding the culverts, it would decrease the
map but would have to affect farming soils as well. Mr. Berkowitz stated that is correct and
could potentially affect the farmer downstream. The plan is as they start getting into the
Comprehensive Plan update they would meet with all the farmers regarding this. He stated he
would anticipate every farmer in the area will have a development benefit by having the
floodplain reduced because when they sell off their property they will have more land to build
on.
Mr. Berkowitz stated there is a lot of information that needs to be reviewed. He stated what they
have is a draft of Atlas 14 and will come back to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council for more discussion. He stated what this does is drastically impact the way
Andover could potentially develop. Once the map changes are finalized the City Council is
going to have to make the decision of how they deal with certain areas.
Mayor Trude hoped as staff gets new information they look at some different options to bring to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussions as Comprehensive Plan review.
Mr. Janish continued to review the submittal process for lot splits within the Rural Reserve area.
Mayor Trude thought it would be important to have deed restrictions in order to have the ability
to connect roads in the future. Mr. Janish stated they could have the ability for requiring
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —March 28, 2017
Page 5
easements on property for future development
The Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and staff continued to review the potential
Packer Family lot split.
Mr. Janish thought the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would like to see some
sort of blanket easement related to roadways and City utilities.
Mayor Trude wondered if they could take some property as park dedication.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and Council discussed the possibility of possible park
dedication areas within the Rural Reserve in case large development does not occur. Mr. Janish
indicated staff would need to discuss this further with the City Attorney.
Mr. Dickinson thought the more land you can put under the deed restriction the more flexibility
the City will have.
Mayor Trude thought her concerns can be addressed with the deed restrictions and they can get
the master planning started on the saved land as long as they can put some zoning overlay on it.
Mr. Dickinson stated this is really a tradeoff where the current property owners are giving up
some control of their own property by taking on the deed restrictions so they have the ability to
get some of what they want, which are two lots they can build on.
Councilmember Bukkila wondered how many forty acre parcels are around the Rural Reserve
that could potentially develop. Mr. Janish thought they will not see many because of the soil
mitigation costs. Mr. Dickinson thought there would be around 10 parcels.
Commissioner Nemeth thought this was more of a vision and those visions can always change
depending on who wants to sell and when they want to sell. He thought there were so many
variables and it is great to have the vision but it will probably not come to light.
Mr. Janish asked if the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would like to see some
sort of ghost plat for future splits. The Council and Planning and Zoning Commission indicated
they would be in favor of that.
Mr. Janish stated they will come up with a hybrid lot split plan and thought the direction he was
receiving is they would not have to plat if in the Rural Reserve they do the hybrid lot split and
collect the same information as if they were doing a plat. Mr. Dickinson stated this would still
require a public hearing.
Ms. Mary Harrell, 14955 Ivywood Street, stated her house backs up to 149th Avenue and she has
a lot of concerns because it appears the northern route will be the connection through the Rural
Reserve in the future. She stated the southern route was going to come in by Walmart because it
is stubbed in already. Mr. Berkowitz stated that was the route that was approved prior to the
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes—March 28, 2017
Page 6
floodway information.
Ms. Harrell stated the concern is this is just a line on the map but the longer the line stays the
more significant they become. She stated 1490'Avenue is a minimum maintenance dirt road and
in terms of it being any kind of an east/west connection that would impact the homes that
surround it.
Mayor Trude stated Mr. Eveland filed to put his land into Ag. Preserve which will last for seven
years so that should ease Ms. Harrell's concerns.
Mayor Trude thanked Ms. Harrell for coming to the meeting to voice her concerns.
RECESSAND RECONVENE
The Council recessed at 7:38 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Koehler asked in regard to the resolution, if there are lot splits, plats or something
in between will the Planning and Zoning Commission be able to review them. Mr. Janish stated
they would. Mr. Dickinson stated it will need to go through a public hearing process in order for
the changes to be made.
c. Flag Lot Discussion
Mr. Janish stated recently City staff has been contacted about the potential of creating a flag lot
in the rural residential area. Current code regulations do not allow flag lots since each lot is
required to have a width of 300 feet at the front yard setback and a minimum of 50 feet of road
frontage.
Mr. Janish reviewed what the definition of a flag lot is. He asked if the Council and Planning
and Zoning Commission would be open to allowing flag lots in Andover.
Mr. Janish noted if they did allow flag lots they could avoid some of the costs of public
roadways.
Councilmember Goodrich asked what did other cities that allow these find as downfalls. Mr.
Janish stated what he has found is townships and counties mostly allow for them and his past
experience as a county official is the reason they allowed for them is that the townships did not
want to maintain public roadways.
Commissioner Koehler stated there are many potential problems with a flag lot such as proximity
of houses, being able to see into each other's yard, blocking of driveway and emergency vehicles
cannot find the back lot many times.
ANk61Y 4
1665 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW. ANDOVERMWGOV
TO: Mayor and Council Members '
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
FROM: David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer 'r ctor of Public Works
SUBJECT: Discuss Storage PODS in City Parks & Residential Districts - Engineering
DATE: April 25, 2017
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is requested to discuss portable storage containers, often referred to as PODS, in City parks
and residential districts.
DISCUSSION
This discussion was prompted by an Andover Baseball Association (ABA) request to place a storage POD at
Sunshine Park. One of the PODS that ABA owns is currently located at Andover High School next to the
varsity field on the north side of the school buildings (attached Picture B). ABA has indicated to staff and to
the Park and Recreation Commission that they would like to relocate one of the PODS from Andover High
School to Sunshine Park near an existing storage POD which is currently located near the south and west end of
the park (attached Picture A).
The current City Code does not allow PODS to be located in the following Zoning Districts:
General Recreation (GR) - Sunshine Park is identified on the Zoning Map as GR. To allow the POD to
be permanently placed in the park would require a Zoning Code change.
Single Family Residential (R-4) - The following subsections of Section 12-6-4 identifies what is
allowed for an accessory structure:
The following is City Code regarding accessory buildings
12-6-413. The accessory buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area of five acres or less, but more than one
acre, shall not exceed the total square footage of land covered by the foundation of the principal structure.
12-6-4E. All detached accessory buildings within the single-family urban residential (R-4) zoning district shall
have a minimum 4:12 roof pitch
12-6-4G. Exterior Finishes: No permanent sheet metal, painted or unpainted accessory building, except small
garden sheds not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet, shall be allowed on parcels of three (3) acres
or less in all residential districts and within the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) boundary. The
foregoing shall not apply to painted and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures. (Ord.
8NNNNNN, 7-16-2002)
The Planning Department's interpretation regarding storage containers (accessory structures) would be allowed
if met by the highlighted criteria on residential lots between 3-5 acres. There is not current code that would
regulate specified accessory structures above 5 acres in regards to PODS. It appears that the requirement of
matching exterior finishes is not in place if the parcel is above 3 acres and located outside the MUSA boundary.
Mayor and Council Members
April25, 2017
Page 2 of 2
Attached are pictures showing examples of PODS that are currently in the City
Picture A is located in the southwest section of Sunshine Park which was considered a temporary storage and is
not covered by City Code.
Picture B is located at Andover High School by the main baseball field northeast of the school. There is
currently an understanding between the City and Andover High School regarding these storage containers.
Picture C is located in an R-4 Single Family Urban Residential District and is a current violation of City Code.
Picture D is located in an R-1 Single Family Rural Residential District but currently is not a violation of City
Code.
There are many cases that residents use PODS for storage, before they move out of their home or they are using
them for temporary storage once they move into their home. The current code does not allow such use.
Staff is requesting direction for the following questions:
• Should PODS be allowed in City parks? If not what should be the transition period to remove the
temporary PODS that are place or have been placed at Sunshine Park, ASN and Prairie Knoll Park?
• How should the PODS be handled at Andover High School?
• Should PODS be allowed in all residential districts?
• Should PODS be allowed in residential districts for temporary use for remodeling, moving, etc? If so,
what should be the allowable time period?
Depending on the answers to these questions, City Code may need to be amended and go through the formal
process for approval.
ACTION REQUIRED
The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff regarding the use of PODS and determine if the
Planning and Zoning Commission should evaluate the City Code to see if amendments should be made to
clarify this section of the City Code.
Respectfully submitted,
` l
... ,Q�
David D. Berkowitz, P.E.
Cc: Shane Stenzel, Park and Recreation Commission Chair (copy sent by e-mail)
Attachment: Pictures A -D/
a
�l
00
/ ,704000'_
. �: \.• . ,; .\ \-� � }§ �
PIcTuRE p
Co pd 'j L 7+l
I l6Sfk A�eu.4e
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
2018 Budget Development Discussion
April 25, 2017
INTRODUCTION
City Administration is starting to focus on the 2018 Annual Operating Budget Development
process and is looking for City Council direction as the preparation of the 2018 Annual
Operating Budget proceeds.
City Administration will review with the Council the bold italics items at the meeting.
