Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WK - November 24, 2020
�VND OVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, November 24, 2020 Senior Center 1. Call to Order— 6:00 p.m. 2. Density/Concept Discussion - Planning 3. Land Development Requirements Discussion — Planning 4. Discuss Draft 2021 Park Dedication Study - Engineering 5. Discuss Veterans Memorial Boulevard NW —Engineering A. Pedestrian Crossing Discussion at Nightingale Street NW B. Digital Speed Limit Sign Request 6. Discuss Street Lights Along Crosstown Boulevard NW - Engineering 7. 2021 Budget Development Progress / 2021 Proposed Property Tax Levy Review — Administration Closed Session 8. City Administrator Performance Appraisal 9. Adjournment All members of the Andover City Council will participate in the November 24, 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. City Staff will be present at City Hall for the meeting. Members of the public can physically attend, although there is very limited seating in the Andover Senior Center as appropriate social distancing will be done by the City Staff and visitors. i �� ((D.! 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City FROM: Joe Janish, Community SUBJECT: Density/Concept Discussion - Planning DATE: November 24, 2020 ACTION REQUESTED Consider discussion related to density at the intersection of 71h Avenue and Bunker Lake Blvd. UPDATE Quest Development has been working to secure residential developers for the property located at Bunker Lake Blvd. and 71h Avenue NW. We expect Della Kolpin Partner with NextNest, LLC. and Kyle Didier Partner at NextNest, LLC. to provide a presentation related to a potential concept they may have for a multifamily development at the property on the North side of Bunker Lake Blvd. Based on the transition of the Comprehensive Plan, Council direction is needed on how to proceed with the potential concept. 1655 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755"B� • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, CityAdministra FROM: Joe lanish, Community Developme irectorW SUBJECT: Land Development Requirements Discussion—Planning DATE: November 24, 2020 ACTION REQUESTED 0 Consider discussion related to 110 foot buildability requirement for lots served by municipal sanitary sewer. DISCUSSION The Council is requested to have a conversation related to the current standard of 110 foot buildability based on input from some developers related to this requirement. City Code 11-3-6-B-1: Residential Lots Served By Municipal Sanitary Sewer: Lots served by municipal sanitary sewer shall remove all organic material and replace with granular material with no more than five percent (5%) organic material by volume for the front one hundred ten feet (110') of depth of the lot at a minimum width of the lot as required for that zoning district by the City Code. (Amended 9/18/07, Ord. 355) It appears as though prior to 1992 the City of Andover did not have an explicit definition for what makes a lot buildable. In response to a court case Windschitl v. City of Andover the City adopted a 100 foot buildability requirement. In 2007, 100 feet was increased to 110 feet. Prior to this requirement the City of Andover and its residents experienced settlement of driveways, sewer lines, water lines, utility stubs, and other improvements. The increase of 10 feet was completed due to individuals having issues with soil corrections after purchasing a home in order to construct decks, pools and in fewer instances accessory structures. This meant that homeowners where paying for soil corrections after they purchased the home in order to construct these types of amenities for their homes. Having the developer complete the additional footage provided more options for the homeowner and eliminated not having to provide soil corrections on a lot by lot basis. Research of adjacent communities indicate that other communities appear to require compaction testing for roadways and homes but didn't reveal a requirement for lots to have the same type of buildability requirement that Andover currently has. Survey of Adjacent Communities: city Code Policy Contact Person Reference Andover 11-3-6-B-1 Lots served by municipal sanitary sewer shall remove Dave Berkowitz all organic material and replace with granular material with no more than 5% organic material by volume for the first 110' of depth of the lot at a minimum width of the lot as required for that zoning district by the City Code. Anoka NA No requirements, handled case by case. Clark Palmer Blaine NA No soil compaction requirements on sites or Theresa Barnes roadways, developer will send building permit and foundation as -built survey. Gets grading as -built survey prior to issuing certificate of occupancy. In development agreement, they are required to sign document that states anything outside of building pad may be unlikely to be suitable for building. Coon NA Geotechnical completes compaction tests. Mark Hansen Rapids Compaction tests generally only are required directly under the structure. If there are concerns regarding soils, extra compaction tests are handled on a case by case basis normally through the Geotechnical contractor. City has very little residential development, and "infill" development is handled case by case. Ramsey NA No formal requirements handled case by case City Hall depending on site locations. Otsego NA No formal requirements. Only care about the right- Brian of -way. Left up to Mortgage Companies for (Hakanson certification of lots. Anderson) Elk River NA Case by case, roll testing before paving of any Justin Femrite surface. No testing required under house site. Required 6" of topsoil/free of debris. Plymouth NA Developer must submit documents stating they meet Lisa compaction for the house pad area and areas within the right of way, if they encounter any issues then the City inspects soils. 'Data Collected July 2020 As part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) the City of Andover has modified this requirement. An example is Villas at Crosstown Woods; the homes sites for the detached villas provided a smaller distance than 110 feet for the corrective soils due to restrictions of additions on the villas. Staff is looking for direction from City Council if there is a desire to explore changing the 110 foot buildability requirement. 2 I t-1L C I T Y ®r! NDO• ' ,� . -- 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 Council Members Jim Dickinson, City Administ David D. Berkowitz, Director Todd J. Haas, Assistant Public Works/City Engineer>-12� Coordinator Consider 2021 Park Dedication Study & Fee - Engineering November 24, 2020 The City Council is requested to consider the 2021 Park Dedication Study. Attached is the final draft of the 2021 Park Dedication Study for your review. The main highlights of the report are as follows: • The Rural Reserve area is not included. If the Rural Reserve area develops, a separate study will need to be developed which will provide recommendations on the various types of parks that could be included in the area and what the park dedication fee should be for developing those parks. • Metropolitan Council most recent predicted buildout for 2040 is now at 13,500 which is lower than the 15,400 that was identified in the 2018 Park Dedication Study. With new lower projected buildout of the City, there will be less households available to help build the remainder of the park system which therefore increases the park dedication fee to $5725. • Based on the Metropolitan Council predicted buildout of the City and the surplus of Mini Parks and Community Playfields, it is recommended that no additional land for Mini Parks and Community Playfields be taken as part of the park dedication requirements. See Table 2 of the study. • Based on the Metropolitan Council predicted buildout of the City, even though there is a surplus of Mini Parks and Community Playfields, the City is deficient of about 10 acres of Neighborhood Parks. The City Council will need to determine if one additional Neighborhood Park near the east -central part of the City somewhere in Sections 13, 23, or 24 Township 32 Range 24 (possibly in the new development of the Fields of Winslow Cove) should still be considered. Based on a recent discussion by the Park and Recreation Commission meeting at their November 19, 2020 meeting, the Commission is recommending that there be at least one 5 -acre Neighborhood Park at some point in the future in same general area of the Sections mentioned above. Note: It is identified in the 2018 Park Dedication Study that an additional 10 acres of Neighborhood Park was needed to satisfy the recommended NRPA Guidelines. Based on the Metropolitan Council predicted buildout of the City, Community Parks is deficient by about 94 acres but as indicated in Page 8 of the study, Bunker Hills Park does make up for some if not all the acreage to satisfy NRPA suggested recommended acres. While the Metropolitan Council's estimated household count represents 78% of its 2040 build out, the City has completed approximately 70% of its identified 2040 park system based on estimated value and future improvements. With that said, the current park system is now falling behind in facilities for its current population. It is recommended that an update to the Park Dedication study be done to determine the park dedication fee based on the population numbers and the future improvements yet to be completed every 2 years. The following items are included with this item: ➢ Exhibit A — Park Service Area ➢ Exhibit B -- Andover Parks Map ➢ Exhibit C — Park Facilities Chart ➢ Exhibit E — Survey of Park Dedication Fees based on 2020 results Note: Exhibit D — 2020 Existing and Future Chart is not included in packet. Exhibit C reflects all the proposed improvement costs from Exhibit D. Staff has also included the park dedication fees from 2009 to 2020 so the Council can see the increases and decreases that has occurred over the past few years. If the City Council is not interested in the 64.75% increase of the Park Dedication fee, here are a few options to consider. • Reduce Future Improvements by $4.4 million or more. This would get the fee increase to 10%. • Reduce Future Improvements by a specific amount and phasing in Park Dedication fee increase (for example by 10%) over the next several years. • Propose a percentage increase from the existing 2020 fee of $3475 and re-evaluate in 2 years. The Park and Recreation Commission at their last meeting on November 19, 2020 reviewed the draft 2021 Park Dedication Study and is recommending the Park Dedication Fee be $4400 per unit (26.62% increase) for residential and $13,200 per acre or 10% of the market value of the land for commercial/industrial property (whichever is less). The Commission is also recommending that the City Council direct the Commission to go back and re-evaluate each park/facility to see what future park improvements should be removed or reduced to a lesser scale. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to consider the Draft 2021 Park Dedication Study and determine the fee that is to be included into the 2021 fee schedule that will be adopted in December 2020. Respectfully submitted, AOY"%_1 Todd J. Haas Cc: Jim Lindahl, Park and Recreation Commission Chair (copy sent by e-mail) Attachments: Draft of the 2021 Park Dedication Study including Exhibits A -C and E; Andover Park Dedication Rates 2009-2020' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Members Cc: Park and Recreation Commission Jim Dickinson, City Administrator/Finance Director David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer/Director of Public Works FROM: Todd J. Haas, Assistant Public Works Director/Parks Coordinator DATE: November 10 2020 RE: 2021 Andover Park Dedication Study (Draft) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide the basis for an update to the park dedication fee. A significant portion of the report remains unchanged from the last efigiaal study done in 2018 2002 and last updated i 2011. The biggest change is the update on the amount of improvements that have been completed the past 2 8 years since the study was last updated in 2018 2011. The recommended 2021 2018 park dedication fee will be based on these new calculations. The City authorized a park dedication study to be conducted by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. back in 2002 to review city regulations and dedication requirements to determine if current practices were adequately provided for existing and future anticipated park demands. This update to the GFigiRal Felpert ad te the 2011 updated study will summarize the objectives of the current Park Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and provide updated inventory information to establish a base line for future dedication needs. Factors including property valuation, service area needs, facility cost analysis, future development and implementation strategies will be reviewed. Recommendations will be set forth establishing mechanisms for the City to provide park facilities in a manner that meets Comprehensive Plan goals, establishes a relationship between park need and development impact and that will build out the system in an equitable manner consistent with Minnesota Statutes and case law. This study excludes analysis of the community regional trail system. ISSUES / ANALYSIS The City's existing park system has been developed based upon the current Comprehensive Plan (which describes land use, transportation, parks and community goals and objectives as well as demographic projections to the year 2040). Andover has been successful in acquiring land during the subdivision process to provide neighborhood and mini parks throughout the community. Athletic fields and other recreation improvements have been provided based upon a combination of City, school district and regional park facilities. The City is in a good position with respect to its park and recreation system in that the variety, location, number and facilities provided by the system meet the national guidelines. The existing Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan utilized both Metropolitan Council and National Recreation and H: ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc Parks Association' Guidelines to develop the park system standards identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The current City park system meets the national standards (based upon the number of acres of park land provided per 1,000 population), identified by the existing Comprehensive Plan. The City has provided parks throughout the community which allow residents good access to the system and there are a variety of recreational facilities to choose from including natural areas, linear parks, playgrounds and athletic facilities. Andover has also done a good job of mapping and maintaining an inventory of its park facilities and providing clear guidance through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) process for implementation of future facilities. The purpose of this update to the original park dedication study is to update the cost or value of the Andover ultimate park system and distribute the costs of developing this system equitably to the current and future households and land uses that benefit from the City's park system. The following points summarize the key issues that will affect the City's park system: 1. The Metropolitan Council's build out population forecasted for Andover for both urban and rural areas of the City is anticipated 39,800 4900 in 2040 and 13,500 45,400 households. Once the Rural Reserve Area population and household numbers have been identified, the park system will be determined at that time along with the gross land area and the number of acres that is considered buildable. When that occurs a separate Park Dedication Study will be required for this area. 2. The community has done a good job of acquiring land for park and recreation purposes and providing equipment/facilities to serve the recreation needs of the City. The location and type of parks within the existing system -generally meet the national standards (suggested by the National Recreation and Park Association), based upon the current population of 32,882 32,336 residents 2019 2016 Metropolitan Council estimate). 3. Based upon a staff review of the existing land areas which have been acquired or dedicated to the City over time, staff has identified about 61 acres (Meadowood South, Hartfiel's, Dehn's, Cedar Crest Estates, Creekridge, Birch Ridge, White Oaks, Valley View, Redwood, Landlocked, River Trails, and Cedar Crest) or about 9% of the current total parkland that may never be developed due to topography constraints such as steep slopes, wetlands and/or lakes. 4. The existing park system is predominantly comprised of smaller mini and neighborhood parks which are located throughout the community. Staff has indicated that the number and proximity of smaller parks are expensive to maintain and as such, the City may choose to limit further acquisition of small park sites within the community in favor of larger neighborhood parks or community playfields. ' Previous National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) guidelines were utilized to analyze the park system by park type and the number of acres of parkland per 1,000 population because these guidelines were utilized in the 1999 Park Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The NRPA is a professional association that provides accreditation programs for universities and advises national lawmakers on policy matters, programs and legislation related to public parks and recreation. KENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 2 5. The 2010 U.S. Census indicates that over 57.8% of the City's population is comprised of young residents between the ages of 5 to 44 years of age. About 14.3% of the population is comprised of children under 10 years old. The Census figures indicate that the community has a large population of young active residents who typically generate park and recreation demands on the community. Considering the large number of children, teens and young adults, it is anticipated that park and recreation use will be strong for the foreseeable future. The final 2020 U.S. Census will begin the;. analysis A 2918- is not scheduled to be completed by the time this Park Dedication Study is done. 6. As the community develops and land within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) decline, future growth will occur in the rural service area and the density of development will ultimately decline. While the need for parks will continue to be strong, the financial resources that will be dedicated to the park system are expected to decline. The anticipated decreased density of development in the rural areas will result in a decline in the amount of park dedication fees that will be collected over the long-term. The land supply within the MUSA is limited and the cost of land for park acquisition could be higher than it currently is at some point in the future. 7. The current City park system as calculated by staff contains a total of about 631 acres of parkland, which is divided into 69 separate park facilities, (including Andover Station North Ball Field Facility and City Hall Outdoor Hockey Rink Complex). The total value of the park system based upon full build out (including existing and future planned facilities, land costs and 30% design/administration costs) approximates $54,995,874 $49,'�T. The existing park system (including land costs and 30% design/administration costs) is valued at $38,422,815 $13,477,067 with approximately $16,573,059 $16,626,336 (including future land purchases and 30% design/administration costs) of future improvements to be constructed to complete the 2040 Comprehensive Plan park system. 8. The planned park system (based upon the 2040 Comprehensive Plan), is about 70% 66406 (see Table 6) developed at this time and has been paid for by existing development (through taxes, Community Development Block Grants, other grants and park dedication fees, donations, etc.). As the City is currently about 78% 67°6 developed1( 0,605 10,391 households based upon the 2019 20 6 Metropolitan Council's estimate out of the potential 13.500 15,400 projected 2040 build out households), existing development has already paid for over 70% 66% of the total planned system. Future development should be responsible to pay for the remaining 30% 3"0 ($16,573,059 $16,625,336) plus a percentage of the existing system (including some facility upgrades), in order to provide for their proportionate share of the total system costs. PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Andover Comprehensive Plan including the Parks and Open Space Chapter sets forth goals and objectives for the park system. The objectives of the plan are to: KENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 3 1. Provide areas that meet present park needs and plan for future needs of the City. 2. Maintain, upgrade and expand community recreational facilities and trail systems to serve all residents of the City. 3. Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the City's rural and open space and amenities. The City of Andover contains 69 parks (including Andover Station North Ball Field Facility and City Hall Outdoor Hockey Rink Complex), ranging in size from under 1 acre to over 152 acres (Kelsey Round Lake Park). Anoka County operates only one Regional Park within the corporate limits of Andover. Anoka County also operates Rum River Central Regional Park that abuts the City along the Rum River near the northwest end of the City. Exhibit A (Park Service Area Map) indicates the location of all of the existing parks and developable planned future parks within the City. The park system contains land areas that are designed to meet varying recreational needs of residents. The parks are classified according to factors including size, use, service area, location and site improvements. These classification systems for local and regional facilities as identified by the Metropolitan Council 2040 Regional Parks Policy plan are as follows: Mini Park. This type of park is intended to provide specialized facilities (facilities include improvements such as playground and fitness equipment) that serve a concentrated or limited population or specific group such as tots or senior citizens. Mini parks are typically located within neighborhoods and serve people living within less than % mile of the Park and have an area of 1 acre or less. Note: For the purpose of this study, some parks that exceed 1 acre have been identified as a mini park since the park cannot be developed any more than a specialized facility. Neighborhood Park. This type of facility is intended to provide areas for intense recreational activities such as field games, courts, apparatus areas, skating, etc. The majority of the City parks fall into this classification. The service areas range from '% to mile and this type of facility is generally intended to serve a population of 4,000 to 5,000 people. Park sizes for existing Neighborhood Parks within the City range from 1 acre to almost 25 acres. Note: For the purpose of this study, parks that have specialized facilities and 1 field or court have been identified as a neighborhood park. Linear Park. This type of facility is typically developed for one or more varying modes of recreational travel such as hiking, biking, skiing, canoeing etc. There is currently only one Linear Park within the City (Coon Creek Park). The park contains bituminous trails (Tom Anderson Trail) that follows Coon Creek between Hanson Blvd. NW and the Burlington Northern Railroad. Non -motorized uses including biking, hiking, roller blading and cross-country skiing are permitted in the park. Coon Creek Park contains 44 acres of land. Special Use Park. Special Use Parks are generally areas established to provide specialized or single purpose recreational activities such as golf course, nature center, H:ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 2 marina, zoo, display gardens etc. The Crooked Lake Boat Landings and Round Lake are designated as Special Use Parks. Crooked Lake Boat landing has a picnic shelter and boat ramp. Round Lake contains only a boat ramp. Undeveloped Parks. The City has a number of Undeveloped Parks where land has been dedicated or acquired but facilities have not yet been installed or may not have the ability to be installed. The Undeveloped Park areas range from less than 1 acre to over 10 acres in size. Many of the areas contain wetlands and are unsuitable for active plan and/or recreational equipment. Larger areas may be suitable for future trail development. Community P/ayfie/ds. These types of parks or facilities are areas for intense recreational facilities such as athletic fields, hockey rinks, skate parks, courts and swimming pools and are in close proximity to secondary schools and other public facilities. These parks serve 3 to 5 neighborhoods or one community. Hawk Ridge Park, Timber Trails Park, Fox Meadows Park, Sunshine Park, Prairie Knoll Park, Shadowbrook East Park, Eveland Fields, Andover Station North Ball Field Facility, Pine Hills North Facility and City Campus Outdoor Hockey Complex would be considered in this category as both are active use parks with recreational facilities designed for league play in baseball, softball, soccer, lacrosse, football and hockey. Note: For the purpose of this study, if a park has at least 2 or more athletic fields and/or rinks, the park has been classified into this category. Community Parks. Community Parks are generally intended to provide areas of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation activities including walking, picnicking. These types of parks could also have some fields and court games. They serve the City as a whole and typically include between 25 to 100 acres of land. Currently one park is designed for community park use which is Kelsey Round Lake Park. This park is designated as a Community Park since it is a passive use park that has extensive natural areas that also contains bituminous, gravel and wood chip nature trails. Regional Parks. Currently there are only two Regional Parks and one Park Conservation Area within or adjacent to Andover and are operated by Anoka County. About half of Bunker Hills Regional Park is located within the corporate limits in the southeast part of Andover and extends into the adjacent cities of Blaine, Coon Rapids and Ham Lake. The Rum River Central Regional Park abuts the City along the Rum River east of County Road 7 and the north side of the Rum River in the City of Ramsey. The Cedar Creek Conservation Area is located just to the west of Aztec Street NW with access from 181St Avenue NW (located on the Andover side of the Rum River across from Rum River Central Park). This Conservation Area is located in both the Cities of Oak Grove and Andover. The portion located in Andover is approximately 93 acres in size. Bunker Hills Regional Park includes numerous recreation facilities such as picnic areas, playgrounds, camping, swimming, walking/biking/hiking and cross-country skiing trails. Rum River Central Regional Park includes numerous recreation facilities such as picnic areas, playgrounds, camping, canoeing, walking/biking/hiking and cross-country skiing trails. H:ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 5 Trails. The City has developed a comprehensive regional trail system for the community. This plan is included with the City of Andover's Transportation Plan. The study does however contains interior trail access for the individual parks (where necessary), which is needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Open Space. The Comprehensive Plan identifies open space as a part of the overall park system. Open space is defined as areas set aside for the preservation of natural open spaces to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony. Many new citizens cite Andover's natural amenities as a reason for moving into the City. As such, an objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect, preserve and enhance the open space character of the City. Currently there are four properties that are identified as Open Space (Martin Meadows Preserve, Dalske Woodlands Preserve, Maple View Preserve and Northwood's Preserve). Note: For the purpose of this study, these four preserves are not included in the determination of the park dedication fee and are funded through the City General Fund and through grants. Scenic Parks. Within the existing park system, there are twelve parks totaling 61.55 acres, currently shown on Exhibit C (Andover Park* Facilities Chart) and illustrated on Exhibit B (Andover Park Map) that will not likely be developed due to the fact that the land dedication consists primarily of wetlands, lakes, or steep slopes and there is insufficient upland area to develop an active park. These scenic park lands generally fills the classification of Mini and Neighborhood Parks. The specific parks and acreage are identified in Table 1. TABLE 1 SCENIC PARKS PARK NAME PARKS MAP NUMBER H.D.N PARK I CLASSIFICATION EXISTING ACRES Mini Parks Meadow Wood South 38C UM 0.45 Hartfield's 68D UM 1.47 Dehn's 32C UM 2.23 Cedar Crest Estates 2A UM 0.88 Creekrid a 30C UM 2.76 Subtotal Mini Parks Acreage 7.79 Neighborhood Parks Birch Ride 19B UN 13.99 White Oaks 13A UN 9.30 Valley View 12A UN 8.74 Landlocked 72D UN 2.25 River Trails 43C UN 11.41 Redwood Park 79D UN 5.59 Cedar Crest 1A UN 2.48 Subtotal Neighborhood Park Acreage 53.76 Total Scenic Park Acreage 61.55 H:ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doo 11 In addition to the stated park system objectives, the Comprehensive Plan also provides recommendations for park system acreage to accommodate community growth through 2040. Table 2 compares the Comprehensive Plan acreage recommended with the existing park system to illustrate where the City stands in relationship to its build out park system. TABLE 2 /Based on 20d(I Mt>_4rn Cnunnil'c 1114imm+a 0nnu1t,I4inn e..;IA n..*l PARK TYPE NRPA EXISTING PARK EXISTING SURPLUS/ RECOMMENDED ACREAGE PARK DEFICIT** ACRES *** GROSS ACRES ACREAGE NET AS DETERMINED BUILDABLE* BY STAFF 45-82 15.12 55.31 47.52---;- 3. +32.40 Neighborhood 425.92 119.40 162.46 108.70 47-27 -10.70-- Community 272.35 258.70 164.64 164.64 -187 74 -94.06 Park Community 84:27 89.55 188.11 188.11 +92 84 +98.56 Pla fields TOTAL 5G8-46 482.77 570.52 508.97 +854_ +26.20 .a a.n IQ Pain lams ki.iuuReu LdKe dnu Rounu LaKe Coal Landings wmcn are considered Special Use Parks and Coon Creek Parklrom Anderson Trail along with Shadowbrook West Park Trail which is considered Linear Parks) are not included in Table 2 for a total of 60.49 acres. These figures represent adjusted acres subtracting out scenic park acreages from Table 1. ** Surplus/Deficit represents Comprehensive Plan acreage recommendations minus existing park acreage net buildable. *** Based on ultimate population build out of 39.800 4x,900 (does not include the Rural Reserve Area) City staff indicated that although the existing parkland consists of a multitude of smaller mini and neighborhood parks, the City may not continue acquisition of similar land in the future due to the high cost of maintenance associated with the dispersed locations of these parks within the community. The system is adequate to provide for lands within the projected MUSA boundary. The bulk of the land outside of the ultimate MUSA are planned to develop with 2.5 -acre residential lots. The acreage lots provide land area for private recreation purposes that is larger than that typically dedicated for mini parks (1 acres or less). As such, the City may choose to add additional property to some of the mini park areas or look to acquire neighborhood parks in the future. Table 2 and Exhibit A (Park Service Area Map) illustrates that as the City grows within the 2040 MUSA, the current neighborhood parks system provide sufficient acreage and distribution to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Additional community parks or community playfields must yet be acquired and developed. ANDOVER PARK ACREAGE COMPARISON WITH NATIONAL STANDARDS The existing park system was further analyzed in terms of the service area per 1,000 population guidelines established by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). The 2019 2848 Metropolitan Council's population figure of 32.882 32,335 was used to evaluate the park system acreage. The following Table 3 indicates there are sufficient mini parks, neighborhood parks and community playfield areas. The city is H:ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 7 short of community parks. It should be noted that even though Table 3 is deficient in community parks, Bunker Hills Park located in the southeast corner does make up for some of the acreage to satisfy NRPA suggested acres. It also should be noted that the park acreages listed in the "Existing Park Acres" column in Table 3 represent the number of acres of park owned by the City and net park acres that will or do have facilities. However, even when the existing scenic acres are deleted, the existing park system for mini parks, neighborhood parks and community playfields meet or exceeds the park acres suggested by the National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines. TABLE 3 (BASED ON 2019 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S CURRENT ESTIMATED PAP[11 ATIAN FIrMIPFC1 PARK TYPE SERVICE AREA' NRPA STANDARD2 EXISTING PARK ACRES NRPA SUGGESTED ACRES3 GROSS BUILDABLE Mini Park % Mile .38 ac/1000 55.31 47.52 12.5 424 Neighborhood Park %-'/2 Mile 3 ac/1000 162.46 108.70 98.6 W Community Park 2 Mile 6.5 ac/1000 1 164.64 164.64 213.7 2� Community Pla field 2 Mile 2.25 ac/1000 1 188.11 188.11 74 72-9 Total Acres 570.52 508.97 398.8 3823 1 Metropolitan Council Guideline (Park Facility Service Area) 2 National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines (Acres of Park per 1,000 Population) Note: Although some U. S. Communities still determined there needs for various types of parks as indicated in the Table 3, NRPA has determined Agency Performance Standards should have an average 1 park for every 2281 residents. Park acreage is recommended to be 10 acres per 1000 residents. Based on this NRPA standard, Andover should at least 14 parks with at least a total of 329 acres based on Metropolitan Council's current estimate of 32,882. 3 National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines (Based upon 2019 2946 Metropolitan Council's estimate of 32.882 32,335). COMMUNITY GROWTH The City's existing and future population and household growth will be compared to City park system value estimates to provide a proportionate park dedication fee. The Andover 2040 Comprehensive Plan forecasts a 2040 population of approximately 39.800 41,900 people in 13.500 16,400 households. This anticipated future development is in both the 2040 MUSA and the City's rural residential areas. Andover's 2019 :2015 Metropolitan Council's household count of 10,605 40,381 represent approximately 78% 67-0A of the City's 2040 population forecast. As a requirement of Metropolitan Council approval of Andover's 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City will be evaluating a Rural Reserve Area Study that identified a Rural Reserve Area for potential future urban growth beyond the current 2040 MUSA. For the purpose of the Park Dedication Study, the Rural Reserve Area is not included here within and will stand on its own if and when the Rural Reserve Area is ready for development. KENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc P Table 4 illustrates the population and household estimates of the City based upon 2000 and the 2010 U.S. Census data along with the 2019 244-6 Metropolitan Council's estimate and 2040 Metropolitan Council's estimate for population and household projections cited in the Comprehensive Plan. The projections for the Rural Reserve Area population and households will be determined at a later date. TABLE 4 ANDOVER POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES This update to the park dedication study will rely on the following demographic statistics. The City will have a 2040 population of 39,800 41,900 people and a 2040 household count of 13,500 16,400 according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. RESIDENTIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS Exhibit C (Andover - Park Facilities Chart) identifies the park sites pursuant to the City Parks Map. The name and address of each park including existing and future acres, facilities and values are also identified. City Staff provided the list of facilities and corresponding cost estimates. The park system analysis included a land use review to determine the service areas for the existing parks and to identify the proportion of existing and future development that will impact the system. As stated earlier, the current park areas are spread throughout the community and are relatively evenly distributed. Many of the existing parks are located in areas of the community where future development will occur and as such, a proportion of the park infrastructure should be paid for by new development. In fully developed areas in the southern part of the City, improvements to existing parks should be and have been paid for by current development within the service area of the specific park facility. City Staff provided a list of existing and future planned park facilities, which was used to establish the value of the existing park system and to identify costs reasonably expected to complete the future park system based upon full build out contemplated by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the information contained herein facilities and dollar figures may be subject to change/revision as time goes by and market conditions fluctuate. See Exhibit D (City of Andover 2020 244-9 Existing, Future Park Facilities and Replacement Items Chart) for reference. Based on the estimated value of the complete 2040 park system, Table 6 illustrates that the park system is 70% 66% developed and has been paid for by existing development through taxes, park dedication donations, grants etc. Future development will benefit from the infrastructure H:ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS 2000 Census 26,588 8,205 2010 Census 30,598 9,811 2019 2016 32.882 32,335 10.605 19,391 Metropolitan Council's Estimate 2040 -Metropolitan 39.800 41,909 13,500 16,400 Council's Estimate Rural Reserve Area To be determined at a later To be determined at a date later date This update to the park dedication study will rely on the following demographic statistics. The City will have a 2040 population of 39,800 41,900 people and a 2040 household count of 13,500 16,400 according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. RESIDENTIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS Exhibit C (Andover - Park Facilities Chart) identifies the park sites pursuant to the City Parks Map. The name and address of each park including existing and future acres, facilities and values are also identified. City Staff provided the list of facilities and corresponding cost estimates. The park system analysis included a land use review to determine the service areas for the existing parks and to identify the proportion of existing and future development that will impact the system. As stated earlier, the current park areas are spread throughout the community and are relatively evenly distributed. Many of the existing parks are located in areas of the community where future development will occur and as such, a proportion of the park infrastructure should be paid for by new development. In fully developed areas in the southern part of the City, improvements to existing parks should be and have been paid for by current development within the service area of the specific park facility. City Staff provided a list of existing and future planned park facilities, which was used to establish the value of the existing park system and to identify costs reasonably expected to complete the future park system based upon full build out contemplated by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the information contained herein facilities and dollar figures may be subject to change/revision as time goes by and market conditions fluctuate. See Exhibit D (City of Andover 2020 244-9 Existing, Future Park Facilities and Replacement Items Chart) for reference. Based on the estimated value of the complete 2040 park system, Table 6 illustrates that the park system is 70% 66% developed and has been paid for by existing development through taxes, park dedication donations, grants etc. Future development will benefit from the infrastructure H:ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc that is currently in place and as such, should also be responsible to pay a proportionate share for replacement of the existing system through general taxes, donations, grants, etc. A major component of the park system is land and to determine present land values for Andover. Recent sales indicated that the average value for land within the MUSA approximates $70,000 $50,008 per acre and average land value in the rural service area approximates $13,000 $44,600 per acre. The Anoka County Assessor's database was utilized to establish the land value for park areas that contain a large percentage of wetland or lakes (generally the 61.55 acres of parkland that staff believes will not be developed due to topographic or other constraints). Based on the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Guidelines, the 2040 park system is sufficient in mini parks; neighbeFheed pa and community playfields Based GR the NRPA Guidelinpg renernrRARded that 258 272 aGFes of Gemmun4y as illustrated in Table 2. It should also be noted based on the NRPA recommendations the City should consider adding 10 acres of Neighborhood Park As far as the 94 486 acres of Community Park to fulfill the NRPA recommendations it should also be noted that even though Table 3 is deficient in community parks Bunker Hills Park located in the ._. - y= - - - - _ _- - _k-"-" Table 6 illustrates the value of the planned park system based upon the current Comprehensive Plan which includes the additional Community Playfield (similar to the Sunshine Park). To calculate the values of the existing and future system, staff utilized the City of Andover Directory of Parks, City Capital Improvements Plan, and research of facility vendors as well as comparable improvements within the City. A list of the future facility acquisitions and values is attached as Exhibit D (City of Andover 2020 2949 Existing, Future Park Facilities and Replacement Items Chart). TORI F A BASED ON EXHIBIT D PARK SYSTEM ESTIMATEDfRURAL NOT INCLUDING THE RESERVE AREA Total Park System Estimated Value of Estimated Value of % of Total Value (including Existing Park Facilities Future Park Facilities Park land values and (including land values (including land values and System to 30% and 30% Design/Admin 30% Design/Admin Fees) be Design/Admin Fees) Developed Fees $54,995,874 $38,422,815 70% $16,573,059 30% $49,272,986 $32,64?649 66;6 $16,625,336 34% Park dedication is collected as conditions of subdivision approval. In this respect, the park land dedication fee is estimated on the basis of new housing units or households. Currently, the City has completed approximately 70% 6"0 of its 2040 park system based on estimated value and future improvements. The actual household count from the 2019 2846 Metropolitan Council's estimate and the future 2040 household count is H:ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 10 approximately 78% 674*e developed (not including the Rural Reserve Area). This indicates that the current park system is behind ea-sshedale in facilities for its current population. Future household growth should pay an equitable share in providing the City's ultimate park system (not including the Rural Reserve Area). To determine the equitable distribution of future park system value to residential units, the ultimate system value is divided by projected household counts. Table 7 represents park dedication fees based on the build out of the 2040 Andover park system. YrAt7N3d ESTIMATED PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ 1 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEXES Estimated Value of # Housing Units yet Park Dedication Fee Future Park Facilities to be built Per Unit 2040 $16,573,059 - 2895 = $5725 $16,626,336 669 $3338 ...... — � Pain uewc:auon lee per me ary or Hnaovers zuzu 2U1 8 fee schedule is 3475 $31-80 per unit Exhibit E provides a comparison of park land fees from other metropolitan communities. The suggested fee in Table 7 is comparable when compared with neighboring communities like Blaine. However, the fees are lower than some of the larger, fast- growing communities such as Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, and Plymouth. The current system and future planned improvements are consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. It is fair to assume that the park system will likely continue to be upgraded in the future to maintain the user capacity of the system. The 5725 $3319 per unit charge should reasonably cover the costs for complete development of the system and carrying costs through system build out (not including the Rural Reserve Area). The charge of 5725 $331-9 per residential unit is the level of funding that will need to be generated to provide for the planned park system for Andover, based upon implementation of the plan with the lands and facilities described in Exhibit D (City of Andover 2020 241-8 Existing, Future Park Facilities and Replacement Items Chart) which are based upon the Comprehensive Park Plan. The 5725 $3319 figure takes into account the park service areas (% of park need associated with new vs. existing development), existing and projected costs for the park system, design/administrative costs and future population/household projections and is therefore our best estimate of park need per unit. It is important to note that the City should continue re-evaluating the system value; current land values and system needs on a periodic basis and adjust the park dedication accordingly. City Staff suggests that park facilities costs be reviewed and updated annually based upon the Engineering News Record Cost Index. Park maintenance/replacement items and future improvements above and beyond those identified in Exhibit D should not be financed using park dedication funds. The operational and future replacement costs must be budgeted within the City's general funds with costs shared by all community residents. H:ENGINEERING/PARKS2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 11 COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS Minnesota Statutes and recent case law have identified that Cities must now be able to articulate and justify dedication requirements on a project -by -project basis. Cities have the burden of determining that the park dedication requirement is related to the park benefit that