HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - April 26, 20221685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
City Hall — Conference Rooms A & B
1. Call to Order — 6:00 p.m.
2. Discuss Updates to Hunting/Discharge Map — Planning
3. Discuss City -Wide Housing Density Allocation — Planning
4. Discuss Crosstown Blvd. NW Trail/23-12 — Engineering
5. Discuss Dalske Woodlands Preserve Pedestrian Crossing Study/22-19 — Engineering
6. Discuss Construction Material Shortages & Supply - Engineering
7. 2023-2027 CIP Development Discussion/2022 CIP Progress Report/ —Administration
8. 2023 Budget Development Discussion —Administration
9. March 2022 General Fund Budget Progress Report — Administration
10. March 2022 Community Center Update - Administration
11. Other Topics
12. Adjournment
i.
ANLD6� •
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor & Councilmembers �\N
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Joe Janish, Community Develorkin
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Discuss Updates to Hunting/Discharge Map - Planning
DATE: April 26, 2022
DISCUSSION
City Code 5-4: Weapons establishes hunting restrictions and zones where the discharge of
firearms or bows are permitted. One of these zones is the Restricted Zone South, which
encompasses many properties that are currently rural but could be developed in the future. As
properties within the Restricted Zone South are developed the City has historically re -guided
them to the Prohibited Zone where discharge of a firearm or bows are prohibited. The last time
this was done was in 2020 when Villas at Crosstown Woods was added to the Prohibited Zone.
The reason for this is that when these properties are subdivided, they no longer meet the
minimum acreage for discharge of a bow (2.5 acres) or a firearm (10 acres) as required by City
Code.
The City recently approved a preliminary plat for the Fields of Winslow Cove residential
development which is entirely within the Restricted Zone South. Following past practice, City
staff would like to re -guide the development to be a part of the Prohibited Zone. However, once
this is done two properties to the south of the development will be cut off from the rest of the
Restricted Zone South and become an "island" where hunting/discharge of a weapon would be
allowed surrounded by areas where it is prohibited. A map illustrating this situation is attached.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff would like the Council's direction on what, if anything, should be done with respect to the
hunting zones for the two properties to the south of Fields of Winslow Cove. The Council
essentially has two options: (1) Keep the properties in the Restricted Zone South; or, (2) Re -
Guide the properties to the Prohibited Zone.
ectfully submitted,
Jake Grifit s
Associate Planner
Attachments
Hunting Zones Discussion Map
Current Hunting/Discharge Map
Copy of City Code 5-4: Weapons
AN, -D. OVE R
1
I'ruhihit cd Zunc
Hunting Zones Discussion Map
i
Restricted Zunc South
Fields of Winslow Coce
Future Prohibited Zone
• I'rnhihit cJ Llln,. J
All
Date Created- April 18. 2022
Disclaimer. The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
Restricted Zone.. -
South
♦A'1 6
���• 5 Y y 3
4 �CSp:,OStF�R4�ReCkCSSC C G C'�'ys t[ SeieQ� Csy {� C� ie �5e s[;t n'J � � 4�"C 8�Cs9kt�
--
Huntii
CHAPTER
WEAPONS
SECTION:
5-4-1: DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS:
A. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and
enforcement of this section:
BOW: All bows used for target and hunting purposes as
regulated and defined by Minnesota Statutes Chapter
97B. (Amended Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
FIREARM: Means a gun that discharges shot or a projectile by means
of an explosive, a gas, or compressed air. (Amended Ord.
394, 7-6-10)
HANDGUN: A weapon designed to be fired by the use of a single hand
and with an overall length less than 26 inches, or having a
barrel or barrels of a length less than 18 inches in the case
of a shotgun or having a barrel of a length less than 16
inches in the case of a rifle (1) from which may be fired or
ejected one or more solid projectiles by means of a
cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the
igniting of flammable or explosive substances; or (2) for
which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon
dioxide, air or other gas, or vapor. (Amended Ord. 394, 7-6-
10)
IMMEDIATE
FAMILY: All persons related to the landowner which includes the
children, siblings, grandchildren and their respective
spouses. (Amended Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
RIFLE: A shoulder weapon with a long grooved barrel that uses the
energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire
only a single projectile (bullet). (Amended Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
SHOTGUN: A shoulder weapon with a smooth bored barrel or barrels
which utilizes gunpowder or any other burning propellant and
discharges more than one projectile at a time, except when
using ammunition containing a single slug or a combination
of both a single slug and shot in the same shotshell. For the
purposes of this Ordinance, a muzzleloader, as regulated by
the State of Minnesota, shall be considered a shotgun.
(Amended Ord. 240,10-6-1998, eff. 1-1-1999; amd. 2003
Code; Amended Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
B. For the purposes of this Ordinance, except Section D.2., "Firearms" and
"Handguns" do not include a device firing or ejecting a shot measuring .18
of an inch or less in diameter, commonly known as a "BB gun," a scuba
gun, a stud gun or nail gun used in the construction industry or children's
pop guns or toys. Notwithstanding these exceptions, all other state laws
and City Ordinances regarding the use of these items shall apply. (Ord.
394, 7-6-10)
C. Compliance With Provisions: No person shall discharge at any time a
firearm or bow upon or onto any land or property within the city except as
provided by this section.
D. Prohibited Discharges:
1. No person shall discharge a firearm within five hundred feet (500') of
any residence or a bow within one hundred fifty feet (150) of any
residence except with the permission of the property owner. (Amended
Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
2. No person shall discharge a firearm or bow on public property owned or
operated by the city, county, state or school district except as provided in
City Code 5-4-1 G. (Amended Ord. 410, 7-6-11)
3. The discharge of a rifle or handgun utilizing a solid projectile shall not
be allowed within the city.
E. Permitted Discharges; Restrictions:
1. Written permission by the property owner shall be given to any
person prior to the discharge of a firearm or bow on his/her property.
2. When recreational target shooting is conducted, the projectile shall
be directed at a target with a backstop of sufficient size, strength and
density to stop and control the projectile. (Amended Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
3. When discharging a firearm or bow, the projectile shall not carry
beyond the property line. (Amended Ord. 240, 10-6-1998, eff. 1-1-
1999)
4. All hunting shall be conducted in compliance with the regulations of
the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
F. Hunting Restrictions and Zones Established: The City of Andover Hunting
Map attached to this Ordinance and on file in the office of the City Clerk
shall establish zones where the discharge of firearms or bows are
permitted. Said map and language contained and stated on the map shall
become part of this section. No discharge of firearms or bows for the
purpose of hunting shall be permitted except in compliance with the
regulations of the State of Minnesota, the designated areas established on
the City of Andover Hunting Map, the restrictions of this section and the
following (Ord. 394, 7-6-10):
1. Restricted Zone North:
a) A minimum property size of ten acres is required for the
discharge of firearms for the purpose of hunting or target shooting.
(Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
b) A minimum property size of 2.5 acres is required for the
discharge of a bow for the purpose of hunting or target shooting.
(Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
2. Restricted Zone South:
a) A minimum property size of forty acres is required for the
discharge of firearms for the purpose of hunting deer. (Ord. 394, 7-
6-10)
b) Permit To Hunt Deer:
1. Permit Required: An individual annual or seasonal permit
is required by the city for the discharge of firearms for the
purpose of hunting deer with a shotgun (slug only) in
Restricted Zone South. Only landowners or
immediate family members as defined in this
Ordinance are eligible for this permit. (Amended Ord. 240,
10-6- 1998, eff. 1-1-1999; amd. 2003 Code; Amended Ord.
394, 7-6-10)
2. Consent Of Property Owners: A request for such permit
shall be accompanied by written permission from fifty
percent (50%) or more of the adjacent landowners.