DISCUSSION
The following are the 2018 Budget Development guidelines adopted at the April 18`h City
Council meeting:
1) A commitment to a City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization and
positioning the City for long-term competitiveness through the use of sustainable revenue
sources and operational efficiencies.
Note: Preliminary Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City of
Andover are reflecting close to a 12.6% increase in total taxable market value. (See
attached City of Andover Pay 2018 Valuation Estimates & Anoka County Pavable
2017/Payable 2018 Taxable Market Value Comparison).
2) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at
no less than 45% of planned 2018 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 2017 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 exceeded this guideline, also
Emergency Fund Balances (approximately 3% of planned General Fund expenditures) are
in place to stabilize a situation, not be a complete solution. Staff will review with the
Council a 2017 General Fund Balance Analysis at the meeting
3) A commitment to limit the 2018 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 2017 debt levy was 13.49% of the gross tax levy, the 25% guideline
provides reasonable margin to accommodate a 2018 Equipment and/or an Improvement
Bond if necessary.
Please keep in mind that for the 2017 budget, $500,000 of existing debt levy was moved to
a Capital Levy for 2017 to fund planned equipment purchases, that change decreased the
debt levy percentage of the gross tax levy significantly.
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 is currently performing this analysis, and
will make recommendations to the City Council as part of the 20-18-2022 Capital
Improvement Plan(CIP) development process. This will be covered in more detail with
future CIP discussions.
5) The use of long-term financial models that identify anticipated trends in community growth
and financial resources that will help designate appropriate capital resources for future City
needs. The financial models will be used in the budget planning process to ensure that key
short-term fiscal targets are in line with long-term fiscal projections.
Note: The City continually maintains various financial models to determine the long-term
impacts of present day expenditures and financing decisions. Fiscal assumptions are based
upon a complex set of financial data including growth factors, tax capacity valuations, per
capita spending and debt ratios.
6) Continued commitment to strategic planning targeted toward meeting immediate and long-
term operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs.
Note: A strategic planning session was held with the City Council in 2015 with a final
Council Community Vision and Organizational Goals and Values document approved by
the City Council. Administration will be reviewing that document with the Council at the
May workshop to determine if any updating is needed as direction provided in that
document is intenrated 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 will pay special attention to fiscal values, commercial & residential
development or redevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery and the
livability/image of the community.
Staffing:
Administration is not expecting new staffing requests from Departments for the 2018 budget
There are some anticipated retirements and staff vacancies within the next few years; in response
Administration will make a concerted effort to focus on appropriate succession planning,
effective utilization of internship opportunities in various departments continued cross -training
of staff, or realignment of existing resources.
Personnel Related Implications:
To date the following are projected issues facing personnel related expenses:
1. Human Resources will again review position -based salaries and our benefit package in
detail to determine if the total package is competitive with other government entities.
As part of the budget process pay steps for eligible employees will be included in a
2018 budget proposaG A cost of living adiustment (COLA) for non -bargaining
employees will be evaluated. The Public Works Union contract does expire December
31, 2017, negotiations will be underway shortly.
2. A midyear review of the employee health plan will be conducted with our broker in late
June or early July.
The City currently offers the employees the option of two high deductible plans ($5,000
family, $2,500 single for in network expenses) with a health spending account (HSA),
this was implemented in 2006. As part of the program, the City pays for 100% of the
single health insurance premium for an accountable care plan and 76% for a family health
insurance premium accountable care plan. Employees that select the open network health
plan pay the increased cost over the accountable care plan. The City does contribute
annually to the employees HSA.
Contractual Departments:
The City Attorney 2017 contract included a 2.0% increase over the 2016 rate. There has
been no discussion to date for 2018.
2. The 2017 City of Andover Law Enforcement proposed expenditure budget is $2,962,551
which is offset by a Police State Aid revenue budget of $131,511 and School Liaison
revenue budget of $93,656 reflecting a net tax levy impact of $2,737,384.
The 2017 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
Sheriffs Department additional, but is not billable per the contract
Negotiations for a Status Quo Contract for 2017 reflected a 0.71% increase ($19,844)
over the 2016 contract. The 2017 Law Enforcement Contract was approved at the
October 4`h City Council meeting.
Staff has had initial discussions with the Anoka County Sheriff for a 2018 contract
and the Anoka County Sheriff will be scheduled to be before the City Council at a
future workshop meeting.
Council Memberships and Donations/Contributions:
The following memberships/contributions are included in the 2017 Budget:
■ North Metro Mayors Association
Metro Cities
Mediation Services
YMCA — Water Safety Program
• Alexandra House
■ Youth First (Program Funding)
■ NW Anoka Co. Community Consortium - JPA
■ Teen Center Funding (YMCA)
• Family of Promise
■ Lee Carlson Central Center for Family Resources
• Senior High Parties
• Stepping Stone
$15,010
$ 9,512
$ 3,366
$ 8,500
$18,328
$12,000
$10,000
$24,500
$ 3,000
$ 1,500
$ 1,000
$ 900
Council direction will be sought on how to budget for these items in 2018
Capital Projects Levy:
Capital Projects Levy — The 2017 Capital Projects Levy Budget specifically designates
$1,944,154 of the general tax levy to capital projects and equipment needs relating to Capital
Project Outlay ($250,000), Capital Equipment Purchases ($500,000) Road and Bridge
($1,116,079), Pedestrian Trail Maintenance ($63,075) 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.
• 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 and nothing
budgeted for 2017. Future increases in LGA or even the presence of LGA for the City
ofAndover based on the current State formula are remote.
For 2016, the levy to Road & Bridge was $1,089,146 a 939% increase over 2015
recognizing the significant 2015 taxable market value increase and lost LGA The City
ofAndover Road & Bridge levy of $1,116,079 for 2017 is a 2.47% increase over 2016
Administration will likely be recommending another Road & Bridge levy increase for
2018.
The 2016 levy to pedestrian trail maintenance was $6.1,838, that was a 6.1% increase
over 2015. The City of Andover provided a 2.0% increase in the Pedestrian Trail
Maintenance levy to $63,075 for 2017, Administration will likely be recommending
another Pedestrian Trail Maintenance levy increase for 2018
• Park Improvements
This levy is an annual appropriation to be used to underwrite park improvement projects
as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and approved by the City
Council. This funding is intended to be a supplemental source of capital funding for park
projects that is separately identified in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan.
The 2015 levy was $61,500, but only $15,000 was levied for 2016 $46,500 of the
Previous levy was re -assigned to the General Fund to focus on Park's
maintenance/replacement items. In addition to the re -assigned funds an additional
$43,500 of General Fund levy was assigned to Parks Repair/Replacement items for a
total levy of $90.000 in 2016, and that continued for 2017.
Again, the 2017 levy is $15,000, Administration will likely be recommending the same
or 2018.
History of the supplemental Park Improvement Funding•
In 2002, City Council committed $50,000 in tax levy to underwrite park improvement
projects as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and approved by City
Council. That levy was intended to be a supplemental source of capital funding for park
projects as development started to slow down and minimal park dedication funds were
available. As of 2015, that levy was up to $61,500 of which $15,000 was designated
towards miscellaneous items that come up throughout the year.
New direction of the Funding in 2016:
With an emphasis on maintaining/preserving parks the City currently has, through the
2016 Budget / Levy process, the City Council re -assigned $46,500 of the Park
Improvement Levy to the General Fund to focus on Park's maintenance/replacement
items. A residual $15,000 of levy remained to the Park Improvement Fund to take care
of miscellaneous items that come up throughout the year that the Park and Recreation
Commission will continue to participate in. A $90,000 tax levy ($46,500 combined with
an additional $43,500 of General Fund levy funding) is now identified as part of the
General Fund levy to replace playground equipment, fences, pedestrian bridges in parks,
parking lot reconstruction, etc. The Parks Maintenance Department will determine which
replacement items have the highest priority through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Any unused funds in any given Year will be specifically designated or carried forward for
future park replacement items. If a park is to be reconstructed as recommended by the
Park and Recreation Commission and approved by City Council through the CIP process,
the Park and Recreation Commission will work with the Parks Maintenance Department
to determine which items are replacements and which items are considered new and/or
enhancements to determine the mix of funding sources to accomplish the project.
• Equipment/Projects
Under the Capital Projects Levy, a levy is proposed to be designated to Capital
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 2017 levy is $250.000.
Administration will be recommending the same $250,000 for 2018
• Equipment/Projects
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 This process was anticipated to
continue through 2018. Administration will be recommending $500,000 again for
2018.
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 will complete a
review and see if any reznancing opportunities are available at this time • we will then continue
to monitor refunding opportunities as markets can move quickly and calculate potential
savings for each issue that maE meet parameters which may generate savings.)
The proposed 2018 Debt Service levy is as follows:
• 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum $ 188,777
• 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds $ 972,055
• 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificates $ 294,945
• 2016A G.O. Equipment Certificates $ 143,310
Total $1,599,087
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 2018 Debt Service levy reflects a .68% decrease ($10,960).