will be derived due to the development. Individualized determinations must be made for each project and the City has the responsibility to demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the dedication requirement and the park needs generated by the development. As illustrated in Exhibit E, many metropolitan communities have a commercial/ industrial park land dedication. The general issue in establishing a commercial/ industrial park land fee is establishing a nexus between commercial and industrial use and the benefit they receive through the City's park system. In the case of Andover, City staff has indicated that the City has no commercial or industrial league programs, with the exception of a couple of local bar/restaurant sponsored tournaments that have occurred in the past. In this respect, there is no empirical data that currently illustrates a direct park benefit to the commercial and industrial properties that exists or does not exist There are discussions that suggest that there is intrinsic benefit to all land uses from a quality park system related to quality of life within a community. The issue at hand is to determine the proportionate need that commercial/industrial developments generate for the community park system. As City Staff have indicated that there is some tournament play use of athletic fields in the past, it is reasonable to state that commercial/industrial developments have some benefit from the City park system. It is likely that employees of local businesses use parks for lunch breaks, walking and/or recreating. The question is does the commercial development generate the same need on the park system as an equivalent residential development? The proportionate benefit is unknown for the City of Andover, due to the lack of information about the degree to which the commercial/industrial developments use the system. If the City desires to continue collection of commercial/industrial park dedication fees it is suggested to continue collecting a fee structure that approximates charges of other similarly situated communities. Table 8 illustrates commercial park dedication fees which are currently charged by other developing communities. TABLE 8 COMMUNITY $ PER C/I ACRE (BASED ON 2020 2045) Blaine $8704 flat fee Brooklyn Park $8000 flat fee Coon Rapids $5000 flat fee for Commercial/$4000 for Industrial Eden Prairie $11,500 flat fee Maple Grove $11,000 flat fee Plymouth $8000 flat fee Shakopee $6930 $9500 flat fee Woodbury $6000 flat fee Andover $8849 $10,424 or 10% of Market Value of Land (whichever is less RENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 12 The commercial/industrial park dedication fees should follow a calculation equated to residential development on the same property (if followed would increase the current fee of $10,424 $9534 to $17,175 $9957 (3 residential unit's X 5725 $3349) per acre or 10% of market value of the land (whichever is less). SUMMARY • Case law and Minnesota Statutes provide that dedication requirements can only be applied to facilities that will be impacted by the specific project. Future park dedication fees cannot be utilized to maintain existing park and trail systems in fully developed neighborhoods unless a correlation can be made between the new development and park use. However, park dedication fees cannot be used to replace equipment within City parks. • The current park system is now falling behind en sshedale in facilities for its current population. • In the event that the City extends the MUSA pursuant to the Rural Reserve Area on Exhibit A (Park Service Area Map), additional facilities and land will be needed to accommodate the projected future population. For the purpose of this study, the Rural Reserve Area is not included in the determination of the park dedication fee and will stand on its own if and when the Rural Reserve Area is ready for development. • A minimum of at least one additional Neighborhood Park SURShiRe-Park) is recommended for the 13.500 15,400 households projected for 2040 (not including the Rural Reserve Area) to be located somewhere in Section 13, 23 and/or 24, Township 32, Range 24. • The total planned park system is estimated to cost $54,995,874 $A°�°985 based upon the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, land values, current and projected facility costs. • While the Metropolitan Council's estimated household count represents 78% 67% of its 2040 build out, the City has about 70% 6"0 of its 2040 park system in place. The park system that is in place has been paid for by existing development through taxes, park dedication, donations, grants, etc. • As illustrated in Table 7 the City's residential park dedication fees will depend on the City Council's decision on future park improvements and community growth options. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The current park system and plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and as such, the park dedication fee structure for new residential developments should be based upon the analysis provided for in Table 7. Based upon this analysis, a park dedication fee of approximately 5725 $3349 per residential unit and $17,175 $9957 per acre or 10% of market value of the land (whichever is less) for commercial/industrial developments should be instituted to cover build out cost of the City's planned park system and to develop one additional RENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 13 neighborhood park (location to be in the area of Sections 13, 23 and/or 24, Township 32, Range 24). Note: The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that this Neighborhood Park be approximately 5 acres in size A periodic review of land values and facility costs should be done every 5 years (next updated study would be done in 2025 2829 once the U.S. Census has been completed or as directed by the City Council) to ensure that the park dedication fee remains current based upon market conditions. Staff recommends that the Engineering News Record Cost Index (ENR Cost Index) be utilized in other years as the source to annually update facility values to account for inflationary factors. 2. The City should continue incorporating park redevelopment infrastructure planning as part of the 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan. Minnesota Statutes specify that park dedication fees may not be used for maintenance purposes and therefore it is important for the City to continue to provide a separate budget fund for maintenance. However, any park improvements above those identified in Exhibit D will need to be financed outside of the park dedication funds. As the park system ages, there will be an increased need to retrofit existing facilities, as they will have aged beyond their useful life in the older parks. The City will need to continue to pay for replacement of the park system facilities in full developed neighborhoods or park service areas through the general fund or other sources that are available. 3. In the event that the City is contemplating park or facility improvement upgrades in the future that have not been identified in Exhibit D, the City should include these improvements in the Capital Improvement Plan and budget for such improvements out of park dedication fees or other sources that are available. 4. In the event that the City is contemplating park replacements in Exhibit D, the City Council shall approve such replacements and budget for such replacements out of the City's general fund or other sources that are available. Attachments: Exhibit A: Park Service Area Map Exhibit B: Andover Parks Map Exhibit C: Andover — Park Facilities Chart Exhibit D: City of Andover 2020 294-8 Existing, Future Park Facilities, and Replacement Items Chart Exhibit E: Survey of Park Dedication Fees based on 2020 2946 results H: ENGINEERING/PARKS/2021 PARKSTUDY.doc 14 a N W O W 165TH AV E Ca OIz- JPv 159T 1SISTAVE P 18 STAVE r m 0 m a Legend C I T Y0P NDOVE ROUND a L� �1 Q Community Park (2) o LAKE W aPy Q Linear Park (2) /I V A^ W Q Mini Park (20) dF Neighborhood Park (16) rA^ 1� d� a N W O W 165TH AV E Ca OIz- JPv 159T 1SISTAVE P 18 STAVE r m 0 m a Legend " ROUND a Q Community Park (2) o LAKE {r7 Community Playfield (11) Q Linear Park (2) /I V Q Mini Park (20) dF Neighborhood Park (16) d� Q Special Use Park (2) N of m Q Undeveloped Mini Park (7) x Q Undeveloped Neighborhood Park (8) a 10 Min] Park Service Area i go Neighborhood Park Service Area ,Map source: Z 0 Future Community Playfield(1) City of AWover GIS BUNKER LAKE Future Neighborhood Park (1) City of Awover Engineanng DepNnent Rural Reserve Map Daft: (o City Llmlffi February 2016 if yn Water 4� 0 1,200 2.400 4,600 Feet I a 10 I ur i Qz i r 1 A f 0 z 0 a x AVE O W JO J =v ye �0 c r CONSTANCEBLVO BLVD \ o CITY OF ANDOVER Park Facilities Chart - Exhibit C Park Site Park Type Name Address Existing Future Acres Acres Total Acres Value Per Acre Land Value Value of Existing Facilities (2020) Value of Future Park Facilities Total Park Cost/Value 1A UN Cedar Crest 3680 173rd Ln. NW 2.48 2.48 $ 13,000 $ 32,240 $ 290 $ 1,000 $ 33,530 2A UM Cedar Crest Estate 3909 174th Ave NW 0.88 0.88 $ 13,000 $ 11,440 $ - $ - $ 11,440 3A CPL Fox Meadows 16000 Fox St. NW 12.56 12.56 $ 13,000 $ 163,280 $ 452,540 $ 290,000 $ 905,820 4A CPL Hawk Ride 18001 Verdin St. NW 13.14 13.14 $ 13,000 $ 170,820 $ 363,944 $ 1,177,100 $ 1,711,864 5A M Lan seth 3341 174th Ln. NW 1.67 1.67 $ 13,000 $ 21,710 $ 33,691 $ 32,800 $ 88,201 6A N Lund's North 2640 166th Av. NW 4.01 4.01 $ 13,000 $ 52,130 $ 68,071 $ 182,500 $ 302,701 7A CPA Martin's Meadows Park 17101 Navajo St. NW 12.08 12.08 $ 13,000 $ 157,040 $ 2,936 $ - $ 159,976 8A N Pine Hills South 3536 161stAve. NW 5.08 5.08 $ 13,000 $ 66,040 $ 78,703 $ 108,800 $ 253,543 9A N Timber River 16980 Barium St. 6.78 6.78 $ 13,000 $ 88,140 $ 111,928 $ 7,000 $ 207,068 10A CPL Timber Trails 17761 Aztec St. NW 7.05 7.05 $ 13,000 $ 91,650 $ 331,872 $ 113,500 $ 537,022 11A CPL Pine Hills North 3535 161stAve. NW 42.20 42.20 $ 13,000 $ 548,600 $ 1,178,101 $ 2,046,000 $ 3,772,701 12A UN Valley View 3929 169th Ave. NW 8.86 8.86 1 $ 13,000 $ 115,180 $ - $ 1,000 $ 116,180 13A JUN I White Oaks 2740 172nd Ave. NW 9.24 9.24 $ 13,000 $ 120,120 $ - $ 1,000 $ 121,120 19B UN Birch Ride 1450 181stAve. NW 11.21 11.21 $ 13,000 $ 145,730 $ - $ - $ 145,730 20B M Country Oaks 1065 162nd Lane NW 1.10 1.10 $ 70,000 $ 77,000 $ 60,970 $ - $ 137,970 21B N Forest Meadows 1010179th Ave. NW 6.63 6.63 $ 13,000 $ 86,190 $ 40,166 $ - $ 126,356 23B UN Oak Hollow 465 159th Ave. NW 5.89 5.89 $ 13,000 $ 76,570 $ 350 $ 1,000 $ 77,920 24B M OakView 15851 Avocet St NW 1.04 1.04 $ 70,000 $ 72,800 $ 38,579 $ 23,000 $ 134,379 25B M Woodland Crossing 15827 Jay St NW 5.21 5.21 $ 70,000 $ 364,700 $ 62,320 $ 40,000 $ 467,020 26B M Woodland Meadows 2139 172nd Ave. NW 0.98 0.98 $ 13,000 $ 12,740 $ 24,972 $ - $ 37,712 286 I M I Maple View Park 1251 167th Ave. NW 0.60 0.60 $ 70,000 $ 42,000 $ 76,578 $ - $ 118,578 29C M 138th Avenue Park Tot Lot 2602138th Ave. NW 0.40 0.40 $ 70,000 $ 28,000 $ 13,006 $ - $ 41,006 30C UM Creekridge 3216 South Coon Creek Dr 2.76 2.76 $ 70,000 $ 193,200 $ - $ 1,000 $ 194,200 31C SUP Crooked Lake Boat Landing 2980 Bunker Lake Blvd NW 2.51 2.51 $ 70,000 $ 175,700 $ 149,799 $ 8,500 $ 333,999 32C UM Dehn's 14432 Guarani St. NW 2.32 2.32 $ 70,000 $ 162,400 $ - $ 1,000 $ 163,400 33C N Green Acres 14141 Ivywood St. NW 1.08 1.08 $ 70,000 $ 75,600 $ 30,693 $ 7,500 $ 113,793 34C CPL Hidden Creek North 2620 Bunker Lake Blvd NW 8.41 8.41 $ 70,000 $ 588,700 $ 239,612 $ 136,000 $ 964,312 35C M Hidden Creek South 13415 Hidden Creek Dr 0.42 0.42 $ 70,000 $ 29,400 $ 26,068 $ 1,000 $ 56,468 36C CPA Kelsey Round Lake 15521 Xenia St. NW 152.56 152.56 $ 13,000 $ 1,983,280 $ 238,662 $ 1,676,500 $ 3,898,442 37C M Meadowood North 4519 148th Ave NW 0.58 0.58 $ 13,000 $ 7,540 $ 31,578 $ 23,500 $ 62,618 38C UM Meadowood South 4568 147th Lane NW 0.34 0.34 $ 13,000 $ 4,420 $ - $ 1,000 $ 5,420 39C M Meadows of Round Lake 4040 146th Lane NW 0.37 0.37 $ 70,000 $ 25,900 $ 34,680 $ 1,000 $ 61,580 40C N North Woods East 14035 Yukon St NW 2.12 2.12 $ 70,000 $ 148,400 $ 60,938 $ 74,750 $ 284,088 41C N North Woods West 2721 140th Lane NW 3.81 3.81 $ 70,000 $ 266,700 $ 97,144 $ 31,000 $ 394,844 42C M Pleasant Oaks 3857 143rd Ave 20.29 20.29 $ 70,000 $ 1,420,300 $ 41,004 $ 26,000 $ 1,487,304 43C UN River Trails 4635 147th Lane NW 12.85 12.85 $ 13,000 $ 167,050 $ - $ 500 $ 167,550 44C N Rose 14057 Rose St. NW 4.97 4.97 $ 70,000 $ 347,900 $ 229,809 $ 56,000 $ 633,709 45C SUP Round Lake Boat Landing 14604 Round Lake Blvd NW 3.51 3.51 $ 70,000 $ 245,700 $ 4,564 $ 63,500 $ 313,764 46C N Strootman 4575 154th Ave NW 11.37 11.37 $ 13,000 $ 147,810 $ 74,236 $ 127,250 $ 349,296 47C I N ITerrace 13535 Poppy St. NW 7.33 7.33 $ 70,000 $ 513,100$ 161,822 $ 69,750 $ 744,672 48C N Wild Iris 3719 Bunker Lake Blvd NW 11.73 11.73 $ 70,000 $ 821,100 $ 203,916 $ - $ 1,025,016 CITY OF ANDOVER Park Facilities chart -- Exhibit C Park Site Park Type Name Address Existing Future Acres Acres Total Acres Value Per Acre I Land Value Value of Existing Facilities(2o2o) Value of Future Park Facilities Total Park CosWalue 1A JUN I Cedar Crest 3680 173rd Ln. NW 2.48 2.48 $ 13,000 $ 32,240 $ 290 $ 1,000 $ 33,530 2A UM Cedar Crest Estate 3909 174th Ave NW 0.88 0.88 $ 13,000 $ 11,440 $ - $ - $ 11,440 3A CPL Fox Meadows 16000 Fox St. NW 12.56 12.56 $ 13,000 $ 163,280 $ 452,540 $ 290,000 $ 905,820 4A CPL Hawk Ride 18001 Verdin St. NW 13.14 13.14 $ 13,000 $ 170,820 $ 363,944 $ 1,177,100 $ 1,711,864 5A M Langseth 3341 174th Ln. NW 1.67 1.67 $ 13,000 $ 21,710 $ 33,691 $ 32,800 $ 88,201 6A N Lund's North 2640 166th Av. NW 4.01 4.01 $ 13,000 $ 52,130 $ 68,071 $ 182,500 $ 302,701 7A CPA Martin's Meadows Park 17101 Navajo St. NW 12.08 12.08 $ 13,000 $ 157,040 $ 2,936 $ - $ 159,976 8A N Pine Hills South 3536 161 st Ave. NW 5.08 5.08 $13,000 $ 66,040 $ 78,703 $ 108,800 $ 253,543 9A N Timber River 16980 Barium St. 6.78 6.78 $ 13,000 $ 88,140 $ 111,928 $ 7,000 $ 207,068 10A CPL Timber Trails 17761 Aztec St. NW 7.05 7.05 $ 13,000 $ 91,650 $ 331;872 $ 113,500 $ 537,022 11A CPL Pine Hills North 3535 161stAve. NW 42.20 42.20 $ 13,000 $ 548,600 $ 1,178,101 $ 2,046,000 $ 3,772,701 12A UN Valley View 3929169th Ave. NW 8.86 8.86 $13,000 $ 115,180 $ - $ 1,000 $ 116,180 13A JUN White Oaks 2740172nd Ave. NW 9.24 1 1 9.24 1 $13,000 $ 120,120 $ - $ 1,000 $ 121,120 19B UN Birch Ridge 1450 181stAve. NW 11.21 1 11.21 $ 13,000 $ 145,730 $ - $ - $ 145,730 20B M Country Oaks 1065 162nd Lane NW 1.10 1.10 $ 70,000 $ 77,000 $ 60,970 $ - $ 137,970 21B N Forest Meadows 1010179th Ave. NW 6.63 6.63 $13,000 $ 86,190 $ 40,166 $ - $ 126,356 23B UN Oak Hollow 465 159th Ave. NW 5.89 5.89 $ 13,000 $ 76,570 $ 350 $ 1,000 $ 77,920 24B M OakView 15851 Avocet St NW 1.04 1.04 $ 70,000 $ 72,800 $ 38,579 $ 23,000 $ 134,379 25B M Woodland Crossing 15827 Jay St NW 5.21 5.21 $ 70,000 $ 364,700 $ 62,320 $ 40,000 $ 467,020 26B M Woodland Meadows 2139 172nd Ave. NW 0.98 0.98 $ 13,000 $ 12,740 $ 24,972 $ - $ 37,712 28B M Maple View Park 1251 187th Ave. NW 0.60 0.60 $ 70,000 $ 42,000 $ 76,578 $ - $ 118,578 29C M 138th Avenue Park Tot Lot 2602 138th Ave. NW 0.40 0.40 $ 70,000 $ 28,000 $ 13,006 $ - $ 41,006 30C UM Creekridge 3216 South Coon Creek Dr 2.76 2.76 $ 70,000 $ 193,200 $ - $ 1,000 $ 194,200 31C SUP Crooked Lake Boat Landing 2980 Bunker Lake Blvd NW 2.51 2.51 $ 70,000 $ 175,700 $ 149,799 $ 8,500 $ 333,999 32C UM Dehn's 14432 Guarani St. NW 2.32 2.32 $ 70,000 $ 162,400 $ - $ 1,000 $ 163,400 33C N Green Acres 14141 Ivywood St. NW 1.08 1.08 $ 70,000 $ 75,600 $ 30,693 $ 7,500 $ 113,793 34C CPL Hidden Creek North 2620 Bunker Lake Blvd NW 8.41 - - 8.41 $ 70,000 $ 588,700 $ 239,612 $ 136,000 --- $ 964,312 35C M Hidden Creek South 13415 Hidden Creek Dr 0.42 0.42 $ 70,000 $ 29,400 $ 26,068 $ 1,000 $ 56,468 36C CPA Kelsey Round Lake 15521 Xenia St. NW 152.56 152:56 $ 13,000 $ 1,983,280 $ 238,662 $ 1,676,500 $ 3,898;442 37C M Meadowood North 4519 148th Ave NW 0.58 0.58 $ 13,000 $ 7,540 $ 31,578 $ 23,500 $ 62,618 38C UM Meadowood South 4568 147th Lane NW 0.34 0.34 $ 13,000 $ 4,420 $ - $ 1,000 $ 5,420 39C M Meadows of Round Lake 4040 146th Lane NW 0.37 0.37 $ 70,000 $ 25,900 $ 34,680 $ 1,000 $ 61,580 40C N North Woods East 14035 Yukon St NW 2.12 2.12 $ 70,000 $ 148,400 $ 60,938 $ 74,750 $ 284,088 41C N North Woods West 2721 140th Lane NW 3.81 3.81 $ 70,000 $ 266,700 $ 97,144 $ 31,000 $ 394,844 42C M Pleasant Oaks '3857143rd Ave 20.29 20.29 $ 70,000 $ 1,420,300 $ 41,004 $ 29,750 $ 1,491,054 43C UN River Trails 4635 147th Lane NW 12.85 12.85 $ 13,000 $ 167,050 $ - $ 500 $ 167,550 44C N Rose 14057 Rose St. NW 4.97 4.97 $ 70,000 $ 347,900 $ 229,809 $ 56,000 $ 633,709 45C SUP Round Lake Boat Landing 14604 Round Lake Blvd NW 3.51 3.51 $ 70,000 $ 245,700 $ 41564 $ 63;500 $ 313,764 46C N Strootman 4575 154th Ave NW 11.37 11.37 1 $ 13,000 $ 147,810 $ 74,236 $ 127,250 $ 349,296 47C N Terrace 13535 Poppy St. NW 7.33 7.33 $ 70,000 $ 513,100 $ 161,822 $ 69,750 $ 744,672 48C I N Wild Iris 3719 Bunker Lake Blvd NW 1 11.73 11.73 $ 70,000 $ 821,100 $ 203,916 $ - $ 1,025,016 CITY OF ANDOVER Park Facilities Chart -- Exhibit C Park Site Park Type Name Address Existing Future Acres Acres Total Acres Value Per Acre Land Value Value of Existing Facilities (2020) Value of Future Park Facilities Total Park Cost/Value 59D N lAndover Lions 13790 Sycamore St. NW 19.04 19.04 $ 70,000 $ 1,332,800 $ 105,775 $ 68,750 $ 1,507,325 60D CPL Andover Station North 1823 139th Lane NW 22.16 22.16 $ 70,000 $ 1,551,200 $ 1,963,835 $ 61,020 $ 3,576,055 62D M _;Chesterton Commons 1414 155th Ave NW 0.61 0.61 $ 70,000 $ 42,700 $ 43,429 j $ _ 40-,000 1 $ 126,129 63D CPL City Campus Outdoor Hockey F 1885 Crosstown Blvd NW 2.52 2.52 $ 70,000 $ 176,400 $ 198,970 $ 2,500 -$ 377,870 64D N City Hall Park_ComplextPurple 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW 6.70 6.70 $ 70,000 $ 469,000 $ 23 2625_ $ 2,338,537 $ 3,040,162 65D L Coon Creek Park East of Hanson Blvd on C.C. 44.09 44.09 $ 70,000 $ 3,086,300 $ $ 2,500 $ 3,088,800 66D M Creek View Crossing 14271 Yellow Pine St. 0.63 0.63 $ 70,000 $ 44,100 $ 40,285 $ 1,000 $ 85,385 67D CPL Eveland Fields 2275 Andover Blvd NW 7.01 7.01 $ 70,000 $ 490,700 $ 347,883 $ 115,000 $ 953,583 68D UM Hartfiel's Hanson Blvd &Andover Blvd 1.59 1 1.59 $70,000 $ 111,300 $ $ 1,000 $ 112,300 69D M Hickory Meadows 300 144th Ave NW 0.77 _ 0.77 $ 70,000 $ 53,900 $ 35,918 $ 45,000 $ 134,818 70D N Hidden Creek East 2156 135th Lane NW _ 2.76 2.76 $ 70,000 $ 193,200 $ 74,259 $ 11,000 $ 278,459 71D N Hills of Bunker West 1557 139th Lane NW _6.76 6.76 $ 70,000 $ 473,200 $ 82,663 $ 93,500 $ 649,363 72D 73D 74D UN UM M Landlocked 115543 Prairie Rd Moores Estates 905 Crosstown Blvd. NW Nordeen's_ 15535 Juniper St. NW _ 2 15 1 0.76 0.85 j 2.15 0.76 0.85 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 13,000 $ 150,500 $ 53,200 $ 11,050 $ $ $ - - 44,167 $ $ 150,500 $ 131,000 $ 184,200 _. $ - $_-_ 55,217 75D N Oak Bluff 14757 Bluebird St. NW 3.79 3.79 $ 70,000 $ 265,300 $ 79,238 $ _ 36,000 380,538 76D CPL Prairie Knoll 14800 Prairie Rd NW 1938. 19.38 $ 13,000 $ 251,940 $ $ 341,00_0 _$_ $ 1_,335,047 77D UM Red Oaks East 14045 Nightingale St. NW 3.55 3.55 $ 70,000 $ 248,500 $ _742,107 $ 2,500 $ 251,000 78D M Red Oaks West 14058 Raven St. NW 2.96 2.96 $ 70,000 $ 207,200 $ 39,210 $ 1,000 $ 247,410 79D UN Redwood 13977 Bluebird St. NW 5.82 5.82 $ 70,000 $ 407,400 $ - $ - $ 407,400 80D CPL Shadowbrook East 13757 Butternut St. NW 15.03 15.03 $ 70,000 $ 1,052,100 $ 260,130 $ 300,000 $ 1,612,230 81D L Shadowbrook West Bunker Lake Rd & Goldenrod St 10.38 10.38 $ 70,000 $ 726,600 $ - $ - $ 726,600 82D --M Shady Knoll 2352 Uplander St. NW 1.52 1.52 $ 70,000 $ 106,400 $ 31,954 $ 56,000 $ 194,354 83D M Sophies 1170 152nd Lane NW 1.51 1.51 $ 70,000 $ 105,700 $ 70,646 $ 50,000 $ 226,346 84D CPL Sunshine1900 Crosstown Blvd. NW 38.65 38.65 $ 70,000 $ 2,705,500 $ 1,825,779 $ 273,500 $ 4,804,779 85D M The Oaks 14431 Crosstown Blvd. NW 1.33 1.33 $ 70,000 $ 93,100 $ - $ $ 93,100 86D IM Woodland Estates 12363 152nd Lane NW 0.26 0.26 $ 70,000 $ 18,200 $ 22,804 $ 1,000 $ 42,004 I 1 49C M Crooked Lake School $ - $ 61,711 $ - $ 61,711 FP Future Neighborhood Park $ 442,500 $ 442,500 FP Future Community Play Field Area $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Subtotal 631.00 631.00 1 $ 24,295,810 $10,866,927 1 12,748,507 $47,911,244 Design/Administrative Fee (30%) 1 1 30% 30% Total System Cost $ 24,295,810 $14,127,005 $ 16,573,059 $54,995,874 Note: Subtotal Subtotal of existing acreage for Crooked Lake School of 0.74 acres is not included since facilities are located on school district prope EXA; bf'* E 2020 Park Dedication Rate Comparison Andover $3,415 $3,475 $10,2461 Ave W 10% of FMV, whichever is less $10,424/Ape or 10% of FMV, whichever to less Apple Valley 51,935 -Single Family, $3,509.69 -Townhouse, $3,342.50 -Multi 51,935 -Single Family, $3,509.69 -Townhouse $3,342.50- Multi $1,272/1,000 Sq. Ft -Retail, $1861.5011,000 Sq. FL -Olen, $636.00 / 1,000 Sq. Ft- Institutional $1272/1,000 Sq. FL -Retell, $1681.50/1,000 Sq. FL -Once; $636.00 11,000 Sq. Ft: Institutional Blaine $4,320 $4,449 $8,704/Acre $6,704/Acre Bloomington $5,700 $5,700 $565 11,000 Sq. FL $56511,000 Sq. Ft Brooklyn Center $0/Acre SO/Acre $0 $0 Brooklyn Park $4,600 $4,600 $8,000 Acre $8,000 Acre Burnsville $2,717 $2,717 $17,5001 Am $17.500 Am Chanhassen $5,800 -Single Family, $5,000 -Duplex, $3,600 -Multi $5,800 -Single Family, $5,000 -Duplex, $3,800 -Muhl $12,5001 Am $12,500/Acre Champlin $4,370 $4,370 $8,323/Acre $8,323/Acre Cartage Grove $3,400 $3,400 $6,000/Acre $6,000/Acre Eagan $3,579 $3,722 $939 / 1,000 Sq. Ft. $977 / 1,000 Sq. Ft Eden Prairie $6,500 $6,500 $11,5001 Acre $11,5001 Acre Falcon Heights 8% 8% 10% FMV 10% FMV Fridley $1,500 $1.500 $.0231 SF $.023/SF Golden Valley 6% 6% 5% FMV 6% FMV Inver Grove Hights $2,850 $2,850 $7,0001 Acre $7,000/Ave Lakeville Low Density: $4,294, Medium Density: $2,922, High Denslty: $2,240 Low Density: $4,509, Medium Density: $3.D68, High Density: $2,352 $7,693/Acro 37,693/Acm Lidle Canada $3,500 $3,500 7% FMV or 10% of Land 7A FMV or 10% of Land Maple Grove $4,262 $4,177 $11,000/Acre $11,000/Acre Maplewood 53,540 $3,540 9% FMV 9% FMV Moundsview $3,600 $3,500 10%FMV 10% FMV Oakdale $2,686 $2,886 Retail $467/ 1,000 Sq. FL, Office: $534 1,000 Sq. Ft Retail 5487 / 1,000 Sq. Ft., Offln: $534 1,000 Sq. Ft Plymouth $6,000 $8,000 $8,000/Acre $8,000/Acre Richfield $0 $0 $0 $0 Roseville $4,000 $4,000 10% FMV 10% FMV Shakopee $5,340 $5,340 $9,500/Acre $9,500/Acre Shoreview 4% 4% 10% FMV 10% FMV St. Louis Park $1,500 $1,500 5% FMV 5% FMV Woodbury $3,500 $3,500 $6,000/Acre $6,0001 Acre Average $3,319 $3,329 CITY OF ANDOVER Park Dedication Rates 2009-2020 2009 $2,944.00 2010 $2,935.00 $ (9.00) -0.31% 2011 $2,935.00 $ -- 0.00% 2012 $2,650.00 $ (285.00) -9.71% 2013 $2,732.00 $ 82.00 3.09% 2014 $2,810.00 $ 78.00 2.86% 2015 $2,899.00 $ 89.00 3.17% 2016 $2,952.00 $ 53.00 1.83% 2017 $3,038.00 $ 86.00 2.91% 2018 (January) $3,180.00 $ 142.00 4.76% 2018 (June) $3,319.00 $ 281.00 9.25% 2019 $3,415.00 $ 96.00 2.89% 2020 $3,475.00 $ 60.00 1.75% 2021 (Based on Study) $5,725.00 $ 2,250.00 64.75% 2021 (Fee Recommended by Park Commission) $4400.00 $925.00 26.62% MIN04-L�sa --.01Nd 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 Council Members Jim Dickinson, City David D. Berkowitz, Director Engineer Discuss Veterans Memorial Boulevard NW/Pedestrian Crossing Discussion at Nightingale Street NW - Engineering November 24, 2020 The City Council is requested to continue the discussion on possible options for pedestrian crossing improvements at the intersection of Veterans Memorial Boulevard NW and Nightingale Street NW. DISCUSSION As discussed and directed by the City Council at the August 25, 2020 City Council Workshop further analyses has been completed for the potential pedestrian crossing at Veterans Memorial Boulevard NW and Nightingale Street NW. Attached is the Summary Memorandum and Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis Memorandum for the crossing. Please review both documents for discussion at the meeting. Refer to the attached documents for pedestrian crossing recommendations. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to direct staff on how to proceed based on the Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis Memorandum provide by Bolton & Menk. ctfullynsubmitted, David D. Berkowitz Attachment: Summary Memorandum and Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis Memorandum — Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St. SUMMARY MEMORANDUM Date: October 20, 2020 To: David D. Berkowitz, P.E. From: Kevin P. Kielb, P.E. Subject: Pedestrian Crossing Analysis — Veterans Memorial Boulevard & Nightingale Street The purpose of this summary is to present key information related to the appropriate treatment for the pedestrian crossing of Nightingale Street at Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The complete report is attached for reference. Reference Review • Highway Capacity Manual —Whether unmarked and unsigned or marked and signed, the pedestrian level of service will be an F, as the delay exceeds tolerance level. The results in a high chance of risk-taking for pedestrians. • Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices —Installation of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is currently not justified based on the estimated vehicular and pedestrian volumes. • MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual - Recommends not installing marked crosswalks, and rather to consider a pedestrian hybrid beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or a grade separated crossing. • Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guide (City of Andover) - No treatment is recommended. With a 50 MPH speed limit along Nightingale Street and a two-way stop control at this intersection, speeds are currently too high to recommend installation of a marked and signed crosswalk. Installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is currently not justified based on the estimated volumes. Recommendations Treatments that could be implemented to improve conditions of the pedestrian crossing and reduce vehicle speeds include: • Enhanced intersection lighting. There is currently one light located on the southwest corner of the intersection. • Install a median along Nightingale Street at the intersection. The minimum acceptable median width to provide refuge is six feet, with eight feet being preferred. This would provide pedestrians with two stage crossings so that they can cross one direction of traffic at a time. This would help to reduce the anticipated pedestrian delay and reduce risk taking. • Improve the pedestrian ramps so that they are ADA compliant and direct pedestrians toward the crossing while also reducing the crossing length. • Consider converting Nightingale Street from a rural to an urban section • Reevaluate the intersection traffic control to determine if a different control is justified. Updated vehicular and pedestrian traffic counts would be required. H:\ANDV\OR1122778\2_Preliminary\C-Reparts\Pedesrian Crossing TreatmentAnalysis Summary.doa Bolton & Monk is DBOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. MEMORANDUM Date: October 19, 2020 111 Washington Avenue S Suite 650 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Ph: (612) 416-0220 Fax: (6121416-0222 Bolton-Menk.com To: Kevin Kielb, P.E. From: Kelsey Retherford, P.E. Bryan Nemeth, P.E., PTOE Subject: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis — Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Anoka County, MN Project No.: ORI 122778 Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to determine the appropriate crossing treatment for the pedestrian crossing of Nightingale St NW at Veterans Memorial Blvd NW. This intersection is in the city of Andover, Minnesota, in Anoka County. The intersection is located about half a mile from the Oak View Middle School, Andover High School, and Andover Elementary School. See Figure 1 below for the intersection location. Figure 1. Project Location Haunted Q aveyartl ^ � � a Nightingale Stat Veterans Memorial Blvd 4 �x'u nexw Oak View Middle School �hann<Itar Pala HealthPanners R! erway Urgent Care=t lover Andove,YMCA9 0 e� .qi v° ELI e �ra.,,xx Andover Skate Pel$ Sonata ePark Custom Floral 0evslgn i lY .......xw F.yTigh School R:\ANOV\OR1122128\2_PmlMtna \C Reports\Pedes lan Crossing Treatment Analysts.doa 1 „Mr N\ vUnited Stales Postal Service Andover City Hall v' Andover Elementary School $ Name: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis — Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Date: October 19, 2020 Page: 2 Existing Conditions Nightingale St NW is a 1.3 mile stretch that runs North-South from 16151 Ave NW to Crosstown Blvd. The roadway is classified as a Major Collector. The speed is currently 50 mph, after a recent reduction from 55 mph. Veterans Memorial Blvd NW is a I -mile stretch of road in which the western'/. miles is residential. Veterans Memorial Blvd NW is classified as a Minor Collector. The eastern ''/a mile of Veterans Memorial Blvd NW is newly constructed and creates access from Nightingale St NW to a few local businesses. Nightingale St NW is a two-lane roadway with a striped median, which transitions to left turn lanes when applicable. At the proposed crossing of Nightingale St NW, the road is a four -lane section, comprising of two lane roadway, a left turn lane, and a right turn lane. At present, Veterans Memorial Blvd NW is stop controlled, while Nightingale St NW has the right-of-way. In addition to being about half a mile from three schools, the intersection is also near Purple Park, Sunshine Park, the YMCA, and the Andover Community Center. There is one marked crosswalk crossing the east leg of the intersection. Figure 2 below shows a closer look at the intersection with the newly constructed east leg. H:\ANDV\OR1122778\Z_Preliminary\C_Reports\Pedestrian Crossing T,e Mene AnalysisAoa Bolton & Menk Is Name: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis — Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Date: October 19, 2020 Page: 3 Figure 2 shows how there is existing trail along both sides of Nightingale St to the south of the intersection. There is also trail along the east side of Nightingale St north of the intersection. There is sidewalk along the south side of Veterans Memorial Blvd west of the intersection and trail along the south side of Veterans Memorial Blvd east of the intersection. There are currently pedestrian ramps on three of the four corners of the intersection. The pedestrian ramps on the east leg of the intersection are for the marked crossing of the east leg. The pedestrian ramp on the southwest corner is in the north -south direction leading pedestrians across Veterans Memorial Blvd, but there is not a ramp or pedestrian facility in the northwest corner that it is leading pedestrians to. Data Collection Traffic count data was not available at the Veterans Memorial Blvd and Nightingale St intersection. 13 -hr count data at the Crosstown Blvd NW and Nightingale St NW intersection located approximately 0.3 miles south of the Veterans Memorial Blvd was available from a previous study. The previous count was collected in May of 2018. Due to the close proximity of the intersections, the counts along Nightingale St can be assumed to be representative of both locations. The turning movement count is included in the Appendix. Pedestrian Crossing Analysis Guidelines in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD), MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual, and the Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guide were used to evaluate the proposed crossing treatment options. Highway Capacity Manual Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) was calculated at the crossing according to the methodology presented in the 6' edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM defines the LOS levels as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Pedestrian Level of Service Criteria LOS Control Delay (sec/ped) Comments A 0-5 Usually no conflicting traffic B 5-10 Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic C 10-20 Delay noticeable to pedestrians, but not inconveniencing D 20-30 Delay noticeable/irritating, increased chance of risk-taking E 30-45 Delay approaches tolerance level, risk-taking likely F >45 Delay exceeds tolerance level, high chance of risk-taking The pedestrian LOS, average delay, and average yield rate associated with each crossing treatment analyzed are listed in Table 2 for the proposed crossing of the Nightingale St/Veterans Memorial Blvd intersection. The average yield rates for a marked and signed crossing, high visibility crosswalk marking with signage and pedestrian hybrid beacon are from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562. The average yield rate for a rectangular rapid -flash beacon is from the Highway Capacity Manual (6' Edition). H:\ANDV\oR1122198\2 Preliminary\C Reports\Pedestrian Crossing Treatmen[Analysis.doc Menkisan Name: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis -Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Date: October 19, 2020 Page: 4 Table 2. Pedestrian LOS and Delay at Nightingale St NW Option Average Yield Rate Delay Peak Hour (seconds) LOS Unmarked and Unsigned Crossing 0% AM 332 F School PM 107 F PM 386 F Marked and Signed Crossing 7% AM 251 F School PM 91 F PM 282 F High Visibility Crosswalk Marking and Signage 17% AM 154 F - School PM 77 F PM 162 F Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon(RRFB) 81% AM 11 C School PM 15 C PM 11 C Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) 97% AM 7 B School PM 9 B PM 6 B Table 2 shows that the delay exceeds the tolerance level unless a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) were installed at this crossing. For unmarked and unsigned, marked and signed, and high visibility crossings, pedestrian level of service received an F, as the delay exceeds tolerance level, and induces a high chance of risk-taking for pedestrians. The main factors influencing pedestrian LOS/delay are crossing length and number of conflicting vehicles. The total number of conflicting vehicles during the AM, School PM, and PM peak hours were used in the calculation. These hours were from 7:00-8:00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 5:00-6:00 PM, respectively. Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices The MnMUTCD provides standards and guidance on when to consider a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) based on pedestrian volumes, vehicle volumes and the crossing distance. Figure 3 shows figure 4F-2 from the MnMUTCD- a guideline for the installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons on high-speed roadways. H:\MDV\DR1122778\2 Preliminary\CRepovs\Pedesvian Crossing Treavnent Malysis.doac Bolton B Monk Is an Name: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis — Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Date: October 19, 2020 Page: 5 500 400 Total of all 300 Pedestrians Crossing the Major Street - Pedestrians per Hour (pph) 200 100 Speeds of more than 35 mph 20' 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Major Street - Total of both Approaches - Vehicles per Hour (pph) Note: 20 pph applies as the lower threshold vollane Figure 3. MnMUTCD Guideline for the Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons on High -Speed Roadways The MnMUTCD suggests installing a hybrid beacon if the number of pedestrians per hour (pph) and total vehicles per hour exceed the curve for the crosswalk length, shown in red. Figure 3 indicates that there should be at least 20 pedestrians crossing Nightingale St during one hour no matter what the crossing length or number of vehicles there are. The existing crossing on the south side of the intersection is approximately 75 ft. If a HAWK were recommended at this location the pedestrian ramp on the southwest corner would need to be improved so that the curb ramps direct pedestrians towards the crossing. If this occurred, the crossing would be decreased to 65 ft in length. With a 65 ft crossing, the vehicle volume needs to be greater than approximately 625 vehicles. The traffic count at the Nightingale St and Crosstown Blvd intersection were used to estimate of the counts at the Veterans Memorial Blvd and Nightingale St intersection. At most 12 pedestrians were reported to cross Nightingale St in any given hour. There were only and 443 vehicles recorded during the hour with 12 pedestrians. During the PM peak hour there were 630 vehicles reported along Nightingale St, but only seven pedestrians were recorded crossing Nightingale St. MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual The table below from the MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual recommends Pedestrian Facility Treatments based on the roadway configuration and average daily traffic (ADT). H:\ANnV\DRl¢2778\Z Preliminary\C Reports\Pedestrian Cmssing Treatment Analysts.doc 15 an equal L = crow walk lent N l� ^� m 20' 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Major Street - Total of both Approaches - Vehicles per Hour (pph) Note: 20 pph applies as the lower threshold vollane Figure 3. MnMUTCD Guideline for the Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons on High -Speed Roadways The MnMUTCD suggests installing a hybrid beacon if the number of pedestrians per hour (pph) and total vehicles per hour exceed the curve for the crosswalk length, shown in red. Figure 3 indicates that there should be at least 20 pedestrians crossing Nightingale St during one hour no matter what the crossing length or number of vehicles there are. The existing crossing on the south side of the intersection is approximately 75 ft. If a HAWK were recommended at this location the pedestrian ramp on the southwest corner would need to be improved so that the curb ramps direct pedestrians towards the crossing. If this occurred, the crossing would be decreased to 65 ft in length. With a 65 ft crossing, the vehicle volume needs to be greater than approximately 625 vehicles. The traffic count at the Nightingale St and Crosstown Blvd intersection were used to estimate of the counts at the Veterans Memorial Blvd and Nightingale St intersection. At most 12 pedestrians were reported to cross Nightingale St in any given hour. There were only and 443 vehicles recorded during the hour with 12 pedestrians. During the PM peak hour there were 630 vehicles reported along Nightingale St, but only seven pedestrians were recorded crossing Nightingale St. MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual The table below from the MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual recommends Pedestrian Facility Treatments based on the roadway configuration and average daily traffic (ADT). H:\ANnV\DRl¢2778\Z Preliminary\C Reports\Pedestrian Cmssing Treatment Analysts.doc 15 an equal Name: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis —Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Date: October 19, 2020 Page: 6 Table 13-1 Pedes Wan Facility Treatments Roadway configuration" Vehicle ADT 59000 Vehicle ALIT >9000-12,000 1Vehicle ACT > MOOD -35,000 Vehicle ADT> 15,880 530 mph 35 mph 40 m 245mph 530m phph 35mph 40mph 245 mph 530mph 3S1ph 40mph 245mph 530mph 35mph 40mph z45mph 2 Anes (won or without a raised median) A A B D A A B D A A C D A 1 8 1 C D 3 lanes with raised median A A C D A B C D A C C D B C C D 3lanes without raised median A B C D A B C D B B C D B C C D Multilane (4 or more lanes) with raised median' A A C I D A B C D A B C D C C C D Multilane (4 or more lanes) I without raised median' A C C D B C C D C C C D C C [ D Treatment Descdmions: A. Consider marked crosswalk and signs Guidance. Consider installing marked crosswalk with advance warning signs (W11-2); use S11 signs for school crossings. Consider imroadway(RI.6) or overhead(R3-9a) IN 9111 signs. B. Consider marked crosswalk wish enhanced signs (RI .63 or RI.9a R* 9h) and/or geometric improvements Guidance: Consider installing treatment options from Type A treatments. Add curb extensions or median refuge Wands. C. Consider marked crosswalk with signs, geometric Improvements, and pedestrian activated wamhig devkar Guidance: Consider installing a raised median refuge island if one is not present. Consider installing marked crosswalk and appropriate crossing signs along with a pedestrian activated 0. Do not install marked crosswalk.' Guidance: Consider pedestrian hybrid beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade separated crossing. Specific Notes: 1. Advanced stop lines and signing (113-5b or c) should be used whenever possible if a multiple threat crash issue is present. Overhead signing, RRFBs or other overhead treatments should be used to mitigate multiple threat crash risks. 2. Do not install a marked crosswalk where there are 3 or more through lanes per direction. Consider a pedestrian hybrid beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade separated crossing. 3. Traffic calming measures should be considered to reduce speed. 4. If a median cannot be or is not currently installed go to Treatment Type D. S. Minimum acceptable median width to provide a refuge Is 6 feet. General Notes: 1. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians, nor will they necessarily create a false sense of security. 2. Crosswalks have net been proven to create a false sense of security- research shows that pedestrians scan the road more at marked crosswalks. 3. Whether a crosswalk is marked or not, additional crossing enhancements should be considered. See the "Additiosal Treatment Considemtbns' section. 4. See MUTCD Section 38.18 for additional guidance on using this table. S. Lances are total cross section. The ADT on this section of Nightingale Rd is 5,600. The roadway configuration is four lanes (two lane roadway plus a left and right turn lane) without a raised median. The design speed is 50 mph. This results in criteria D which recommends not installing marked crosswalks, and rather to consider a pedestrian hybrid beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or a grade separated crossing. Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guide The "Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guide" was completed for the City of Andover by Spack Solutions. The guide was created to provide guidance for the use of pedestrian facilities within the City. This guide was referenced when analyzing the potential pedestrian crossing of Nightingale St at Veterans Memorial Blvd. The guide states that stopping sight distance must be provided where pedestrian crossings are present to ensure vehicles have the ability to perceive a pedestrian crossing and safely come to a complete stop. With a speed limit of 50 MPH along Nightingale St the stropping sight distance is 495 ft. This sight distance is met along the northbound and southbound approaches. Additionally, the guide provides a pedestrian crossing evaluation worksheet which provides the crossing with a score. This score indicates what is recommended at the crossing. This worksheet was completed for the potential crossing location and is included in the Appendix. N:\ANDV\OR1122TT8\2 Preliminary\[ Reports\Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analy imcloa Name: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis —Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Date: October 19, 2020 Page: 7 With a speed limit of 50 mph along Nightingale St the crossing is flagged as a location where an at grade crossing is not desired. However, even if the speed limit were 40 MPH or less, the score would fall in the 0-50 range in which no treatment is recommended. The evaluation score is low at this location for the following reasons: • The distance to an adjacent marked crossing is located less than 1/4 mile away at the intersection of Nightingale St and Crosstown Blvd • The crossing distance is over 60 ft • While the Oak View Middle School, Andover High School, and Elementary Schools are nearby, they are not within 1/4 mile of the crossing. Additional Considerations Safe Routes to School Plan A Safe Routes to School Plan for Oak View Middle School was published in August of 2013. The plan indicates the following: • A lack of crossings on Nightingale St make the road a significant barrier for students trying to access or come from the neighborhoods to west. • Students were noted to currently cross Nightingale St despite lack of formal crossings • Once there is a paved path along the east side of Nightingale St between 15411 Ln and Veterans Memorial Blvd (this is complete), crosswalks on the north and west legs of the intersection should be marked, pedestrian crossing signs should be installed, and curb radii should be reduced. Crash History Over the last 10 -year period (2010-2019) there have been no reported crashes at the intersection of Veterans Memorial Blvd NW and Nightingale St NW. Summary The intersection of Veterans Memorial Blvd and Nightingale St was analyzed to determine what crossing treatment is recommended for pedestrians crossing Nightingale St. There are existing trails along both sides of Nightingale St to the south, the east side of Nightingale St to the north, and along the south side of Veterans Memorial Blvd east of the intersection. Additionally, there is currently sidewalk along the south side of Veterans Memorial Blvd west of the intersection. The east leg of the intersection currently has a marked pedestrian crossing. There was not available count data at the intersection of Veterans Memorial Blvd and Nightingale St, but recent data was available at the Nightingale St and Crosstown Blvd intersection that was used to estimate the number of vehicles and pedestrians expected at the study intersection. The nearby count indicated that the pedestrian volumes do not meet the 20 per hour threshold during any hour of the day so a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) is likely notjustified at this location. A traffic count at the intersection of Veterans Memorial Blvd and Nightingale St when school is in session and the weather is nice is recommended to confirm volumes. An analysis of the pedestrian delay and LOS using Highway Capacity Manual (61i Edition) methodology indicated that unless an Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon H:\ANDV\OR1122778\2_Preliminary\QRepor \Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analy is.doa Bolton & Menk is an Name: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis —Veterans Memorial Blvd & Nightingale St Date: October 19, 2020 Page: 8 (HAWK) were installed, the anticipated delay at this intersection exceeds tolerance level creating a high chance of risk-taking among pedestrians attempting to cross at this location. A review of the crossing according to the "Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guide" indicated that with a speed limit of 50 MPH along Nightingale St, an at grade crossing is not desired. The Safe Routes to School Plan for Oak View Middle School identified the need to add a marked and signed pedestrian crossing of Nightingale St at Veterans Memorial Blvd intersection Recommendation A traffic count is recommended at the intersection of Veterans Memorial Blvd and Nightingale St when school is in session five days a week with no distance learning and the weather is nice to get an accurate count of pedestrians and vehicles that would want to use the intersection on a regular basis. With a 50 MPH speed limit along Nightingale St and a two-way stop control at this intersection, speeds are currently too high to install a marked and signed crosswalk. Installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is currently not justified based on the estimated volumes. Other treatments that could be implemented to improve conditions of the pedestrian crossing and lower vehicle speeds include: • Enhanced intersection lighting. There is currently one light located on the southwest corner of the intersection. • Install a median along Nightingale St at the intersection o The minimum acceptable median width to provide refuge is 6 feet (back of curb to back of curb). 