3. Conditions Of Issuance: Such permit shall only be issued
under the terms consistent with this section and all
applicable state and federal laws and regulations concerning
the hunting of deer via firearm and discharge of firearms
shall occur no closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any
urban development, park or institutional use. (Amended
Ord. 394, 7-6-10; Amended Ord. 504, 3/17/20)
c) A minimum property size of ten acres is required for the
discharge of firearms for the purpose of hunting geese during Early
Goose Season and waterfowl during the Regular Waterfowl Season
as regulated by the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 394, 7-610)
d) A minimum property size of 2.5 acres is required for the
discharge of a bow for the purpose of hunting or target shooting.
(Ord. 394, 7-6-10)
3. Prohibited Zone:
a) The discharge of firearms and bows are prohibited. (Ord. 394,
76-10)
G. Exemptions From Provisions:
1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the discharge of
firearms, rifles or handguns when done in the lawful defense of persons or
property. No part of this section is intended to abridge the constitutional
right to keep and bear arms.
2. The City Council may approve an exemption to this section, with
reasonable conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare, to allow
the discharge of firearms and bows for the following (Amended Ord. 410,
7-6-11):
a. For the purpose of managing and controlling wildlife
populations, provided the hunt has received support from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (Amended Ord.
410, 7-6-11)
For target shooting as an accessory use to a retail business or
as a special event or competition. (Amended Ord. 410, 7-6-11)
c. For law enforcement training purposes. (Amended Ord. 410, 7-
6-11)
H. Violation; Penalty: Any person who violates any provision of this section
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished according to state law. (Amended Ord. 240, 10-6-1998, eff. 1-
1-1999)
c t T v o r
9 N660R
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 Administra
FROM:
Joe Janish, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss City -Wide Housing Density Allocation — Planning
DATE: April 26, 2022
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider discussion related to Future Land Use Density Increase/Reduction areas.
UPDATE
During the March 29, 2022 Council Workshop, City Council questioned if it is possible to reduce the number of
areas guided higher density if density is increased for a project at the intersection of Crosstown Blvd. and Hanson
Blvd. Based on the current Future Land Use Map the intersection at Crosstown Blvd. and Hanson Blvd. is
expected to have around 82 units (64 units for residential and 18 units for commercial). If a multi -family project
of 270 units at this location occurred the city would realize an additional 206 residential units then currently
planned.
In reviewing the Future Land Use Map 2.4 for possible density reduction locations the City Council may want to
consider the following factors:
1. Does the increase in density allow for a more favorable development? Higher density was identified in
areas that would require multiple parcels to be acquired. Allowing for more density allows for a
developer to spend more to keep the costs down on a unit to unit basis.
2. Does the reduction in density impact possible affordable housing? Affordable housing was allocated by
the Met Council based on growth projections during the planning period. This was also then broken
down into two 10 year increments as required by Met Council.
Potential Reduction Areas:
Areas identified by letters. These locations (A through E) where identified to help increase the units per
acre to meet the minimum requirement of 3 units per acre. The Met Council only "counts" the lowest
number within the density range to determine the communities overall density when reviewing
comprehensive plans. In order to show that the parcels would develop above 2.4 units per acre
additional density was planned on the parcels. Several of these areas also have been placed in areas that
would require the acquisition of existing homes by a developer. Existing homes tend to increase the
development cost vs. raw land.
A. Adjacent to Railroad tracks and Andover Blvd. This area designates 7.5 acres to have density of
4 units vs. 2.4 units per acre. If this is reduced to be entirely guided for 2.4 units an overall
reduction of 12 units would occur.
B. This area is currently preliminary platted as part of Fields at Winslow Cove. This area
currently "hits" the target of the Future Land Use density.
C. This area is part of Meadow Creek Church and designates 3.5 acres to be at 4 units per acre. If
this is reduced to 2.4 units per acre an overall reduction of 5.6 units would occur.
D. This area is part of Riverdale Assembly of God and designates 7 acres to have a density of 4
units vs. 2.4 units per acre. If this is reduced to be entirely guided for 2.4 units an overall
reduction of 11.2 units would occur.
E. Located at the intersection of Prairie Road and Andover Blvd. this area designates 5 acres to
have a density of 4 units vs. 2.4 units per acre. If this is reduced to be entirely guided for 2.4
units an overall reduction of 8 units would occur. A reduction at this site may make it more
difficult to assemble the land for future development as many parcels currently have homes.
If the Future Land Use Map was modified to include reduce all but `B" the area know known as Fields
at Winslow Cove, the City would see a reduction of 36.8 units.
2. Reduction of areas currently identified as Urban Residential Medium Low URML (4 to 8 units per
acre . Changes within this category impact only the overall density of the community. This will impact
the 3 units per acre we are required to meet as part of the Metropolitan Council's requirements.
a. Constance Free Church. The density in this area was identified to help preserve the units for this
site. The City could in theory reduce this number but did not reallocate this when asked at the
time of Villas at Crosstown Woods. The area currently mapped as URML is 9.2 acres (36.8
units).
b. Round Lake Blvd & Round Lake. The density in this location was identified due to the
acquisition of additional parcels with homes and the complexity of development. The additional
density was placed in order to assist with the expected higher costs of development. The "North"
side is showing 4.5 acres (18 units) and the "South" side is showing 12.5 acres (50) units.
c. Bunker Lake Blvd. & Gladiola Lane (Sloth Property). The density in this location was identified
due to the location of the Crooked Lake, Boat Launch and past interest in having smaller lots and
more units. This property was recently listed for sale.
3. Reduction of areas currently identified as Urban Residential Medium URM (8 to 12 units per acre)
Changes within this category impact the overall density of the community and our affordable target.
This will impact the 3 units per acre we are required to meet as part of the Metropolitan Council's
requirements and impact the number of potentially affordable housing target number.
a. Sledding Hill. The density in this area was identified to help meet the affordable target and timing
component of the Comprehensive Plan. A reduction on this site would reduce the number of
units by 37.6 (8 units x 4.7 acres). If changed, staff would suggest changing it to commercial vs.
another residential district. This may also require the City of Andover to reevaluate Figure 2.6
Sewer Staging and Land Use by Acreage.
b. Bunker Lake Blvd. Redevelopment Area. The density in this area was identified to help meet the
affordable target and timing component of the Comprehensive Plan. The current Future Land
Use calls for 8.8 acres to have a density of 8 units per acre. The four plexes currently provide for
an 8 unit per acre density.
Lim
Bunker Lake Blvd. & 71 Avenue (Sonsteby Property). The density in this area was identified to
help meet the affordable target and timing component of the Comprehensive Plan. 1 acre is
called out as URM (8 units).
4. Reduction of areas currently identified as Urban Residential High Low URHL (12 to 20 units per acrel
ea
Anoka County Site. The density in this area was identified to allow for a drop in density for
Andover Village through a comprehensive Plan Amendment. This site is 5 acres in size. and
could have 60 units on the property.
5. Reduction of areas currently identified as Urban Residential High URHL (20 to 25 units er acre).
a. CenterPoint Energy Site. This density was identified to assist with the overall 3 units per acre
and provide a large component of our affordable target.
SUMMARY
Overall, an increase in density in one area of the City would allow for a reduction in another. Maintaining a
higher overall density above 3 units per acre allows for a reductions on site specific areas in the future if
developers and the City determine that the minimum density is not attainable during development review.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff is looking for direction on the desire of City Council to offset a potential increase.
Res PDevelo
ted,
JoeCmmpment Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Future Land Use Map
Y O F
OTV L
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.AN DOVE RM N.GOV
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrato
FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Publicorks/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Discuss Crosstown Blvd. NW Trail/23-12 —Engineering
DATE: April 26. 2022
INTRODUCTION8
The City Council is requested to discuss Project 23-12, Crosstown Boulevard NW Trail.
