The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWK - October 27, 20201685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, October 27, 2020 Council Chambers Call to Order — 6:00 p.m. 2. Discuss Park & Recreation Commission Items (76 3) 755-5100 a. Update of Prairie Knoll Park Proposed Lighting Plan, Cont./20-18 b. Discuss Proposed Improvements to Sunshine Park Bike/Youth Trail Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion - Planning 4. City Code Discussion Items -Septic System Size Requirements Discussion — Planning/Building -Property Maintenance/Rental Licensing Updates Discussion — Planning/Building -Snow Fencing vs. Garden Fencing Discussion — Planning -Rear Yard Parking Discussion — Planning 2021 Budget Development Progress Report —Administration Other Business Adjournment Some or all members of the Andover City Council may participate in the October 27, 2020 Special City Council meeting by telephone or video conference rather than by being personally present at the City Council's regular meeting place at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, MN 55304. Members of the public can physically attend, although there is very limited seating in the City Council Chambers as appropriate social distancing will be done by the Council and visitors. (AC I T Y O F N VE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV To: Mayor and City Council CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrate •— David D. Berkowitz, Director of bh orks/City Engineer Jim Lindahl, Park and Recreation Co mission Chair From: Todd J. Haas, Assistant Public Works Director/Parks Coordinator Subject: 2a. Prairie Knoll Park Proposed Lighting Plan, Cont./20-18 Date: October 27, 2020 INTRODUCTION This item is an update on the lighting of the north parking lot at Prairie Knoll Park, 20-18. DISCUSSION Based on direction from the City Council at the September 22, 2020 Workshop meeting, staff was directed to contact the neighbors that live adjacent to the park and see what their thoughts are on lighting the north parking lot. Comments from the neighbors are as follows: Heilman property (verbal response received only) — The Heilman's have reviewed the potential lighting plan and are open to lighting of the parking lot as long as there is a security light closer to their property since they have had issues with vehicles parking after hours at the west end of the parking lot. Otherwise the Heilman's are on board with whatever the Linehan's and Brenny's would like for security lights for the parking lot. Linehan property (see attached e-mail) — The Linehan's have reviewed the potential lighting plan and have indicated that they would only like to see a total of 3 security lights. One light towards the west end, one in the middle near the trail entrance and one light near the east end of the parking lot. They are recommending the Traditionare style light. Brenn property (see attached e-mail) -- The Brenny's have reviewed the potential lighting plan and have indicated that they would prefer to have 5 security lights as proposed plan that was presented to the City Council in September. They are also recommending the Traditionare style light. Note: Staff did mentioned to each of the property owners that additional lighting is a possibility if interested near the middle and north end of the parking lot but based on what we heard and e-mail responses, they would prefer not to have any additional lighting other than the ones along the south side of the parking lot. Mayor and Council Members October 27, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Attached is the information that was presented in the September 22, 2020 City Council Workshop meeting packet which includes a light location plan from Connexus Energy as to the cost of lights for Tradionaire LED lighting system and the cost for Shoebox LED lighting system. The cost for 4 new Tradionaire lights is estimated at $13,300 and the Shoebox lights is estimated at $18,212. There is an existing light where the trail meets with the north parking lot that is currently owned by the City that is recommended to be replaced (pole is deteriorating) with a Connexus Energy owned light (either Traditionaire style light or Shoebox style light). Connexus Energy has indicated the cost to replace this light is $1998 for a Traditionare light or $3226 for a Shoebox light. Note: These are 2020 rates, and the rates may be higher in 2021. As a reminder, the south parking lot and the trail currently has Traditionaire lighting system. To be consistent throughout the park, staff, Park and Recreation Commission and adjacent residents are recommending the Traditionaire lights. The lights would be installed sometime during the summer of 2021 once the north parking lot is constructed. BUDGETIMPACT The cost of the lights would be funded from the Park Improvements Fund (Park Dedication Funds). ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to review the comments received from the adjacent property owners and determine how many lights are to be installed and what style of lighting is to be installed (Traditionaire or Shoebox style) including the existing pole near the trail that needs to be replaced. Respectfully submitted, A0V/A Gtr Todd J. Haas Attachment: E-mail from Connexus Energy along with proposed light locations -mails from the Linehan's and Brenny's with map./ Lr Todd Haas From: Steve Sell <Steve.Sell@connexusenergy.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 1:11 PM To: Todd Haas Cc: Becky Bergherr Subject: Prairie Knoll Park Lighting Estimates Attachments: W2002169 - Traditionaire Exhibit.pdf; W2002169 - Shoebox Exhibit.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Good Day Mr. Haas, I have prepared the requested estimates and lighting displays for the Prairie Knoll Park parking area. The displays are a rough estimate of the area and lighting pattern that would exist if we installed either the Traditionare or the Shoebox lighting. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Have a happy and safe 4'' of July! Tradionaire Estimate: (4) 48W Traditionaire LED light on 14' black fiberglass direct bury pole with a natural finish @ $1,583.00 each = $6,332.00 (4) Schroeder Construction Pole Set-up Fee @ $415.00 each = $1,660.00 (60') Boring Charge @ $18.80 per foot = $1,128.00 (460') Trenching Charge @ $8.50 per foot = $3,910.00 City of Andover Permit Fee (if required) = $270.00 Total Estimated Cost: $13,300.00 Note: If you decided to replace your existing city owned security light on the wooden pole near the path entrance, that would be an additional cost of $1,998.00 for the pole, light, and pole set-up fee. Shoebox Estimate: (4) 135W Shoebox LED light on 20' square straight bronze fiberglass pole with anchor base @ $2,811.00 each = $11,244.00 (4) Schroeder Construction Pole Set-up Fee @ $415.00 each = $1,660.00 (60') Boring Charge @ $18.80 per foot = $1,128.00 (460') Trenching Charge @ $8.50 per foot = $3,910.00 City of Andover Permit Fee (if required) = $270.00 Total Estimated Cost: $18,212.00 Note: If you decided to replace your existing city owned security light on the wooden pole near the path entrance, that would be an additional cost of $3,226.00 for the pole, light, and pole set-up fee. Please let me know, at your earliest convenience, which option you would like to pursue further and I will be happy to finalize the design and get the official process started. Todd Haas From: Linehan Home <linehan_91@msn.com> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 3:17 PM To: Todd Haas Subject: Re: Prairie Knoll Park/Parking Lot Lighting EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Hi Todd, Happy Friday! Thanks for contacting us regarding the long awaited Prairie Knoll Park north parking lot proposed improvements. We looked at the proposal drawing (WO#: W2002169) & light fixture specs you emailed us regarding the north parking lot lights for Prairie Knoll Park. Per your suggestion, we viewed the Shoebox lights at Sunshine Park. The light fixture style & brightness @ Sunshine Park are not consistent with the existing lights at Prairie Knoll Park. The specs for the shoebox lights also state 2 different wattages (135W & 190W) which are both significantly brighter than Prairie Knolls existing Traditionaire lights of 48 watts! We prefer Traditionaire. According to the sketch you sent us, 4 new lights are proposed to be installed; there's no mention of the existing Dusk - Dawn light being taken out or replaced with a new light to make 5 total lights. Please clarify. As you know, the north parking lot does not have the majority of the park amenities nearby & is not utilized year round like the south lot; therefore, we feel it doesn't warrant excessive lighting. We'd be ok with turning the lights off In the winter months to discourage usage unless the city plans to plow the lot. The south parking lot currently has 3 Traditionaire lights plus lighting for each of the amenities. Our lighting preferences: 3 total new Traditionaire lights & eliminate the existing dusk -dawn light which would then be consistent with the style/wattage of existing lights throughout the park & like the new lights recently added to the park path. Our preferred placement on proposed WO#: W2002169: 2 new Traditionaire lights on each end of the parking lot located at WL2 & WL5; replace existing parking lot dusk -dawn light with 1 new Traditionaire style light to illuminate the park path entrance & eliminate proposed WL3 & WL4. Our suggestion would greatly improve the parking lot security & visibility along with keeping the consistency of Prairie Knoll Parks existing lighting plan. We're unsure as to why you plan to cross to the north side of 148th Ln & what WL1 is. Could electrical connection be at the pavilion or the existing dusk -dawn light electrical connections? Please clarify. We really appreciate you including us for input on the parking lot lighting improvements. Please keep us updated on the proposed decisions as well as the timeline of the project & paving. You may contact us at (612)708-6214. Thanks & enjoy your weekend! Jim & Paula Linehan A R ^L 25 kva',,' i T78ZF40e003 F' I WL ? t I 148th La 3 L7A 2 • CONNEXUS 14601 Ramey Brod. CITY OF ANDOVER -PRAIRIE KNOLL PARK - TRADITIONAIRE LIGHTING WO#: W2002169 ENERGY Ramsey, MN 55303 Date: 7/1/2020 Addr: 595146TH LN NW (PRAIRIE KNOLL THIS MINT REPRESENTS THE LOCATIONOF ELECTWCALFACRIT1ESAS Desi ner: Steve Sell OF THE PRNTED DATE TO THE BEST OF OUR NNOKEDOE, THIS City: ANDOVER g WFORNATION E WENDED FOR GENERAL USE ONLY AND E NOT TO BE 612-860 649 N USED FOR E{CAWITION PURPOSES. STATE /AIV REQUIRES ANYONE TIR/S: T32 R24 S25 DIGGING. GRADING OR EXCAVATING TO OBTAIN MELD LOCATION OF Ad01�] IW CALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FOR A FELD LOCATION AT Crew Sign Off: Date: Page 1 of 1 1:650 i _W 1 WL 1 s CONNEXUS` 14601 Ramsey Blvd. CITY OF ANDOVER -PRAIRIE KNOLL PARK- SHOEBOX LIGHTING WO#: W2002169 ENERGY Ramsey. MN 55303 Date: 7/1/2020 Addr: 595 146TH LN NW (PRAIRIE KNOLL THIS PRIWREPRESENTSTRELOCNTIONOFEMCTRICBLFACLmESA3 Designer. Steve Sell OF THE PRINTED DATE TO THE BEST OF OUR NN RHE TE. THIS City: ANDOVER WFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR GENERA. USE ONLY ANO 18 NOT TO BE 612-860-6643 USED FOR EXCAVATION