8 feet is the preferred width. o This would provide pedestrians with two stage crossings so that they can cross one direction of traffic at a time. o This would reduce the anticipated delay to LOS C or D (19-26 seconds of delay) during the AM, School PM and PM peak hours (which is a reduction of 88-360 seconds of delay from the existing condition) o The speed on the roadway should be reevaluated if a median is implemented. A speed reduction may result in the crossing meeting the criteria for a marked and signed crossing. • Improve the pedestrian ramps so that they are ADA compliant and direct pedestrians toward the crossing while also reduce the crossing length. • Consider converting Nightingale St from a rural to an urban section • Reevaluate the traffic control at the intersection to determine if a different control is justified (when new counts are collected). o A pedestrian hybrid beacon should be considered if average day volumes meet the thresholds as presented in the MnMUTCD. With necessary improvements to the intersection, the estimated cost of pedestrian hybrid beacon is $300,000. o A roundabout may be a possible traffic control which would greatly reduce traffic speed at the intersection and provide shorter pedestrian crossings. The estimated cost of a single lane roundabout is $1,400,000. H:\ANDV\OR1122778\2_Pretiminaq\C_Repom\Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Analysis.dox Appendix H:\ANDV\OR1122778\2 Preliminary\C_Reparts\Pedestrian Crossing TreatmentA alysis.doa Bol[on & Monk is an Bolton & Menk, Inc Turning Movement Counts File Name : Crosstown -Blvd -Nightingale -St -5-1-18-0600-1900 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/1/2018 Page No : 1 10:00AM 3 Crosstown Blvd 0 0 35 Nightingale St 0 0 Crosstown Blvd 0 28 Nightingale St 0 43 13 0 7 1 Southbound 99 10:15 AM 5 Westbound 0 0 50 Northbound 0 0 0' 0 Eastbound 0 26 8 Start Time Right I Thru I Leftl Peds I App. Total Right Thru I Left I Peds App. Total Ri ht Thru I Left I Peds App. Total Right Thru I Left I Peds I App. Total Int. Total 06:00 AM 10 24 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 0 15 22 0 11 0 33 82 06:15 AM 10 36 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 2 1 22 36 0 21 1 58 126 06:30 AM 10 52 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 6 0 26 39 0 23 0 62 150 06:45 AM 7 65 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 5 0 30 60 0 28 0 88 190 Total 37 177 0 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 17 1 93 157 0 83 1 241 548 07:00 AM 18 126 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 8 0 52 109 0 29 0 138 334 07:15 AM 13 137 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 18 1 79 102 0 29 1 132 361 07:30 AM 15 105 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 30 1 96 96 0 34 2 132 348 07:45 AM 12 60 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 15 0 77 42 0 33 4 79 228 Total 1 58 428 0 0 486 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 231 71 2 304 1 349 0 125 7 481 1271 08:00AM 18 66 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 18 0 74 29 0 37 0 66 224 08:15 AM 14 65 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 13 1 60 16 0 21 1 38 177 08:30 AM 8 34 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 9 0 29 36 0 21 0 57 128 08:45 AM 10 39 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 15 0 76 31 0 32 0 63 188 Total 1 50 204 0 0 254 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 183 55 1 239 1 112 0 111 1 224 1 717 09:00AM 17 52 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 12 0 56 22 0 20 0 42 167 09:15 AM 10 50 0 0 60 0 0 0 1 1 0 33 11 0 44 35 0 17 0 52 157 09:30 AM 6 42 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 10 0 43 12 0 13 0 25 116 09:45 AM 9 37 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 14 0 40 19 0 13 1 33 119 Total 1 42 181 0 0 2231 0 0 0 1 11 0 136 47 0 1831 88 0 63 1 1521 559 10:00AM 3 32 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 15 0 43 13 0 7 1 21 99 10:15 AM 5 45 0 0 50 0 0 0 0' 0 0 26 8 0 34 20 0 8 0 28 112 10:30 AM 12 34 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 9 0 42 16 0 11 0 27 115 10:45 AM 12 32 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 0 60 20 0 8 0 28 132 Total 1 32 143 0 0 175 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 122 57 0 179 1 69 0 34 1 1041 458 11:00AM 14 28 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 18 0 48 17 0 2 0 19 109 11:15 AM 6 40 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 10 0 44 11 0 8 0 19 109 11:30 AM 11 34 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 16 0 39 15 0 3 1 19 103 11:45 AM 11 46 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 17 0 58 15 0 8 0 23 138 Total 1 42 148 0 0 1901 0 0 0 0 01 0 128 61 0 189 1 58 0 21 1 80 1 459 Bolton & Menk, Inc Turning Movement Counts File Name : Crosstown -Blvd -Nightingale -St -5-1-18-0600-1900 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/1/2018 Page No : 2 Grams Printed- Cars+ -Trucks Crosstown Blvd Nightingale St Crosstown Blvd Nightingale St Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Ri ht ThruLeft Peds App. Total Ri ht Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru I Left I Peds App. Total Right Thru Left I Peds App. Total Int. Total 12:00 PM 18 41 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 20 0 49 13 0 8 0 21 129 12:15 PM 15 47 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 23 0 52 20 0 3 0 23 137 12:30 PM 5 47 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 14 0 47 16 0 9 4 29 128 12:45 PM 6 47 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 16 0 45 28 0 7 0 35 133 Total 44 182 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 73 0 193 77 0 27 4 108 527 01:00 PM 12 39 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 14 0 62 22 0 12 0 34 147 01:15 PM 8 33 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 18 0 60 15 0 10 0 25 126 01:30 PM 5 40 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 19 1 43 16 0 8 1 25 113 01:45 PM 7 23 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 23 1 53 1 3 0 5 1 19 102_ Total 1 32 135 0 0 1671 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 142 74 2 218 1 66 0 35 2 1031 488 02:00 PM 8 48 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 20 0 55 17 0 11 2 30 141 02:15 PM 16 37 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 43 0 98 24 0 10 1 35 186 02:30 PM 14 44 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 82 0 206 31 0 13 4 48 312 02:45 PM 12 52 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 48 0 121 36 0 10 0 46 231 Total 1 50 181 0 0 231 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 287 193 0 4801 108 0 44 7 1591 870 03:00 PM 15 46 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 48 0 11827 0 12 2 41 220 03:15 PM 27 72 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 37 0 119 23 0 16 7 46 264 03:30 PM 17 51 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 52 0 142 14 0 14 3 31 241 03:45 PM 47 62 0 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 52 0 130 35 0 7 0 42 281 Total 106 231 0 0 337 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 320 189 0 509 1 99 0 49 12 1601 1006 04:00 PM 41 52 0 0 930 0 0 0 0 0 80 49 0 129 35 0 12 0 47 269 04:15 PM 32 48 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 50 1 133 38 0 18 1 57 270 04:30 PM 33 60 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 64 0 139 34 0 18 3 55 287 04:45 PM 44 45 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 62 0 149 39 0 14 2 55 293 Total 150 205 0 0 3551 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 324 225 1 550 1 146 0 62 6 214 1 1119 05:00 PM 19 61 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 77 1 189 37 0 21 0 58 327 05:15 PM 13 64 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 91 0 202 49 0 10 4 63 342 05:30 PM 31 68 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 58 0 168 37 0 - 24 0 61 328 05:45 PM 25 75 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 78 0 200 31 0 29 0 60 360 Total 1 88 268 0 0 3561 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 454 304 1 759 1 154 0 84 4 242 1 1357 Bolton & Menk, Inc Turning Movement Counts File Name Site Code Start Date Page No (]rni me Prin}>�_ r��rca _ Tn �n4e Crosstown -Blvd -Nightingale -St -5-1-18-0600-1900 00000000 5/1/2018 3 Grand Total 831 Crosstown Blvd 0 0 3570 Nightingale St 0 0 3 Crosstown Blvd 0 2840 1590 Nightingale St 4438 1637 0 813 55 2505 Southbound Apprch % 23.3 76.7 Westbound 0 0 0 Northbound 100 0 Eastbound 35.8 0.2 Start Time Right Thru LeftPeds A . Total Ri ht Thru Left Peds A . Total Right Thru Left Peds A .Total Ri ht Thru I Left I Peds I App. Total Int. Total 06:00 PM 25 60 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 74 0 163 36 0 27 1 64 312 06:15 PM 21 69 0 0 90 0 0 0 2 2 0 65 57 0 122 35 0 16 4 55 269 06:30 PM 30 67 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 43 0 129 49 0 10 0 59 285 06:45 PM 24 60 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 50 0 128 34 0 22 3 59 271 Total 100 256 0 0 356 0 0 0 2 2 0 318 224 0 542 154 0 75 8 237 1137 Grand Total 831 2739 0 0 3570 0 0 0 3 3 0 2840 1590 8 4438 1637 0 813 55 2505 10516 Apprch % 23.3 76.7 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 64 35.8 0.2 65.3 0 32.5 2.2 Total % 7.9 26 0 0 33.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 15.1 0.1 42.2 15.6 0 7.7 0.5 23.8 Cars+ 782 2639 0 0 3421 0 0 0 0 0 0 2785 1552 4 4341 1601 0 796 43 2440 10202 % Cars+ 94.1 96.3 0 0 95.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.1 97.6 50 97.8 97.8 0 97.9 78.2 97.4 97 Trucks 49 100 0 0 149 0 0 0 3 3 0 55 38 4 97 36 0 17 12 65 314 %Trucks 5.9 3.7 0 0 4.2 0 0 0 100 100 0 1.9 2.4 50 2.2 2.2 0 2.1 21.8 2.6 3 Bolton & Menk, Inc Turning Movement Counts File Name : Crosstown -Blvd -Nightingale -St -5-1-18-0600-1900 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/1/2018 Page No : 4 Crosstown Blvd Out In Total 3581 3421 7002 72 149 221 3653 782 2639 0 0 49 100 0 0 8 2739 0 0 In Right Thm Left Peds ANN O��C� I .TI O O O O y o00 2 —, North ,-2000 o0oZ wc4 roo 5/1/201806:00 AM C m n i 5/1/2018 06:45 PM o Cars+ Trucks wwo o' wwo wwo°1^ 4-, T r Left Thru Ri ht Petls 1552 2785 0 4 38 55 0 4 0 2840 01 8 4240 4341 6581 36 9 233 Out In Total Bolton & Menk, Inc Turning Movement Counts File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Crosstown -Blvd -Nightingale -St -5-1-18-0600-1900 00000000 5/1/2018 5 Pudk nuui A, miysrs Fi UITJ 06:00 ANI W 12:30 YIVI - Peak i of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Beoins at 07:00 AM Int. Total 07:00 AM Crosstown Blvd Southbound Nightingale St Westbound Crosstown Blvd Northbound Nightingale St Eastbound Start Time Ri ht Thru Left Peds I App. Total I Right I Thru I Left I Peds I App. Total I Right I Thru Left I Peds I App. Total I Right I Thru I Left I Peds I ADD. Total Pudk nuui A, miysrs Fi UITJ 06:00 ANI W 12:30 YIVI - Peak i of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Beoins at 07:00 AM Int. Total 07:00 AM 18 126 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 8 0 52 109 0 29 0 138 334 07:15 AM 13 137 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 18 1 79 102 0 29 1 132 361 07:30 AM 15 105 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 30 1 96 96 0 34 2 132 348 07:45 AM 12 60 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 15 0 77 42 0 33 4 79 228 Total Volume 58 428 0 0 486 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 71 2 304 349 0 125 7 481 1271 % Apo. Total 11.9 88.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 23.4 0.7 72.6 0 26 1.5 PHF .806 .781 .000 .000 .810 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .888 .592 .500 .792 .800 .000 _919 .438 .871.. .880 Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 6004 wnrrr for Enii,e t -s -+i- n-;- eT nd.nn 6nn 05:00 PM 19 61 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 77 1 189 37 0 21 0 58 327 05:15 PM 13 64 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 91 0 202 49 0 10 4 63 342 05:30 PM 31 68 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 58 0 168 37 0 24 0 61 328 05:45 PM 25 75 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 78 0 200 31 0 29 0 60 360 Total Volume 88 268 0 0 356 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 304 1 759 154 0 84 4 242 1357 % App.Total 24.7 75.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.8 40.1 0.1 63.6 0 34.7 1.7 PHF .710 .893 .000 .000 .890 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .930 .835 .250 .939 .786 .0.00 .724 .250 .960 .942 Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation Form General Information Roadway or Intersection: Crossing Leg/Direction: Roadway Classification: Initial Evaluation Type of Ped Facility: Crossing Distance: Vehicle ADT: Nightingale Stat Vetrans Memorial Blvc South Leg Major Collector Field Measured Trail (> 6 -ft width) 10 61 tt or greater -5 5,001 to 10,000 15 Adjacent Marked Crossing: Distance 1/8 -to 1/4 -mile -5 within Signalized Corridor I No 1 Adjacent School: Distance 1/4 -to 1/2 -mile 5 Type of School Middle School 1.5 Adjacent Park: Distance (Measured along walking route) 1/4 -to 1/2 -mile 5 Type of Park Local (< 25 -acre) 1 Adjacent Recreation Building: Distance (Measured along walking route) 114- to 1/2 -mile 5 Initial Evaluation (Points) At Grade Crossing Not Desired Current Control: Current Treatment(s): Current Lighting: Posted Speed Limit: Need Stop -Controlled None None 45 mph or greater SSD Intersection Sketch 0 Points Treatments Signalized Controlled 0-40 No Crossing 41-80 Default Measures 81-100 Additional Evaluation Needed Stop Controlled/Uncontrolled 0-50 No Treatment 40-60 Basic Signing and Striping 40-90 Increased Visibility 50-70 Enhanced Crossing Elements 60-90 Reduce Crossing Distance 80-100 Greater Crossing Control C I T Y ,ND O 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANC FAX (763) 755-8923 TO: Mayor and Council Membersy\\ CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrate FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Pu i( SUBJECT: Discuss Veterans Memorial Boulevard Engineering DATE: November 24, 2020 56. MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 WDOVERMWGOV Engineer Speed Limit Sign Request - INTRODUCTION8 The City Council is requested to discuss a request from a resident for the City to install a digital speed limit sign on Veterans Memorial Boulevard NW west of Nightingale Street NW. DISCUSSION A petition was circulated by Willy and Wendy Velarde and received and presented to the City Council at the November 4, 2020 City Council meeting requesting additional speed limit signs be installed along Veterans Memorial Boulevard NW west of Nightingale Street NW. Following the meeting the Velarde's sent an email (which is attached) to the Mayor requesting the City install a permanent digital speed limit sign. Staff has concerns about purchasing and installing the requested digital speed sign. By installing such a sign that has not been permanently installed in the City and is not a common sign per the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, this would set a precedence for all other roads of concern within the City. If the City provides the sign the long-term maintenance and replacement would be the requirement of the City. If the residents provide the sign, if it would be allowed in the City right-of-way then the maintenance and future replacement would be the responsibility of the residents. Attached for your review is information about the digital signs and cost estimates. Additional cost for installation of power to the pole is not included in the estimate. The cost to run power would range between $1500 to $ 2500 depending on where the sign is placed and the proximity of the power source. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to direct staff on how to proceed with the request to install digital speed limit sign on Veterans Memorial Boulevard NW west of Nightingale Street NW. ctfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz Attachments: Email Request to Install a Digital Speed Limit Sign & Digital Speed Sign Information and Cost Estimates Cc: Willy and Wendy Velarde (Email) Dave Berkowitz From: Willy Velarde <w.velarde@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 9:53 AM To: Julie Trude; Wendy Velarde Cc: Dave Berkowitz; paul.lenzmeier@co.anoka.mn.us Subject: Re: Speeding 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 Julie, I didn't see your email until last night. Thank you and the City Council members for allowing us to present our petition last evening. We agree, a lighted speed display sign will best deter drivers from speeding as it's a constant reminder to all drivers. In addition, with the enhancement of the beautiful Community Center and the extension of Veteran's Memorial, the traffic will only get busier; so whatever the city does today, will improve the safety of our streets for tomorrow. Last night, we did briefly discuss with Dave Berkowitz and Commander Paul the possibility of initiating some type of a solicitation with the neighbors to help pay for a lighted sign. Wendy and I discussed last night and again this morning and we both believe it would be very difficult to raise the $5,000 for a sign. We don't need a sign that collects data, but ratherjust a reminder to drivers of their speed. I'm not sure if that would reduce the cost of the sign without the data collection? Is this something the city would be willing to pay for? I've copied Dave and Paul here as well. Any input or additional thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you again, Willy and Wendy ore S�9"Gati%ons PPp Mu�t�p`e � Li4j'�, r IIF, OEE 11HUM111 ti:tttItItt:i; ttt:::t:tti:� �frtttttttttft� •. --- Display and Radar Specifications YOUR SPEED Faceplate > 28"W x 33"H YOUR SPEED faceplate with 4" high lettering (Optional oversized 30"W x 36"H available) > Ideal for roads with traffic speeds of 5-70 mph > MUTCD compliant colors and reflectivity > Available in white, fluorescent yellow/green, safety orange, and yellow Speed Violator Alerts > Standard alerts include: > Slow flash or fast flash of actual speed > SLOW DOWN message > TOO FAST message > Optional alert choices: > SHARP CURVE > Chevrons (right or left facing) > Smileyface > Fine alert > Alternating red/blue alert, all red alert, all blue alert, or white alert (can flash as a strobe, or simulate a camera flash) > Display speed and word message alerts alternately or individually, based on speed settings LEDs > 2 digits, 13" high super bright amber full matrix LEDs (life up to 100,000 hours) > Easily readable up to 600 feet > Display brightness control: Automatic intensity adjustment to ambient light conditions for maximum visibility Radar > Type: K Band, single direction Doppler radar, FCC part 15 compliant; no license required > Sensor Range: Detects vehicles up to 1200 feet > Beam Width: 12 degrees, +/- 2 degrees > Operating Frequency: 24.125 GHz, +/- 50 MHz > Accuracy: +/- 1.0 mph > Speed Detection Range: 5 - 127 mph Power Options / Battery Specifications TC -600S (Solar Powered) > Solar Panel Output: 50 watt standard (25" x 19"), 65 watt optional (31" x 26.5") > Power Supply: Two 12-volt,18 amp/hour AGM batteries (UL recognized); provides up to 14 days of back-up operation on fully charged batteries > Solar Charge Controller: Manages the flow of solar energy input (up to 120 watts from solar panel to battery) > Low battery cut-off feature provides intelligent battery management > Battery Status: Check battery charge levels and solar amperage via Wi-Fi > Power Consumption: < 2.0 amps in active mode; Idle mode < 1/2 watt > Circuit Breaker: Multi -circuit, 3x10 amp fuses > Pole Mount Solar Bracket: Side of pole mount with adjustable angle bracket TC -600A (AC Powered) > Power Supply: Hard wire to 100V -240V power supply > Power Consumption:< 2.0 amps in active mode; Idle mode < 1/2 watt > Circuit Breaker: Multi -circuit, 10 amp fuse YOUR SPEED 2 of 4 TC -600 Spec Sheet V20.11 Housing Specifications Radar Speed Sign Housing > Dimensions: 18.5"H x 26.25' W x 5.0"D n Thickness: .1875" to .25" thick, heavy-duty aluminum - 'A n NEMA 4 level compliant SPEED > Humidity Maximum: 100% LIMIT > Non -sealed and ventilated5j > Provides maximum protection from the elements and vandalism a > Single housing design means no separate battery box to mount YOUR �- SPEED Bashplate© with LED Cones > Internal .375' aluminum shield over LED display to protect components from abuse �^ or vandalism �y > Directional beam technology: Individual holes for each LED focus and reflect light toward w the road, providing the highest quality viewable display with minimum energy usage i Polycarbonate Display Cover n .25" thick protective sheet covers entire display area > Abrasion, graffiti and shatter resistant; UV protection Weight > TC -600S (Solar Powered): 41 lbs., (67 lbs. with batteries) > TC -600A (AC Powered): 41 lbs. Operating Temperature > Operating Temperature: -40°F to +160°F Standard Features Standard Programming > Setup functions: Easy to follow menu, no mechanical switches to operate > Daily timers: Allow 4 on/off timer settings per day, also by day of week. Settings allow lower speed limits for school zone times and for late night display shutoff. (Optional Advanced Scheduler available with all models) > Stealth mode: Display on-off feature allows traffic data collection continue even when the display is off > 'Possum Switch" activation feature allows the sign to "play dead" for 30 minutes if attacked with force > Maximum speed cutoff: Prevents unwanted high speed displays; up to 99 mph; discourages "racing" of sign. Choice of flashing matrix, or LED display cutoff. Wi-F! Enabled > No internet required. Manage your radar speed sign with phone, tablet, or laptop. > Allows for quick and easy sign operation/data download from most web enabled devices > WPA2 encrypted security; Password protection > Connection range up to 300 feet from sign OTA Software Updates (over -the -air) > Allows the wireless delivery of software updates and upgrades directly to the radar speed sign Warranty > 2 year warranty on parts and labor, including batteries. Exceptions: Does not cover malicious abuse, theft, or damage due to unauthorized modification. Optional third year warranty extension available. Traffic Data Reporting Option StreetSmart (optional) > Traffic data reporting software to report, organize and analyze speed and traffic data. The information collected by the radar speed sign is loaded into ExcelTm ready .csv files, and can generate 35 charts and graphs. Traffic Data Storage Capacity: > Stores data on up to 5 million vehicles; Retains data for retrieval for 12 months. 