0
DISCUSSION
Crosstown Boulevard Trail construction is identified in the Andover Capital Improvement plan
for construction in 2023. Due to the complexity of the design and right-of-way constraints staff
has begun preliminary design to evaluate possible locations, layout and design possibilities to
construct the trail. There is right-of-way constraints and tree removal impact that will need to be
discussed with the City Council along with design options for certain segments of the trail. The
detail information will be presented and discussed at the meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on how to proceed with the Crosstown
Boulevard Trail layout and design.
Respectfully submitted,
David D. Berkowitz
Attach: Location Map
Capital Improvement Plan
Project Name: TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
CROSSTOWN BLVD TRAIL - 159TH AVE TO XEON ST
(2023)
Legend
OProject Location
= Lots/Parcels
® Park
Water
® City Limits
O umenl PaW
0
250 500 750
Feet
C I T Y O F
ND OVE.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO:
CC:
L101U_
Mayor and Council Members
Jim Dickinson, City
David D. Berkowitz, Director of Pub` fc Works/City Engineer >-t)
0
SUBJECT: Discuss Discuss Dalske Woodlands Preserve Pedestrian Crossing Study/22-19 —
Engineering
DATE: April 26. 2022
INTRODUCTION8
The City Council is requested to discuss Project 22-19, Dalske Woodlands Preserve Pedestrian
Crossing Study.
DISCUSSION
At a previous City Council workshop, staff was directed to have an engineering firm do a study
and cost analysis for the potential crossing at Dalske Woodlands Preserve. The crossing has been
an ongoing need for several years, as the south upland area is currently inaccessible because of
the County ditch. Constructing a boardwalk or similar crossing would allow for full access to the
preserve.
The study and analysis was completed, and that helped the City provide a detailed cost estimate
in its application for a grant under the DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program.
BUDGETIMPACT
If the City was awarded the grant, it will fund up to 50% of the total project cost. The remainder
would need to be funded by Capital Equipment Reserve.
Otherwise, the proposed crossing is in the City's 2026 CIP.
ACTION REQUIRED
The City Council is requested to discuss Project 22-19, Dalske Woodlands Preserve Pedestrian
Crossing.
Respectfully submitted,
David D. Berkowitz
Attachment: Dalske Woodlands Ditch Crossing Alternatives
WSO
Memorandum
To: Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E.
From: Robert Reed, P.E.
Jeff Feulner, PLA
Roxy Robertson, Senior Environmental Scientist
Date: April 26, 2022
Re: WSB Project No. 019810-000
Dalske Woodlands Ditch Crossing Alternatives
Project Summary
This memorandum presents the results of WSB's site and permit requirements review and bridge
type study for an approximately 150 feet long pedestrian crossing over County Ditch 71 Tributary
in the Dalske Woodlands Nature Preserve in Andover, MN (Figure 1, as attached).
Site Location and Conditions
0
The County Ditch 71 Tributary runs approximately East/West through the Dalske Woodlands
Nature Preserve, separating the North area of the preserve from the South area of the preserve.
". The City of Andover is proposing to build a pedestrian trail crossing over the ditch to facilitate
recreational access to the southern portion of the preserve as well as provide access for City of
Andover light maintenance equipment such as lawn mowers. The ditch is in a recognized wetland
area according to the National Wetlands Inventory, and the new bridge would span these
N wetlands. The proposed bridge location is shown below.
Z
i
N
J
0
o.
W
Z
Z
E
Project Location of New Trail Bridge
K:1019810-0OOVWominlDoos1019810-000 Dalske Woodlands Cm ing Smdy Memorandum-mj.dccz
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 2
The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area shows a 100 -year flood elevation for the ditch
to be Elevation 900 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
LiDAR topography of the area indicates that the existing ground at the ends of the proposed
bridge would be at approximately the same elevation The UDAR topography in the vicinity of the
bridge is shown in the image below:
WSB performed two soil borings as part of this project. Boring logs show that the soils in the area
are predominately loose to very loose, fine grained sand with relatively low strength.
Crossing Alternatives
From both a permitting and a structural perspective, WSB considered both elevated (above the
water surface) and non -elevated (resting on the wetlands ground). Non -elevated alternatives
were eliminated early in the evaluation process due to the following considerations:
The low strength of the wet, silty topsoil underlain by loose sand greatly limits the load carrying
capacity of structures placed directly on the ground. Settlements from the organic soils within the
wetland would likely be significant. Any removal of organics to allow placement of suitable
structural soils would alter the wetland system
Settlement of structures placed directly on the ground would likely necessitate annual or even
more frequent adjustments to the structures. Silty sands and sands that contain organics would
be considered highly frost susceptible. These soils can heave significantly when wet and they
become frozen. The movement of the ground surface due to freeze / thaw cydes and varied
moisture levels will typically lead to increased maintenance and repairs as well as a reduced
lifespan for the structure.
• Floating structures which would rise with the water levels can experience vertical
movement and rocking when crossed and may be unsteady for users and are unsuitable
for equipment crossing.
• Placement of a non -elevated structure could be seen as altering the wetland's function or
value, posing a permitting risk, and possibly requiring mitigation.
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 3
For the reasons listed above, the following options were not carried forward for further evaluation
as part of this study:
• Non -elevated boardwalk placed directly on the ground through the wetlands.
• Floating boardwalk, which also prevents stability and has weight restriction limitations.
• Embankment crossing with culverts.
While these types of structures are typically less expensive and install with fewer initial impacts to
the surroundings, the increased maintenance, reduced stability and shorter lifespan would make
for a less effective long-term crossing in this area for the desired use pedestrian and light
equipment crossing.
For elevated structures, the crossing would require the placement of some minor fill material
approximately 5 feet high at the bridge approaches to achieve approximately 1 foot of freeboard
above the 100 -year flood elevation. This fill would be placed outside of the wetland boundaries.
Bridge substructures supporting either a prefabricated truss or a concrete superstructure would
need to be high -displacement piling such as cast -in-place concete piles, or prestressed concrete
piles. A timber boardwalk would most likely be supported on helical piles.
For the purpose of this study, WSB assumes that the bridge would be designed for a pedestrian
loading of 90 pounds per square foot and a 5,000 pound vechicle load in accordance with the
AASHTO Design Recommendations for Pedestrian Bridges. This loading would allow small
maintenance vehicles to cross the structure.
WSB considered the following crossing options as part of this study:
• Prefabricated steel truss bridge.
• Wood boardwalk with helical piles.
• Precast, rectangular concrete girder bridge with pile -bent piers.
The costs presented below represent a budgetary estimate of construction costs only.
Engineering and permitting costs are not included in the costs below.
Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge
Prefabricated steel truss bridges are designed and furnished by specialty vendors, such as
Contech Engineered Solutions and Wheeler, are available with both wood and concrete decks,
and would have the advantage of being to cross the wetland area in a single span, without any
intermediate piers. A typical prefabricated truss bridge is shown below.
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 4
A prefabricated truss bridge would need significant, pile -supported, concrete abutments at the
ends of the bridge to support the bridge self -weight and design loads.
Pros
Cons
Single span crossing eliminates
Significant, pile -supported, concrete
obstructions/construction in the waterway.
abutments required.
Quick installation of prefabricated
Heavy construction equipment required for
superstructure.
construction.
Aesthetically pleasing structure.
High cost.
Constructed from low -maintenance self -
weathering steel.
Allows for pedestrian, bicycle and heavier
maintenance equipment crossing.