PURPOSES. STATE LAW REQUIRES ANYONE TIR/S: T32 R24 S25 D AGM. GRAOINO OR EXCAYW WO TO OBTAW A MELD LOCATION OF AILU BLUTIES. CALL OOPRER STATE OHE CALLFORAFELD LOCATIONAT Crew Sign Off: Date: Page 1 OT 1 lana-zsz-nae. 9 1:650 Todd Haas From: SC Brenny <scbrenny@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 9:36 AM To: Todd Haas Subject: Lighting at Prairie Knoll Parking lot EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Todd - You had stopped by recently with a drawing of proposed lighting for the parking lot across the street from our home. We have taken a look at it, and have decided that we have NO objection to either of the spots being considered. We would prefer that they DO install the Traditionaire style of light that would be consistent with the one already in the park. The Brenny's at address- 645 148th LN NW, Andover AI�LI�OV E R Nraine Knoll Nark 1TN I 765 725 665 14861 Line�,nHS :nr643 `�5 MOM 14815 720 � �Y►t4N S _ 14755 B PRAI OLL A l 14705 715 14655 650 580 710 480 ZZ /770 541 Date Created: October 19, 2020 Disclaimer. The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. ANL15Y OO VE F 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV To: Mayor and City Council CC: David D. Berkowitz, Director o 11 orfs/Ci gineer Jim Dickinson, City Administrator Jim Lindahl, Park and Recreation o ton Chair From: Todd J. Haas, Assistant Public Works Difector/Parks Coordinator Subject: 2b. Discuss Proposed Improvements to Sunshine Park Bike/Youth Trail Date: October 27, 2020 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss proposed improvements to Sunshine Park for a Bike/Youth Trail near the Municipal Well Pumphouse #6. DISCUSSION Based on requests and interest from the youth this past summer, the Park and Recreation Commission explored the idea of a Bike/Youth Trail. The one location the Commission thought was the best option was Sunshine Park at south end of the park near Municipal Well Pumphouse #6. Other parks were considered but due to location or lack of area within those parks, Sunshine Park is the recommended location. In early October, the Park and Recreation Commission held a public information meeting with the neighborhood. Attached are the Commission's meeting minutes from October 1, 2020 and e-mails that were received from residents about the bike/youth trail. Staff met on site with the property owner (Gaikowski's) who lives on the west side of the where the trail would be constructed. Based on the trail location that staff identified at the park, the Gaikowski's are on board with the City moving forward with the bike/youth trail. Staff has reviewed the Sunshine Park location and provided the Park and Recreation Commission the pros and cons as follows: Pros: • Sunshine Park is centrally located in City and well accessible. • Youth have already started using area for informal bike park. • Bike park offers more options for the youth as far as activities within the community. Mayor and Council Members October 27, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Cons: • Hidden location could cause issues and safety concerns. • Would need to remove trees to accommodate bike park. • The City has received calls and complaints about activity in that location in the past. • Bike park too close to Well #6 (security, safety and vandalism concerns). Because of the proximity to Well 6, the City has experienced many cases of vandalism. Graffiti on the building and damage to the natural gas meter are the most recent items. If Council approves the location for the bike park, the next step would be over the winter months to begin brush and tree removal to make it safe and then grade areas that may need to be shaped up in the spring. The bike/youth trail will be designated as a one-way trail and will be signed as such. A separate sign identifying the rules will be necessary as recommended by the League of Mn Cities. BUDGETIMPACT The cost of the improvements will be funded from the $15,000 that is allocated every year for miscellaneous items since the project is not identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to discuss proposed improvements as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission at Sunshine Park for a Bike/Youth Trail near the Municipal Well Pumphouse #6. Respectfully submitted, Todd J. Haas Attachment: Maps of the area: e-mails from residents; Park and Rec Commission meeting minutes of October 1, 2020 ANI,?OVER M 5269 1 —15262F426 121 1504 2058 Ga VosK, Pro eri; 2115 01 Sunshine Nark 1990 501 1969 1 1919 152100 14950 sake Yoy+l Trot l arm 1970 1920 '' 14789 14780 14772 171 1919 1'4764 1969 14769 14753 14741 14724 �14729� 1970 1920 14719 14712 147171 Date Created: October 21, 2020 Disclaimer.The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. A'lff gap.. TIA �. w i ti per' c w a �s N TIA �. w i ti per' Todd Haas From: Colleen Gaikowski <gaikowskic@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:12 AM To: Todd Haas Subject: Re: Sunshine Park Bike/Youth Trail It was nice to meet Todd Haas on October 16 at the site where the proposed youth bike trail will be. We walked the trail and feel it will be a fun trail for the kids. Also, we discussed that there are people that sometimes park on 148th Ave. NW. in area in front of our house and farther. The entire street should have no parking signs to keep it open for emergency vehicles if needed. Jim and Colleen Gaikowski 1919 148th Ave. NW Andover, MN. 55304 Todd Haas From: Lynn Zirkle <lazirkle@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:24 PM To: Todd Haas Subject: Re: proposed bike park EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Hello, I won't be attending the meeting but I will be following. We received this letter not long ago about the proposed bike pa rk. We have lived in Andover for almost 30 years. We like it here and yes we want Andover desireable for new business and residents. However; Pinewood Estates is already surrounded by the High School, elementary school and Sunshine Park. The trees and ground cover by the well house act as a sound barrier between all three. They also add to the natural beauty of our neighborhood and for wild life. The proposed bike park is across the street butting up to a drive way of an Andover resident. Earlier in July we ran into a city worker in the area. We stopped and talked about our concerns with bikes in the trees, hammocks, underage drinking in the area of the parking lot by the proposed bike park and in ground cover. He told us they were not aware until that day. He also told us the city arborist was concerned about the trees because of the bikes and Vehicles in the trees by the Well house causing stress on the trees. We walk these paths every single day a.m and p.m. this has been going on for along time. We even called about a tree that had been damaged and pushed down by party goers leaving beer cans and trash. We called three times as the tree could have been saved. The garbage remained for 2 1/2 weeks along with the dying tree in the parking lot. It could have been saved if action to stake the tree early. 2 1/2 weeks later the tree was chopped way above the root ball and sits as it. The bikes are using this area along with the skateboard park near by unsupervised. The same problems exist in the parking lot by the proposed bike park. The point is... we already have enough noise, lights, traffic from all the activities going all around us. I am sure Andover could make a bike path without cutting these trees in another area. How about be the new expansion? A park is close by. Please consider our concerts. Thank you, Pete and Lynn Zirkle On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:54 AM Lynn Zirkle <IazirklePgmail.com> wrote: Todd Haas From: Kelly Collins <steveandkellycollins@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2020 12:59 PM To: Todd Haas Subject: Proposed bike park EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Hi Todd, My sincere apologies for this late response to the letter regarding the upcoming public information meeting for the proposed bike park. I intended to send an email all week and lost track of time. I hope you're still able to share it with the Park and Rec Commission. While we will try our best to attend the meeting, my husband and I wanted to be sure to share our feelings via email. We live at 14812 Jay St NW, on the NW corner of 148 and Jay, backing up against the small Sunshine Park parking lot and soccer field. While we absolutely love the idea of a bike park (in fact, our 11 year old daughter very much enjoys having the skate park), we are opposed to its location. As you can imagine, we already receive quite a bit of loitering in that area. And I'm not speaking about the regular, normal activities that take place at that location. We've lived in our home for 17 years and always enjoy hearing the sound of sports in the background. In fact, this spring, with all of the stay at home orders, we almost felt it a bit too quiet. Q I want to acknowledge that we have no idea what the space will look like with a bike park. However, it is our belief it would bring additional loitering and noise to the area, specifically at night. As you can imagine, we get a lot of cars that sit and idle and park at all hours of the night, kids playing loud music, leaving car lights on so they can see to play in the field, etc. We have tried the route of talking to the kids and, long ago, there were even instances when we called the non -emergency line because the noise was so much at night. But after being egged and TP'd a few times, now we just don't say anything. We do not want to be the "mean" people of the neighborhood who don't want great resources like a bike park for our youth (and adults I am sure!), but for us, personally, the location does not feel like the best option. One other thought I would throw out as well... 148th down through that area is very dangerous for kids on bikes. There is a lot of speeding down that road, especially with the high schoolers flying through. We don't even like for our daughter to take that road to get to the bike path, for fear she will be hit. And it becomes even more dangerous, in our opinion, when there is an event at the field and cars line the road (even though it's a no parking area) with parked cars. There is very little room on the road for one car to get by, let alone share it with another car or with bikes. I appreciate you taking our thoughts into consideration. Our best, Steve and Kelly Collins i V -c- Todd Haas From: reginamangio@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:09 PM To: Todd Haas Subject: Proposed bike path in Andover IEXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Hi Todd, I wanted to let you know I think a bike path is a great idea. It would be great to have a mountain bike, or gravel/single track close to home too! I would also like many more hiking paths in Andover and surrounding areas. Kind regards, Regina Mangio 612-512-7134 Todd Haas From: Austin Elsenpeter <austinelsenpeter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 10:55 AM To: Todd Haas Subject: Pump track by sunshine EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. We need more things to do in Andover you could attract more people to Andover r; r Todd Haas From: Mark Brigham <mbrigham64@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:38 PM To: Todd Haas Subject: Bike Park EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Greetings, Someone posted your letter about a proposed bike park on the Andover Community facebook page, https://www.facebook com/photo/?fbid=10100738643546151&set=pcb 1658295390997977 Other than the location of proposed bike park, there is scant information about what it is, what it would look like, what it would cost, etc. I looked on the Andover City website, and couldn't find anything. Can you provide some info? I suggest maybe reaching out and responding to the thread on the facebook page, as there are a lot of folks that look at and comment on it, and right now, there's practically zero information about this proposal. Mark Brigham Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less. - -Marie Curie Todd Haas From: Kyle Green <kylejordangreen@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:58 PM To: Todd Haas Subject: Potential Bike Park EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Hello Todd, I'm not sure if I can make the meeting or not, so I wanted to email you in support of the potential bike park. My boys (6 and 3) love going to the bike park in Eagan and Woodbury and having one right down the road would be awesome! We would be there all the time. Thank you, Kyle Green v i Ise ''uP v= Todd Haas From: J Yang <jenniferyang@live.