3 of 4 TC -600 Spec Sheet V20.11 Hyper-Alerts- Compact yper-AlertsCompact Flash Technology Hyper-AlertsTm are compact clusters of LED lights built right into the "YOUR SPEED" faceplate of the TC -600 model, delivering a significantly more compact solution than traditional beacons. By clustering the LEDs into a smaller foot- print, the same light from a typical flasher becomes an urgent notification for the driver. Application Perfect for use in pedestrian -heavy environments such as school zones, business campuses, military bases and anywhere else there is an urgency to slow drivers. Raised Awareness The LED clusters deliver the same luminescence as a 12" beacon, only in a more compact surface. This results in an "impossible to ignore alert" even 1000 feet from the sign. Cost Effective Instead of having to choose between flashing beacons or a radar speed sign, now you can have both alerts for slightly more than the price of either one. The LED clusters are built right into the oversized (30"W x 36H") YOUR SPEED faceplate resulting in a more compact system that is far easier to install. This upgrade offers a cost-effective solution to provide the maximum traffic calming effect on speeding drivers. Design > Industrial construction with sleek design is in stark contrast to the individual, bulky, piece -meal look of traditional beacons n Dual high-intensity amber LED clusters n Meets ITE guidelines for brightness use in school zones > LED luminosity: 3000 mcd minimum — 12000 mcd maximum > 68 LEDs per alert, highly viewable at 1000 feet n Flash patterns: MUTCD standard 60 fpm, Wig -Wag (alternating); Custom patterns available Scheduling Flexibility > Programmable for an entire year in advance, by date and time, using our Advanced Scheduler > Hyper-AlertsT" can be activated based on time of day, by speed, or by both Solar Power Output with Hyper-AlertT Option a 50 watt solar panel for maximum 4 hour daily operation > 65 watt for maximum 10 hour daily operation > 90 watt for 24/7 operation > 120 watt for high volume traffic and cold temperatures Weight > TC -600S with Hyper-AlertsTM : 47 lbs., (73 w/ batteries) > TC -600A (AC Powered) with Hyper-Alertsm: 47 lbs. ISCHOOLI® SPEED LIMIT 25 WHEN FLASHING YOUR® SPEED 3 YOUR SPEED The Hyper-AlertT option is available on a new TC -600 sign, or as a retrofit of an existing sign; Existing sign must be returned to Radarsign for the retrofit. www.radarsign.com 678-965-4814 4 of 4 TC -600 Spec Sheet V20.11 radarsigna Safety In A Box MAKING ROADS SAFER Radarsign's Safety in a Box is a all inclusive sign package with everything needed for installation except the shovel and concrete. All that is required is digging a hole, pouring the concrete, and installing the sign. It's that easy. SPEEDS PEED SPEED YOUR LIMIT LIMIT LIMIT SPEED 25 25 25 YOUR YOUR CYOURO SPEED SPEED 3/te Aluminum Shield em SPEED Heavy Duty Protects LEDs 8 Internal Radaatrix EDwitisinch aluminum Housing Components ruu Malvin LED Display 8 v OUR SPEED Faceplate SPEED A� �•9,/•� ShowOption with Optic 35 �,; +y� Hyper-Alerts Regulatory Speed 50 Watt Limit Sign Solar Panel Shown vMh Optional l Decorative B 1 Black Fluted Shown with Pole & Base Shown with Concrete Form wen StandardOptional Extender Brackets Anchor Bolts & Rebar B•eakaway Pole Ease Square Octagonal (Base Base Safety in a Box Package includes: TC-600 radar speed sign solar model with 13" full matrix LED display (AC power model optional) 28"W x 33"H YOUR SPEED faceplate with 4" high lettering; available in white, fluorescent yellow/green, and safety orange 50 watt solar panel with mounting bracket (65 watt optional) and two 12V 18 amp hour AGM batteries v Regulatory speed limit sign (24W" x 30"H) & sign extender bracket set; Choose from 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or 35 MPH 3/8" aluminum Bashplate© provides maximum vandal resistance Stainless steel mounting hardware included for poles up to 4.5" OD Concrete form for the pole base; includes mounted anchor bolts and rebar (aluminum pole only) 12 ft. aluminum pole with square breakaway base and pole cap (crash test certified); Optional black decorative pole is available. Wi-Fi enabled: No internet required. Manage your radar speed sign with phone, tablet, or laptop. WPA2 encrypted security; Password protected. > StreetSmart traffic data reporting software license n 2 year warranty on parts and labor, including batteries Certified Quality System MUTCD Compliant Proudly Engineered & ISO 9001:2015 r Radar Speed Signs Manufactured In the USA .®e info@radarsign.com radarsign.com 678-9654814 1 of 1 Safety in a Box V20.6 CONFIDENTIAL TG -400 (All Options) (003).xlsx radarsigrn " a - e MAKING ROPOS TI1iER Date: 1220 Kennestone Circle PROPOSED BY: Suite 130Name William Warwick Marlena, GA 30066 Phone W: (678) 9654814 M: (770) 8783869 wwarwick ratlarsi n.com Fax (678)278-1256 PROPOSED TO / SOLD TO: SHIP TO: TC -400 TC -400 Account Address City, ST, Zi Phone Email Attention P. O. NUMBER TERMS F.O.B Marietta, GA LINE # QTY PART # DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH TOTALS 1 1 TC -400 Modular Battery Power Radar Sign - 11" Display $2,795.00 $2.795.00 Included 11" LED display area - superbright amber with est. 100,000 hour life Two 12V 20 amp hour Lithium Iron batteries, provides +/- 14 days operation Included AC battery charger (8-10 hours for full charge) AA080 Included K Band radar, meets FCC Part 15 rules, detection range up to 1200 feet Included 24" w x 21" h YOUR SPEED faceplate With 3" lettering on one line, white reflective Included Battery Housing (field accessible to swap batteries), holds 2 battery packs, lock included Included Universal GoBracket mount (AA044) accepts holfing, banding or strapping to existing poles Included Bashplate (provides the ultimate in vandal protection of sign) Included Standard timers allow up to 5 settings per day Included Possum Switch' allows sign to go dark for 30 minutes if assaulted with force Included Wi-Fi wireless transmitter, communication range up to 300 feet Included 2 0 TC40OW Optional White strobe / simulated camera flash alert $90.00 $0.00 3 0 TC40ORB Optional Red/Blue Strobe alert $90.00 $0.00 4 0 AA044 Additional Universal Mount'Go' Bracket $50.00 $0.00 5 0 RB033 Additional 20 Amp/Hour battery (provides +/- 7 days of operation on a full charge) $210.00 $0.00 6 1 RWO02 Two year warranty (includes parts & labor) Included Turnaround time to repair after receipt, 10 business days 7 1 SS002 StreetSmart Data Collection software license (per sign) 35 charts, graphs, and tables $275.00 $275.00 included. Provides weekly, daily, hourly, and 1/2 hour data on # of vehicles, # of speeders, average speeds, peak speeds, 50th & 85th percentile & more. Extended 30 day charts included for trend analysis. 8 1 SH002 Ground Shipping for TC400 $95.00 $95.00 Minimum re -stock fee: 15% Quote valid for 60 days. Pricing does not include any international taxes, fees, or duties. TOTAL US$ $3,165.00 Sales Tax Rate:0.000 c 50.00 Grand Total: $3,165.00 US State sales tax must be collected unless you provide a sales tax exempt form. Authorized Signature Print NamerBle 016Date Certified Qualfty System 100% MUTCD Compliant Proudly Engineered & ISO 9001:2016 : r Radar Speed Signs Manufactured in the USA CONFIDENTIAL TG -400 (All Options) (003).xlsx radarsign, � e R INKING R04D5 SIiER Date: 1220 Kennestone circle Suite 130 Name William Warwick Marietta, GA 30066 Phone W: 678 965-0814 M: (770)878-3869 wwamick@mdamign.com Fax (678)278-1256 SOLDIPROPOSED TO:, SHIP TO: TC-60OBox AC Account Address C ,ST, Zi Phone Email Attention P. 0. NUMBER TERMS F.O.B Alpharetta, GA I LINE# QTY PART# DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH TOTALS 1 1 TC-600BOX AC Power Radar Sign - 13" Full Matrix Display $3,450.00 $3,450.00 13" LED display area -superbright amber with est 100,000 hour life Included 28" w x 33" In YOUR SPEED faceplate with 4" lettering on two lines Included K Band radar, meets FCC Part 15 rules, detection range up to 1200 feet Included "SLOW DOWN" & "TOO FAST' speeder alert messages Included 3/8" thick BashplatoTM (provides the ultimate in vandal protection of sign) Included radar sign mounting hardware (up to 4.5" OD round pole, specify sizettype pole) Included WO transmitter - use web browser to communicate with sign up to 300 feet Included 2 1 AA010 Sign mounting clamp set (specify 4.5"OD) Included 3 0 AA073 Optional Heavy Duty Lock for Universal Pivot Bracket (TC-600) $20.00 $0.00 6 1 AA061 Optional simulated camera flash & white strobe $90.00 $90.00 7 0 AA064 Optional Red/Blue Strobe $90.00 $0.00 8 0 AA068 Optional Smiley face $90.00 $0.00 9 0 AA069 Optional Left/Right chevrons $90.00 $0.00 10 0 AA070 Optional Sharp curve $90.00 $0.00 11 0 AA071 Optional FINE $xxx alert $90.00 $0.00 12 0 AA067 I Optional Dalerrime Calendar Programmer: (Set operation by date for entire year) $90.00 $0.00 13 0 ECO91 Optional Relay Switch to activate Hyper-Alert option, or other external devices $90.00 $0.00 3 1 SLOOxx Regulatory speed limit sign 24" x 30" (please indicate MPH on PO) Included 4 1 AR005 Sign Extender brackets for regulatory speed limit sign Included 5 2 ACO27 Large pole clamp set Included 6 1 RI-1003 12' Aluminum Pole (4.5" OD) wlsquare breakaway base & pole cap 1+RH002 & RHO08) Included 7 1 SS002 StreetSmarff Data Collection software license (per sign) 35 charts & graphs Included Provides weekly, daily, hourly, and 1/2 hour data on # of vehicles, # of speeders, average speeds, peak speeds, 50th & 851h percentile 8 1 CF001 Concrete Fomn Kit Prefabricated for pouring base pad (includes four anchor bolts & Included mbar) 11 1 RWO02 Two year warranty (includes parts & labor) Included Turnaround time to repair after receipt, 10 business days 1 0 RS-MODEMI Access to Cloud Service for remote access and programming of radar speed sign and/or $400.00 $0.00 beacons. Recurring fee per deviceper year. 2 0 RSMOI Internal Cellular Modem, available on TC-600 and TC-1000 models (required for Cloud N/C NIC Service 12 1 SH-600SB Ground Shipping for TC-600BOX $220.00 $220.00 Minimum re-stock fee: 15% ' Quote valid for 60 days. Pricing does not Include any international taxes, fees, or duties or US State Sales Tax. TOTAL $3,760.00 Authonzed Signature Pnm NamerfNe TC-fi00 A(DOeN In A RnY YISY CON IIIO eW1100a CONFIDENTIAL TC -600 AC (003).xlsx radarsigM NANING ROADS SAFEa Date: 1220 Kennestone Circle PROPOSED BY: Suite 130 IName William Warwick Marietta, GA 30066 Phone W: (678)966-4814 M:(770)878-3869 wwamick@radarsign.com Fax 678-278-1256 PROPOSED TO I SOLD TO: SHIP TO: TC-600 AC Account Address City, ST, Zi Phone Email Attention P.O. NUMBER TERMS F.O.B Marietta, GA LINE # QTY PART # DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH TOTALS 1 1 TC 600 AC AC Power Radar Sign: 13" Full Matrix Display: speeds readable at 600 feet 52.695.00 $2,695.00 13" LED display area - superbright amber with est. 100,000 hour life Included K Band radar, meets FCC Part 15 rules, detection range up to 1200 feet Included "SLOW DOWN" &'TOO FAST'speeder alert messages Included 3/8" thick eashplate^ (provides the ultimate in vandal protection of sign) Included Possum Switch' allows sign to go dark for 30 minutes if assaulted with force Included Wi-FI wireless transmitter, communication range up to 300 feet Included 2 1 AA063 Universal Pole Mount Pivot Bracket set (includes tilt feature) Included 3 0 AA073 Optional Heavy Duty Lock for Universal Pivot Bracket (TC-600) $20.00 $0.00 4 0 AA061 Optional Simulated Camera Flash $90.00 $0.00 5 0 AA064 Optional Red/Blue Strobe $90.00 $0.00 6 0 ACO26 SS pipe clamp set fits to 2.5" to 4" OD (small) $12.00 $0.00 7 0 ACO27 SS pipe clamp set fits 4" to 6" OD (large) $14.00 $0.00 8 Standard faceplate, 28" x 33", 4" lettering: (White RS019, FI. Yellow/Green RS020, Orange 1 RS019 RS021, OR Yellow RS022) (Include AA062) Included 9 1 RWO02 Two year warranty (includes parts & labor) Included 10 1 SS002 StreetSmart Data Collection software license (per sign) 35 charts & graphs $275.00 $275.00 Provides weekly, daily, hourly, and 1/2 hour data on # of vehicles, # of speeders, average speeds, peak speeds. 50th & 85th percentile 11 RS-MODEMI Access to Cloud Service for remote access and programming of radar speed sign and/or $0.00 beacons. Recurring fee per device, per year. 12 0 RSMOI Internal Cellular Modem, available on TC-600 and TC-1000 models (required for Cloud N/C Service 13 1 SHPK Ground Shipping for TC-600A $105.00 $105.00 Minimum re-stock fee: 15% ' Quote valid for 60 days. Pricing does not include any international taxes, fees, or duties or US State Sales Taxes. TOTAL $3,075.00 Authorized Signature Print Namerrdle Dale CONFIDENTIAL TC -600 AC (003).xlsx XONUIC4z"011 TC -600 Solar (003).xisx radarsign Es ROADS SAFER Date: 1220 Kennestone circle PROPOSED BY: Name William Warwick Suite 130 Marlena, GA 30066 Phone W: 678 965-4814 M:(770 878-3969 wwanvick radami n.com Fan 678-278-1256 PROPOSED TO I SOLD TO: SHIP TO: TC -600 Solar Account Address —City, ST, Zip Phone Email Attention P. O. NUMBER TERMS F.O.B PART # DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH Marietta, GA TOTALS LINE # QTY 1 1 TC 600S Solar Power Radar Sign 13" Full Matrix Display: speeds readable at 600 feet $3,595.00 $3,595.00 13" LED display - superbright amber with est. 100,000 hour life Included Solar panel pole mounting bracket (AA003) Included Two 12V 16 amp hour AGM batteries, provides up to 12 days backup operation Included K Band radar, meets FCC Part 15 rules, detection range up to 1200 feet Included "SLOW DOWN" &'TOO FAST' speeder alert messages Included thick BashplalerM (provides the ultimate in vandal protection of sign) Included Possum Switch' allows sign to go dark for 30 minutes if assaulted with force Included Wi-Fi wireless transmitter, communication range up to 300 feet Included 2 1 AA063 Universal Pivot Pole Mount Bracket set (includes tilt feature) TC -600 only Included 3 0 AA073 Optional Heavy Duty Lock for Universal Pivot Bracket (rC-600) $20.00 $0.00 4 0 ACO27 Large pipe clamp set for mounting solar bracket on 4"-6" OD round pole $14.00 $0.00 5 0 ACO26 Small pipe clamp set for mounting solar bracket on 2.5" -4" OD round pole $12.00 $0.00 6 0 AA061 Optional simulated camera flash & white strobe $90.00 $0.00 7 0 AA064 Optional Red/Blue Strobe $90.00 $0.00 g 1 RS019 an ar acep a e, x e enng: i e a ow reen range RS021, or Yellow RS022) & hardware kit (AA062) Included 9 1 AA041 50 watt solar panel, standard (includes AA003 mounting bracket) Included 10 1 RWO02 Two year warranty (includes parts & labor, and backup batteries) Included 11 1 SS002 StreetSmart Data Collection software license (per sign) 35 charts, graphs, and tables $275.00 $275.00 included. Provides weekly, daily, hourly, and 1/2 hour data on # of vehicles, # of speeders, average speeds, peak speeds, 50th & 85th percentile & more. Extended 30 day charts included for trend analysis. 12 1 SHPK Ground Shipping for TC -6005 with solar panel $140.00 $140.00 Minimum restock fee: 15 ' Quote valid for 60 days. Pricing does not Include any international taxes, fees, or duties. TOTAL US$ $4,010.00 Sales Tax Rate:0.000 0 $0.00 Grand Total: $4,010.00 US State sales tax must be collected unless you provide a sales tax exempt form. Authorized Signature Print Namell-Ne Date XONUIC4z"011 TC -600 Solar (003).xisx 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director SUBJECT: Discuss Street Lights Along Crosstown DATE: November 24, 2020 I Engineer NW - Engineering INTRODUCTION8 The City Council is requested to discuss the attached cost estimates from Connexus Energy to install streets lights along the west side of Crosstown Boulevard NW from Nightingale Street NW to South Coon Creek Boulevard NW. DISCUSSION At the October 27, 2020 City Council Workshop, the Council directed staff to look at an economical way to get street lights installed along the west side of Crosstown Boulevard NW from Nightingale Street NW to South Coon Creek Boulevard NW. Staff worked with Connexus Energy on possible options and project costs. Those options and cost estimates are identified on the attached email for your review. Staff is requesting the City Council provide a budget, limits for the lighting and then we can work with Connexus Energy to determine the project scope and refine the estimated costs. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to direct staff on how to proceed with street lighting along the west side of Crosstown Boulevard NW from Nightingale Street NW to South Coon Creek Boulevard NW. Respectfully submitted, Q David D. Berkowitz Attachment: Connexus Energy Email for Lighting Options and Estimated Costs Dave Berkowitz From: Steve Sell <Steve.Sell@connexusenergy.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 1:20 PM To: Dave Berkowitz; Todd Haas Cc: Becky Bergherr; Jennifer Sweeney Subject: RE: Trail/Road Lighting along Crosstown Blvd. Hello, I have compiled four different estimates for your review. Estimate #1 is for decorative lighting along the entire length of the trail between Nightingale St and Coon Creek Blvd using the 135w Shoebox fixture on 25' square fiberglass poles with a 200' spacing, as was done on the Hanson Lighting project. Estimate #2 is for decorative lighting along the entire length of the trail between Nightingale St and Coon Creek Blvd using the 190w Shoebox fixture on 25' square fiberglass poles with a 200' spacing. Estimate #3 is for decorative lighting between Nightingale St and Andover Blvd using the 135w Shoebox fixture and 25' square fiberglass pole, then using the existing wood poles and either adding 63w Cobra fixtures on 14' mast arms, or replacing the existing LED Security light on a 2' mast arm with a 63W Cobra fixture on a 14' mast arm. Finally Estimate #4 is for decorative lighting between Nightingale St and Andover Blvd using the 190w Shoebox fixture and 25' square fiberglass pole, then using the existing wood poles and either adding 63w Cobra fixtures on 14' mast arms, or replacing the existing LED Security light on a 2' mast arm with a 63W Cobra fixture on a 14' mast arm. Please note: Estimate #1 and #2 provide decorative lights that would be installed on the paved portion of the trail. If Estimate #1 or Estimate #2 is chosen, per the Connexus Energy Conditions of Service for Lighting "Connexus Energy is not responsible for restoring, to its original condition, the lawn, yard, land, etc., which might be disturbed during installation. We will, however, make all reasonable attempts to minimize site damage during installation.". Once you have reviewed the estimates with the City Council, please let me know which estimate you would like to pursue, and I will be happy to finalize the design and have the official estimate and Lighting Contract and Agreement sent over for your final review and signature. Estimate #1-135W Shoebox Fixture on 25' square bronze fiberglass pole between Nightengale Stand Coon Creek Dr (24) 135w Shoebox fixtures on 25' square bronze fiberglass poles @ $3,011 each - $72,264 2,300' boring @ $10.30 per foot - $23,690 5,300' wire/trench @ $8.50 per foot - $45,050 (24) Pole Set Up Fee @ $415 each - $9,960 (1) Lighting Control Cabinet - $2,244 Permit - $3,290 Estimated Total - $156,498 Estimate #2 —190W Shoebox Fixture on 25' square bronze fiberglass pole between Nightengale St and Coon Creek Dr (24) 190w Shoebox fixtures on 25' square bronze fiberglass poles @ $3,449 each - $82,776 2,300' boring @ $10.30 per foot - $23,690 5,300' wire/trench @ $8.50 per foot - $45,050 (24) Pole Set Up Fee @ $415 each - $9,960 (1) Lighting Control Cabinet - $2,244 Permit - $3,290 Estimated Total - $167,010 Estimate #3 —135W Shoebox Fixture on 25' square bronxe fiberglass pole between Nightengale St and Andover Blvd, then install new or replace existing LED Security lights with 63W Cobra fixture on 14' mast arm on existing poles between Andover Blvd and Coon Creek Dr. (16) 135w Shoebox fixtures on 25' square bronze fiberglass poles @ $3,011 each - $48,176 600' boring @ $10.30 per foot - $6,180 3,600' wire/trench @ $8.50 per foot - $30,600 (16) Pole Set Up Fee @ $415 each - $6,640 (1) Lighting Control Cabinet - $2,244 (3) Install new 63w Cobra fixture on 14' mast arm @ $1,066 each - $3,198 (3) Replace existing LED Security light on 2' mast arm with 63W Cobra fixture on 14' mast arm @ $1,066 each - $3198 Permit - $2,370 Estimated Total - $102,606 Estimate #4-190W Shoebox Fixture on 25' square bronxe fiberglass pole between Nightengale St and Andover Blvd, then install new or replace existing LED Security lights with 63W Cobra fixture on 14' mast arm on existing poles between Andover Blvd and Coon Creek Dr. (16) 190w Shoebox fixtures on 25' square bronze fiberglass poles @ $3,449 each - $55,184 600' boring @ $10.30 per foot - $6,180 3,600' wire/trench @ $8.50 per foot - $30,600 (16) Pole Set Up Fee @ $415 each - $6,640 (1) Lighting Control Cabinet - $2,244 (3) Install new 63w Cobra fixture on 14' mast arm @ $1,066 each - $3,198 (3) Replace existing LED Security light on 2' mast arm with 63W Cobra fixture on 14' mast arm @ $1,066 each - $3198 Permit - $2,370 Estimated Total - $109,614 Thank You, Steve Sell Distribution Designer I Connexus® Energy Phone: 763.323.2698 Steve.Sell(oconnexusenergy.com I www.connexusenergy.com Facebook: Like Us I Twitter: Follow PConnexusNews I Linkedln: Connect With Us I Instagram: Connexus.Ener¢v ---your most powerful membership" --- From: Dave Berkowitz <D.Berkowitz@andovermn.gov> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 4:07 PM To: Steve Sell <Steve.Sell@connexusenergy.com>; Todd Haas <T.Haas@andovermn.gov> Cc: Becky Bergherr <Becky.Bergherr@con nexusenergy.com>; Jennifer Sweeney <Jennifer.Sweeney@connexusenergy.com> Subject: RE: Trail/Road Lighting along Crosstown Blvd. WARNING: EXTERNAL email. Use CAUTION Steve, I need to provide all possible cost to the City Council. Low side and the high side. So please provide both options or a combination of the two and note that the trail will need to be dug up in some locations to do the directional drilling. Thank You David D. Berkowitz, P.E. City of Andover Director of Public Works/City Engineer 763-767-5133 From: Steve Sell <Steve.Sell@connexusenergy.com> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 3:32 PM To: Dave Berkowitz <D.Berkowitz@andovermn.gov>; Todd Haas <T.Haas@andovermn.gov> Cc: Becky Bergherr <Becky.Bergherr@ con nexusenergy.com>; Jennifer Sweeney <Jennifer.Sweeney@connexusenergy.com> Subject: RE: Trail/Road Lighting along Crosstown Blvd. Hello, I was able to get out to the area today to get measurements and review the area. After visiting the area, I wanted to get your thoughts on something. In regard to the area between Andover Blvd and Coon Creek Dr, there would be substantial boring needed at a cost of at least $18.80 per foot. Overall, it would be roughly 1,600 feet of boring. Also, the asphalt for the trail goes right up to fences and retaining walls for that stretch. Due to this, the trail at the potential light locations would need to be dug up, and then restored. Originally, you had requested using the existing wood poles, as able. As I previously mentioned, the wood poles in that area are on the east side of Crosstown Blvd. I am wondering if you want to revisit the possibility of using those existing poles. Many of the poles currently have lights already on them, on 2' mast arms. There are a few that have 14' mast arms. In order to remove the need to bore, and impact the trail, would you want to replace the 2' mast arms with 14' mast arms at the existing light locations, and then add additional lights on 14' mast arms as needed? The 14' mast arms would help bring the light closer to the trail, removing the need to place lights on the west side of the road. If you do not want to use that option, do you want me to still move forward with providing an estimate for the stretch between Andover Blvd and Coon Creek Dr that would include boring the entire section? Thank you for your guidance in this, Steve Sell Distribution Designer I Connexus® Energy Phone: 763.323.2698 Steve.Sell(@connexusenerev.com I www.connexusenergv.com Facebook: Like Us I Twitter: Follow @ConnexusNews I Linkedln: Connect With Us I Instagram: Connexus.Ener --- your most powerful membershipTM --- From: Dave Berkowitz <D.Berkowitz@andovermn.gov> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 9:05 AM To: Steve Sell<Steve.Sell@connexusenergy.com>; Todd Haas <T.Haas@andovermn.gov> Cc: Becky Bergherr <Becky.Bergherr cDconnexusenergy.com>; Jennifer Sweeney <Jennifer.Sweenev@connexusenergy.com> Subject: RE: Trail/Road Lighting along Crosstown Blvd. WARNING: EXTERNAL email. Use CAUTION Thanks Steve. Please provide a layout and cost to run lights up the west side from Nightingale Street NW to South Coon Creek Drive. We would use the same spacing and fixtures to what we have on the new Hanson Boulevard project. Thank You David D. Berkowitz, P.E. City of Andover Director of Public Works/City Engineer 763-767-5133 From: Steve Sell <Steve.Sell@connexusenergy.