Staff will review with the Council at the meeting the Citv of Andover Debt Service Levv
Summary,
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff
submitted,
Dickinson
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pay 2018 Valuation Estimates
$3,500,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$0
Taxable Market Value Tax Capacity Value
% Change % Change
Pay 2015 $ 2,435,770,612
Pay 2016 $ 2,539,686,867 4.27%
Pay 2017 $ 2,636,599,713 3.82%
Pay 2018 $ 2,968,996,630 12.61%
Taxable Market Values
$32,000,000
$31,000,000
$30,000,000
$29,000,000
$28,000,000
$27,000.000
$26,000,000
$25,000,000
$24,000,000
$23,000,000
Pay 2015 $ 25,705,350
Pay 2016 $ 26,847,273
Pay 2017 $ 27,920,178
Pay 2018 $ 30,712,196
Tax Capacity Values
4.44%
4.00%
10.00%
Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Pay 2017 Pay 2018
Pay
2015
Pay 2016
Pay 2017
Pay 2018
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
$ 2,435,770,612
$
25,705,350
$ 2,539,686,867 $
26,847,273
$ 2,636,599,713 $
27,920,178
$ 2,968,996,630 $
30,712,196
Captured Tax Increment
(210,936)
(248,327)
(91,996)
(91,996)
Fiscal Disparity Contribution
(998,390)
(1,055,284)
(1,124,211)
(1,124,211)
Local Tax Rate Value
24,496,024
25,543,662
26,703,971
29,495,989
Fiscal Disparity Distribution
4,257,801
4,264,789
4,516,466
4,516,466
Total Adjusted Values
$
28,753,825
$
29,808,451
$
31,220,437
$
34,012,455
3.67%
4.74%
8.94%
$3,500,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$0
Taxable Market Value Tax Capacity Value
% Change % Change
Pay 2015 $ 2,435,770,612
Pay 2016 $ 2,539,686,867 4.27%
Pay 2017 $ 2,636,599,713 3.82%
Pay 2018 $ 2,968,996,630 12.61%
Taxable Market Values
$32,000,000
$31,000,000
$30,000,000
$29,000,000
$28,000,000
$27,000.000
$26,000,000
$25,000,000
$24,000,000
$23,000,000
Pay 2015 $ 25,705,350
Pay 2016 $ 26,847,273
Pay 2017 $ 27,920,178
Pay 2018 $ 30,712,196
Tax Capacity Values
4.44%
4.00%
10.00%
Pay 2015 Pay 2016 Pay 2017 Pay 2018
ANOKA COUNTY
PAYABLE 2017/PAYABLE 2018 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as
of 04/14/2017
2017 Pay 2018
% CHG from
2017 Pay 2018
2017 Pay 2018
MV w/o New
2016 Pay 2017
2017 to 2018
Market Value
New Construction
Construction
Market Value
w/o NC
LINWOOD
AG
16,526,242
19,200
16,507,042
15,564,985
6.1%
RESID
438,121,762
4,623,900
433,497,862
401,916,244
7.9%
APTS
2,053,000
0
2,053,000
2,061,100
-0.4%
C AND 1
2,827,500
280,600
2,546,900
4,050,300
-37.1%
PERSONAL
3,800,100
59,300
3,740,800
3,926,200
4.7%
TOTALS
463,328,604
4,983.000
458,345,604
427,518,829
7.2%
Average Residential Value
178,900
161,000
11.1%
Median Residential Value
182,600
161,400
13.2%
ANDOVER
AG
25,236,198
0
25,236,198
23,862,390
5.8%
RESID
2,750,448,432
35,827,300
2,714,621,132
2,426285269
11.9%
APTS
29,933,000
1,836200
28,096,800
25,656,300
9.5%
C AND I
136,696,200
4,340,800
132,355,400
129,495,000
2.2%
PERSONAL
26,682,800
0
26,682,800
28,181,200
-5.3%
TOTALS
2,968,996,630
42,004,300
2,926,992,330
2,633,480,159
11.1%
Average Residential Value
251,200
217,000
15.8%
Median Residential Value
239,400
210,400
13.8%
ANOKA
AG
24,900
0
24,900
22,100
12.7%
RESID
843,394,192
9,513,200
833,880,992
755,377,485
10.4%
APTS
241,966,100
12,657,900
229,308,200
207,388,000
10.6%
C AND I
304,522,600
3,264,100
301,258,500
298,880,000
0.8%
PERSONAL
6,708,300
0
6,708,300
7,254200
-7.5%
TOTALS
1,396,616,092
25,435,200
1,371,180,892
1268,921,785
8.1%
Average Residential Value
172,900
151,600
14.1%
Median Residential Value
165,600
146,400
13.1%
BETHEL
AG
398,200
0
398,200
642,298
-38.0%
RESID
23,241,241
88,200
23,153,041
20,469,938
13.1%
APTS
153,100
0
153,100
150,000
2l%
CANDI
4214,000
65,500
4,148,500
4,154,400
-0.1%
PERSONAL
1,228,200
0
1228,200
1242,400
-1.1%
TOTALS
29,234,741
153,700
29,081,041
26,659,036
9.1%
Average Residential Value
119,200
100,300
18.8%
Median Residential Value
134,500
114,900
17.1 %
Friday, April 14, 2017 Taxable Market Value Comparison [PRTPROD] 3 - l
BLAINE
AG
RESID
APTS
CANDI
PERSONAL
ANOKA COUNTY PAYABLE 2017/PAYABLE 2018 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 04/14/2017
2017 Pay 2018 % CHG from
2017 Pay 2018 2017 Pay 2018 MV w/o New 2016 Pay 2017 2017 to 2018
Market Value New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
TOTALS
Average Residential Value
Median Residential Value
CENTERVILLE
AG
RESID
APTS
CANDI
PERSONAL
TOTALS
Average Residential Value
Median Residential Value
CIRCLE PINES
AG
RESID
APTS
CANDI
PERSONAL
TOTALS
Average Residential Value
Median Residential Value
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
AG
RESID
APTS
C AND I
PERSONAL
TOTALS
Average Residential Value
Median Residential Value
14,042,687
3,300
14,039,387
14,230,323
-1.3%
4,802,802,574
103,507,500
4,699,295,074
4,283,274,761
9.7%
234,765,900
25,736,400
209,029,500
193,904,600
7.8%
1,027,395,900
31,217,600
996,178,300
1,001,011,700
-0.5%
76,869,300
14,000
76,855,300
80,072,300
-4.0%
6,155,876,361
160,478,800
5,995,397,561
5,572,493,684
7.6%
219,100
189,700
15.5%
188,400
165,700
13.7%
785,801
0
785,801
745,656
5.4%
333,204,697
4,798,500
328,406,197
293,704,433
11.8%
959,900
0
959,900
924,500
3.8%
23,315,500
9,400
23,306,100
23,110,500
0.8%
2,500,600
0
2,500,600
2,550,300
-1.9%
360,766,498
4,807,900
355,958,598
321,035,389
10.9%
232,500
200,100
16.2%
204,800
179,000
14.4%
0
340,520,835
19,160,800
14,983,100
1,600,500
376,265,235
175,300
157,900
0
1,006,154,500
104,328,900
100,345,600
6,508,100
1,217,337,100
143,400
149,800
0
189,700
0
0
0
189,700
0
2,874,200
1,132,400
193,100
0
4,199,700
0
340,331,135
19,160,800
14,983,100
1,600,500
376,075,535
0
1,003,280,300
103,196,500
100,152,500
6,508,100
1,213,137,400
0
308,009,369
17,374,300
15,116,300
1,603,700
342,103,669
155,200
141,200
N/A
10.5%
10.3%
-0.9%
13.0%
11.8%
0 N/A
887,066,842 13.1%
92,805,500 11.2%
99,180,800 1.0%
6,821,300 -4.6%
1,085,874,442 11.7%
123,200
128,400
16.4%
16.6%
Friday, April 14, 2017 Taxable Market Value Comparison [PRTPROD] 3 - 2
M ANOKA COUNTY
2017 Pay 2018
Market Value
PAYABLE 2017/PAYABLE 2018 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 04/14/2017
2017 Pay 2018 % CHG from
2017 Pay 2018 MV w/o New 2016 Pay 2017 2017 to 2018
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
COLUMBUS
AG
37,439,182
6,483,800
30,955,382
30,993,229
-0.1%
RESID
408,169,707
4,918,800
403,250,907
388,833,328
3.7%
APTS
0
0
0
0
N/A
C ANDI
67,811,700
3,314,500
64,497,200
68,215,000
-5.5%
PERSONAL
6,445,200
0
6,445,200
6,593,300
-2.2%
TOTALS
519,865,789
14,717,100
505,148,689
494,634,857
2.1%
Average Residential Value
242,000
228,300
6.0%
Median Residential Value
229,900
219,200
4.9%
COON RAPIDS
AG
973,628
0
973,628
1,254,200
-22.4%
RESID
3,544,983,790
14,086,600
3,530,897,190
3,111,048,121
13.5%
APTS
389,158,000
16,777,000
372,381,000
342,938,200
8.6%
C AND I
931,935,700
3,573,900
928,361,800
921,045,000
0.8%
PERSONAL
37,480,000
0
37,480,000
39,277,600
-4.6%
TOTALS
4,904,531,118