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:03 AM To: Todd Haas Subject: Bike Park EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Morning Todd, I am emailing you in response to the letter we received at 14953 Osage St NW, Andover. I wanted to let you know my household is in absolute agreement with the bike park! We love that our home is near so many great things such as the skate park, the variety of schools, the YMCA etc. we feel that to have something as exciting as a bike park would not only add value but it would add even more fun to the neighborhood too. Thank you, Jennifer Yang bike (��/N s'ni'p Todd Haas From: Jody Manderfeld <jody_p@email.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 1:38 PM To: Todd Haas Subject: Sunshine Park Proposed Bike Park EXT[RNAt tiiVlAli ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Mr. Haas, I am writing to express my thoughts on the proposed bike park at the south end of Sunshine Park. I do not support the prospoal because the need for a new bike park is unclear, access to the park would increase an already -existing safety issue, building it would destroy a mature natural habitat, and it isn't the best use of the existing space. First, the need for a new bike park is not clear: 1) How is this bike park different from the one that is already located in Sunshine Park along Crosstown Blvd? 2) Would the new bike park replace the existing one, or be built in addition to it? 3) Could an addition of a bike park be made nearer where the current park already exists? The existing park is rarely at capacity. Without a clearly expressed need for a new park, I cannot suport it. Second, I urge you to consider how users of the bike park will access it, especially from the high school. There is no crosswalk for Crosstown Blvd at 148th Avenue. When school is in session, I see walkers and bikers routinely cross at that location; they do not go further north to use the existing crosswalk on Crosstown Blvd. The addition of the bike park will increase the amount of people crossing at the intersection without the crosswalk, which is already dangerous. Additionally, the proposed area for the park consists of very mature trees. Part of the appeal of the parks in Andover are their natural aspects. Sunshine Park is already mostly recreational, so I would like to see its existing natural features be maintained. No amount of replanting trees could replace the current habitat in this area of proposed development. Finally, if the space must be developed, a better use for it would be to use it to expand the existing parking lot at the south end of Sunshine Park. There are lacrosse, soccer, and football pratices and games held on the fields there, and the small parking lot is not sufficient. Cars park on both sides of 148th Avenue near the parking lot entrance, making it difficult for through traffic to pass on 148th Avenue, and creating a safety hazard for pedistrians walking to and from their cars or along the road. Thank you for your consideration. Jody Manderfeld 1732 148th Ave NW Todd Haas From: biesboys <biesboys@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 8:58 AM To: Todd Haas Subject: Potential Sunshine Park, Bike Park EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Todd I live on 148th Avenue NW. One concern I have noted when biking on the street during the summer. If you are going west in the evening, the sun is often in your eyes. It's is especially important to note that the bike park is on a curve. At the end of the curve, your eyes have to transition from looking at the dark trees into direct sunlight. Please make provisions in your site plan to limit the number of ways bikes can enter the street in that area. It is probably advisable to have a fence, with entrances on each end. With all the cars that park on the street during evening activities, bikes entering the road between cars would be extremely dangerous. Some people like to go way faster than they should on that road. Thanks Charles Bies 612-708-9746 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone PARKAND RECREATION COMMISSIONMEETING— OCTOBER], 2020 MINUTES The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover Park and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chair Lindahl on October 1, 2020, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1885 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Chair Jim Lindahl, Commissioners Mark Miskowiec, Jake Widmyer, Kathy McElhose, Tracy Strombeck, and Sophia Newton Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Assistant Public Works Director, Todd Haas RESIDENT FORUM No one appeared to address the Commission. APPROVAL OFMINUTES September 17, 2020 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting Motion by Strombeck, seconded by McElhose, to approve the September 17, 2020 Regular Meeting and Workshop minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Motion by McElhose, seconded by Newton, to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING REGARDING BIKE PARKA TSUNSHINE PARK Assistant Public Works Director Todd Haas identified the area for the Bike Park at Sunshine Park. Mr. Haas state the City notified the neighborhood about the park improvement and the City received several email responses. Chair Lindahl stated that it is more of a refinement of an existing bike trail than a bike park. He explained it is an enhancement of the bike trail intended to continue the current use and have something for the younger kids to enjoy. Regular Andover Park & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes — October 1, 2020 Page 2 ' Mary Mead, 14769 Linnet Street, came forward and asked the Commission what they meant about a Bike Park. She said the area has been a play area and asked what the vision was of the Park Commission: was it a dirt trail, were they going to clear out trees? Chair Lindahl responded that some trees would be taken out, but they were not quality trees. He said some will be removed for the width of trail and the trail will remain a dirt track. He said there will not be large jumps, but a loop for kids to enjoy nature and exercise. Henry (no last name provided), a Boy Scout who lives at 1028-159`h Lane NW, came forward and said he would like to know how the Park Commission is protecting their neighborhood from COVID and how young kids can help. Chair Lindahl stated that Henry's issue was more of a City policy than an issue for the bike park. Todd Tweedy, 1771 — 148`h Avenue NW, came forward and said he thought the area was going to be cut down and paved. He said kids play paint ball and build forts in that area. Chair Lindahl replied that the Park Commission wants it identified as a bike path and the path will not be paved. He stated they want to make it a safe and formal environment. Commissioner McElhose stated the youth in the community approached the Commission and wanted something in the area due to COVID. She said the Commission wants to make it safe and tidy it up. Commissioner McElhose stated the Commission is going to rename it so it does not give the impression that it is a concrete bike park. She said they are going to keep it pretty much as it has been for the past 20 years. Mary Mead, 14769 Linnet Street, came forward and stated she likes the vision of the Park Commission to keep it dirt trails and make it safer. Ms. Mead asked if the City would be going in and checking on it regularly to ensure safety. Chair Lindahl stated there are a few things the Commission needs to address such as the direction of the loop, so kids are not coming at each other. He said maintenance staff will look at it in the spring, fall, and after storm events. He said it is enhancement with a low cost. Mr. Haas stated maintenance staff has gone through the site and has remove things out because it was not allowed. He said if the Park Commission makes a recommendation to the Council to move forward with this bike trail, the Council will need to approve it. He said the Public Works staff has some concerns such as a hidden location, safety concerns, tree removal, an increase of activity resulting in more neighborhood calls, and vandalism. Chair Lindahl said if the City can get more positive use in the area, it may deter the bad behavior. He said there may be more younger kids with parental supervision if the Park Commission approves it and enhances it. Mr. Haas said if it is approved, the City will need help from the bike community keeping it clean and reporting any vandalism. Commissioner Strombeck said the issue came up because the City incurred tree damage with the use by the bike community. She said the Commission received letters from children in the community wanting to keep it as a bike area. She said if there are a lot of Regular Andover Park & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes — October 1, 2020 Page 3 complaints, the kids can call the City and it can come to the Park Commission to resolve it. Commissioner Miskowiec commented that the Park Commission is legitimizing a current use and is envisioning a lot of younger kids using the area. He does not see it like a destination park used by the greater area. Commissioner Newton said there are complaints about parking and the Commission does not see it as a problem because it should be local kids riding their bikes to the park. Commissioner McElhose commented that she likes that the park is used by kids to play in the woods. She stated her goals were to make it safer and not have it shut down. Chair Lindahl said he would like to call it the Sunshine Bike/Youth Trail. Motion by Strombeck, seconded by McElhose, to change the name to the Bike/Youth Trail and to recommend to Council moving forward with the Bike Trail Plan with funds coming out of the Park Miscellaneous Fund. Motion carried unanimously. RECONSIDER 2021-2025 PARK CIP Chair Lindahl stated he attended the Council Workshop where the City Council discussed the Parks CIP. He stated the Council has been getting calls about outdoor pickleball courts. He sai e Council wanted to push forward pickleball courts and plan a study in the amount of 000 in 2021 using Park Dedication Fees. He said the dy is to determine the location, p ng, and number of Courts. Chair Lindahl aid the three locations identified are City Complex, Prairie Knoll, and Rose P Assistant Public Works Dire r Haas stated Prairie o11 will have to be removed from the list due to the parking situati Commissioner Widmyer asked if the p' eball group can contribute to the cost of the study. Chair Lindahl replied the Co ssi could ask them. Commissioner Widmyer asked ' e Park Commi 'on is being asked to adjust the CIP or approve the study. Mr. Haas epli the ed the Council is asY n ing the Commission to reconsider e CIP and include a pi leball study and construction 2024. Mr. Haas stated the Commission is asked be detailed in the study to determine exactly what they want constructed. Commissioner trombeck stated she prefers placing it pickleball court 2025 to allow the Park De cation Fund to grow. She stated that if there are adequate fun . rior to 2025, it can be ove up. She said the construction of the pickleball area can be expe ive if you inclu land acquisition, parking, and other amenities. Motion by Strombeck, seconded by McElhose, to recommend to the City Council placing pickleball court construction in the CIP in 2025 and bumping it sooner if there are funds. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 •,WWW.AN DOVE RM N. GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Admini Joe Janish, Community Dev FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner 4 SUBJECT: Update on 2018 Comprehensive Plan - Planning DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION REQUESTED Informational update related to the 2018 Comprehensive Plan G UPDATE On September 15, 2020, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing submittal of the revised 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update to the Metropolitan Council ("Met Council"). Staff submitted the revised plan to Met Council on September 18, 2020. Over the following weeks staff contacted the Met Council several times to ensure that Met Council staff had received the plan and that there were not any questions. On October 6' Met Council staff noted three minor items that needed to be addressed: GIS maps of certain sanitary sewer system features, amending the start date on the sewer staging timeline from 2020 to 2021, and inclusion of an additional housing tool on the housing implementation table. The adjustment to the sewer staging timeline simply required changing the start date from 2020 to 2021 so that the dates would not overlap existing staging plans. The additional housing tool to be added to the implementation table was applications to Minnesota Housing RFP's and to indicate possible circumstances of use. The requested items were supplied to Met Council by October 8a'. Met Council sent the City a letter on October 9`I' confirming that the Comprehensive Plan Update was found complete for formal review. This letter also confirms the review schedule showing the plan will be reviewed by the full Metropolitan Council at their meeting on December 9, 2020. Following this formal review, staff is planning to bring the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update before the City Council at their December 15, 2020 meeting for formal adoption. After adoption, the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update would become the guiding document, replacing the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Metropolitan Council letter - complete for review Figure 2.6 — revised Housing Tools table - revised October 9, 2020 Peter Hellegers, City Planner City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 RE: City of Andover 2040 Comprehensive Plan — Complete for Review Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22301-1 Metropolitan Council District 9 Dear Mr. Hellegers: Thank you for sending additional information regarding the City of Andover's 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Metropolitan Council originally received the City's 2040 Plan on June 24, 2019 and found it incomplete for review on July 16, 2019. The Council received the City's revised Plan on September 18, 2020, with supplemental revisions submitted on October 8, 2020. Council staff now finds the Plan complete for review. In accordance with state law, the Council has 120 days, or by February 5, 2020, to complete its formal review of the Plan. Review of the 2040 Plan is scheduled as follows: 1. Environment Committee on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 2. Community Development Committee (CDC) on Monday, November 16, 2020 3. Metropolitan Council on Wednesday, December 9, 2020 The Plan will be reviewed by the Environment Committee, the CDC, and then the Metropolitan Council for final review as indicated above. A copy of the draft report will be forwarded to you for your information when the report is mailed out to the CDC. You and any other community representatives are invited to attend the CDC meeting in order to answer questions and help Council members understand the matter from the community's perspective. If you have any questions about this review, please contact Michael Larson, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1407 or Eric Wojchik, Sector Representative, at 651-602-1330. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Raymond Zeran, Metropolitan Council District 9 Eric Wojchik, AICP, Sector Representative Michael Larson, AICP, Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator NACommDevV PAICommunitieslAndovetiLettersL4ndover 2019 2040 CPU 22301-Complete.docx METROPOLITAN C O U N C I L OPTION 3.4 Figure 2.6 Sewer Staging and Land Use by Acreage Within Urban Service Area (MUSA) Allowed Density Housing Units / Net Acre Minimum Maximum 2019 (Current Developed) Acres 2021-2025 Cres 2026-2030 Acres 2031-2035 Acres 2036-2040 Acres Change 2019 - 2040 Acres Residential Land Uses Minimum Maximum Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Urban Residential Low Density (URL) (R4) 2.4 4 3.136.6 3,309.2 3,501.5 3,722.0 3,875.5 738.9 Transitional Residential 1.75 3.6 783.7 678.3 478.4 341.4 187.9 595. Urban Residential Medium -Low Density (URML) (M1) 4 8 93.8 102.8 118.3 144.9 164.61 70.8 Urban Residential Medium Density (URM) (M2) 8 12 13.5 22.0 35.5 38.2 38.2 24.7 Urban Residential High -Low Density (URHL) (H1) 12 20 45.8 54.6 54.6 54.6 54. 8. Urban Residential High Density (URH) (H2) 20 25 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 101 10.0 Agricultural Preserve N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0. -100. C/I Land Uses Est. Employees / Acre Commercial (GB, SC, NB) variable 253.8 268.3 281.4 281.4 281.4 27.6 Transitional Commercial variable 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 0. Industrial variable 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 0. Public/Semi Public Land Uses Public (Institutional) VA N/A 306.2 306.2 306.2 306.2 306.2 0. Subtotal Sewered 4,777.0 4.885.0 4,924.5 4,942.3 4,962.0 185.0 Outside Urban Service Area (MUSA) - RURAL RESERVE Allowed Density Housing Units / Acre 2019 (Current Develo ed) Developed) 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 Change 2019 - 019- 2040 **Not part of sewer staging plan - Information Only** Minimum Maximum Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Urban Residential Low Density (URL) (R4) 3 4 0.0 17.1 117.1 217.1 277.1 277.1 Urban Residential Medium Low (URML) (Ml) 4 8 0.0 0.0 15.0 30.0 45.0 45.0 Urban Residential Medium Density (URM) (M2) 8 12 0.0 0.0 15.0 30.0 45.0 45.0 Urban Residential High Low (URHL) (H1) 12 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Urban Residential High Density (URH) (H2) 20 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. Commercial (GB, SC, NB)L variable 0.0 0.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 Subtotal Sewered 0.0 17.1 157.1 297.1 397.1 397.1 *Note: All areas, current and future, are net acreages (does not include floodplain or wetland) Figure 6.1 - Housing Implementation Table Tool *Circumstances and Sequence of Timeframe Use m _ m ¢ ob y — v3 3 -0 v 0 v 3 a v v o '` o v m o m m¢ o w m¢ _ z t,0 C O tO Y= O u y a ° U1 ° a, C O N V O m c v 3 0 c m f0 .m p— M 0 c o a+ Z c o Z m v c o Z a C ¢_ O N y S O Y y 2 O J U C •VI ¢ U VI @ U VI O N O c O G1 E v "� ip N _O _ 30 O= _ 0 0 _ 7 N p C G LL° K LL a Z ADU Ordinance The City of Andover currently has an Ongoing X ADU Ordinance. Applications to The City would consider applications Ongoing X Minnesota to Minnesota Housing's Request for Housing's Request Proposals based on the project for Pro osals merits. Community The City of Andover would consider Ongoing X X Development Block support of CDBG for reinvestment of Grant (CDBG) existing housing stock. This is currently a competitive process administered by Anoka County. HOME Investment The City of Andover would need to Medium-term X X X X Partnerships explore this option with Anoka Program (HOME) County. Community Land The City does not currently make Ongoing X X X X Trust use of a community land trust. Figure 6.1 - Housing Implementation Table Livable The City would consider support of Ongoing X X X X Communities LCDA based on the project merits. Demonstration Account (LCDA) Housing Bonds The City of Andover is not open to Ongoing X the idea of utilizing Housing Bonds at this time. Preservation The City of Andover is open to Ongoing X strategies: 4d review requests for the 4d program. Decisions will be made based on individual applications. Site Assembly The City of Andover is currently Ongoing X acquiring property within a redevelopment area that is expected to be developed at a higher density that could potentially be redeveloped into affordable units. Tax Increment The City of Andover may consider Ongoing X X X X Financing (TIF) utilizing TIF to support the construction of affordable housing projects that includes a percentage of affordable units, as well as when a need for gap financing exists and the project meets other City development goals, provided a need exists for the TIF. Tax Abatement The City of Andover may consider Ongoing X X X X tax abatement if the project includes a percentage of affordable units, as well as when a need for gap financing exists and the project meets other City development goals. Figure 6.1 - Housing Implementation Table Guided land at See ourfuture land use plan and Ongoing X X X X densities that projected housing needs section of support affordable the housing chapter of this housing comprehensive plan, which shows areas that could potentially support areas for new affordable housing units Participation in The City will pursue participation in Ongoing X Housing Related housing related organizations as Organizations staffing permits. Participation in The Mayor of Andover will Ongoing X Regional Council of participate or designate an Mayors appropriate representative to engage in the Urban Land Institute Minnesota's Regional Council of Mayors group as time permits. Property The City plans to continue its Ongoing X Maintenance/Rental property maintenance and rental licensing licensing programs to ensure long- term sustainability of the housing stock. Fair Housing Policy The City of Andover plans to Ongoing X continue to direct renters to the Attorney Generals office when it comes to Fair Housing. Zoning and The City will continue to review its Ongoing X Subdivision zoning ordinance to identify any ordinances regulations that inhibit the housing priorities in this document. I 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Councilmembers Jim Dickinson, City Admini Joe Janish, Community Dev Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner City Code Discussion October 27, 2020 1. ':✓ DISCUSSION Over the past few months, city staff has received requests from City Council members, residents and other staff to review various sections of the City Code. Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the topics listed below in response to those requests. A. Septic System Size Requirements During review of recent rural developments, the topic of septic design came up at both the staff and Council level. Currently, City Code 11-3-6 requires that plats and lot splits identify two drainfield sites of 5,000 square feet for a total of 10,000 square feet. Staff reviewed all septic permits pulled within the City of Andover since 2018 and found the average septic system size to be approximately 900sf, with no system in that time period being larger than 1,250sf. This means that City Code requirements for septic size are on average roughly 10 times larger than what is currently being designed by a licensed septic designer. In response, staff is proposing to reduce the existing City Code requirement and amend the City Code to require an area totaling 5,000sf for the primary and secondary septic sites combined. Doing so would also reduce the minimum buildable area of lots in the R-1 zoning district from 13,600sf to 8,600sf and provide greater flexibility to residents and developers for construction on rural properties. Please note that the minimum lot size would remain 2.5 acres, however, with the proposed amendment only 8,600sf of that 2.5 acres would need to be buildable area for development to occur. Draft amendment language is included below for your review: 2. Residential Lots Lacking Municipal Sanitary Sewer: No plats within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) shall be approved unless municipal sanitary sewer, municipal water and storm sewer are constructed to serve the proposed development. 411 lots lacking municipal sanitary sewer shall adhere to the following: a. A building pad shall be created for each lot with a minimum size of three thousand six hundred (3,600) contiguous square feet. The building official shall determine that the dimensions of the building pad are adequate to locate a house in compliance with all applicable requirements. b. The building pad shall be required to have a finished grade of at least six feet (6) above the seasonal high-water mark. c. All organic material shall be removed from the designated building pad area and replaced with granular material with no more than five percent (5°yo) organic material by volume. d Tz.,.,.,. 9h ..n 60t1vQi2 c nnn squarereet areas designated , d « v d ror .0 feur (4) be6h�eem home. There shall be two (2) areas designated by an MPCA licensed septic designer for the primary and secondary on-site drainfields. Such areas combined shall total at least 5, 000 square feet and be staked after approval of the preliminary grading plan. The designated drainfield locations as stated above shall comply with City Code Title 10-4 "Individual Sewage Disposal Systems" as amended I developments and at Me time ef bui0ingpermit applieatienfer new hemes-. The location of the primary and secondary drainfield sites shall be designated on the preliminary grading plan. The complete septic system design and specifications shall be prepared by an MPCA licensed septic designer and shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for new homes. B. Property Maintenance/Rental Licensing Update Prior to his retirement, former Assistant Building Official Herb Blommel was working with the City Attorney and Planning Department staff on revisions to the City's property maintenance and rental licensing code. This was being done to address issues of consistency and clarity related to application process, application materials, fees, inspection processes, etc. The revisions also include recommendations from the City Attorney for best practices in property maintenance and rental licensing. Through the revisions, most of the policy of the City Code would remain the same with the following notable changes: • Elimination of the Provisional Rental License due to a lack of use. Creation of a Sober House License at the recommendation of the City Attorney. Addition of a Crime Free Lease Addendum requirement for rental properties at the recommendation of the City Attorney. Staff is currently working with the City Attorney on finalizing draft amendment language and would bring this item back to the City Council for more formal review at a future work session once completed. C. Snow Fencing v. Garden Fencing Code enforcement is currently working with a property owner who was sent a violation notice for a number of issues at their property. One of these issues was a large amount of what staff felt was "snow fencing" on the property. City Code 12-7-4 does not define what is meant by "snow fencing" but does state that snow fences shall only be allowed between November 1 st and April 15th. Accordingly, staff sent the property owner a violation notice to remove the snow fencing as at that time of year snow fencing is not permitted. A copy of City Code 12-7-4 is included below for your review: City Code 12-7-4-A: Performance Standards A. Construction and Materials: Every fence shall be constructed in a workmanlike manner. For all fences constructed after the adoption of this title, all posts, supports, and framework shall be placed on the inside of the fence, with the finished side facing the abutting property or street. Fences in all districts shall be constructed of materials widely accepted in the fencing industry. No plywood boards, canvas, plastic sheeting or metal sheeting shall be used for any fence construction. No fence may have boards, planks, or panels larger than twelve (12) inches in width. Chain-link fences shall be constructed in such a manner that the barbed end is at the bottom of the fence. Siltfences shall only be allowed on construction sites or where deemed necessary to prevent soil erosion. Snow fences shall only be allowed between November 1st and April 15th. The property owner is arguing that the fencing in question is "garden fencing" since it encloses gardens on their property and is advertised for sale as such. Staff brought this discrepancy forward to the Andover Review Committee (ARC) at their September 15, 2020 meeting and ARC determined that for the purposes of the City Code, the fencing in question was snow fencing. Staff communicated this to the resident who requested further review by the City Council. Staff is seeking direction on if the fencing in the photos included below should be classified as "snow fencing" for the purposes of the City Code: D. Rear Yard Parking Requirements Recently, a resident requested the City Council to review requirements for parking vehicles in the backyard of residential properties. A copy of the resident's email is included below for your review: FW: Parking surprise as new resident ®James Dickinson To lake Griffiths Tue 10/13 —Original Message— From: Uz < Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 5:00 PM To: James Dickinson <J.Dlckinson0Dandovermn.Rov> Subject: Parking surprise as new resident EXTERNAL EMAILALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Hi Jim. 1 was directed to you by laimie, who is on the city Council of Andover. He told me to contact you regarding an issue regarding parking. I spoke to Jake in the parking division of the city of Andover, and I was sadly informed that parking of two vehicles is allowed in backyards in the city of Andover. I was alerted to this one morning as I woke up last week (the week that I took possession of my house) and found a vehicle parked next to my fence on the north side of the property. Jake said city ordinances allow for 2 vehicles parked in backyards, 10 feet from the property line. I bought the house for its scenic backyard. It is on Coon Creek which is a federally protected area I believe. Thought I found a Tittle piece of paradise on a .7 acre lot. I am greatly disappointed that the city allows parking of vehicles In this tranquil city. Can this be put on the docket for official discussion. I am a good neighbor. And want to enjoy Andover. Sent from my Whone Currently, City Code 12 -13 -8 -D -3-c allows parking of up to two vehicles in the rear yard of residential properties provided that vehicles are generally under 20 ft in length, parked at least 10 ft from adjacent property lines, visibly operable and display current license plates/registration tabs. Vehicles in the backyard are also allowed to be parked directly on the grass. City Code 12 -13 -8 -D -3-c is included below for your review: c. Rear yards: A combination of no more than two (2) of the following: passenger vehicles, pickup trucks, recreational vehicles, or trailers shall be permitted to be stored in the rear yard of a residential property provided they are setback not less than ten (10) feet from all property lines and are fully operable and licensed as required by the State of Minnesota. Each item shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in length. The permitted length for one recreational vehicle may increase to no more than forty-five (45) feet in length in the following locations: (1) On a parcel of land having a minimum lot size of two and a half (2.5) acres. (2) On one or more parcels of land sharing a lot line owned by the same person and having a total combined acreage of 2.5 acres. The existing City Code has allowed for the parking of up to two vehicles in the rear yard since its adoption as a Grow Township Ordinance in 1970 and was included in the City Code upon incorporation of the City of Andover in 1974. Staff has observed many properties in both urban and rural areas that currently park vehicles in the rear yard in compliance with the City Code. Therefore, any change to the City Code for rear yard parking would be a major change in property maintenance standards for residents. Staff is seeking direction on the existing City Code and if any changes should be made. Res tfully submitt d, Jake Griffiths Associate Planner 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2021 Budget Development Discussion DATE: October 27, 2020 INTRODUCTION The Council has had several reviews of the 2021 Proposed General Fund Budget that will be supported by the 2021 Tax Levy. The Council did adopt at the September 15th regular Council meeting a Preliminary 2021 Property Tax Levy & General Fund Budget. The Preliminary 2021 Budget proposes a total property tax levy of $14,946,945: $9,671,493 (64.70%) operational levies, $3,166,875 (21.19%) debt service levy, and $2,263,577 (14.11%) capital/watershed levy. The 2021 Proposed Property Tax Levy is estimated to increase the current City tax rate by 0.01% and when applied to the City's growing taxable market values will generate additional tax revenue to preserve the City's current operations, maintain infrastructure assets and provide for City Campus construction projects and corresponding operations ($155, 000 for Community Center Operations new for the 2021 levy). That tax rate applied to the growing tax base will reflect a 3.23% increase in the gross tax levy. The Council has the right to reduce or keep constant this levy until the final certification date of December 30, 2020. City Administration will review with the Council the bold italics items in this staff report at the meeting. DISCUSSION The following are the 2021 Budget Development guidelines adopted at the April 7th 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 using sustainable revenue sources and operational efficiencies. Note: Preliminary Anoka County Assessor estimated taxable market value figures for the City of Andover are reflecting only a close to a 1.39% increase in total taxable market value. (See attached Pay 2021 Valuation Estimates). 2) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at no less than 45% of planned 2021 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 2020 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% are appropriate and recommended by the City's auditor. The 2020 budget development exceeded this guideline for cash flow, also Emergency Fund Balances (approximately 3% of planned General Fund expenditures per finance policy) are in place to stabilize a situation, not be a complete solution. Staff will review with the Council the attached 2020 General Fund Fund Balance Analysis at the meeting. 3) A commitment to limit the 2021 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 2020 debt levy was 21.33% of the gross tax levy, the 25% guideline for 2021 provides reasonable margin to accommodate additional long-term debt if necessary. The current preliminary 2021 debt levy is 21.19% of the preliminary 2021 gross tax levy. 4) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost- effective replacement schedule is followed. Equipment will be replaced based on a cost benefit analysis rather than a year -based replacement schedule. Note: The City Vehicle Purchasing Committee has performed this analysis and made their recommendations on equipment needs to the City Council as part of the 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) development process. The 2021-2025 CIP was adopted by the City Council on October 201 after a Public Hearing. 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: City Finance Staff continually maintain various financial models to determine the long-term impacts of present-day expenditures and financing decisions. Fiscal assumptions are based upon a set of financial data including growth factors, tax capacity valuations, per capita spending, fund balance reserve, and debt ratios. Administration did review with the Council the Long -Range Debt Service & General Fund Impact model at the August and September workshop meetings. 6) Continued commitment to strategic planning targeted toward meeting immediate and long- term operational, staffing, infrastructure, and facility needs. Note: The most recent Council Community Vision and Organizational Goals and Values document was adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2019. Administration will assure that direction provided in that document is integrated into 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: Special attention is given to fiscal values, commercial & residential development or redevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery, livability, and image of the community. Most recently financial decisions have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic response and local economy. Staffing: New for the 2020 budget: The City Council approved the Community Center request for an Assistant Manager to assist with facility and recreational management as part of the current Community Center expansion project; the timing of the hire is dependent on the construction schedule and the funding for the position is contained in the Community Center Special Revenue Fund. The hire will happen early 2021. New Staffing Reauests for the 2021 budget: Administration has received new staffing requests from the Engineering and Fire Departments for the 2021 budget. Engineering Request. Administration has received a new full-time staffing requests from the Engineering Department for consideration in the 2021 budget. The Engineering Department request is for a Geographic Information System (GIS) specialist position to focus on mapping solutions. The function is currently being done via a shared vendor contract with three other Anoka County Cities. This position would have limited impact on the General Fund as the GIS function is primarily funded by the utility funds and development fees. Administration is recommending approval of this position, to be accompanied by a significant reduction in the shared vendor contract commitment. This recommendation is based on the increasing volume of mapping data the City currently maintains and needs to adequately track and maintain City infrastructure. The hire if approved is proposed to happen mid -2021. Fire Department Request. New staffing requests for the Fire Department contain position modifications to address current needs, re-establish the Deputy Fire Chief position, while providing for an appropriate station/command structure. These positions have direct impact to the General Fund, other grant funding sources are being evaluated as well as a reallocation of existing budget dollars. Administration is recommending partial approval of this request at this time, the recent COVID Pandemic response has shown the need for expanding the part-time (75%) Fire Technician position to fulltime through a reallocation of budget (this position update if approved would be implemented late 2020. Administration is still evaluation the other requests, looking for and applying for potential grant funding, and determining what other funding options may be available. Staff RetirementslVacancies: There are some anticipated retirements and staff vacancies within the next few years; in response Administration/Human Resources will continue to focus on succession planning, utilization of internship opportunities, continued cross -training of staff, and/or possible realignment of resources. Personnel Related Implications: To date the following are the other projected issues facing personnel related expenses: 1. Human Resources will review all position -based salaries and the associated benefit package to determine if the total package is competitive with other government entities. Administration will discuss the results in more detail at the meeting. Pay steps for eligible employees will be included in a 2021 budget proposal. A cost of living adjustment (COLA) for non -bargaining employees will be evaluated with market comparable data, a placeholder is contained in the 2021 budgetproposal numbers. Each 1% contemplated for the non -bargaining employees impacts the General Fund approximately $32.500. The current Public Works Union contract expires December 31, 2021 and the negotiated wage (3%) for 2021 is included in the 2021 budget proposal numbers. 2. A midyear review of the employee health plan for the 2021 Bud, -et was conducted with our broker on July 21st. Our group continued to experience some high claims over this past year and the broker is predicting a significant increase in a renewal rate. Administration has authorized our broker to do a full marketing of our group to other provided at the workshop. The 2021 budget proposal is currently carrying a place holder or a 15% increase in the rates. each 5% reduction could save the General Fund $28.000. History: Recapping the 2020 budget regarding the employee health plan, the City decided to stay with the Health Partners Open Access program. The existing two HSA plans at that time with varying deductibles were eliminated and only one HSA plan with higher deductibles ($6,900 single and $13,800 family) and stacked with an HRA (Health Reimbursement Arrangement) were offered for 2020. The HRA was funded utilizing premium savings that were achieved from the proposed renewal (29%) to a new higher deductible plan (with a 7.2% increase). Employees have $3,500 single and $7,000 family deductibles; but with the stacked HRA, the City will reimburse the remainder of the deductible, if needed, to the provider up to $3,400 for single and $6,800 for family. The plan offered is accompanied with a health spending account (HSA), originally implemented in 2006. The City does contribute annually to an employee's HSA to assist with the high deductible out of pocket costs. That contribution is evaluated annually as part of the marketing of the health insurance plans. Contractual Departments: The City Attorney 2020 contract reflected a 2% increase over the 2019 contract. Discussions to date for the 2021 budget are for a status quo service contact with a 2% rate increase. 2. Administration had renewal discussions with the Anoka County Sherifffor a 2021 status quo contract. The Anoka County Sheriff's Office was before the City Council to formally proposal was approved at that meeting. The contract renewal reflects a 1.28% increase ($41,528) in total contract cost. The 2021 City of Andover Law Enforcement expenditure budget is $3,287,046 which is offset by a Police State Aid revenue budget of $137,280 and School Liaison revenue budget of $102,331 reflecting a net tax levy impact of $3,047,435. The 2021 Sheriffs 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. Per contract, the Sheriff always provides the required number of deputies for all hours contracted by the City. If the Sheriff s Office has a deputy vacancy or a deputy is injured etc., they still provide the City with a deputy at straight time even though they may have to fill those hours with overtime which at times may cost the Sheriff s Department additional but is not billable per the contract. 3. Recycling: With the relocation of the Recycling Center a few years ago, the City has seen a significant increase in the use of the facility reflecting additional contractual disposal/recycling costs. The requested 2021 budget currently reflects predicted expenses to which the City is seeking additional recycling grants funds from the County to offset the increased expenses. Council Memberships and Donations/Contributions: The following memberships/contributions are currently included in the 2021 Budget: North Metro Mayors Association $14,550 (GF) Metro Cities $ 9,542 (GF) • Mediation Services $ 3,366 (GF) ■ YMCA — Water Safety Program $ 9,000 (GF) • Alexandra House $20,928 ($15,328 GF & $5,600 CG) • Youth First (Program Funding) $14,000 ($12,000 GF & $2,000 CG) ■ NW Anoka Co. Community Consortium - JPA $10,000 (GF) ■ Teen Center Funding (YMCA) $24,500 ($8,100 GF & $16,400 CG) ■ Family of Promise $ 3,000 (CG) ■ Lee Carlson Central Center for Family Resources $ 1,500 (GF) • Senior High Parties $ 1,000 (CG) • Stepping Stone $ 1,000 (CG) • Hope for Youth $ 1,000 (CG) Some are funded via the General Fund (GF), and those that quay for charitable gambling funding are done through the Charitable Gambling (CG) Special Revenue Fund. Council direction is sought on the memberships/contributions for 2021. Capital Projects Levy: Capital Projects Levy — The 2020 Capital Projects Levy Budget specifically designates $2,036,509 of the general tax levy to capital projects and equipment needs relating to Capital Project Outlay ($275,000), Road and Bridge ($1,287,469), Pedestrian Trail Maintenance ($104,040), Park Projects ($15,000) and Facility Maintenance Reserve ($355,000). 