Estimated Construction Cost:
Superstructure:
$ 273,000
Substructure:
$ 27,000
Approach Fill:
$ 34,000
30% Contingency:
$ 100,000
Total:
$ 434,000
Wooden Boardwalk
A wooden boardwalk structure would be a multi -span wood -decked structure with timber
stringers, and timber pier caps supported on helical piles. Based on the soil boring information
collected on site, helical piers to depths of 10-15 feet below grade would support approximately
5,000 psf each. WSB estimates that the boardwalk would be a 10 -span structure. As noted in the
site study section of this memorandum below, helical pilings are not typically considered wetland
fill. An example of a wooden boardwalk is shown below:
Boardwalk on Helical Piles
1 X1.2 i I. I..L:
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 5
Estimated Construction Cost
Boardwalk:
$105,000
Pilin typically not considered wetland fill.
Piling tYp y
Higher maintenance, particularly of wooden
deck planks.
Can be installed with smaller equipment than
prefabricated truss or precast beam bridge.
Longer construction time than prefabricated
truss bridge.
Matches nature trail aesthetic well.
$149,500
Maintenance can be performed by City
maintenance staff.
Lowest initial cost option.
Superstructure can be wood or steel.
Estimated Construction Cost
Boardwalk:
$105,000
Approach Fill:
$ 10,000
30% Contingency:
$ 34,500
Total:
$149,500
Precast Concrete Beam Bridge on Pile Bent Piers
A precast concrete beam bridge would consist of a cast -in-place or precast concrete deck
supported on rectangular precast, prestressed concrete beams. The beams would span between
pile bent piers with cast -in-place concrete pier caps. Due to the sandy soils, piling would most
likely be cast -in-place concrete piles or precast concrete piles. It is anticipated that a four -span
structure would be required. As with the wooden boardwalk structure, the pilings would not
typically be counted as wetland fill.
A typical precast concrete beam bridge is shown below:
Precast Beam Bridge
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 6
Pros
Cons
Piling typically not considered wetland fill.
Fairly substantial concrete substructures
required.
Low maintenance concrete structure.
Fairly substantial concrete substructures
required.
$105,000
High Cost.
$454,000
Heavy construction equipment required for
5
construction.
Estimated Construction Cost
Superstructure: $263,000
Substructure:
$ 52,000
Approach Fill:
$ 34,000
30% Contingency
$105,000
Total:
$454,000
Site Review and Permitting Requirements
To evaluate the approximate location of the wetland boundary at the crossing site, we gathered
published information relating to soils, topography, hydrology, physiography, ecology, and plant
communities. The following resources were reviewed:
LiDAR derived topography (Figure 2, as attached).
Anoka County Soil Survey (Figure 3, as attached).
National Wetlands Inventory (Figure 4, as attached).
Public Waters Inventory, (Figure 5, as attached).
Potential Aquatic Resources Boundary (Figure 6, as attached).
Topography
The area slopes towards the large depressional wetlands that contains County Ditch 71 at the
proposed crossing location with elevations ranging from 900 to 908 feet above sea level (Figure
2, as attached).
Soils
Table 1, as attached, includes information from the Anoka County Soil Survey within the project
area (Figure 3, as attached):
Table 1: Soil Survev of Anoka Countv
S Mmbol
Soil Unit Name
Percent
dect
Hydric Rating
Iw
Isanti fine sandy loam
93
Predominantly hydric
LnA
Lino loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
5
Predominantly non -hydric
Ma
Markey muck, occasionally ponded, 0 to 1
100
All hydric
percent slopes
Rf
Rifle mucky peat
100
All hydric
ZmB
Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent
2
Predominantly non -hydric
slopes
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 7
National Wetland Inventory
The National Wetlands Inventory (MNDNR 2019) shows the following wetland types within the
project area: PEM1C, PEM1B, and PFO1A (Figure 4, as attached).
DNR Public Waters
The DNR Public Waters Inventory shows two public water wetlands: unnamed basin 02070200
and unnamed basin 02038800. One non -DNR stream MAJ-070135677B (County Ditch 71) is
also located within the project area near the proposed crossing location_(Figure 5, as attached).
Desktop Delineation
After review of the available desktop information, there are three potential wetlands within close
proximity of the proposed crossing location. The approximate boundaries/centerlines of potential
aquatic resources available onsite are shown on Figure 6, as attached.
The three wetlands identified during the desktop review were present on NWI maps and were
located within depressions. The large wetland that spans the length of County Ditch 71 appears
to be mix of Type 2 (Fresh Wet Meadow), Type 6 (Shrub swamp) and Type 7 (Wooded Swamp)
wetland, and the wetland at the north end of the project area appears to be a Type 2 (Fresh Wet
Meadow) and Type 3 (Shallow Marsh).
Based on aerial imagery, soils, and NWI data, the wetland boundary of the wetland along County
Ditch 71 followed the 900 feet elevation contour. The wetlands at the north end of the project area
followed the 901 feet elevation contour.
The one non -DNR stream MAJ-070135677 was identified as County Ditch 71 on the DNR
hydrography dataset as shown on Figure 6, as attached. The ditch runs east to west.
Permits
Table 2, as attached, includes local, state, and federal permits that may be needed for the
construction of the project.
Table 2: Potential Permits and A roval Require
Regulatory
Agency
Project
Trigger
Type of
Permit
Review
Timeline
Circumstances
for Permit
US Army
Corps
Work in a
Water the
Section 404
60-90
Any discharge of dredged or fill
Engineers
US suchh as
Clean Water
days
material into waters of the United
(USACE)
CD 71
Act
States, including wetlands.
To construct, reconstruct,
remove, abandon, transfer
ownership of, or make any
Work in a
change in a reservoir, dam, or
Department of
mapped
waterway obstruction on public
Natural
Public Water
Public
45-150
waters; or change or diminish the
Resources
such as
Waters Work
days
course, current, or cross section
(DNR)
unnamed
Permit
of public waters, entirely or
basin
partially within the state, by any
02070200
means, including filling,
excavating, or placing of
materials in or on the beds of
public waters.
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 8
Regulatory
Project
Type of
Review
Circumstances
Agency
Tri er
Permit
Timeline
for Permit
If project area
NPDES
Any construction activity
Minnesota
disturbs 1
Construction
90 days
disturbing one or more acre of
Pollution
acre or more
Stormwater
soil
of soil
Permit
Control
Agency
Section 401
Same as
(MPCA)
Linked to
Water
USACE
If Section 404 permit is required
USACE permit
Quality
permit
Certification
Cut or fill
Any activity that will impact a
Lower Rum
within a
WCA
60 days
wetland.
wetland
River
Watershed
Grading,
Any project affecting the course,
Management
Stormwater
current, cross section, or quality
Organization
Work within
Management
of surface water features
(LRRWMO)
CD 71
and Erosion/
affecting drainage, conveyance,
Sediment
retention or detention of water
Control
Types of Crossings and Effects on Resources
Single Span Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge: This type of crossing might avoid impacts to
wetlands and the county ditch but would still need a permit for work within or above Public Waters
if DNR assumes that the unnamed basin 02070200 extends into the project area. This option may
also require a watershed permit and an NPDES permit.
Wooden Boardwalk on Helical Piles: Pilings and posts for this type of crossing may not be
regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) scope, as post and pilings are not
considered wetland fill unless a wetland is turned into a non -aquatic use or significantly alters the
wetland's function and value. Any other temporary or permanent filling or excavation of wetland
will be subject to WCA wetland rules. The project may qualify for a Nationwide Permit from the
USACE. This type of structure may not require any mitigation by the WCA or USACE. A permit
would still be needed from the DNR for work within a Public Water if the DNR assumes that the
unnamed basin 02070200 extends to the project area. This option may also require a watershed
permit and an NPDES permit.