34,437,500
4,870,093,618
4,415,563,121
10.3%
Average Residential Value
169,300
145,900
16.0%
Median Residential Value
165,600
142,600
16.1%
EAST BETHEL
AG
31,784,908
42,700
31,742,208
30,971,268
2.5%
RESID
913,466,791
11,354,900
902,111,891
808,120,616
11.6%
APTS
7,537,800
0
7,537,800
6,909,200
9.1%
C AND I
47,113,600
735,400
46,378,200
46,019,400
0.8%
PERSONAL
9,384,700
122,000
9,262,700
10,143,500
-8.7%
TOTALS
1,009,287,799
12,255,000
997,032,799
902,163,984
10.5%
Average Residential Value
196,900
171,100
15.1%
Median Residential Value
200,700
171,800
16.8%
FRIDLEY
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
1,324,767,677
4,389,700
1,320,377,977
1,196,000,600
10.4%
APTS
262,699,200
3,777,300
258,921,900
241,891,900
7.0%
CANDI
814,071,100
17,539,100
796,532,000
797,734,300
-0.2°%
PERSONAL
26,063,700
0
26,063,700
27,633,600
-5.7%
TOTALS
2,427,601,677
25,706,100
2,401,895,577
2,263,260,400
6.1%
Average Residential Value
152,100
134,200
13.3%
Median Residential Value
158,300
140,400
12.7°%
Friday, April 14, 2017 Taxable Market Value Comparison [PRTPROD] 3 -3
ANOKA COUNTY
r
2017 Pay 2018
Market Value
PAYABLE 2017/PAYABLE 2018 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 04/14/2017
2017 Pay 2018 % CHG from
2017 Pay 2018 MV w/o New 2016 Pay 2017 2017 to 2018
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
HAM LAKE
AG
32,552,996
8,800
32,544,196
33,064,497
-1.6%
RESID
1,490,130,960
27,255,500
1,462,875,460
1,368,399,674
6.9%
APTS
15,838,600
0
15,838,600
15,089,400
5.0%
C AND I
130,258,800
3,269,600
126,989,200
124,933,300
1.6%
PERSONAL
17,028,700
0
17,028,700
17,437,700
-2.3%
TOTALS
1,685,810,056
30,533,900
1,655,276,156
1,558,924,571
6.2%
Average Residential Value
257,000
235,100
9.3%
Median Residential Value
245,900
222,600
10.5%
HILLTOP
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
2,822,169
0
2,822,169
2,565,179
10.0%
APTS
11,654,400
0
11,654,400
10,717,300
8.7%
C AND I
9,282,000
0
9,282,000
9,186,000
1.0%
PERSONAL
338,500
0
338,500
341,300
-0.8%
TOTALS
24,097,069
0
24,097,069
22,809,779
5.6%
Average Residential Value
80,600
71,300
13.0%
Median Residential Value
72,300
57,800
25.1%
LEXINGTON
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
85,568,268
212,400
85,355,868
80,617,106
5.9%
APTS
11,642,200
0
11,642,200
10,921,900
6.6%
C AND I
18,798,400
0
18,798,400
18,638,500
0.9%
PERSONAL
1,387,200
0
1,387,200
1,577,600
-12.1%
TOTALS
117,396,068
212,400
117,183,668
111,755,106
4.9%
Average Residential Value
151,700
140,900
7.7%
Median Residential Value
151,400
141,700
6.8%
LINO LAKES
AG
34,867,961
167,400
34,700,561
33,735,440
2.9%
RESID
1,734,223,522
23,618,200
1,710,605,322
1,589,601,178
T6%
APTS
22,372,600
0
22,372,600
21,171,900
5.7%
C AND 1
155,388,300
9,662,700
145,725,600
143,911,500
1.3%
PERSONAL
19,271,000
0
19,271,000
19,997,100
-3.6%
TOTALS
1,966,123,383
33,448,300
1,932,675,083
1,808,417,118
6.9%
Average Residential Value
243,400
220,700
10.3%
Median Residential Value
233,300
211,400
10.4%
Friday, April 14, 2017 Taxable Market Value Comparison [PRTPROD] 3 - 4
ANOKA COUNTY
"
' {
!' 2017 Pay 2018
Market Value
PAYABLE 2017/PAYABLE 2018 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 04/14/2017
2017 Pay 2018 % CHG from
2017 Pay 2018 MV w/o New 2016 Pay 2017 2017 to 2018
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
NOWTHEN
AG
69,401,928
687,100
68,714,828
65,435,208
5.0%
RESID
397,505,927
3,206,700
394,299,227
376,621,214
4.7%
APTS
0
0
0
0
N/A
C AND
17,125,100
692,700
16,432,400
16,089,500
2.1%
PERSONAL
5,977,800
0
5,977,800
6,363,000
-6.1%
TOTALS
490,010,755
4,586,500
485,424,255
464,508,922
4.5%
Average Residential Value
244,900
229,600
6.7%
Median Residential Value
248,800
233,900
6.4%
OAK GROVE
AG
33,149,509
12,900
33,136,609
33,366,457
-0.7%
RESID
779,594,296
17,453,600
762,140,696
680,738,512
12.0%
APTS
0
0
0
0
N/A
CANDI
19,533,200
843,100
18,690,100
18,932,600
-1.3%
PERSONAL
7,806,000
0
7,806,000
8,396,700
-7.0%
TOTALS
840,083,005
18,309,600
821,773,405
741,434,269
10.8%
Average Residential Value
236,100
204,900
15.2%
Median Residential Value
228,800
198,600
15.2%
RAMSEY
AG
16,580,001
8,000
16,572,001
15,361,403
7.9%
RESID
1,929,793,275
26,392,800
1,903,400,475
1,715,338,252
11.0%
APTS
78,781,900
16,675,900
62,106,000
57,412,900
8.2%
C ANDI
278,361,300
4,086,600
274,274,700
272,746,700
0.6%
PERSONAL
20,260,100
0
20,260,100
21,166,600
-4.3%
TOTALS
2,323,776,576
47,163,300
2,276,613,276
2,082,025,855
9.3%
Average Residential Value
210,600
182,700
15.3%
Median Residential Value
201,000
177,900
13.0%
SPRING LAKE PARK
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
315,192,294
4,411,800
310,780,494
295,896,882
5.0%
APTS
50,119,000
0
50,119,000
51,713,800
-3.1%
C ANDI
87,210,600
27,400
87,183,200
86,906,000
0.3%
PERSONAL
3,007,800
0
3,007,800
3,082,900
-2.4%
TOTALS
455,529,694
4,439,200
451,090,494
437,599,582
3.1%
Average Residential Value
155,200
143,600
8.1%
Median Residential Value
155,600
145,400
7.0%
Friday, April 14, 2017 Taxable Market Value Comparison [PRTPROD] 3 - 5
ANOKA COUNTY
i 2017 Pay 2018
Market Value
PAYABLE 2017/PAYABLE 2018 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 04/14/2017
2017 Pay 2018 % CHG from
2017 Pay 2018 MV w/o New 2016 Pay 2017 2017 to 2018
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
ST FRANCIS
AG
25,473,441
82,100
25,391,341
24,465,382
3.8%
RESID
399,791,373
8,748,700
391,042,673
348,039,800
12.4%
APTS
23,182,500
0
23,182,500
21,665,100
7.0%
C AND
32,251,500
94,800
32,156,700
31,748,800
1.3%
PERSONAL
6,576,100
0
6,576,100
7,013,300
-6.2%
TOTALS
487,274,914
8,925,600
478,349,314
432,932,382
10.5°%
Average Residential Value
155,000
134,100
15.6%
Median Residential Value
162,000
140,000
15.7%
COUNTY OF ANOKA
AG
339,237,582
7,515,300
331,722,282
323,714,836
2.5%
RESID
23,863,898,282
307,472,200
23,556,426,082
21,337,924,803
10.4%
APTS
1,506,306,900
78,593,100
1,427,713,800
1,320,695,900
8.1%
CANDI
4,223,441,700
83,210,900
4,140,230,800
4,131,105,600
0.2%
PERSONAL
286,924,700
195,300
286,729,400
300,675,800
-4.6%
TOTALS
30,219,809,164
476,986,800
29,742,822,364
27,414,116,939
8.5%
Average Residential Value
200,600
175,800
14.1%
Median Residential Value
185,000
162,700
13.7%
Comments and Current year State Assessed Values are not available, prior year values have been included for estimate purposes.
Limiting Conditions:
Friday, April 14, 2017 Taxable Market Value Comparison [PRTPROD] 3 -6
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
March 2017 General Fund Budget Progress Report
April 25, 2017
INTRODUCTION
The City of Andover 2017 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $10,825,139 and total
expenditures of $11,039,719 ; a decrease in fund balance is planned.
Monthly reporting of the City Budget progress to the Governing body is a recommended financial
practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies.