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 7:46 AM To: Dave Berkowitz <D.Berkowitz@andovermn.gov>; Todd Haas <T.Haas@andovermn.gov> Cc: Becky Bergherr <Becky.Bergherr@connexusenergy.com>; Jennifer Sweeney <Jennifer.Sweenev@connexusenergy.com> Subject: RE: Trail/Road Lighting along Crosstown Blvd. 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 Morning All, I was out in the area yesterday to get an idea of what poles we could utilize for the lighting. Unfortunately, I have some bad news. The existing poles between Nightingale St NW and Andover Blvd on the west side of Crosstown Blvd are GRE owned transmission poles, that we are unable to use. To make matters worse, that stretch is all underground facilities, mostly located on the east side of Crosstown Blvd. In order to have lighting added to that area, we would have to place new poles and lighting fixtures, along with installing new wire to each location. In addition, the poles that we could utilize between Andover Blvd and S. Coon Creek Dr. are on the east side of Crosstown Blvd. Would these poles work for your lighting needs, or would you want to also install new poles and lights on the west side, so they are closer to the trail? Due to the unexpected cost, I am unsure if you'd still like me to draw up an estimate. If you would, could you please provide me with the pole and light fixture type you would want to use, as well as a list of locations you would like the lights installed? Once I receive that information, I would be happy to put together an estimate. Thank you, Steve Sell Distribution Designer I Connexus® Energy Phone: 763.323.2698 Steve.Sell@connexusenerev.com I www.c Facebook: Like Us I Twitter: Follow CWConnexusNews I Linkedln: Connect With Us I Instagram: Connexus.Enerey --- your most powerful membership'"" --- From: Jennifer Sweeney Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 9:00 AM To: Dave Berkowitz <D.Berkowitz@andovermn.eov> Cc: Todd Haas <T.Haas@andovermn.eov>; Becky Bergherr <Becky.Bereherr(cDconnexusenerey.com> Subject: RE: Trail/Road Lighting along Crosstown Blvd. Good morning, Dave. This is an excellent idea; it is pretty dark along that stretch. I am including Becky Bergherr on this reply, as our Engineering Dept. will be the group to put together this layout and estimate for you. Becky — will you please have a Designer review Dave's request and put together an estimate for him to present to Council? Thank you! Jennifer Sweeney Key Accounts Representative I Connexus® Energy Phone: 763.323.2649 1 Cell: 763.438.6872 Jennifer.SweeneyCWconnexusenergy.com I www.connexusenergy.com Facebook: Like Us I Twitter: Follow @ConnexusNews I Linkedln: Connect With Us I Instagram: Connexus.Energy ---your most powerful membersh!pTM --- From: Dave Berkowitz <D.Berkowitz@andovermn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 8:51 AM To: Jennifer Sweeney <Jennifer.Sweenev@connexuseneray.com> Cc: Todd Haas <T.Haas@andovermn.gov> Subject: Trail/Road Lighting along Crosstown Blvd. WARNING: EXTERNAL email. Use CAUTION Jennifer, The City Council is interested in lighting along the west side of Crosstown Blvd. from Nightingale Street NW to South Coon Creek Drive. They would like to use existing poles as much as possible and add a few here and there to do the project as economical as possible. Can you have someone investigate a layout and a cost estimate that would be presented to the Council? Thank You David D. Berkowitz, P.E. City of Andover Director of Public Works/City Engineer 763-767-5133 I 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Councilmembers Jim Dickinson, City Administrator 2021 Budget Development / 2021 Proposed Property Tax Update Discussion November 24, 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 (21.191/o) debt service levy, and $2,263,577 (14.11%) capital/watershed levy. The Council has the right to reduce or keep constant this levy until the final certification date of December 30, 2020. Since the adoption of the preliminary levy, taxable market values have been updated and City staff was able to reduce the proposed levy by $33,000 to $14,913,945. The updated 2021 Proposed Property Tax Levy is estimated to decrease the current City tax rate by 0.58% and when applied to the City's growing taxable market values will generate additional tax revenue to preserve current operations, maintain infrastructure assets and provide for City Campus projects and corresponding operations ($155,000 for Community Center Operations is new for the 2021 levy). That tax rate applied to the growing tax base will reflect a 3.00% increase in the gross tax levy. By the November 24th workshop, property tax statements should have been received by all the City of Andover residents and businesses. Much of what will be covered at the workshop will be repeat information with updates to date; Administration is looking for Citv Council direction as the final preparation steps for the December 1, 2020 Budget/Levy Hearing for the 2021 Budget nears. City Administration will review with the Council the bold italics items at the meeting, Also.... Administration/Finance will review with the Council the following attachments at the meeting: 1. Pay 2021 Valuation Estimates (Piz, 10) 2. City ofAndover Property Tax Levy — 2016 to proposed 2021 (pQs. 11-12) 3. Proposed Resolution to Adopt the 2021 Budget and Tax Levy pgs. 13 —15) 4. City ofAndover 2021 Budget Summary by Fund Types (pgs. 16 — 25) 5. Proposed 2021 General Fund Revenue & Expense Summary (pgs. 26 — 29) 6 Graphs that will be used at the December 1, 2020 Budget Hearini(pys. 30 — 35) 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 ofAndover are reflecting only a 1.68% increase in total taxable market value. The City tax capacity values benefit from the fiscal disparities program (See attached Pay 2021 Valuation Estimates —page 10). 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 will exceed 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 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 proposed 2021 debt levy is 21.01 % of the proposed 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) developmentprocess. The 2021-2025 CIP was adopted by the City Council on October 20" 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 offinancial 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 Impactmodel at budget development 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 its impact to the local economy. Personnel Related Implications: New staffing 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 is anticipated to happen early 2021. New Staffing Requests 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 3 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 recommends approval of this position, to be accompanied by a significant reduction in the current 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 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 needfor expanding the part-time (7501o) Fire Technician position to fulltime through a reallocation of budget (this position update if approved would be implemented late 2020. Administration is still evaluating the other requests, looking for and applying for potential grant funding, and determining other funding options may be available; this evaluation will carry over to the 2022 budget development process. Staff RetirementsiVacancies: 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. Special accommodations (reduction in the current Building Official hours and benefits to provide for an additional Building Inspector) were recently approved within the Building Department for appropriate succession planning and integrated in to the 2021 budget. Other Personnel Related Expenses: To date, the following are the other projected issues facing personnel related expenses: 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. Pay steps for eligible employees will be included in a 2021 budget proposal, Per Council direction, a 3% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for non -bargaining employees is contained in the 2021 budget proposal numbers. The current Public Works Union contract expires December 31, 2021 and the negotiated wage (3016) for 2021 is included in the 2021 budget proposal numbers. 2. Employee Health Insurance: A midyear review of the employee health plan for the 2021 Budget was conducted with our broker on July 21st. Our group continued to experience some high claims over this past year and the broker predicted a significant increase in a renewal rate. Administration authorized our broker to do a full marketing of our group to other qualified insurance providers and again looked at health plan modifications. The marketing results are were received on October 27a`, discussed at the October Council workshop and a plan renewal was subsequently approved by the Council at the November 17'x' meeting. 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. The recommended proposal for 2021 reflects a 15.0% increase in the employee health insurance budget, maintaining the current HSA contribution by the City and staying within the predicted 2021 forecasted increase placeholder. Funding for the HRA is managed through the City's Risk Management Internal Service Fund. Contractual Departments: City Attorney: The City Attorney 2020 contract reflected a 2% increase over the 2019 contract. Discussions for the 2021 budget are for a status quo service contact with a 2% rate increase. 2. Anoka County Sheriff. Administration had renewal discussions with the Anoka County Sheriff for a 2021 status quo contract. The Anoka County Sheriff's Office was before the City Council to formally present the renewal at the August 18'x' City Council meeting and the negotiated renewal 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 Sheriff s contract provides for: a. 80 hours per day of patrol service b. 6 hours per day of service provided by a Community Service Officer c. School Liaison Officers in the middle school and high school d. 2 Patrol Investigators e. 50% of the Crime Watch Program's coordinator position. 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 Sheriffs Department additional but is not billable per the contract. Recycling/SCORE: 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 • Metro Cities ■ Mediation Services ■ YMCA — Water Safety Program ■ Alexandra House ■ Youth First (Program Funding) • NW Anoka Co. Community Consortium - JPA ■ Teen Center Funding (YMCA) ■ Family of Promise • Lee Carlson Central Center for Family Resources • Senior High Parties ■ Stepping Stone ■ Hope for Youth $14,550 (GF) $ 9,542 (GF) $ 3,666 (GF) $ 9,000 (GF) $20,928 ($15,328 GF $14,000 ($12,000 GF $10,000 (GF) $24,500 ($8,100 GF $ 3,000 (CG) $ 1,500 (GF) $ 1,000 (CG) $ 1,000 (CG) $ 1,000 (CG) & $5,600 CG) & $2,000 CG) & $16,400 CG) Some are funded via the General Fund (GF), and those that qualify for charitable gambling funding are done through the Charitable Gambling (CG) Special Revenue Fund. 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 maintenance/replacement items. In addition to the re -assigned funds an additional $43,500 of General Fund levy was assigned to Parks Repair/Replacement items for a total levy of $90,000 in 2016, and that continued for 2017. The 2018 General Fund levy assigned to Parks Repair/Replacement items levy was increased to $100,000 for 2019 and then to $120,000 for 2020; the Parks Project levy continues to remain at $15,000. Administration is not recommending there he any adjustment to these levies for 2021. The Parks Repair/Replacement items levy is proposed at $120,000 and the Parks Project levy at $15,000. 7 • Equipment/Projects Under the Capital Projects Levy, a levy is proposed to be designated to Capital Equipment/Project expenditures identified through the CIP process. Through this designation, the City, over time, will build a fund reserve to avoid cash flow "spikes" and address a wide range of capital improvement needs such as facility maintenance projects under a more controlled spending environment. The 2020 levy was $275,000 and Administration is recommending a $25,000 decrease to offset the increased levy for the 2020A G.O. Equipment Certificates sold on March 19, 2020. • Capital Equipment/Projects This was a reassigned levy in 2017 to provide for the 2017 equipment purchases. Administration/Finance proposed a straight $500,000 Capital Equipment Purchases Levy for the 2017 equipment purchases rather than through debt service levy and an equipment bond. This process 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 25a` 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 $ 151,078 (The last year is 2021) • 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 $3,133,875 The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. mitted, E J CD Andover Valuation Totals Captured Tax Increment CITY OF ANDOVER Pay 2021 Valuation Estimates $ 2,959,411,470 $ 31,287,043 $ 3,127,397,979 $ 32,975,265 (94,415) (101,030) $ 3,561,318,700 $ 36,099,539 $ 3,621,187,746 $ 37,489,817 (114,064) (119,365) Fiscal Disparity Contribution (1,184,724) (1,269,524) (1,310,143) (1,348,420) Local Tax Rate Value ESTIMATE 31,604,711 Pay 2018 36,022,032 Pay 2019 32,975,265 Pay 2020 $ Pay 2021 Pay 2020 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 (94,415) (101,030) $ 3,561,318,700 $ 36,099,539 $ 3,621,187,746 $ 37,489,817 (114,064) (119,365) 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 36,022,032 Fiscal Disparity Distribution 4,807,372 4,966,404 5,355,244 5,475,223 Total Adjusted Values $ 34,815,276 $ 36,571,115 $ 40,030,576 $ 41,497,255 5.04% 9.46% 3.66% Taxable Market Value % Change Tax Capacity Value % 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 Pay 2020 $ 3,561,318,700 13.87% Pay 2020 $ 36,099,539 Pay 2021 $ 3,621,187,746 1.68% Pay 2021 $ 37,489,817 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 5.40% 9.47% 3.85% 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 II City of Andover, Minnesota Property Tax Levy Less Flacal Disparities Distribution Codified Certified Certified Certified Certified Requested Change 4.54% Local Tax Rata Levy 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 %of Total $ % General & Other Operational Levies Tax Capacity Rate'•• Less Levy Based oa Market Value $ (186291) $ (187840) $ (108777) $ (183909) $ (104,199) $ (151078 Net Local Tax Rate Levy General Operations $ 7,947,528 $ 8,254,354 6 8,543,256 $ 8,845,970 $ 9,194,032 $ 9,30,493 63.01% $ 202,481 2.20% Community Center Operations Levy - - - 0.00681% - 155,000 1.04% $ 155,000 #DIVl0) Pans RepaidReplamment Items 90,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 120,000 120,000 0.80% $ 0.00% Total General & Other Operational Levies 8,037,528 ,344,354 8,643,256 8,94,970 9,314,032 9,671,493 64.85% $ 357,461 3.84% Debt Service Levles 2010A GO. Open Space Referendum Bonds 166,291 187,840 188,777 183,989 184,199 151,078 201M G.O. Equipment Certificate 142,885 - - - 2012B G.O. Cap Improv Refunding Bonds 498,435 - - - - 2012CTaxableG.O.AbatamentBonds 977,332 974,418 972,065 989,378 976,780 973,263 2014A G.O. Equipment Certificate 295,470 295,260 294,945 294,525 - - 2010AG.O.Equipment Contrasts - 152,529 143,310 142,837 143,373 - 2018AG.O.Cap Improv, Plan Bonds - - - 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 3,133,875 21.01% $ 44,830 1.45% Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equipment/Project 250,000 25,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 250,000 1.88% $ (25,000) -9.09% r Capital Equipment Purchases - 500,000 525,000 - - - 0.00% $ - #DIV101 j Facility Maintenance Reserve - - 50,000 355,000 355,000 355,000 2.30% $ - 0.00% Paha 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 9.00% 1; 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% Low 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 1,904,154 2,174,014 2,041,788 2,076,509 2,108,577 14.14% $ 32,068 1.54% Gross City Levy 11,593,925 11,930,655 12,416,357 13,103,487 14,479,586 14.913,945 100.00% $ 434,359 3.00% Less Flacal Disparities Distribution 1,506,747 1,736,547 1,802,963 1,125,448 1,890,892 1,957,024 #DIV/01 4.54% Local Tax Rata Levy $ 10,007,178 $ 10,202,008 $ 10,613,394 $ 11,370,039 $ 12,582,694 $ 12,959,121 Chanes Chance Tax Capacity Rate'•• Less Levy Based oa Market Value $ (186291) $ (187840) $ (108777) $ (183909) $ (104,199) $ (151078 Net Local Tax Rate Levy $ 9,820,807 $ 10,014,160 $ 10,424,617 $ 11,194,050_ $ 12,398,495 $ 12,805,043 IAdjusled Tax CapacityVelue"(i) 25,543,662 26,703,971 30,007.90431,604,711 34,675,332 36,022,032 #DIV/01 4.54% 1237% 532% 972% 388% Chanes Chance Tax Capacity Rate'•• 38.447% 37.601% 34.740% 35.419% 35.756% 35.550% -0.206% -0.580% Tax Capacity Rale W/O LRRWSD 38.314% 37.374% 34.627% 35.310% 35.656% 35.463% Tax Capacity Rete With LRRWSD 38.7M% 37.738% 34.952% 35.621% 35.942% 35.724% Voter Approved Ref -MV 0.00699% 0.00681% 0.00681% 0.00572% 0.00526% 0.00509% -Adjusted Velure determined by adjusting fie placsl Disparities and Tax Increment esumates --Blendad mM due to Me W, olAndovarlevyin9 hr Lower Rum River Watershed Deffict (1) Adjusted Tax Capacity Value is subject to change. J N City of Andover Gross Tax Levy $17,000,000 $15,000,000 $14,913,945 14,479,586 $13,000,000 $13,103,487 $12,416,357 $11,000,000 $11,938,555 $10,843,925 $11,143,925 $10,631,299 $9,000,000 $7,000,000 $5,000,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 BUDGET AND 2021 PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. WHEREAS, the preparation and adoption of budgets is recognized as sound financial practice; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover receives significant financial support from its residents through the payment of property taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover has the responsibility to appropriately and efficiently manage the public's funds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires the City to certify to the County Auditor an adopted tax levy and budget prior to December 28, 2020; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires the City to certify to the State of Minnesota Department of Revenue an adopted tax levy by December 28, 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby adopts the 2021 City of Andover Budget and the 2021 property tax levy totaling $14,913,945 as listed on Attachment A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby establishes the 2021 City of Andover Budget by fund type as follows: w REVENUES EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 12,072,732 General Fund $ 12,602,136 Special Revenue Funds 2,184,700 Special Revenue Funds 2,226,428 Debt Service Funds 3,685,482 Debt Service Funds 3,224,612 Capital Projects Funds 4,325,340 Capital Projects Funds 6,637,309 Enterprise Funds 5,814,578 Enterprise Funds 7,092,269 Internal Service Funds 1,323,834 Internal Service Funds 1,453,910 Total $ 29,406,666 Total $ 33 236,664 Adopted by the City of Andover this _ day of December 2020. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Julie Trude - Mayor Michelle Harmer — Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 2021 Property Tax Levy 2021. General Fund Levy General Operations $ 9,396,493 Community Center Operations Levy 155,000 Park Repair/Replacement Items 120,000 Total General Fund 9,671,493 Debt Service Funds Levy 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum Bonds 151,078 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds 973,263 2018A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 456,344 2019A Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds 976,966 —+ 2020A G.O. Equipment Certificate 406,224 2021A G.O. Equipment Certificate 170,000 Total Debt Service 3,133,875 Other Levies Capital Projects Levy Capital Equipment/Project 250,000 Facility Maintenance Reserve 355,000 Parks Projects 15,000 Road & Bridge 1,342,456 Pedestrian Trail Maintenance 106,121 Lower Rum River Watershed 40,000 Total Other 2,108,577 Gross City Levy $ 14,913,945 Attachment A STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF ANDOVER I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Andover, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached Resolution No. adopting the City of Andover 2021 Budget and 2021 Property Tax Levy with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be true and correct transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand this _ day of December 2020. Michelle Harmer—Deputy City Clerk General Fund Revenues: $12,072,732 Expenditures: $12,602,136 General Government r Public Safety 01 Public Works Fund Definitions CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 Budget Summary By Fund Type City of Andover- Budgeted Funds Total Revenues: $29,406,666 Total Expenditures: $33,236,664 Governmental Funds I Special Revenue Funds Revenues: $2,184,700 Expenditures: $2,226,428 -EDA -Drainage & Mapping LRRWMO -Forestry -ROW Mgmt / Utility -Construction Seal Coating Community Center CDBG Charitable Gambling Debt Service Funds Revenues: $3,685,482 Expenditures: $3,224,612 G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. State Aid Bonds G.O. Equip Certificates G.O. Referendum Bonds G.O. Abatement Bonds Capital Projects Funds Revenues: $4,325,340 Expenditures: $6,637,309 Water Trunk Storm Sewer Sewer Trunk Road & Bridge Trail & Transportation Cap Equip Reserve Tax Increment Park Dedication PIR Projects Building -Capital Notes / Bond Projects Proprietary Funds Enterprise Funds Revenues: $5,814,578 Expenditures: $7,092,269 Sewer Fund Water Fund Storm Sewer Fund Internal Service Funds Revenues: $1,323,834 Expenditures: $1,453,910 Equipment/ Malnt. General Fund - accounts for the revenues and expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the City such as general government, public safety, public works, and other. Special Revenue Funds - accounts for revenue sources that finance particular functions and projects. Debt Service Funds - accounts for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of general long-term debt. Capital Projects Funds - accounts for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities financed mainly with governmental fund sources, general obligation debt, special assessments, and other. Enterprise Funds - accounts for activities that consist of rendering services or providing goods to the public for which a fee or charge is collected. Internal Service Funds - accounts for goods and services that are provided to other City departments, or to other governments, on a cost reimbursement basis. Fund Balance/Net Assets, January 1 Revenues & Other Sources General Special Revenue Debt Service Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total Revenues & Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures & Other Uses General Special Revenue Debt Service Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total Expenditures & Other Uses: Fund Balance/Net Assets, December 31 Change in Fund Balance CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures Fund Summary Actual 2019 $ 54,929,619 12,327,213 1,749,086 2,404,629 27,028,359 5,960,844 1,227,032 50,697,163 105,626,782 11,100,098 1,555,566 2,013,864 20,857,130 5,780,269 1,271,308 42,578,235 $ 63,048,547 $ 8,118,928 14.78% Adopted 2020 $ 63,048,547 11,794,736 1,688,000 3,609,491 6,993,212 5,589,331 1,222,151 30,896,921 93,945,468 12,155,896 2,012,733 2,936,776 17,055,998 5,680,308 1,410,519 41,252,230 $ 52,693,238 $ (10,355,309) -16.42% Estimate 2020 $ 63,048,547 12,052,364 1,591,000 3,609,491 8,931,683 5,589,331 1,222,151 32,996,020 96,044,567 13,344,846 1,921,327 2,944,821 22,546,745 5,680,308 1,410,519 47,848,566 $ 48,196,001 $ (14,852,546) -23.56% Budget 2021 $ 48,196,001 12,072,732 2,184,700 3,685,482 4,325,340 5,814,578 1,323,834 29,406,666 77,602,667 12,602,136 2,226,428 3,224,612 6,637,309 7,092,269 1,453,910 33,236,664 $ 44,366,003 $ (3,829,998) -7.95% CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures by Fund Type Expenditures Personal Services 5,573,315 Special Debt Capital 1,241,223 Internal 8,159,598 Supplies and Materials General Revenue Service Projects Enterprise Service Total Fund Balance/Net Assets, January 1 $ 81070,969 $ 852,547 $ 2,100,774 $ 26,529,089 $ 9,768,851 $ 873,771 $ 48,196,001 Revenues 1,613,938 693,147 - 4,219,000 2,416,915 486,991 9,429,991 General Property Taxes 9,594,493 195,000 3,137,578 2,068,577 - - 14,995,648 Tax Increments - - - 85,000 - - 85,000 Special Assessments -. - - 671,000 - - 671,000 Licenses and Permits 436,450 - - - - - 436,450 Intergovernmental 813,298 37,500 - 176,572 - - 1,027,370 Charges for Services 752,360 1,139,000 - - 5,526,873 1,319,834 8,738,067 Fines 50,250 - - - - - 50,250 Investment income 75,000 5,200 - 117,500 61,000 4,000 262,700 User Charges. - - - 266,610 - - 266,610 Meters - - - - 13,000 - 13,000 Miscellaneous 138,850 808,000 170,000 65,000 1,181,850 Total Revenues: 11,860,701 2,184,700 3,137,578 3,555,259 5,665,873 1,323,834 27,727,945 Other Financing Sources j Operating Transfers In 212,031 - 547,904 770,081 148,705 - 1,678,721 DO Bond Proceeds - - - - Tofal Other Financing Sources: 212,031 547,904 770,081 148,705 1,678,721 Total Revenues and Other Sources: 12,072,732 2,184,700 3,685,482 4,325,340 5,814,578 1,323,834 29,406,666 Total Available: 20,143,701 3,037,247 5,786,256 30,854,429 15,583,429 2,197,605 77,602,667 Expenditures Personal Services 5,573,315 794,841 - - 1,241,223 550,219 8,159,598 Supplies and Materials 803,978 130,820 - - 462,800 416,700 1,814,298 Purchased Services 4,475,905 302,620 - - - - 4,778,525 Other Services and Charges 1,613,938 693,147 - 4,219,000 2,416,915 486,991 9,429,991 Capital Outlay 135,000 - - 2,067,000 1,210,000 - 3,412,000 Debt Service - 3,183,031 780,500 3,963,531 Total Operating Expenditures: 12,602,136 1,921,428 3,183,031 6,286,000 6,111,438 1,453,910 31,557,943 Other Uses Operating Transfers Out 305,000 41,581 351,309 980,831 1,678,721 Total Other Uses: 305,000 41,581 351,309 980,831 1,678,721 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 12,602,136 2,226,428 3,224,612 6,637,309 7,092,269 1,463,910 33,236,664 Fund Balance/Net Assets, December 31 $ 7,541,565 $ 810,819 $ 2,561,644 $ 24,217,120 $ 8,491,160 $ 743,695 $ 44,366,003 Change in Fund Balance $ (529,404) $ (41,728) $ 460,870 $ (2,311,969) $ (1,277,691) $ (130,076) $ (3,829,998) -6.56% -4.89% 21.94% -8,71% -13.08% -14.89% -7.95% CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 Budget Summary Revenues and Expenditures -All Funds Expenditures Personal Services Actual Budget Estimate Budget Supplies and Materials 2019 2020 2020 2021 Fund Balance/Net Assets, January l $ 54,929,619 $ 63,048,547 $ 63,048,547 $ 48,196,001 Revenues 8,522,531 9,412,673 9,039,664 9,429,991 General Property Taxes 12,985,096 14,528,735 14,557,586 14,995,648 Tax Increments 90,169 85,000 88,627 85,000 Special Assessments 721,950 636,900 333,738 671,000 Licenses and Perils 855,831 410,900 595,483 436,450 Intergovernmental 2,786,445 2,209,815 3,129,990 1,027,370 Charges for Services 8,677,510 8,142,252 8,150,823 8,736,067 Fines 62,349 75,250 55,250 50,250 Investment Income 1,583,041 285,200 323,775 262,700 User Charges 1,747,668 262,051 398,799 268,610 Meters 28,526 13,000 13,000 13,000 Miscellaneous 2,067,107 1,350,400 1,354,918 1,181,850 Total Revenues: 31,606,712 27,997,503 29,001,989 27,727,945 Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In 1,814,888 1,589,418 2,588,550 1,678,721 Bond Proceeds 15,770,000 1,310,000 1,310,000 - '� Proceeds from Sale of Property 47,868 CID Total Other Financing Sources: 19,091,451 2,899,418 3,994,031 1,678,721 Total Revenues and Other Sources: 50,697,163 30,896,921 32,996,020 29,406,666 Total Available: 105,626,782 93,945,468 96,044,567 77,602,667 Expenditures Personal Services 7,173,380 7,774,188 7,737,162 8,159,598 Supplies and Materials 1,309,545 1,578,737 1,572,737 1,814,298 Purchased Services 4,362,402 4,647,282 4,738,902 4,778,525 Other Services and Charges 8,522,531 9,412,673 9,039,664 9,429,991 Capital Outlay 16,605,957 12,616,000 18,528,716 - 3,412,000 Debt Service 2,789,532 3,633,932 3,642,845 3,963,531 Total Operating Expenditures: 40,763,347 39,662,812 45,260,016 31,557,943 Other Uses Operating Transfers Out 1,814,888 1,589,418 2,588,550 1,678,721 Total Other Uses: 1,814,888 1,589,418 2,588,550 1,678,721 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 42,578,235 41,252,230 47,848,566 33,236,664 Fund Balance/Net Assets, December 31 $ 63,048,547 $ 52,693,238 $ 48,196,001 $ 44,366,003 Change in Fund Balance $ 8,118,928 $ (10,355,309) $ (14,852,546) $ (3,829,998) 14.78% -16.42% -23.56°% -7.95% City of Andover 2021 Budget - General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In ro Proceeds from Sale of Property CD Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out $ 8,136,336 $ 9,363,451 $ 9,363,451 $ 8,070,969 8,864,720 Actual 1 Adopted 1 Estimate Adopted Description 2019 2020 2020 2021 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In ro Proceeds from Sale of Property CD Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out $ 8,136,336 $ 9,363,451 $ 9,363,451 $ 8,070,969 8,864,720 9,392,032 9,392,032 9,594,493 855,831 410,900 595,483 436,450 822,128 780,806 781,394 813,298 1,133,161 736,210 816,781 752,360 62,349 75,250 55,250 50,250 208,958 75,000 75,000 75,000 184,558 133,850 145,736 138,850 12,131,705 11,604,048 11,861,676 11,860,701 188,008 7,500 195,508 12,327,213 20,463,549 5,024,149 624,016 4,146,780 1,288,738 16.415 11,100,098 Total Expenditures and Other Uses: 11,100,098 Fund Balance, December 31 $ 9,363,451 Change in Fund Balance $ 1,227,115 15% 190,688 190,688 11,794,736 21,158,187 5,417,774 740,517 4,378,227 1,499,378 190,688 190,688 12,052,364 21,415,815 5,417,774 744,517 4,453,227 1,504,328 120,000 225,000 12,155, 896 12, 344, 846 12,155,896 $ 9,002,291 $ (361,160) -4% 1,000,000 13,344,846 $ 8,070,969 $ (1,292,482) -14% 212,031 212,031 12,072,732 20,143,701 5,573,315 803,978 4,475,905 1,613,938 135,000 12,602,136 12,602,136 $ 7,541,565 $ (529,404) -7% N City of Andover Special Revenue Funds 2021 Budget Summary - All Special Revenue Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for Services Investment Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 989,354 $ 1,182,874 $ 1,182,874 $ 852,547 39,857 808,476 37,280 863,473 1,749,086 1,749,086 40,000 37,500 797,300 5,200 808,000 1,688,000 1,688,000 2,738,440 2,870,874 557,705 70,211 215,622 366,340 39,888 1,249,766 305,800 1,555,566 $ 1,182,874 Change in Fund Balance $ 193,520 20% 660,633 104,820 269,055 542,525 130,000 1,707,033 305,700 2,012,733 $ 858,141 $ (324,733) -27% 40,000 12,500 725,300 5,200 808,000 1,591,000 1,591,000 2,773,874 623,607 94,820 285,675 481,525 130,000 1,615,627 305,700 1,921,327 $ 852,547 $ (330,327) -28% 195,000 37,500 1,139, 000 5,200 808,000 2,184,700 2,184,700 3,037,247 794,841 130,820 302,620 693.147 1,921,428 305,000 2,226,428 $ 810,819 $ (41,728) -5% Actual 1 Adopted Estimate Adopted 1 Description 2019 2020 2020 2021 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for Services Investment Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Purchased Services Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 $ 989,354 $ 1,182,874 $ 1,182,874 $ 852,547 39,857 808,476 37,280 863,473 1,749,086 1,749,086 40,000 37,500 797,300 5,200 808,000 1,688,000 1,688,000 2,738,440 2,870,874 557,705 70,211 215,622 366,340 39,888 1,249,766 305,800 1,555,566 $ 1,182,874 Change in Fund Balance $ 193,520 20% 660,633 104,820 269,055 542,525 130,000 1,707,033 305,700 2,012,733 $ 858,141 $ (324,733) -27% 40,000 12,500 725,300 5,200 808,000 1,591,000 1,591,000 2,773,874 623,607 94,820 285,675 481,525 130,000 1,615,627 305,700 1,921,327 $ 852,547 $ (330,327) -28% 195,000 37,500 1,139, 000 5,200 808,000 2,184,700 2,184,700 3,037,247 794,841 130,820 302,620 693.147 1,921,428 305,000 2,226,428 $ 810,819 $ (41,728) -5% N N City of Andover Debt Service Funds 2021 Budget Summary - All Debt Service Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Investment Income Total Revenues: Other Sources Operating Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Debt Service Principal Interest Other Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 Change in Fund Balance $ 1,045,339 $ 1,436,104 $ 1,436,104 $ 2,100,774 2,097,563 7,066 2,104,629 300,000 2,404,629 3,449,968 1,444,000 568,864 1,000 2,013,864 3,089,045 3,089,045 520,446 3,609,491 5,045,595 1,561,000 1,279,832 6,600 2,847,432 - 89,344 2,013,864 2,936,776 $ 1,436,104 $ 390,765 37% $ 2,108,819 $ 672,715 47% 3,089,045 3,089,045 520,446 3,609,491 5,045,595 1,561,000 1,290,845 4,500 2,856,345 88,476 2,944,821 $ 2,100,774 $ 664,670 46% 3,137, 578 3,137,578 547,904 3,685,482 5.786.256 1,899,000 1,278,031 6,000 3,183,031 41,581 3,224,612 $ 2,561,644 $ 460,870 22% Actual Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 2019 2020 2020 2021 Fund Balance, January 1 Revenues General Property Taxes Investment Income Total Revenues: Other Sources Operating Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Debt Service Principal Interest Other Total Expenditures: Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Fund Balance, December 31 Change in Fund Balance $ 1,045,339 $ 1,436,104 $ 1,436,104 $ 2,100,774 2,097,563 7,066 2,104,629 300,000 2,404,629 3,449,968 1,444,000 568,864 1,000 2,013,864 3,089,045 3,089,045 520,446 3,609,491 5,045,595 1,561,000 1,279,832 6,600 2,847,432 - 89,344 2,013,864 2,936,776 $ 1,436,104 $ 390,765 37% $ 2,108,819 $ 672,715 47% 3,089,045 3,089,045 520,446 3,609,491 5,045,595 1,561,000 1,290,845 4,500 2,856,345 88,476 2,944,821 $ 2,100,774 $ 664,670 46% 3,137, 578 3,137,578 547,904 3,685,482 5.786.256 1,899,000 1,278,031 6,000 3,183,031 41,581 3,224,612 $ 2,561,644 $ 460,870 22% City of Andover Capital Projects Funds 2021 Budget Summary - All Capital Projects Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance, January 1 $ 33,972,922 Actual Adopted Estimate Adopted Description _ �w01C 2019 2020 2C 1 2021 Fund Balance, January 1 $ 33,972,922 $ 40,144,151 $ 40,144,151 $ 26,529,089 Revenues General Property Taxes 1,982,956 2,005,658 2,036,509 2,068,577 Tax Increments 90,189 85,000 88,627 85,000 Special Assessments 721,950 636,900 333,738 671,000 Intergovernmental 1,964,317 1,391,509 2,336,096 176,572 Charges for Services - - - - Investment Income 1,063,572 140,000 178,575 117,500 User Charges 1,747,668 262,051 398,799 266,610 Miscellaneous 935,692 343,550 336,182 170,000 Total Revenues: 8,506,344 4,864,668 5,708,526 3,555,259 Other Sources Transfers In 1,268,770 818,544 1,817,676 770,081 ro Bond Proceeds 15,770,000 1,310,000 1,310,000 - Bond Premium 1,458,695 - 95,481 Proceeds from Sale of Capital Assets 24,550 - - Total Other Sources: 18,522,015 2,128,544 3,223,157 770,081 Total Revenues and Other Sources: 27,028,359 6,993,212 8,931,683 4,325,340 Total Available: 61,001,281 47,137,363 49,075,834 30,854,429 Expenditures Other Services and Charges 4,277,856 4,455,112 4,138,143 4,219,000 Capital Outlay 16,363,325 12,366,000 18,173,716 2,067,000 Debt Service - Principal Retirement - - - - Total Expenditures: 20,641,181 16,821,112 22,311,859 6,286,000 Other Uses Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses Fund Balance, December 31 215,949 234,886 234,886 20,857,130 17,055,998 22,546,745 $ 40,144,151 $ 30,081,365 $ 26,529,089 351,309 6,637,309 $ 24,217,120 Change in Fund Balance $ 6,171,229 $ (10,062,786) $ (13,615,062) $ (2,311,969) 18% -25% -34% -9% N .A City of Andover Enterprise Funds 2021 Budget Summary - All Enterprise Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Net Assets Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Meters Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Gain on the Sale of Capital Assets Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 9,679,253 $ 9,859,828 $ 9,859,828 $ 9,768,851 5,561,256 236,356 28,526 60,778 5,886,916 58,110 15,818 73,928 5,960,844 15,640,097 1,097,202 224,194 2,203,737 186,329 775,668 4,487,130 1,293,139 5,780,269 $ 9,859,828 Change in Unrestricted Net Assets $ 180,575 2% 5,390,591 61,000 13,000 65,000 5,529,591 59,740 59,740 5,589,331 15,449,159 1,160,684 324,300 2,449,336 786,500 4,720,820 959,488 5,680,308 $ 9,768,851 $ (90,977) -1% 5,390,591 61,000 13,000 65,000 5,529,591 59,740 59,740 5,589,331 15,449,159 1,160,684 324,300 2,449,336 786,500 4,720,820 959,488 5,680,308 $ 9,768,851 $ (90,977) -1% 5,526,873 61,000 13,000 65,000 5,665,873 148,705 148,705 5,814,578 15,583,429 1,241,223 462,800 2,416,915 1,210,000 780,500 6,111,438 980,831 7,092,269 $ 8,491,160 $ (1,277,691) -13% Actual 1 Adopted Estimate 1 Adopted Description 1 2019 2020 2020 1 2021 Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Meters Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Gain on the Sale of Capital Assets Total Other Sources: Total Revenues and Other Sources: Total Available: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 $ 9,679,253 $ 9,859,828 $ 9,859,828 $ 9,768,851 5,561,256 236,356 28,526 60,778 5,886,916 58,110 15,818 73,928 5,960,844 15,640,097 1,097,202 224,194 2,203,737 186,329 775,668 4,487,130 1,293,139 5,780,269 $ 9,859,828 Change in Unrestricted Net Assets $ 180,575 2% 5,390,591 61,000 13,000 65,000 5,529,591 59,740 59,740 5,589,331 15,449,159 1,160,684 324,300 2,449,336 786,500 4,720,820 959,488 5,680,308 $ 9,768,851 $ (90,977) -1% 5,390,591 61,000 13,000 65,000 5,529,591 59,740 59,740 5,589,331 15,449,159 1,160,684 324,300 2,449,336 786,500 4,720,820 959,488 5,680,308 $ 9,768,851 $ (90,977) -1% 5,526,873 61,000 13,000 65,000 5,665,873 148,705 148,705 5,814,578 15,583,429 1,241,223 462,800 2,416,915 1,210,000 780,500 6,111,438 980,831 7,092,269 $ 8,491,160 $ (1,277,691) -13% N Cn City of Andover Internal Service Funds 2021 Budget Summary - All Internal Service Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Unrestricted Net Assets 1 Actual Adopted 1 Estimate 1 Adopted 1 Description 2019 2020 2020 2021 Unrestricted Net Assets, January 1 Revenues Charges for Services Interest Income Miscellaneous Total Revenues: Other Sources Transfers In Total Revenues and Other Sources Total Available: Expenditures and Other Uses Personal Services Supplies and Materials Other Services and Charges Total Expenditures: Other Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures and Other Uses: Unrestricted Net Assets, December 31 Change in Unrestricted Net Assets $ 1,106,415 $ 1,062,139 $ 1,062,139 $ 873,771 1,174,617 29,809 22,606 1,227,032 1,227,032 2,333,447 494,324 391,124 385,860 1,271,308 1,271,308 $ 1,062,139 $ (44,276) -4% 1,218,151 4,000 1,222,151 1,222,151 2,284,290 535,097 409,100 466,322 1,410,519 1,410,519 $ 873,771 $ (188,368) -18% 1,218,151 4,000 1,222,151 1,222,151 2,284,290 535,097 409,100 466,322 1,410,519 1,410,519 $ 873,771 $ (188,368) -18% 1,319,834 4,000 1,323,834 1,323,834 2,197,605 550,219 416,700 486,991 1,453,910 1,453, 910 $ 743,695 $ (130,076) -15% 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 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 12,072,732 277,99 2.31% EXPENDITURES General Government 2,511,970 2,592,649 2,642,223 2,748,464 2,843,957 3,267,676 3,288,676 3,376,128 108,452 3.32% N Public Safety 4,503,332 4,667,326 4,778,336 4,956,352 5,091,793 5,289,484 5,288,434 5,415,427 125,943 2.38% Public Works 2,817,981 2,966,674 2,854,540 3,158,490 3,148,743 3,502,808 3,671,808 3,714,653 211,845 6.05% 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 12,602,136 446,240 UNDER OVER BUDGET $ 65,764 $ 528,843 $ 8424 $ 346,713 $ 1,227,718 $ 361160 $ 1292482 $ 529404 $ 168244 N r CITY OF ANDOVER Revenue Comparison - General Fund Property Taxes Licenses & Permits Intergov'i Rev Charges for Svcs Fines & Forfeits Interest Income Misc. Rev Transfers D Budget 21 City of Andover 2021 Revenue Comparison -General Fund 1.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12 MI 21 0 Estimate 2020 ■ Actual 2019 • Actual 2018 a Actual 2017 00 (Ions City of Andover 2021 Revenue by Source - General Fund Misc, Rev 1% Interest Income Transfers 1% 2% Fines & Forfeits 0% Charges for Svcs 6% IntergoJl Rev 7% Licenses & Permits 4% Property Texas 79% Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 REVENUES Property Taxes $ 8,332,634 $ 8,634,130 $ 8,864,720 $ 9,392,032 $ 9,392,032 $ 9,594,493 License and Permits 546,378 562,525 855,831 410,900 595,483 436,450 Intergovernmental Revenues 793,932 829,861 822,129 780,806 781,394 813,298 Charges for Services 843,022 888,944 1,133,160 736,210 816,781 752,360 Fines and Forfeits 75,287 73,719 62,349 75,250 55,250 50,250 Interest Income 64,751 107,560 208,957 75,000 75,000 75,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 178,616 176,662 192,058 133,850 145,736 138,850 Transfers 196,930 178,558 188,008 190,688 190,688 212,031 TOTAL REVENUES $ 11,031,550 $ 11,451,959 $ 12,327,212 $ 11,794,736 $ 12,052,364 $ 12,072,732 Property Taxes Licenses & Permits Intergov'i Rev Charges for Svcs Fines & Forfeits Interest Income Misc. Rev Transfers D Budget 21 City of Andover 2021 Revenue Comparison -General Fund 1.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12 MI 21 0 Estimate 2020 ■ Actual 2019 • Actual 2018 a Actual 2017 00 (Ions City of Andover 2021 Revenue by Source - General Fund Misc, Rev 1% Interest Income Transfers 1% 2% Fines & Forfeits 0% Charges for Svcs 6% IntergoJl Rev 7% Licenses & Permits 4% Property Texas 79% N EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Public Works Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES CITY OF ANDOVER Expenditure Comparison - General Fund Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Budget 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 $ 2,642,223 24% $ 2,748,484 25% It 2,843,957 26% $ 3,267,676 27% $ 3,288,676 25% $ 3,376,128 27% 4,778,336 43% 4,956,352 45% 5,091,793 46% 5,289,484 44% 5,288,434 40% 5,415,427 43% 2,854,640 26% 3,158,490 28% 3,148,743 28% 3,502,808 29% 3,671,808 28% 3,714,653 29% 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 $ 12,602,136 City of Andover 2021 Expenditure Comparison - General Fund General Gov't Public Safety Public Works Other 57 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 Millions 0 Budget 2021 111 Estimate 2020 0 Actual 2019 a Actual 2019 a Actual 2017 City of Andover 2021 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 $ 108,015 (300) -0.28% Administration 172,296 187,876 187,514 198,945 211,898 227,334 227,334 236,244 8,910 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 35,202 1,102 3.23% 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% Informafion Services 131,744 151,387 149,512 171,637 169,827 194,725 194,725 213,738 19,013 9.76% Planning&Zoning 406,045 414,141 398,780 422,983 412,282 490,296 490,296 504,204 13,908 2.84% Engineering 464,843 511,074 511,183 527,688 561,642 605,481 605,481 631,401 25,920 4.28% FacilityManagement 498,813 408,250 509,547 497,642 547,402 674,134 695,134 683,197 9,063 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 3,376,128 108,452 3.32% PUBLICSAFETY IV 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 1,562,026 44,356 2.92% Protective Inspection 391,951 424,247 443,712 436,790 493,955 490,410 490,410 533,561 43,151 8.80% Emergency Management 24,352 17,495 16,320 18,060 18,608 29,936 29,936 26,844 (3,092) -10.33% 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 5,415,427 125,943 2.38% PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 629,724 686,086 597,963 656,194 615,450 738,070 748,070 773,241 35,171 4.77% 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 1,515,640 87,050 6.09% Natural Resource Preservation - 7,255 6,503 5,158 16,831 14,216 14,216 14,383 167 1.17% Recycling 128,036 124,860 169,956 199,182 224,575 193,971 223,971 233,759 39,788 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 3,714,653 211,845 6.05% 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 95,928 0 0.00% $ GRAND TOTAL $ 10,090,003 $ 10,509,726 $ 11,039,974 11,105,246 $ 11,099,494 $ 12,155,896 $ $ 13,344,846 12,602,136 446,240 3.67% w 0 MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN ANOKA COUNTY Proposed 2021 City Tax Rate Comparison Muni i alities OnIv Hilltop 92.129 Columbia Heights E 8.095 Bethel 52.056 Centerville 50.906 St. Francis 50.218 Circle Pines 49.985 Columbus S.511 Lexington 4--277 Spring Lake Park 45.0 9 a N Fridley 4432 3 0 Lino Lakes 39.435 u Ramsey 39.381 Coon Rapids 8.517 East Bethel 8.433 Andover 35.4 i2 Blaine 35.316 Anoka 34.9 9 Linwood 24.713 Nowthen 23.88 Ham Lake 21.916 Oak Grove 21.390 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 100.000 TAX RATE w J CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 Proposed Tax Rate Breakdown Other School District 3.602% County 20.382% 35.421% 0ii City 40.595% PERCENTAGES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO REFLECT 100% RATHER THAN ACTUAL AMOUNT OF 87.335%. * Does not include voter approved referendum levy based on market value. Miscell License & Permits 4% w N CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 General Fund Revenue Types Intergovernmental Fines & Forfeits Property Taxes 79% CITY OF ANDOVER 2021 General Fund Expenditures by Function Other General Government 0.8% 26.8% Public Works 29.5% w w Public Safety 43.0% w a Engineering 18.7% CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - General Government Expenditures Administration Council 7 0% Newsletter Human Resources Facility Mgmt^ 3.2% 0.7% 1.0% 20.2% \ Attorney Planning & Zoning 14.9% Assessing Information Systems 4.8% 6.3% City Clerk 5.2% Elections 2.2% Finance 9.5% w w Fire Protection 28.8% CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Public Safety Expenditures Protective Inspection 9.9% 60.7% W C" Natural Resource Preservation 0.4% Parks & Recreation 40.8"/o CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund - Public Works Expenditures Recycling I 6.3% Streets & Highways 20.8% Street Lights 4.9% - Billtqreet Lighting 1.1% -�-. Street Signs Traffic Signals 6.5% 1.1% now & Ice 18.2%