Precast Beam Bridge: The installation of the cast -in-place piers may require a replacement plan
from the WCA rather than qualify for the post and pilings exemption noted under the boardwalk
above. It is likely that the impact footprint from the piers would be small enough to qualify for a
Nationwide Permit from the USACE and may not require federal mitigation. A DNR Public Waters
Work Permit would be required for working in and above a Public Water is the DNR assumes that
the unnamed basin 02070200 extends to the project area. This option may also require a
watershed district permit and an NPDES permit.
Special Considerations
Tree Removal: Minimal tree removal is ideal in this location to reduce urban heat island effects,
noise impacts and flooding.
Noise: Construction may temporarily increase noise disturbance within the area due to grading,
city construction noise ordinances will need to be adhered to.
Dust and Odors: Odors during construction can be mitigated by maintenance of all applicable
construction equipment and by using appropriate fuel additives when necessary. Grading and
construction will generate dust. Construction dust control is required to be conformance with the
City of Andover ordinances.
Mr. David Berkowitz, P.E., City of Andover
April 26, 2022
Page 9
Fish and Wildlife Populations: A query of the USFWS IPaC system, the Minnesota State
Natural Heritage Information System, and Minnesota Biological Survey might be needed to
understand the extent of fish, wildlife, plant communities and sensitive ecological resources within
or in close proximity to the proposed crossing location.
Wetlands: A level 2 (onsite) wetland delineation is needed to confirm the presence and location
of wetlands within the project area. County Ditch 71 (MAJ-070215549) within the project area
may fall under the jurisdiction of the County or the COE, which will be determined by the agencies
after an onsite delineation report is submitted and approved by the Local Government Unit.
Erosion Control: The proposed crossing location is within the Dalske Woodlands Preserve and
as such, wildlife friendly erosion control is recommended for the construction of this project. The
use of flexible biodegradable netting (natural fiber, biodegrade polyesters, etc.), and/or nettings
with rectangular shaped mesh will be beneficial to wildlife within the area. Other erosion control
options such as open weave textile (OWT), rolled erosion control products (RECPS) with woven
natural fiber netting are also ideal for usage within environmentally sensitive areas.
Sincerely,
WSB
Jeff h
er
Sr. andArchitect
Attachments
Geotechnical Report
Figures 1-6
mi
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
c �' �•. `�
r:� �, FI'
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
DALSKE BRIDGE
FOR
CITY OF ANDOVER
April 13, 2022
wsb
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 018810-000
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Mark W. Osborn, PE
Date: A013, 2022 Lie. No. 41362
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810-000
►gym
April 13, 2022
Attn: Kameron Kytonen
Natural Resources
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No.: 019810-000
We have conducted a geotechnical subsurface exploration program for the above referenced
project. This report contains our soil boring logs, an evaluation of the conditions encountered in
the borings and our recommendations for bridge foundations and abutment, and other
geotechnical related design and construction considerations.
If you have questions concerning this report or our recommendations, or for construction material
testing for this project, please call us at 952.737.4660.
Sincerely,
WSB
Mark Osborn, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Attachment:
Geotechnical Report
MWO/tw
Joe Carlson, PE
Geotechnical Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
CERTIFICATION SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Description....................................................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Project Scope of Services....................................................................................1
2.
PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Boring Layout and Soil Sampling Procedures...........................................................................2
2.2 Groundwater Measurements and Borehole Abandonment.......................................................2
2.3 Boring Log Procedures and Qualifications................................................................................2
3.
EXPLORATION RESULTS..................................................................................................................3
3.1 Site and Geology.......................................................................................................................3
3.2 Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions..........................................................................3
3.3 Strength Characteristics............................................................................................................3
3.4 Groundwater Conditions............................................................................................................4
3.5 Estimated Subgrade Soil Properties.........................................................................................4
4.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................5
4.1 Discussion.................................................................................................................................5
4.2 Shallow Foundations.................................................................................................................5
4.3 Deep Foundations.....................................................................................................................6
4.4 Backfill and Fill Selection and Compaction...............................................................................7
4.5 Trail Pavement Area..................................................................................................................7
4.6 Dewatering.................................................................................................................................8
4.7 Construction Considerations.....................................................................................................8
4.8 Construction Safety...................................................................................................................8
4.9 Cold Weather Construction.......................................................................................................8
4.10 Field Observation and Testing...................................................................................................8
4.11 Plan Review and Remarks........................................................................................................9
5.
STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................................................10
Appendix A
Soil Boring Exhibit
Logs of Test Borings
Symbols and Terminology on Test Boring Log
Notice to Report Users Boring Log Information
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810.000
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Location
The site is located within the Dalske Woodlands located south of the extension of 181st Avenue NW and
east of Cedar Drive NW / Palm Street NW in Andover, Minnesota. The approximate soil boring locations
can be found on the Soil Boring Exhibit in Appendix A.
1.2 Project Description
It is proposed to construct a new bridge across the wetlands to connect an adjacent area of the
woodlands. This bridge shall be able to support an automobile or light pickup truck for park maintenance
crews. We understand the area around the bridge will remain near existing elevations.
WSB has developed foundation recommendations for this project in consideration of the proposed layout,
loadings, and structural configurations as understood at this time. When the designer develops additional
information about final design structural loadings, configuration, or other significant factors, the
recommendations presented herein may no longer apply. WSB should be made aware of the revised or
additional information in order to evaluate the recommendations for continued applicability.
1.3 Purpose and Project Scope of Services
The City of Andover authorized this scope of service. In order to assist the design team in preparing
plans and specifications, we have developed recommendations for designing foundations and trail
pavement areas. As such, we have completed a subsurface exploration program and prepared a
geotechnical report for the referenced site. This stated purpose was a significant factor in determining the
scope and level of service provided. Should the purpose of the report change the report immediately
ceases to be valid and use of it without WSB's prior review and written authorization should be at the
user's sole risk.
Our authorized scope of work has been limited to:
1. Clearing underground utilities utilizing Gopher State One Call.
2. Mobilization / demobilization of an all -terrain track mounted drill rig.
3. Drilling 1 standard penetration borings to 15 -foot depths.
4. Drilling 1 standard penetration borings to 30 -foot depths.
5. Sealing the borings per Minnesota Department of Health procedures.
6. Perform soil classification and analysis.
7. Review of available project information and geologic data.
8. Providing this geotechnical report containing:
a. Summary of our findings.
b. Discussion of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and how they may affect the
proposed bridge foundations.
c. Estimated allowable bearing capacity of the soils.
d. Estimated excavation depths to suitable soils.
e. A discussion of soils for use as structural fill and site fill.
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810.000
Page 1
2. PROCEDURES
2.1 Boring Layout and Soil Sampling Procedures
WSB completed 2 standard penetration soil borings at the project site. Initially it was requested to drill
one boring at each bridge abutment. However, due to site limitations the drill rig could not access the far
bank and therefore both borings were drilled on the north side of the bridge. WSB recommended the
boring depths and selected the desired locations. Our field crew staked the borings based on the
proposed location of the bridge on the supplied site plan. The borings were located with a handheld GPS
device for horizontal locations. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Soil Boring Exhibit in
Appendix A which is an aerial photo. The ground surface elevations at the borings were estimated by
using LIDAR data with 2 -foot contours. These maps should be accurate to within +/- one foot (1')
provided ground surface modifications at this site have not been completed since LIDAR data was
obtained.
We completed the borings on March 9, 2022, with an all -terrain track mounted CME -55 drill rig operated
by a two -person crew. The drill crew advanced the borings using continuous hollow stem augers. The
drilling information is provided on the boring logs.
Generally, the drill crew sampled the soil in advance of the auger tip at two and one-half (2'/) foot
intervals to a depth of 15 feet and then at five (5) foot intervals thereafter to the termination depth of the
boring. The soil samples were obtained using a split -barrel sampler which was driven into the ground
during standard penetration tests in accordance with ASTM D 1586, Standard Method of Penetration Test
and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils. The materials encountered were described on field logs and
representative samples were containerized and transported to our laboratory for further observation and
testing.