DISCUSSION
Attached is the General Fund Revenue & Expenditure Budget Summary - Budget Year 2017
reflecting year to date actual through March 2017 The attachments are Provided to assist
discussion in reviewing 2017 Progress; other documents may be distributed at the meeting
The following represents Administration's directives and departmental expectations that are in place
for 2017:
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 from staff.
R ,ctfully submitted,
> inson
A achment
REVENUES
General Property Tax
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines
Investment Income
Miscellaneous
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Mayor and Council
Administration
Newsletter
Human Resources
Attorney
City Clerk
Elections
Finance
Assessing
Information Services
Planning & Zoning
Engineering
2016
Budget Mar YTD %Bud YE - Unaudited
CITY OF ANDOVER
47%
Budget
General Fund
Budget Summary Totals
$ 8,420,354
$ 52
Budget Year 2017
367,705
105,967
2016
766,150
190,093
Budget
Mar YTD
%Bud YE -
Unaudited
$ 8,113,528
$ 267
0% $
8,217,768
346,205
76,611
22%
625,907
673,248
195,158
29%
733,951
767,950
108,564
14%
857,163
100,750
14,657
15%
88,600
75,000
(22,800)
-30%
43,747
116,800
61,904
53%
194,802
2016
Budget Mar YTD %Bud YE - Unaudited
2017
Budget Mar YTD %Bud
$ 88,780
2017
47%
Budget
Mar YTD
%Bud
$ 8,420,354
$ 52
0%
367,705
105,967
29%
766,150
190,093
25%
773,950
111,209
14%
100,750
12,368
12%
75,000
(26,502)
-35%
124,300
46,985
38%
2017
Budget Mar YTD %Bud
$ 88,780
$ 41,962
47%
S 86,990
$ 89,991
$ 41,646
46%
192,778
43,619
23%
187,876
199,541
43,965
22%
26,000
10,477
40%
22,731
26,000
8,827
34%
35,260
7,474
21%
13,403
27,913
7,237
26%
187,640
30,820
16%
184,990
191,360
31,293
16%
157,075
38,072
24%
148,338
148,599
35,228
24%
82,919
18,011
22%
64,433
63,881
2,617
4%
261,016
70,221
27%
252,563
268,12977
,993
29%
150,000
-
0%
146,472
150,000
-
0%
173,483
35,895
21%
151,386
180,722
45,328
25%
435,606
103,368
24%
414,141
462,212
90,246
20%
509,514
119,503
23%
511,074
535,715
122,074
23%
568,201
87,960
15%
408,249
681.733
197 oea
iaoa
PUBLICSAFETF
Police Protection
2,936,467
734,117
25%
2,936,467
2,962,551
740,638
25%
Fire Protection
1,294,795
228,216
18%
1,285,416
1,422,522
245,305
17%
Protective Inspection
441,807
97,369
22%
424,247
446,688
102,276
23%
Civil Defense
22,982
4,990
22%
17,495
24,847
5,079
20%
Animal Control
7,950
710
9%
3,700
5,950
542
9%
Total Public Safe
4,704,001
1,065,402
23%
4,667 25
4,862558
1093,840
22%
PUBLIC WORKS
Streets and Highways
656,237
147,641
22%
686,087
614,668
124,053
20%
Snow and Ice Removal
563,587
205,109
36%
468,174
547,777
186,171
Street Signs
2049193
35,158
17%
167,283
215,244
48,249
34%
Traffic Signals
35,000
3,850
11%
25,543
37,000
4,694
3 13%
13%
%
Street Lighting
36,400
5,934
16%
37,089
38,400
6,813
18%
Street Lights - Billed
217,500
32,365
l5%
200,509
217,500
32,774
15%
Park & Recreation
1,257,247
258,894
21%
1,247,501
1,275,530
235,026
18%
Natural Resource Preservation
10,096
50
0%
Recycling
130,927
17,469
23%
7,255
124,860
12,697
243
2 %
122,221
36,055
29%
OTHER
Miscellaneous
Youth Service!
30728 „___ 0% 258,577 31,728 3,000 9%
ANL6 6 W
B*� (D
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: March 2017 City Investments Review
DATE: April 25, 2017
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 March 2017 the March 2017
Investment Detail Report, and the March 2017 Money Market Funds ReportThese
attachments are intended to assist with discussion when reviewing the March 2017
investments.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational. The Council is requested to review and provide feedback to staff,
1,
Investment Maturities - March 2017
TT
Investment Maturities (in Years)
Credit Fair
Less ThanMore
Than
Investment Tye
Rating Value
1
-10
1 - 5 6-,0
10
Money market funds
N/A $ 1,872,704
$ 1,872,704
$ $
$
MN Municipal Money
Market Fund (4M)
N/A 5,008
5,008
Premier Banks Money
Market Fund
N/A 260,974
260,974
- -
-
Certificates of deposit
FDIC 12,101,864
8,008,204
4,093,660
-
Local governments
VAI/A2 582,044
81,550
336,740 60,148
103,607
AA1/AA2/AA3 7,487,317
1,703,255
4,025,133 1,348,626
410,302
AAA 3,506,759
458,793
2,667,351 380,615
-
- -
1,297,834
-
State governments
A/Al/A2 -
-
AAl/AA2/AA3 2 534,467
1,018,083
AAA 863,637
262,125
_____218,550_
398,169 203,342
U.S. agencies
AAA 4,213,164
549,935
3,541,720 -
121,509
FNMA REMIC
N/A 2,463
-
2,463 -
-
U.S. agencies
N/A 1,458,453
719,962
738,491 -
-
Total investments
$ 34,888,853
$ 14,940,594
$ 17,101,560 $ 2,211,281
$ 635,418
Deposits
2,319,794
Total cash and investments
$ 37,208,647
March 2017 Investment Detail
Description
bCuso
Number
Credit
Rating/F
DIC#
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity I
Due Date
Peoples UtdSkBridgep_ort_CT_
Amex Centurion Bank _
Bank of India NY
7127000G4
27334
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.600%
244,992.65
maturity
01/18117
none
04/18/17
02587DE61
27471
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
0.900%
248,039.68
semi-annual
10/28/15
04/28116
04/28/17
05/24/17
D6279HWT6
33648
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.650%
244,975.50
maturity
02/23/17
none
Blue Hills Bk Boston MA
095577DY5
90160
_
CO
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.650%
0.650%
244,975.50
245,004.90
maturity
01125117
none
none
05/25/17
CIT Bank NA
12556LAA4
58978
_
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
maturity
05131116 I
05/31117
_ _
Bank of America _ _
RBS Citizens NA Providence RI _
Stale Bank India NY
Bank of Ruston LA
Bank of China NY
Berkshire Bk Pittsfield MA
Patriot Bank NA _
Capital One NA _
Investors Savings Bank _
Champlain Nall Bk Elizbt
First Foundation Bank
Bank Leumi USA
Mercantil CommeroeBank
06051 VZY5
3510
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.700%
245,000.00
maturity
06102/161
none
06/02/17
75524KFZ2
57957
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.700%
244,985.30
maturity
12/07/16
none
06/07117
8562845135
33682
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.750%
245,007.35
maturity
12/12/16
none
06/12117
06427LBV6
29700
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.650%
244,958.35
maturity
12/14/16
none
06/14/17
06426TZ69
33653
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.700%
244,982.85
maturity
12/15/16
none
06/15/17
084601GP2
23621
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.750%
245,004.90
maturity
12/30/16
none
06/30/17
70337MAR9
33928
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.850%
1.150%
245,066.15
maturity
12/30/16
none
06/30/17
14042E4Q0
4297
CD
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,000.00
248,168.64
semi-annual
07/15/15
01/15/16
07/17/17
46176PFF7
28892
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.650%
244,990.20
maturity
07/21/16
none
07/21/17
158716AU4
32026UCN4
7356 _
58647
CD
CD
245,000.00
245.000.00
0.700%
244,948.55
maturity
12129116
none
07/28/17
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.700%
244,872.60
maturity
12116116
none
none
12/29/16
02/22/16
none
none
none
none
09/15/17
09/22/17
09129117
10/23117
11/17/17
12/16117
12116117
12/16/17
063248GF9 _
58733
19842
22953
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.850%
245,034.30
maturity
12122116
07112116
01/22/16
12/05/16
12/16/16
12/16/16
245,000.00
249,000.00
245,000.00
249,000.00
245,000.00
249,000.00
245,000.00
251,504.10