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, Parks Projects, and Facility Maintenance 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 $0.00 in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Future increases in LGA or even the presence of LGA for the City of Andover based on the current State formula are remote. The 2019 City of Andover Road & Bridge levy was $1,254,788, a 7.34% increase over 2018. The 2020 budget contained a 2.60% increase ($32,681) to $1,287,469. Administration is proposing an increase again for 2021, current estimated market value growth yields a 4.27% increase ($54,967) to $1,342,456. • Pedestrian Trail Maintenance The 2019 City of Andover Pedestrian Trail Maintenance levy was $102,000, a 2.00% increase over 2018. The 2020 budget included a 2% increase ($2,040) to $104,040. Administration is proposing a 2% increase ($2,081) for 2021 to $106,121. • 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 maintenancelreplacement items. In addition to the re -assigned funds an additional $43,500 of General Fund levy was assigned to Parks Repair/Replacement itemsfor a total levy of $90,000 in 2016, and that continued for 2017. The 2018 General Fund levy assigned to Parks Repair/Replacement items levy was increased to $100,000for 2019 and then to $120,000 for 2020, the Parks Project levy continues to remain at $15,000. Administration is not recommending there be any adjustment to these levies for the 2021 budgetllevy. • Eguipment/Proiects 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 2020 levy was $275,000 and Administration will be recommending a $25,000 decrease to offset the increased levy for the 2020A G O. Equipment Certificates sold on March 19, 2020. Administration is proposing a $250,000 Capital Project/Equipment levy for the 2021 budget. • Capital Equipment/Projects This was a reassigned levy in 2017 to provide for the 2017 equipment purchases. AdministrationlFinance 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 continued through 2018 but increased the levy by $25,000 to $525,000. In 2019, this levy is turned back to debt service levy for the City Campus Master Plan implementation. Administration is not recommending a Capital Equipment/Project levy for 2021; equipment purchases for 2020 were funded through the 2020A G.O. Equipment Certificates. • Facility Maintenance This was a new $50,000 levy proposed for 2018. A facility condition assessment study identified many maintenance repairs for City facilities such as roof repairs, HVAC, electrical panels, fire alarm systems, windows, and air quality related items (the comprehensive listing which is proactive and reactive was shared with the Council at the August 25" workshop meeting). This levy was increased to $355,000 for the 2019 budget to help address the significant deferred maintenance items that have been identified. Most recently for the Public Works and Community Center buildings expansion projects within the City Campus Master Plan materialized. The $355,000 levy is anticipated to continue to address additional facility repairs. Administration is not recommending any adjustment to Facility Maintenance levy. $355,000 is again proposed for the 2021 levy, 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. (Staffalong with Ehlers & Associates has complete reviews to see if any refinancing opportunities are available at this time, there are none; we will continue to monitor refunding opportunities, as markets can move quickly, and calculate potential savings for each issue that may meet parameters which may generate savings.) The proposed 2021 Debt Service levy is as follows: • 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum $ 184,078 (The last year is 202 1) • 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds $ 973,263 (The last year is 203 1) • 2018A Capital Improvement Plan Bonds $ 456,344 (The last year is 2043) • 2019A GO Abatement Bonds $ 976,966 (The last year is 2039) • 2020A GO Equipment Certificates $ 406,224 (The last year is 2023) • 2021 GO Equipment Certificates $ 170,000 (The last year is 2025) Total ACTION REQUESTED $3,166,875 The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. submitted, ITIT. M I IT -'iii Andover Valuation Totals Captured Tax Increment CITY OF ANDOVER Pay 2021 Valuation Estimates (94,415) (101,030) (114,064) (119,973) Fiscal Disparity Contribution (1,184,724) (1,269,524) (1,310,143) (1,348,420) Local Tax Rate Value 30,007,904 31,604,711 34,675,332 35,828,582 Fiscal Disparity Distribution $4,000,000,000 $3,500,000,000 4,807,372 4,966,404 $2,000,000,000 ESTIMATE $1,000,000,000 Pay 2018 Pay 2019 $0 Pay 2020 Pay 2021 Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Taxable Tax Market Capacity Market Capacity Market Capacity Market Capacity Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value $ 2,959,411,470 $ 31,287,043 $ 3,127,397,979 $ 32,975,265 $ 3,561,318,700 $ 36,099,539 $ 3,610,928,500 $ 37,296,975 (94,415) (101,030) (114,064) (119,973) Fiscal Disparity Contribution (1,184,724) (1,269,524) (1,310,143) (1,348,420) Local Tax Rate Value 30,007,904 31,604,711 34,675,332 35,828,582 Fiscal Disparity Distribution $4,000,000,000 $3,500,000,000 4,807,372 4,966,404 $2,000,000,000 5,355,244 5,475,223 $1,000,000,000 $500,000,000 $0 Total Adjusted Values $ 34,815,276 $ 36,571,115 $ 40,030,576 $ 41,303,805 5.04% 9.46% 3.18% Taxable Market Value Tax Capacity Value % Change % Change Pay 2018 $ 2,959,411,470 Pay 2018 $ 31,287,043 Pay 2019 $ 3,127,397,979 5.68% Pay 2019 $ 32,975,265 5.40% Pay 2020 $ 3,561,318,700 13.87% Pay 2020 $ 36,099,539 9.47% Pay 2021 $ 3,610,928,500 1.39% Pay 2021 $ 37,296,975 3.32% Taxable Market Values $4,000,000,000 $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 Pay 2018 Pay 2019 Pay 2020 Pay 2021 Tax Capacity Values $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Pay 2018 Pay 2019 Pay 2020 Pay 2021 City of Andover, Minnesota Property Tax Levy Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equipment/Project Certified Certified CarliFletl Certified Certified Requested 1.67% $ Change -9.09% Capital Equipment Purchases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 %of Total $ $ % Facility Maintenance Reserve - - 50,000 355,000 355,000 355,000 2.38% General & Other Omaltimnal Levies - 000% Parks Projects 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0.10% General Operations $ 7,947,528 5 8,254,354 $ 8,543,256 $ 8,845,970 $ 9,194,032 $ 9,396,493 62.86% $ 202,481 2.20% Community Center Operations Levy - - - - - 155,000 1.04% $ 155,000 #DIV/0! Parks Repair/Replacement Items 90,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 120,000 120,000 0.80% $ 40,000 0.00% $ 0.00% Total Other Levies 1,455,984 1,984,154 Total General & Other Operational Levies 8,037,528 8,344,354 8,643,256 8,945,970 9,314,032 9,671,493 64.70% $ 357,461 3.84% 12,416,357 13,103,487 14,479,586 14,946,945 100.00% $ Debt Service Levies 3.23% 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 186,291 187,840 188,777 183,989 184,199 184,078 2012AG.O. Equipment Certificate 142,885 - - - - - 2012B G.O. Cap Improv Refunding Bonds 498,435 - - - - - 2012CTaxable G.O.Abatement Bonds 977,332 974,418 972,055 969,378 976,780 973,263 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificate 295,470 295,260 294,945 294,525 - - 2016AG.O.Equipment Cetlificate - 152,529 143,310 142,837 143,373 - 2018A G.O. Cap Improv Plan Bands - - - 525,000 433,603 456,344 2019A G.O. Abatement Bonds - - - - 1,001,090 976,966 2020 G.O. Equipment Certificate - - - - 350,000 406,224 2021 G.O. Equipment Certificate 170.000 Total Debt Service Levies 2,100,413 1,610,047 1,599,087 2,115,729 3,089,045 3,166,875 21.19% $ 77.830 252% Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equipment/Project 250,000 250,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 250,000 1.67% $ (25,006) -9.09% Capital Equipment Purchases - 500,000 525,000 - - - 0.00% $ - #DIV/01 Facility Maintenance Reserve - - 50,000 355,000 355,000 355,000 2.38% $ - 000% Parks Projects 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0.10% $ - 0.00% Read&Bridge 1,089,146 1,116,079 1,169,014 1,254,788 1,287,469 1,342,456 8.98% $ 54,987 4.27% Pedestrian Trall Maintenance 61,838 63,075 100,000 102,000 104,040 106,121 0.71% $ 2,081 2.00% Lower Rum River Watershed 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0.27% $ 0.00% Total Other Levies 1,455,984 1,984,154 2,174,014 2,041,788 2,076,509 2,108,577 14.11% $ 32,068 1.54% Gross City Levy 11,693,925 11,938,555 12,416,357 13,103,487 14,479,586 14,946,945 100.00% $ 467,359 3.23% Less Fiscal Disparities Distribution Local Tax Rate Levy 1,686,747 $ 10,007,178 1,736,647 $ 10,202,008 1,802,963 $ 10,613,394 1,725,448 $ 11,378,039 1,896,892 $ 12,682,694 1,952,246 $ 12,994,699 Less Levy Based on Market Value $ (166291) $ (187840) $ (188777) $ (183989) $ (184199) It (184078 Net Local Tax Rate Levy $ 9,820,887 It 10,014,168 _ $_ 10,424,617 $ 11,194,050 It 12,398,495 $ 12,810,621 Adjusted Tax Capacity Value- (1) 25,543,662 26,703,971 30,007,904 31,604,711 34,675,332 35,828,582 #DIV/01 454% 1237% 532% 972% 333% Chance N Chance Tax Capacity Rale" 38.447% 37.501% 34.740% 35.419% 35.756% 35.760% 0.004% 0.010% Tax Capacity Rate W/O LRRWSD 38.314% 37.374% 34.627% 35.310% 35.656% Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 38.702% 37.738% 34.952% 35.621% 35.942% Voter Approved Ref -MV 0.00699% 0.00681% 0.00681% 0.00572% 0.00526% "Adjusted value determined by adjusting for Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates "' Blended rate due to the City of Andover levying for Lower Rum River Watershed District (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value is subject to change. City of Andover, Minnesota Property Tax Levy Other Levies Community Center Operaoons Levy Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Requested 1.04% $ Change #DIV/01 Capital Projects Levy 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 %of Total $ % General Fund Lew 250,000 250,000 275,000 275,OOD 275,000 250,000 1.67% $ (25,0)0) -9.09% General Operations $ 7,947,528 $ 8,254,354 $ 8,543,256 $ 8,845,970 $ 9,194,032 $ 9,396,493 62.87% $ 202,461 2.20% Parks RepairlReplacement Items 90,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 120,000 120,000 0.80% $ - 0.00% Total General Fund 8,037,528 8,344,354 8,643,256 8,945,970 9,314,032 9,516,493 63.67% $ 202,461 2.17% Debt Service Funds Lew 1,089,146 1,116,079 1,169,014 1,254,788 1,287,469 1,342,456 8.98% $ 54,987 4.27% 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bands 186,291 187,840 188,777 183,989 184,199 184,078 0.71% $ 2,081 2.00% 2012A G.O. Equipment Certificate 142,885 - - - - - 0.27% $ 0.00% 2012BG.O. Cap Improv Refunding Bonds 498,435 - - - - - 2,041,788 2,076,509 