The samples were visually observed to estimate the distribution of grain sizes, plasticity, consistency,
moisture condition, color, presence of lenses and seams, and apparent geologic origin. We classified the
soils according to type using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A chart describing the USCS
is included in Appendix A.
2.2 Groundwater Measurements and Borehole Abandonment
The drill crew observed the borings for free groundwater while drilling and after completion of the borings.
These observations and measurements are noted on the boring logs. The crew then backfilled the
borings to comply with Minnesota Department of Health regulations.
2.3 Boring Log Procedures and Qualifications
The subsurface conditions encountered by the borings are illustrated on the Logs of Test Borings in
Appendix A. Similar soils were grouped into the strata shown on the boring logs, and the appropriate
estimated USCS classification symbols were also added. The depths and thickness of the subsurface
strata indicated on the boring logs were estimated from the drilling results.
The transition between materials (horizontal and vertical) is approximate and is usually far more gradual
than shown. Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific locations indicated
and is relevant only to the time exploration was performed. Subsurface conditions and groundwater
levels at other locations may differ from conditions found at the indicated locations. The nature and
extent of these conditions would not become evident until exposed by construction excavation. These
stratification lines were used for our analytical purposes and due to the aforementioned limitations, should
not be used as a basis of design or construction cost estimates.
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810.000
Page 2
3. EXPLORATION RESULTS
3.1 Site and Geology
The site was snow covered at the time of drilling. Site access assistance was provided by the City of
Andover, who plowed a road through the snow to each boring location. Based on Google Earth, the site
is woodlands that borders on marshland.
Boring elevations ranged from 900 to 902 feet and indicate the site slopes to the south towards the
marshland.
Geologic origins can be difficult to determine solely from boring samples. We referenced online geologic
data of the area and used our experience to help determine geologic origin of the soils, however only a
detailed geologic exploration would accurately determine the geologic history of the site.
The Anoka County Geologic Atlas indicates the surficial geology of the area is mostly lacustrine deposits
that consist of fine to medium grained sands, silty in places. Scattered lenses of silt and silty clay occur
at depth. Gravelly sands may be encountered near the surface. The upper few feet of sand have
commonly been reworked by wind.
The nearby marshland is indicated to be peat and muck deposits consisting of partially decomposed plant
matter. These include fine grained organic matter laid down in ponded water and marl at depth in places.
3.2 Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions
The boring profile generally consisted of topsoil overlying lacustrine sand deposits.
Topsoil
The topsoil encountered consisted of sands with silt and organics or organic silty sands. These soils
were brown to gray to black in color and generally moist to wet.
Lacustrine Deposits
The lacustrine sands, sands with silt, and silty sands encountered were generally fine grained. These
soils were grayish brown to gray in color.
3.3 Strength Characteristics
The penetration resistance N -values of the materials encountered were recorded during drilling and are
indicated as blows per foot (BPF). Those values provide an indication of soil strength characteristics and
are located on the boring log sheets. Also, visual -manual classification techniques and apparent moisture
contents were also utilized to make an engineering judgment of the consistency of the materials.
Table 1 presents a summary of the penetration resistances in the soils for the borings completed and
remarks regarding the material strengths of the soils.
Table 1: Penetration Resistances
Soil Type
Classification
Penetration
Resistances
Remarks
Lacustrine
SP -SM
WH to 14 BPF
Very loose to medium dense
WH indicates the weight of the hammer advanced the sampler 18 inches.
The preceding is a generalized description of soil conditions at this site. Variations from the generalized
profile exist and should be assessed from the boring logs, the normal geologic character of the deposits,
and the soils uncovered during site excavation.
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810.000
Page 3
3.4 Groundwater Conditions
WSB took groundwater level readings in the exploratory borings, reviewed the data obtained, and
discussed its interpretation of the data in the text of the report. Note that groundwater levels may
fluctuate due to seasonal variations (e.g. precipitation, snowmelt, and rainfall) and/or other factors not
evident at the time of measurement.
Table 2 below is a summary of the estimated water levels at our borings.
Table 2: Groundwater Measurements
Boring No.
Ground Surface
Estimated Depth
Estimated Groundwater Elevation*
Average
"M'
Value
Elevation
to Groundwater
P -y Soil
Modulus - k
(PCO
PB -1
902
7
895
PB -2
900
5
895
cievations are rounded to the highest 72 toot.
Gray colored soils were encountered in the borings Gray colored soils can be an indication of long-term
saturation conditions and could show potential groundwater elevations. The shallow groundwater could
present an issue to excavations and placement of foundations. The site is adjacent to marshland, and we
would expect groundwater to be shallow.
The bore holes were only left open a short period of time, and groundwater levels may not have
stabilized.
3.5 Estimated Subgrade Soil Properties
Based on the soil N -values and limited laboratory testing completed we have provided estimates of the
subgrade soil properties for use in foundation design.
Table 3 below indicates our estimated soil parameters.
Table 3. Estimated Soil Parameters
Boring
Depth
(feet)
Material
(USCS)
Effective
Unit
Weight
Average
"M'
Value
Transient Loads
Sustained Loads
P -y Soil
Modulus - k
(PCO
Cohesion
(ksf)
Friction
Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
(ksf)
Friction
Angle
(degrees)
B-1
1.5-7
SM
120
13
0
29
0
29
50 pcf
7-7.5
SM
60*
12
0
29
0
29
20 pcf
7.5-16
SP
45*
3
28
0
28
20 pcf
B-2
1.5-5
SP -SM
115
11
29
0
29
50 pcf
5-7
SP -SM
50*
10
1(('10
29
0
29
20 pcf
7-31
SP
45*
5
29 1
0
29
20 pcf
"here oeiow the grounawater taDle these values have been reduced by approximately 62.4 pcf
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810-000
Page 4
4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Discussion
The topsoil materials would not be suitable for support of bridge foundations or abutments, or any
pavement areas. We anticipate excavation of the topsoil will occur in all structural areas or where fill is
placed.
The lacustrine sands, sands with silt, and silty sands encountered are generally suitable to support light to
moderate foundation loads. These soils were generally loose and may require surficial compaction for
soil densification.
It is our opinion that groundwater will be encountered at very shallow depths based on the soil borings
and they proximity to the adjacent wetland.
Generally, the soils in the upper 4 feet of the subgrade influence pavement performance the most. The
soils within the pavement subgrade included some silty sands, which are frost susceptible soils.
Consideration should be given to partially subcutting these soils and replacing with a non -frost
susceptible granular fill to reduce the potential frost heave below any pavement or slab section.
4.2 Shallow Foundations
We recommend removal of the topsoil from the construction area. Loose/loosened sands either at
bottom of footing or slab subgrade elevations should be surface compacted with a large vibratory roller
having a drum diameter of at least five feet (5') and a static dead weight of at least ten (10) tons prior to
placement of engineered fill and backfill or concrete. Surficial compaction may require dewatering.
Alternately to surficial compaction, partial removal of the wet sands and replacement with 3 -inch clear
rock would provide for a more suitable foundation base.
At the base of footing excavations, if any clays or silts are encountered they should be subcut. The sub -
excavations should be oversized by at least one foot (1') beyond the edge of footings for each foot of
depth below the bottom of footing elevations (1 -horizontal to 1 -vertical lateral oversizing). Because the
depth and lateral extent of the sub -excavations will vary away from our borings, we recommend a
qualified engineering technician working under the direction of a registered professional geotechnical
engineer observe and test the excavation bases during construction.
Based on the borings, it appears that the on-site sand and sand with silt soils can generally be reused as
structural backfill provided they are moisture conditioned and can be compacted to project specifications.