246,474.02
246,474.02
150,000.00
245,000.00
0.900%
1.050%
0.750%
0.700%
0.600%
0.600%
1.250%
244,992.65
249,615.03
244,786.85
251,504.10
246,474.02
246,474.02
semi-annual
monthly
maturity
maturity
maturity
maturity
Farmers -& Merchants Svgs Bit
Washington Trust Company
1 Year CD - Premier Bank
1 Year CD - Premier Bank Rochester
1 Year CD - Premier Bank MN
Valley Cent Svgs Bk Reading OH
Satre National Bk
BankUnhed NA _ _
Bank Baroda New York
First Bank of Highland
TCF National Bank
Plains Commerce Bank
Home Savings & Loan Co
Old National Bank
S&TBank _
Augusta ME
Kaufman TX
30856PAG1
9298
940637HU8
1091003210
2055214401
3041574901
91944RAE8
78658OD59
066519CT4
23623
245,000.00
251,504.10
246,474.02
246,474.02
150,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
251,504.10
246,474.02
246,474.02
150,000.00
245,000.00
21714
33202
33204
28555
26876
12/16/16
150,346.50
monthly
12/22/14
01/22/15
12/22/17
1.000%
245,110.25
maturity
12129/16
none
12/28/17
58979
_
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.100%
245,286.65
maturity
12129116
none
12/29/17
06062QY99
33681
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.000%
245,095.55
maturity
03131/17
none
01102118
319141EL7
872278YZ3
72651LBM5
43731LCF4
17470
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.850%
244,536.95
maturity
02/22/17
none
02122/18
28330
CD
245,000.00
245.000.00
245,000.00
0.850%
244,536.95
maturity
02122117
none
02/22118
1678
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.850%
244,500.20
maturity
02/28/17
none
02128/18
28114
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.900%
244,554.10
maturity
03/10/17
none
03/09/18
680061GY8
783861CJ4
051411ND4
486206KLB
3832
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
0.950%
244,632.50
maturity
03/16/17
none
03/15/18
11124
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.000%
244,750.10
maturity
semi-annual
03/15/17
none
03/15/18
A3
local
11,250.00
11,250.00
10,000.00
5.250%
10,173.50
03107112
none
10/01/17
A3
local
72,922.50
72,922.50
70,000.00
4.000%
71,376.20
semi-annual
06/28116
02/15/17
02115/18
Philadelphia PA Auth zero Coupon
McKinney TX _
Regl Transprtn Dist, Denver
71781LBJ7
AA
local
161,700.00
161,700.OD
245,000.00
244,919.15
maturity
01112/10
none
04/15/17
581646Y91
AA1
local
126,856.25
126,856.25
125,000.00
1.472%
125,170.00
semi-annual
05/20115
none
08/15/17
759136RR7
AA1
local
254,312.50
254,312.50
250,000.00
2.000%
250,967.50
semi-annual
07/12/16
11/01/13
11/01/17
Dane County Wl
236091M92
AA1
local
106,487.00
106,487.00
100,000.00
2.450%
100,770.00
semi-annual
07/16/12
none
12101/17
Minneapolis MN
60374YF93
AA1
local
220,938.00
220,938.00
200,000.00
4.000%
205,300.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
03/04/14
none
03/01/18
Waterloo IA
941647KE8
AA2
local
105,594.00
105,594.00
100,000.00
3.500%
100,391.00
02/24/15
none
06101/17
Prior Lake MN
742617CB7
AA2
local
230,000.00
230,000.00
230,000.00
1.000%
229,737.80
semi-annual
05/14/15
12115/15
12115/17
8,008,203.84 CD
Description
Cuslp
Number
Credit
Rating/F
DIC#
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Pald
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity/
Due Date
Hopkins Minn ISD #270 _
Orono MN ISD#278
439881HCO
AA2
local
95,278.40
95,278.40
80,000.00
5.250%
4.000%
2.139%
82,516.00
112,821.50
250,662.50
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
04/30/12
08/01/09
02/01/18
02/01/18
687136LA7
_ AA2
AA3
local
115,511.00
115,511.00
110,000.00
08/04/16
02/01/17
_
Tucson AZ
898711033_
local
254,202.50
264,202.50
250,000.00
12/09/15
none
07/01/17
Tennessee Valley Auth
880591 FA6
AAA
local
93,153.11
93,153.11
85,000.00
5.500%
86,137.30
semi-annual
06/01/09
01/18/08
07/18/17
Washington County MN
937791KL4
AAA
local
115,000.00
115,000.00
115,000.00
3.750%
116,565.15
semi-annual
07/01/10
01/01/11
01/01/18
Saint Louis Park MN _
Sanders TX ISD
791740WC3
AAA_
AAA
local
local
112,114.00
154,890.00
112,114.00
100,000.00
3.850%
102,057.00
semi-annual
12/22/11
none
02/01/18
059851HR9
154,890.00
150,000.00
4.000%
154,033.50
semi-annual
12/22/16
none
02/15/18
Minnesota St
604129F92
AA1
state
811,520.00
811,520.00
800,000.00
2.000%
802,432.00
semi-annual
07/05/16
none
08/01117
New Hampshire St Hsg
64469DWUl
AA2
state
215,819.15
215,819.15
215,000.00
1.789%
215,651.45
semi-annual
12/09/15
07/01/16
01/01/18
Tennessee State
880541QM2
AAA
AAA
state
state
201,894.00
61,500.00
201,894.00
200,000.00
2.326%
4.710%
200,920.00
semi-annual
10/26/11
02/01/12
08/01/17
Virginia St Res Auth Infrastructure
92817QKS0
61,500.00
60,000.00
61,205.40
semi-annual
02/09/17
11/01/09
11/01/17
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133FATE8
AAA
US
99,647.00
99,647.00
100,000.00
0.900%
100,017.00
semi-annual
11/04/13
12/08/12
06/08/17
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133ECA95
AAA
US
199,800.00
199,800.00
200,000.00
0.790%
199,868.00
semi-annual
12/08/15
03/18/13
09/18/17
Fed Home Ln Bank
3130A15P9
AAA
US
251,187.50
251,187.50
250,000.00
1.000%
250,050.00
semi-annual
07/08/16
none
09/26/17
FICO Strip Pdn Zero Coupon
31771KAC1
US
295,932.00
295,932.00
300,000.00
298,494.00
maturity
10/23/15
none
10/06/17
FICO Strip Pm-4 Zero Coupon
31771FAD3
US
194,572.00
194,572.00
200,000.00
198,996.00
222,472.32
maturity
03/16/15
12/11/14
none
none
10/06/17
FICO Strip Cpn-E Zero Coupon
31771JXM7
US
215,452.16
215,452.16
224,000.00
maturity
11/02117
244,999.78
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
247,000.00
12,801,908.11
12/05/16
07/13116
07/13/16
01/22/16
06130116
none
01/13/17
01/13/17
07/22/16
12/30/16
04/13118
07/13/18
07/13/18
01/22/19
07/01119
Synovus Bank
Capital One Bank (USA)
Key Bank National Association
BMW Bank of North America
Ally Bank Midvale Utah
Barclays Bank
Synchrony Bank
871640HW3
CD
244,999.78
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.000%
0.900%
0.850%
1.600%
1.200%
2.050%
2.050%
_ 873
244,958.35
244,127.80
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
140420ZQ6
49306SWO5
05580ADR2
02006LF32
06740KHB6
87164WBT4
_33954
17534
35141
57803
57203
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
244,282.15
245,514.50
242,697.00
249,126.67
07/03/14
01/02/15
07/02119
27314
CD
247,000.00
249,067.39
07/11/14
01/11/15
07/11/19
JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
48125Y51.4
628
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.100%
242,395.65
quarterly
07/15/16
10/15116
07/15/19
PrivateBank&Trust Cc
74267GUQ8
33306
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.000%
249,064.92
semi-annual
07121/14
01/21/15
07/22/19
Goldman Sachs Bank USA
38147JU59
33124
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
248,837.68
semi-annual
07/23/14
01/23115
07/23/19
_
First Federal Svgs Bk _
32021YCH4
29690
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
1.500%
251.196.18
monthly
01/21/16
02/21/16
08/21119
Victory8ank
92644LABB
58615
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.000%
249,017.99
semi-annual
09/24/14
03/24/15
09114/19
Third Federal Sav & Loan
88413QAW8
30012
CD
128,000.00
128,000.00
128,000.00
2.000%
129,335.04
semi-annual
11114114
05/24/15
11/25/19
Celtic Bank
15118RJMO
57056
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
1.000%
2.000%
2.100%
250,544.45
semi-annual
12/20/13
06/20/14
12/20/19
_
Steams Bank NA
857894PB9
17318LAP9
10988
1402
CD
CD
247,000.00
249,000.00