2,263,577 15.15% 2012CTaxable GO. Abatement Bond. 977,332 974,418 972,055 969,378 976,780 973,263 11,938,555 12,416,357 13,103,487 14,479,586 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificsle 295,470 295,260 294,945 294,525 - - 1,736,647 1,802,963 1,725,448 1,896,892 2016AG.O.Equipment Certificate - 152,529 143,310 142,837 143,373 - Local Tax Rate Levy $ 10,007,178 2016A G.O. Cap Improv Plan Bonds - - - 525,000 433,603 456,344 2019A G.O. Abatement Bonds - - - - 1,001,090 976,966 $ 183,989 E 184,199 $ 184,078 2020 G.O. Equipment Certificate - - - - 350,000 406,224 Net Local Tax Rate Levy 2021 G.O. Equipment Certificate E 10,014,168 $ 10,424,617 $ 11,194,060 $ 12,398,495 $ 12,810,621 170,000 Total Debt Service 2,100,413 1,610,047 1,599,087 2,115,729 3,089,045 3,166,875 21.19% $ 77.830 2.52% Other Levies Community Center Operaoons Levy - - - - - 155,000 1.04% $ 155,000 #DIV/01 Capital Projects Levy Capital EquipmengPmject 250,000 250,000 275,000 275,OOD 275,000 250,000 1.67% $ (25,0)0) -9.09% Capital Equipment Purchases - 500,000 525,000 - - - 0.00% $ - #DIV/01 Facility Maintenance Reserve - - 50,000 355,OOD 355,000 355,000 2.38% $ - 0.00% Parks Projects 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0.10% $ - 0.00% Road &Bridge 1,089,146 1,116,079 1,169,014 1,254,788 1,287,469 1,342,456 8.98% $ 54,987 4.27% Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 61,838 63,075 100,000 102,000 104,040 106,121 0.71% $ 2,081 2.00% Lower Rum River Watershed 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0.27% $ 0.00% Total Other 1,455,984 1,984,154 2,174,014 2,041,788 2,076,509 2,263,577 15.15% $ 32.068 1.54% Gross City Levy 11,593,925 11,938,555 12,416,357 13,103,487 14,479,586 14,946,945 100% $ 467,359 3.23% Less Fiscal Disparities Distribution 1,586,747 1,736,647 1,802,963 1,725,448 1,896,892 1,952,2,46 Local Tax Rate Levy $ 10,007,178 $ 10,202,006 $ 10,613,394 $ 11,378,039 $ 12,582,694 $ 12,994,699 Less Le Based on Market Value § 186,291 § 187,840 $ 188,777 $ 183,989 E 184,199 $ 184,078 Net Local Tax Rate Levy E 9,820,887 E 10,014,168 $ 10,424,617 $ 11,194,060 $ 12,398,495 $ 12,810,621 Adjusted Tax Capacity Value* (1) 25,643,662 26,703,971 30,007,904 31,604,711 34,676,332 35,828,582 #DIV101 4.54% 12.37% b.32% 9.72% han a0 han e Tax Capacity Rate" 36.447% 37.501% 34.740% 35.419% 35.756% 35.760% 0.004% 0.010% Tax Capacity Rate W/O LRRWSD 38.314% 37.374% 34.627% 35.310% 35.65694 Tax Capacity Rate With LRRWSD 38.702% 37.738% 34.952% 35.621% 35.942% Voter Approved Ref -MV 0.00699% 0.00661% 0.00681% 0.00572% 0.00526% •• Adjusted Value determined by adjusting for Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates '•• Blended rate due to the City ofAndover levying for Lower Rum River Watershed District (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value is subject to change. City of Andover General Fund 2020 Fund Balance Analysis 10/15/2020 Actual December 31, 2019 $ 9,363,451 2020 Estimated Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) (1,292,482) Projected December 31, 2020 8,070,969 Less: Snow Emergency (90,000) Public Safety (90,000) Facility Management (90,000) Information Technology (90,000) 2021 Budgeted Use of Fund Balance (500,674) Economic Development (300,000) Fiscal Disparities Flunctuation (300,000) Prepaids / Inventories (122,993) Working Cash Flow (6,286,703) Estimated Balance Available for Adjustments $ 200,599 2020 Working Cash Flow Designation Calculation: 2021 Requested Expenditure - Preliminary Estimate $12,573,406 % of 2021 General Fund Expenditures 50.000% $ 6,286,703 CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Revenue & Expense Summary EXPENDITURES Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget' Estimate Requested • Budget Change (') General Government 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 $ % REVENUES 4,503,332 4,667,326 4,778,336 4,956,352 5,091,793 5,289,484 5,288,434 5,395,656 106,172 2.01% Property Taxes $ 7,634,715 $ 8,217,768 $ 8,332,634 $ 8,634,130 $ 8,864,720 $ 9,392,032 $ 9,392,032 $ 9,594,493 202,461 2.16% License and Permits 452,616 625,906 546,378 562,525 855,831 410,900 595,483 436,450 25,550 6.22% Intergovernmental Revenues 749,570 733,953 793,932 829,861 822,129 780,806 781,394 813,298 32,492 4.16% Charges for Current Services 804,684 912,220 843,022 888,944 1,133,160 736,210 816,781 752,360 16,150 2.19% Fines and Forfeits 99,304 88,600 75,287 73,719 62,349 75,250 55,250 50,250 (25,000) -33.22% Interest Income 63,709 68,380 64,751 107,560 208,957 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 154,239 194,812 178,616 176,662 192,058 133,850 145,736 138,850 5,000 3.74% Transfers 196,930 196,930 196,930 178,558 188,008 190,688 190,688 212,031 21,343 11.19% TOTAL REVENUES 10,155,767 11,038,569 11,031,550 11,451,959 12,327,212 11 794,736 12,052,364 12,072,732 277,996 2.317/6 EXPENDITURES General Government 2,511,970 2,592,649 2,642,223 2,748,464 2,843,957 3,267,676 3,288,676 3,371,797 104,121 3.19% Public Safety 4,503,332 4,667,326 4,778,336 4,956,352 5,091,793 5,289,484 5,288,434 5,395,656 106,172 2.01% Public Works 2,817,981 2,966,674 2,854,540 3,158,490 3,148,743 3,502,808 3,671,808 3,710,025 207,217 5.92% Other 256,720 283,077 764,875 241,940 15,001 95,928 1,095,928 95,928 0 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,090,003 10,509,726 11,039,974 11 105,246 11,099,494 12,155,896 13,344,846 12 573,406 417,510 UNDER(OVER)BUDGET $ 65,764 $ 528,843 $ 8424 $ 346,713 $ 1227,718 $ 361160 $ 1292482 $ 500,674 $ 139,514 10/23/2020 REVENUES Property Taxes License and Permits Intergovernmental Revenues Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Interest Income Miscellaneous Revenue Transfers TOTAL REVENUES CITY OF ANDOVER Revenue Comparison - General Fund Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2016 2017 2018 2018 2019 2020 $ 8,332,634 $ 8,634,130 $ 8,864,720 $ 9,392,032 $ 9,392,032 $ 9,594,493 546,378 562,525 855,831 410,900 595,483 436,450 793,932 829,861 822,129 780,806 781,394 813,298 843,022 888,944 1,133,160 736,210 816,781 752,360 75,287 73,719 62,349 75,250 55,250 50,250 64,751 107,560 208,957 75,000 75,000 75,000 178,616 176,662 192,058 133,850 145,736 138,850 196,930 178,558 188,008 190,688 190,688 212,031 $ 11,031,550 $ 11,451,959 $ 12,327,212 $ 11,794,736 $ 12,052,364 $ 12,072,732 City of Andover 2020 Revenue Comparison - General Fund Property Taxes - Licenses & Permits Intergov'I Rev Charges for Svcs Fines & Forfeits Interest Income Misc. Rev Transfers $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 Millions D Budget 2020 0 Estimate 2019 0 Actual 2018 • Actual 2017 a Actual 2016 City of Andover 2020 Revenue by Source - General Fund Misc. Rev 1% Interest Income Transfers 1% 2% Fines & Forfeits 0% Charges for Svcs 6% Intergov'I Rev 7% Licenses & Permits 4% Property Taxes 79% EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Public Works Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES CITY OF ANDOVER Expenditure Comparison - General Fund Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2016 2017 2018 2018 2019 2020 $ 2,642,223 24% $ 2,748,464 25% $ 2.843.957 26% $ 3,267,676 27% $ 3,288,676 25% $ 3,371,797 27% 4,778,336 43% 4,956,352 45% 5,091,793 46% 5,289,484 44% 5,288,434 40% 5,395,656 43% 2,854,540 26% 3,158,490 28% 3,148,743 28% 3,502,808 29% 3,671,808 28% 3,710,025 30% 764,875 7% 241,940 2% 15,001 0% 95,928 1% 1,095,928 8% 95,928 1% $ 11,039,974 $ 11,105,246 $ 11,099,494 $ 12,155,896 $ 13,344,846 $ 12,573,406 City of Andover 2020 Expenditure Comparison - General Fund General GoVt Public Safety Public Wake Other $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 Millions 0 Budget 2020 If Estimate 2019 0 Actual 2018 • Actual 2017 • Actual 2016 City of Andover 2020 Expenditures by Function - General Fund Other 1% General Gov't 27% Public Works 29% Public Safety 43% CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Expenditure Budget Summary Totals - By Department Budget Year 2021 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget* Estimate Requested" Change(') 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 $ % GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 85,060 $ 86,989 $ 84,136 $ 87,813 $ 99,001 $ 108,315 $ 108,315 $ 108,315 0 0.00% Administration 172,296 187,876 187,514 198,945 211,898 227,334 227,334 236,245 8,911 3.92% Newsletter 21,042 22,731 25,287 17,770 24,413 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0.00% Human Resources 15,908 13,404 15,520 13,666 15,842 34,100 34,100 35,198 1,098 3.22% Attorney 180,313 184,990 188,644 188,031 191,782 200,941 200,941 206,941 6,000 2.99% City Clerk 134,775 148,338 147,450 149,769 160,184 170,000 170,000 176,206 6,206 3.65% Elections 14,497 64,433 17,852 50,629 20,452 69,994 69,994 74,212 4,218 6.03% Finance 240,319 252,563 258,883 272,851 280,199 308,356 308,356 320,768 12,412 4.03% Assessing 146,315 146,473 147,915 149,040 149,033 159,000 159,000 161,000 2,000 1.26% Information Services 131,744 151,387 149,512 171,637 169,827 194,725 194,725 213,738 19,013 9.76% Planning & Zoning 406,045 414,141 398,780 422,983 412,282 490,296 490,296 504,205 13,909 2.84% Engineering 464,843 511,074 511,183 527,688 561,642 605,481 605,481 626,771 21,290 3.52% Facility Management 498,813 408,250 509,547 497,642 547,402 674,134 695,134 683,198 9,064 1.34% Total General Gov 2,511,970 2,592,649 2,642,223 2,748,464 2,843,957 3,267,676 3,288,676 3,371,797 104,121 3.19% PUBLICSAFETY Police Protection 2,918,308 2,936,467 2,962,551 3,053,526 3,183,610 3,245,518 3,245,518 3,287,046 41,528 1.28% Fire Protection 1,165,223 1,285,417 1,353,209 1,445,167 1,391,252 1,517,670 1,517,670 1,562,022 44,352 2.92% Protective Inspection 391,951 424,247 443,712 436,790 493,955 490,410 490,410 509,423 19,013 3.88% Emergency Management 24,352 17,495 16,320 18,060 18,608 29,936 29,936 31,215 1,279 4.27% Animal Control 3,498 3,700 2,544 2,809 4,368 5,950 4,900 5,950 0 0.00% Total Public Safety 4,503,332 4,667,326 4,778,336 4,956,352 5,091,793 5,289,484 5,288,434 5,395,656 106,172 2.01 PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 629,724 686,086 597,963 656,194 615,450 738,070 748,070 770,927 32,857 4.45% Snow and Ice Removal 442,078 468,173 449,881 599,029 703,647 631,937 631,937 675,888 43,951 6.95% Street Signs 204,495 167,282 214,540 206,890 202,996 235,124 235,124 240,842 5,718 2.43% Traffic Signals 30,170 27,919 36,151 33,857 26,422 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.00% Street Lighting 30,664 37,089 27,735 32,829 32,716 40,400 40,400 40,400 0 0.00% Street Lights - Billed 201,500 200,509 144,451 142,937 145,604 180,500 180,500 180,500 0 0.00% Park & Recreation 1,151,314 1,247,501 1,207,360 1,282,414 1,180,502 1,428,590 1,557,590 1,513,325 84,735 5.93% Natural Resource Preservatim - 7,255 6,503 5,158 16,831 14,216 14,216 14,383 167 1,17% Recycling 128,036 124,860 169,956 199,182 224,575 193,971 223,971 233,760 39,789 20.51% Total Public Works 2,817,981 2,966,674 2,854,540 3,158,490 3,148,743 3,502,808 3,671,808 3,710,025 207,217 5.927/. OTHER 256,720 283,077 764,875 241,940 15,001 95,928 1,095,928 95,928 0 0.00% Total Other 256,720 283,077 764,875 241,940 15,001 95,928 1,095,928 959928 0 0.0000% GRAND TOTAL $ 10,090,003 $ 10,509,726 $ 11,039,974 $ 11,105,246 $ 11,099,494 $ 12,155,896 $ 13,344,846 $ 125573,406 417,510 3.43%