We recommend that the structure in this development be supported on conventional spread footings
bearing on naturally occurring lacustrine sands that are surface compacted, or upon engineered fill.
Based on the borings and the recommendations of this report, it is our opinion the footings throughout
may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure not to exceed 3,000 pounds per square foot
(pso.
The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads with design live load conditions. The
design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads which include
wind or seismic conditions.
Frost protection should follow Minnesota Administrative Rules 1305.1809.
The factor of safety against shear or bearing capacity failure for this footing design would be three (3) or
greater. If the site is prepared as recommended, we estimate that total and differential settlements
(across a 30 -foot span) corresponding to our assumed structural loads would be less than one inch (1")
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810-000
Page 5
and one-half inch (1/2"), respectively, provided the bearing soils are not frozen or disturbed at the time of
construction.
Figure 1 below indicates a graphical representation of a typical footing excavation oversizing.
FIGURE 1
FOOTING EXCAVATION OVERSIZING
4.3 Deep Foundations
Deep foundation options that were considered at this site include concrete piers for steel truss or precast
concrete beam supported bridges, as well as helical piers for a wooden boardwalk.
Helical Piers
Based on the soils encountered in the borings, helical piers appear to be an excellent foundation option at
this location. Preliminary calculations (based on several assumptions) indicated that helical piers to
depths of 10 to 15 feet below grade would likely be able to support about 5,000 psf each. These
calculations should be reviewed and revised once the site bridge design is determined.
Concrete Piers
Using the soil data obtained in the soil borings, we calculated that drilled concrete piers would likely be
able to support loads of up to 4,000 psf when placed a minimum of 25 feet below grade.
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810-000
Page 6
4.4 Backfill and Fill Selection and Compaction
The on-site non-organic soils may be reused as backfill and fill provided they are moisture conditioned
and can be compacted to their specified densities. Wet soils that are excavated would need to be dried
or drained before reuse as an engineered fill. We recommend providing a minimum of 2 feet of clean
coarse sand with less than 50 percent passing the #40 sieve and less than 5 percent passing the #200
sieve when backfilling the bottom of a wet excavation.
Gravel or cobbles larger than 2 inches in diameter should not be placed within 2 feet of grading grade or
utilities. We recommend that clayey soils be moisture conditioned to within +/-2 percent of the optimum
moisture content as determined from their standard Proctor tests (ASTM D-698). Granular fills should be
moisture conditioned to between 4% and +2% of the optimum moisture content. Fill should be spread in
lifts of 6 inches, depending on the size and type of compaction equipment used.
Table 4 provides the recommended compaction levels.
Table 4: Recommended Level of Compaction for Backfill and Fill
Area
Percent of Standard Proctor
Maximum D Density
Shallow Foundations: up to 4,000 psf
100
Pavement: Within 3 feet of bottom of aggregate base
Within 3 -foot radius of vertical utility structure
100
Pavement: Greater than 3 feet below aggregate base
95
Utility Trench (outside pavement areas)
95
Landscaping (non-structural)
90
4.5 Trail Pavement Area
Once the site has been prepared as recommended, we anticipate the prepared subgrade soils will consist
mostly of silty sands and sands with silt. The silty sands are frost susceptible and consideration should
be provided to heaving that may occur within these soils.
Table 5 below presents one recommendation for a trail pavement section. Other options may also be
suitable and should be discussed amongst the design team.
Table 5: Recommended Flexible Pavement Section
Section
Thickness (inches)
Bituminous Course, MnDOT 2360 SPWEA330C
1.5
Bituminous Course, MnDOT 2360 SPWEA330C
2
Aggregate Base, MnDOT 3138 (Class 5, 5Q, or 6)
6
Select Granular Sand (Optional frost -free material)
12
TOTAL
-
Aggregate base placement for pavement support should meet the gradation and quality requirements for
Class 5, 5Q, or 6 per MnDOT specification 3138. Aggregate base material should be compacted to 100
percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Within several years after initial paving, some thermal shrinkage cracks will develop. We recommend
routine maintenance be performed to improve pavement performance and increase pavement life.
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810-000
Page 7
Pavement should be sealed with a liquid bitumen sealer to retard water intrusion into the base course and
subgrade. Localized patch failures may also develop on the pavement. When these occur, they should
be cut out and patch repaired.
4.6 Dewatering
Shallow groundwater was encountered in the borings. Excavations at this site may require dewatering.
Based on the granular nature of the soils, dewatering would likely require use of sand point wells. Any
dewatering efforts will have to consider the potential impact to the adjacent wetland area. Dewatering
may not be allowed in this area, and alternative options should be considered.
4.7 Construction Considerations
Good surface drainage should be maintained throughout the work so that the site is not vulnerable to
ponding during or after a rainfall. If water enters the excavations, it should be promptly removed prior to
further construction activities. Under no circumstances should fill or concrete be placed into standing
water.
It is important to review the fill limits and total depth of fill when placing structures upon compacted
materials and when filling the excavation. The location of the footings should allow for at least a one to
one (1:1) slope from the bottom of the footing to the outside limits of the engineered fill.
It is important to check this at the time of construction that during filling, unsuitable soils do not encroach
within the one to one (1:1) slope limits and extending downward and outward from future footings.
4.8 Construction Safety
All excavations should comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P
"Excavations and Trenches". This document states that excavation safety is the responsibility of the
contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job specifications.
The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site, for earthwork, building construction, or
any associated operations is solely that of the contractor. This responsibility is not borne in any manner
by WSB.
4.9 Cold Weather Construction
It is our understanding that construction is unlikely to occur during the winter months. However, if the
construction does continue into the winter months we recommend the following guidelines.
Roadbeds should not be constructed during periods when the material freezes while being placed and
compacted, nor should material be placed on soil that is frozen to a depth greater than 4 inches. When
the soils are frozen to a depth exceeding 4 inches, at a time when weather conditions are such that
construction could be continued without the material freezing as it is being placed and compacted, the
contractor may be permitted to excavate the frozen soil and proceed with the construction for so long as
the weather will permit. The frozen soils should be pulverized or replaced with other suitable soils. Only
unfrozen fill should be used.
Placement of fill and/or foundation concrete should not be permitted on frozen soil, and the bearing soils
under footings or under the floor slab should not be allowed to freeze after concrete is placed, because
excessive post -construction settlement could occur as the frozen soils thaw.
4.10 Field Observation and Testing
The soil conditions illustrated on the Logs of Test Borings in Appendix A are indicative of the conditions
only at the boring locations. For this reason, we recommend that excavations at this site be observed by
a soil engineer or technician prior to fill or backfill placement or construction of foundation elements to
determine if the soils are capable of supporting the fill backfill and/or foundation loads. These
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810.000
Page 8
observations are recommended to judge if the unsuitable materials have been removed from within the
planned construction area and an appropriate degree of lateral oversize has been provided.
WSB also recommends a representative number of field density tests be taken in engineered fill and
backfill placed to aid in judging its suitability. Fill placement and compaction should be monitored and
tested to determine that the resulting fill and backfill conforms to specified density, strength, or
compressibility requirements. We recommend at least one compaction test for every lift of fill below any
shallow foundations at vertical intervals not exceeding two (2) feet with a minimum of two (2) density tests
at each foundation location. Prior to use, proposed fill and backfill material should be submitted to the
WSB laboratory for testing to verify compliance with recommendations and project specifications.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests can be completed in the aggregate base in lieu of density
testing. We recommend following MnDOT Specification 2211.3.D.2.c.
WSB would be pleased to provide the advised field observation, monitoring, and testing services during
construction.