247,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
247,000.00
249,000.00
249,623.14
252,555.72
semi-annual
12126/14
06/26/15
12/26/19
_
Citizens Alliance Bank
monthly
monthly
06/27/14
07/27/14
06/26/20
Enerbank USA
29266NA31
57293
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
251,315.70
07/18/14
08/18/14
07120/20
Elbow Lake MN
284281 KC5
A
local
170,045.70
170,045.70
165,000.00
2.750%
6.250%
5.500%
2.000%
4.400%
168,864.30
semi-annual
12/08/14
none
none
03/01/09
none
12/01/19
Oneida County NY
682454382
At
local
68,632.80
101,558.00
102,787.00
68,632.80
60,000.00
100,000.00
62,494.80
semi-annual
semi-annual
08/16/10
04/15/19
09/01/18
Junction City Kansas
481502F72
311297W84
A2 _
AA
local
_local
local
101,558.00
105,381.00
05/28/08
_
Farmington MN
102,787.00
100,000.00
101,701.00
42,128.80
semi-annual
semi-annual
07/06/16
02101/19
Rice Cnty MN
762698GK8
AA
45,466.80
45,466.80
40,000.00
03/07/12
none
02/01/19
Racine WI
7500216D4
AA-
local
101,792.00
101,792.00
_
100,000.00
2.100%
100,779.00
semi-annual
01/24/12
06/01112
06/01/18
Indiana St Bond Bank
454624S40
AA+
local
146,123.60
146,123.60
140,000.00
4.302%
144,835.60
semi-annual
12/30/16
none
08/01/18
2,243,598.10 local
1,280,208.85 state
1,269,897.32 US
Less Than 1 Year
4,093,660.33 CD
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
Minnetrista MN
Ramsey MN
Rothsay MN ISD #850 _
604229KE3
AA+
local
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
2.450%
4.500%
10,009.20
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
10/10/13
02/16/12
08/01114
02/01/19
751813PB6
AA+
local
158,677.85
158,677.85
208,640.25
145,000.00
145,378.45
204,736.35
04/01/16
04/01/19
778731AZ2
_
AA+
local
208,640.25
195,000.00
3.000%
07/08/16
none
02/01/20
_
Saint Paul MN Port Auth
Steams Co MN _
Minnetrista MN _
Greenway MN ISD #31
New York City NY Transitional _
Scott County lA
793067CC1
_
AA+
local
local
79,756.80
79,756.80
80,000.00
2.000%
80,007.20
semi-annual
01/10/17
04/17/13
10/10/13
09/01/17
03/01/20
857896MH4rAA1
276,875.00
276,875.00
1_61,038.40
250,000.00
4.500%
3.100%
251,007.50
semi-annual
none
06/01/20
604229KG8
local
local
local
local
161,038.40
160,000.00
160,144.00
semi-annual
08/01/14
02/01/21
39678LDF6
27,593.50
27,593.50
25,000.00
5.000%
26,463.75
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
07/09/13
01/27/17
10/31/12
none
03/15/21
649710TU7
100,440.00
100,440.00
112,617.00
100,000.00
1.600%
4.400%
100,336.00
_
none
05/01/18
809486EZ2
112,617.00
100,000.00
102,483.00
12/01/12
06/01/18
Minneapolis MN
60374YS73
local
111,898.00
111,898.00
100,000.00
3.250%
103,436.00
semi-annual
06/05/12
12/01/11
12/01/18
Cedar Rapids lA
150528RM1
AA1
AA1
local
217,672.00
217,672.00
200,000.00
3.000%
206,224.00
semi-annual
06/11/13
12/01/13
06/01/19
Minneapolis MN
60374YS81
_local
local
278,632.50
278,632.50
100,836.00
250,000.00
3.500%
262,122.50
semi-annual
semi-annual
02/26/13
none
12/01/19
Hampton VA
4095582,11
100,836.00
100,000.00
2.209%
3.750%
2.450%
4.400%
2.000%
100,591.00
01/20/16
none
04/01/20
Middleton WI
596782RX2
_
W
local
106,979.00
106,979.00
50,606.00
100,000.00
102,761.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
02/24/15
none
09/01/20
Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col
250097H21
AA1
local
50,606.00
50,000.00
50,957.00
11/10/14
12/01/14
06/01/21
Orange Beach ALA
68406PHF1
AA2
local
241,689.60
241,689.60
240,000.00
248,112.00
156,534.50
semi-annual
08/05/10
02/01/11
02/01/19
Sioux City IA
AA2
local
156,100.50
156,100.50
155,000.00
semi-annual
12/22/16
none
06/01/19
_
Waterloo IA _
Western Lake Superior MN
Portsmouth VA _
Brunswick Cnty
Fon Du Lac Cnty WI
Kane McHenry Cook 8 De Kalb Zero Cpn
Moorhead MN
Davenport Iowa
Whitewater Wis
Brownsville TX ISD Zero Coupon
King Cnty WA
_829458FC7
941647PAl
AA2
AA2
_local
local
50,559.50
50,559.50
100,000.00
288,268.00
50,000.00
2.000%
3.150%
50,459.50
103,248.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
maturity
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
maturity
06127/13
08116/11
07/17/13
08/21/15
03/10/17
07/16/12
11/14/11
09113/11
06/09/11
06/26/13
12/01/13
04/01/12
02/01/14
none
none
none
none
06/01/19
10/01119
02/01/20
05/01/20
03/01/21
12/01/18
02/01/20
958522WU4
_
100,000.00
100,000.00
73723RSL8
AA2
local
286,268.00
295,000.00
2.400%
299,543.00
109,584.20
257,677.50
192,854.00
101,539.00
100,646.00
117061VH1
344442KK3
484080MB9
6161412R7
238388GS5
966204KA6
116421E46
_
AA2 _
AA2
AA3
AA3
AA3
AA3
AAA
local
108,967.10
108,967.10
259,715.00
157,328.00
108,820.00
111,948.00
109,541.00
110,000.00
1.740%
3.250%
3.800%
4.650%
4.850%
local
local
local
local
local
259,715.00
157,328.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
108,820.00
111,948.00
109,541.00
none
06/01/20
12/01/20
100,000.00
108,834.00
none
local
229,640.00
229,640.00
250,000.00
3.980%
244,875.00
none
08/15/18
4947401.5
AAA_
local
224,634.00
224,634.00
200,000.00
208,030.00
semi-annual
03/27/12
none
12/01/18
_
Minnetonka MN ISD #276 _
Palm Beach Cnty FLA
604195RA7
_ AAA
_AAA
local
37,433.20
37,433.20
35,000.00
3.100%
35,752.15
semi-annual
12/22/11
none
02/01/19
696497TR7
local
256,504.60
256,504.60
220,000.00
5.898%
230,373.00
semi-annual
maturity
07/06111
none
06/01119
Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn
88059EWZ3
local
262,690.00
262,890.00
300,000.00
289,116.00
12/27113
none
06/15119
Norwalk Conn
668844DS9
_AAA
local
122,464.80
122,464.80
120,000.00
4.050%
3.263%
2.000%
3.250%
4.450%
1.400%
2.097%
123,991.20
371,610.00
201,700.00
semi-annual
08/04/10
07/15/11
12/22/16
12/22/11
08101/11
08/01/19
Greensboro NC
39546OV21
_AAA
_ AAA
AAA
_ AAA
AAA _
_ AAA
AAA_
local
366,832.80
366,832.80
360,000.00
200,000.00
semi-annual
none
10/01/19
Saint Paul MN Port Auth _ _ _ _
Woodbury MN
793028WS6
local
local
201,806.00
201,806.00
123,037.35
semi-annual
semi-annual
08/01/17
02/01120
97913PC07
123,037.35
115,000.00
116,991.80
none
02/01/20
Dallas TX Indpt Sch Dist
2353080K2
local
116,900.00
116,900.00
100,000.00
107,745.00
282,597.00
semi-annual
04/16/12
08/15/11
02/15/20
Tenn Valley Auth Zero Cpn
88059EHD9
kcal
263,970.00
263,970.00
300,000.00
maturity
maturity
03/11/13
none
05/01/20
07/15/20
Tenn Val Auth Cpn SUip_Zero Cpn
88059EMX9
kcal
88,133.00
88,133.00
100,000.00
175,000.00
93,645.00
171,916.50
49,921.50
99,197.00
39,889.60
03/18/13
none
McAllen TX Dev Corp
Baltimore Cnty MD
579086AW9
_
AAA
AAA
AAA
local
175,000.00
175,000.00
semi-annual
07/26/16
02/15/17
08/15/20
05914FME7
local
51,290.00
51,290.00
50,000.00
semi-annual
08/31/16
none
08/01/21
New York Sl Mtge Agy
64988RHG0
kcal
100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
2.375%
2.133%
semi-annual
10127/15
04/01/16
10/01/21
Columbus OH
199492CS6
AAA
local
39,956.40
39,956.40
40,000.00
semi-annual
02/20/15
none
12/01/21
Washington State
939758DL9
AA
state
205,804.00
205,804.00
200,000.00
4.500%
207,744.00
semi-annual
01/24/12
04/01/12
10/01/18
7,029,223.90 local
Description
Cusip
Number
Credit
Rating/F
DIC#
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity I
Due Date
Massachusetts State
New Hampshire St Hsg
57582P276
64469DWV9
AAi
state
199,744.00
120,715.20
199,744.00
120,715.20
200,000.00
2.090%
1.939%
201,332.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
12117114
11/01/14
05101/20
AA2
state
120,000.00
120,679.20
12/09/15
07/01/16
07/01118
Kansas St Dev Fin Au_th
485429X90
34074GDH4
AA3
state
182,743.20
182,743.20
180,000.00
1.877%
180,441.00
07/12/16
none
04/15/18
Florida St Hurricane
AA3
stale
279,439.80
279,439.80
270,000.00
2.995%
277,206.30
semi-annual
11/10/15
07/01/13
07/01/20
Minnesota St Colleges & Univ
60414FPJ3
AA3
stale
100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
2.000%
99,815.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
02/26/15
10101/15
10/01/20
Connecticut State_
20772JQN5
373384RQ1
AA3
stale
214,954.00
214,954.00
200,000.00
3.517%
210,616.00
05/27/16
02/15/14
08/15/21
_
Georgia State
AAA
stale
26,742.50
103,089.00
26,742.50
25,000.00
2.970%
25,546.75
semi-annual
02/08/12
08/10/11
none
04101/12
10/01/18
Texas State
882722,151
AAA
state
103,089.00
100,000.00
2.894%
102,383.00
semi-annual
10/01/18
Tennessee State
880541QQ3
AAA
state
48,218.85
48,218.85
45,000.00
3.178%
46,930.95
semi-annual
08/30/16
02/01112
08/01/20
Virginia State
928109XD4
AAA
_state
state
22,126.00
22,126.00
20,000.00
4.100%
20,902.60
semi-annual
semi-annual
02/07/12
none
06/01/21
Kentucky St Hsg Corp
49130TSH_O
3133EFJMO
AAA
203,458.00
203,458.00
200,000.00
2.780%
202,406.00
03129/17
none
07101/21
Fed Farm Credit Bank
AAA
US
249,750.00
200,042.00
249,750.00
250,000.00
0.930%
249,377.50
semi-annual
05/25116
03130117
07130/12
04/13/16
06/27/17
04/13/18
Fed Farre Credit Bank
3133EHDQ3
AAA
US
200,042.00
200,000.00
1.180%
200,024.00
semi-annual
06/27/18
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note
3134G3ZK9
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1.200%
200,176.00
01/30/13
07/30/18
_ _
Fed Farm Credit Bank
31331M6
AAA
US
114,000.00
114,000.00
100,000.00
5.050%
105,049.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
09111113
03/30117
10130/12
01/07/13
08/23/16
03/29/17
07/22/15
05/25/16
11/02/15
12/30/16
none
none
01/30/13
03/04/13
11/23/16
03130/17
none
11/25/16
none
06130/17
08/10/15
06/28/17
08101118
Fed Farts Credit Bank
3133EGK87
AAA
US
199,462.00
199,462.00
199,300.00
200,000.00
1.020%
1.080%
199,290.00
199,034.00
09/24/18
01/30/19
03/04119
08/23/19
09/30/19
10/15/19
11/25/19
11/29/19
12/30/19
02110/20
Fed Nag Mtg Assn
3136GOY70
3133EC5NO
AAA
US
199,300.00
200,000.00
Fed Farts Credit Bank
AAA
US
99,587.00
99,587.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
1.250%
1.050%
99,534.00
semi-annual
quarterly
semi-annual
maturity
semi-annual
maturity
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note
3134G96U6
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
197,940.00
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Tenn Note
3134GALU6
AAA
US
249,835.00
249,835.00
250,000.00
0.800%
249,850.00
_
RFCSP Strip Principal Zero Coupon _
Fed Farm Credit Bank
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Zero Cpn
Fed Nag Mtg Assn
Fed Home Ln Bank
Fed Nag Mtg Assn
Fed Nag Mtg Assn Remic
76116FAA5
3133EGSKO
31340OBV4
31361341<1_6
313OA3XL3
3136G4JM6
AAA
US
185,568.00
_185,568.00
199,600.00
950,527.00
200,000.00
99,500.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1.300%
1.700%
1.500%
192,672.00
198,448.00
952,050.00
199,914.00
100,271.00
AAA
AAA_
AAA
AAA
AAA
US
US
US
US
199,600.00
950,527.00
200,000.00
99,500.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1,000,000.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
07/22/15
US
200,000.00
1.850%
198,090.00
12/28/16
12/28/20
31393EAL3
US
204,187.50
2,483.34
2,432.40
4.500%
2,462.54
monthly
07/30/03
none
08125/18
_ _
FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon
31771 EAA9
US
529,947.00
529,947.00
550,000.00
542,261.50
maturity
06/09114
none
05/11/18
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
31393VMQ1
Us
153,656.25
1,550.46
1,513.57
4.500%
1,531.02
monthly
06/30/03
06/15118
_
FICO Strip Cpn13 Zero Coupon
31771C2G9
31358BAA6
Us
93,140.00
93,140.00
100,000.00
97,735.00
maturity
12129/14
none
12/27/18
_ _
FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon
Us
94,480.00
94,480.00
100,000.00
96,963.00
maturity
04/17/15
none
02/01/19
--_
61,821.00
104,657.00
17,101,559.59
Kaufman TX _
Chaska MN
486206KR5
A3
local
local
61,821.00
104,657.00
60,000.00
100,000.00
3.000%
4.000%
6.000%
3.850%
60,147.60
102,988.00
107,181.00
40,047.60
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
06/28/16
02/15/17
02/15/23
1616636S3
AA
09/08/14
none
02/01/24
Mitchell SD Sch Dist #17-2
AA
local
116,702.00
116,702.00
100,000.00
12/20111
10/10113
06/15/19
08101114
06/15/24
02101/23
MinnetristaMN _
_606687EHO
604229KJ2
AA,
local
40,000.00
40,000.00
40,000.00
semi-annual
Savage Minn
80465PAN4
AA-
_loc_al
local
kcal
198,018.00
103,933.00
106,941.00
198,018.00
103,933.00
106,941.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
4.800%
5.000%
5.650%
205,966.00
103,891.00
106,274.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
06/17110
02/01/11
02/01/24
02/01/25
Lake City Minn ISD #813
508084DW7
598699NT9
60374YG68
_
AA+
AA+
05/11111
none__
none
Milaca MinnlSD#912
semi-annual
07/22/11
02/01/27
Minneapolis MN
AA1
local
110,419.00
110,419.00
100,000.00
4 .700%1
105,151.00
semi-annual
10131111
none
03/01/23
Minneapolis MN
60374YG76
AA1
local
72,201.35
72,201.35
65,000.00
4.800%
68,323.45
semi-annual
12/09/14
none
03/01/24
Alexandria MN ISD#206
015131 LQ6
AA2
local
279,760.50
279,760.50
270,000.00
3.000%1
278,999.10
semi-annual
01/21/15
none
02/01/23
1,696,002.80 state
4,282,672.56 US
1- 5 Years
Description
Cusip
Number
Credit
Rating/F
DIC#
Type
I
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity)
Due Date
Duluth MN
264438ZL9
AA2
local
29,767.20
101,245.00
29,767.20
30,000.00
2.625%
28,896.30
semi-annual
semi-annual
12/05/12
07/05/16
08/01/13
02/01/25
W Palm Beach FL
955116BE7
AA3
local
101,245.00
100,000.00
2.264%
97,848.00
10/01/16
10/01/22
_
Hawkins Cnty TN
420218PL7
AA3
local
111,480.00
111,480.00
100,000.00
4.800%
103,061.00
semi-annual
03/13/12
none
05/01/24
Tennessee Valley Auth Ser E
880591CJ9
AAA
local
121,500.00
121,500.00
100,000.00
6.750%
130,615.00
semi-annual
03/19/09
none
11/01/25
Ice Deposit- National Sports Center
none
local
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
maturity
02/06/08
none
01/01/26
Florida St Dept Environmental
3416OWUAO
AA3
state
217,800.00
217,800.00
200,000.00
6.206%
218,550.00
semi-annual
08/30/10
07/01/10
07/01/22
Georgia State
3733842Q8
AAA
state
204,444.00
204,444.00
200,000.00
2.780%
203,342.00
semi-annual
12/13/16
none
02/01/23
2,211,281.05
Itasca County Minn
465452GP9
A
local
105,024.00
105,024.00
100,000.00
5.550%
103,607.00
semi-annual
07/12/11
none
02/01/28
Van Buren Mich Public Schools
920729HD5
AA1
local
102,750.00
102,750.00
100,000.00
6.430%
108,267.00
semi-annual
07/17/09
11/01/09
05/01/29
Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon
969078QM9
AA2
local
159,000.00
159,000.00
500,000.00
302,035.00
maturity
08/25/09
none
11/01/27
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133iVLC8
AAA
US
106,030.45
106,030.45
100,000.00
5.250%
121,509.00
semi-annual
02/26/10
none
04/21/28
635,418.00
32,750,166.75
1,789,389.05 local
421,892.00 state
6 -10 Years
513,909.00 local
121,509.00 US
10+ Years
INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds
March 31, 2017
Description
Current Market
Value
YTD Interest
Wells Fargo
I Wells Fargo Government Money Market Fund
1 $1,872,704.431
$576.91
4M
I 4M
1 1,896.591
1.85
4M PLUS
I 4M Plus
3,111.23
3.68
Premier Bank
I I Premier Bank Money Market
260,974.04
160.81
Grand Total Money Market Funds $2,138,686.29 $743.25
Updated: 41712017