4.11 Plan Review and Remarks
The observations, recommendations and conclusions described in this report are based primarily on
information provided to WSB, obtained from our subsurface exploration, our experience, several
assumptions, and the scopes of service developed for this project and are for the sole use of our client.
We recommend that WSB be retained to perform a review of final design drawing and specifications to
evaluate that the geotechnical engineering report has not been misinterpreted. Should there be changes
in the design or location of the structures related to this project or if there are uncertainties in the report
we should be notified. We would be pleased to review project changes and modify the recommendations
in this report or provide clarification in writing.
The entire report should be kept together; for example, boring logs should not be removed and placed in
the specifications separately.
The boring logs and related information included in this report are indicators of the subsurface conditions
only at the specific locations indicated on the Soil Boring Exhibit and times noted on the Logs of Test
Boring sheets in Appendix A. The subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels, at other
locations on the site may differ significantly from conditions that existed at the time of sampling and at the
boring locations.
The test borings were completed by WSB solely to obtain indications of subsurface conditions as part of a
geotechnical exploration program. No services were performed to evaluate subsurface environmental
conditions.
WSB has not performed observations, investigations, explorations, studies or testing that are not
specifically listed in the scope of service. WSB should not be liable for failing to discover any condition
whose discovery required the performance of services not authorized by the Agreement.
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810.000
Page 9
5. STANDARD OF CARE
The recommendations and opinions contained in this report are based on our professional judgment. The
soil testing and geotechnical engineering services performed for this project have been performed with
the level of skill and diligence ordinarily exercised by reputable members of the same profession under
similar circumstances, at the same time and in the same or a similar locale. No warranty, either
expressed or implied, is made.
Geotechnical Report
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810.000
Page 10
APPENDIX A
Soil Borings Exhibit
Logs of Test Borings
Symbols and Terminology on Test Boring Log
Notice to Report Users Boring Log Information
Unified Soil Classification Sheet (USCS)
Geotechnical Report Appendix A
Dalske Bridge
Dalske Woodlands
Andover, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 019810-000
v
�Propcs�2d Crossing_ R
✓<
131ST AVE_, /Mlo, ����%�����✓��/��///��///
4
fi.
DALE,.
WOODLA
a s �. r PB -2 r
30ft
355
i 17976
I
C I T Y O F
ND OVER
Anaover GIS
0
200
400 Feet
- - - oka County GISES-
Laver kd'
zs map is Intended for reference
rpfSeF pni rrm mappmy grade
Entrance d Preserve
L:<uRry a me data. The City of RMOVer
ogs not make CIaM mat me hamr6
_
Proposed Crossing i City Limits
p 8
.:apitt d represent true locati..;
{rerefpfe me Uty asumes no lubllity for
any CRpf 651pn5 or omherein.
..
® ExistingTrail NWI Wetlands
�//
Park
i 17976
I
C I T Y O F
ND OVER
Anaover GIS
LOG OF TEST BORING WS 1:7
PROJECTNAME: DalskeWoodlands Ditch Crossing PROJECT LOCATION: Andover,MN BORING NUMBER PB -1
p
CLIENT/WSB#. 019810.000 SURFACE ELEVATION: 902 ft PAGE 1 OF 1
DEPTH
(ft)
ELEV.
(ft)
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
USCS
GEOLOGIC
ORIGIN
3:
a
SA
FILE
N
N - Value o
0 B
No.
with sit organics, gray
opsoi
and light brown, moist
1
901
'.L=:'
HSA
1
inegran grays Town,
acustnne
moist, medium dense
2-900
SB
2
14
3--899
4--898
HSA
5--897
SB
3
12
21
'.12
6--896
HSA
7--895
4
SB
4
5
finegrained, gray, waterbearing, loose
SPacustnne
8--894
to very loose
9--893
HSA
10
892
SB
5
6
11
891
HSA
12
890
SB
6
WH
4
13--889
14--888
HSA
15--887
x
SB
7
2
16
886
I
I
I
I
nd ot boring I 6.0 it.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS START: 3(06&2022 END: 3/08/2022
SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN WATER WATER
DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH ELEVATION METHOD
Grew Chief:
Logged By:
R. Kurth
AW
3208/1022 2:00 pm 14.5 13 7.0 895 3.25" HSA V -13'
Notes
LOG OF TEST BORING wc,-h
PROJECTNAME: DelskeWoodlands Ditch Crossirig PROJECT LOCATION: Andover,MN BORI NG N U M BER PB -2
CLIENT/WSB A 019810-000 SURFACE ELEVATION: 900 ft PAGE 1 OF 1
DEPTH ELEV.
(ft) (ft)
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
USCS
ORIGIN
.
g
SAMPLE
N
- ue of
0 16
No.
—
rg3llC 8 ty , wet
1--899
HSA
1
2 898
i ne grai ned, gray, wet to
waterbearing, loose to very loose
Lauistdne
3--897
SB
2
12
8
12
4--896
i
HSA
5 895
4
-SB
3
10
io
6 894'
HSA
7 893
fine gran , gray, waterbearl ng, Dose
SP
Lacustrine
8 892
to very loose
SB
4
3
9 891
HSA
10 890
4
SB
5
7
11 889
HSA
12 888
SB
6
4
13 887
14 886
HSA
15 885
SB
7
4
16 884
17--883
i
18--882
i
HSA
19--881
20 880
SB
8
6
3
21 879
22878
23 877
HSA
24 876
25 875
SB
9
9
26--874
27--873
28 872
HSA
29 871
30 870
SB
10
7
31 869
End of Bon ng
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS START: 3108/2022 END: 3/08/2022
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN WATER WATER
DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPiH ELEVATION METHOD
Crew Chid:
Logged By:
R.Kurth
AW
3708/2022 1:00 pm 30 28.5 5.0 1 895 3.25' HSA 0' - 28.5'
1 Notes:
WS6
SYMBOLS AND TERMINOLOGY ON TEST BORING LOG
Symbol
HSA
Description
3 1/4" LD. Hollow Stem Auger
Symbol
MC
Description
Moisture content, % (ASTM D2216)
FA
Flight Auger
DO
Dry Density, pcf
HA
Hand Auger
LL
Liquid Limit (ASTM D4318)
RC
Size A, B, or N rotary casing
PL
Plastic Limit (ASTM D4318)
CS
Continuous split barrel sampling
Lamination
< 1/4" thick stratum
DM
Drilling Mud
Layer
- Inserts in last column
JW
Jetting Water
Stratified
Altering lenses of varying materials or colors
SB
2" O.D. split barrel sampling
Qu
Unconfined compressive strength, psf (ASTM D2166)
L
2 1/2" or 3 1/2" OD split barrel liner sampler
Pq
Penetrometer Reading, tsf (ASTM D 1558)
Fine sand
2" or 3" thin walled tube sample
Ts
Torvane Reading, is
_T
W
Wash sample
G
Specific Gravity (ASTM D854)
B
Bag sample
SL
Shrinkage limits (ASTM D427)
P
Test Pit sample
OC
Organic Content (ASTM D2974)
Gravel Content
BQ, NQ, or PQ wire line system
SP
Swell Pressure, tsf (ASTM D4546)
_Q
X
AX, BX, or NX double tube barrel
PS
Percent swell under pressure (ASTM D4546)
N
Standard penetration test, blow per foot
FS
Free swell, % (ASTM D4546)
CR
Core recovery, percent
SS
Shrink swell, % (ASTM D4546)
WL
Water level
pH
11-30
n/a
no measurement recorded
SC
Sulfate content, parts/million or mg(l
Dense 16-30 Hard
CC
Chloride content, parts/million or mg4
Verydense >30 Very hard
C
One dimensional consolidation (ASTM D2435)
Qc
Triaxial compression (ASTM D2850 and D4767)
DS
Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)
K
Coefficient of permeability, cm/sec (ASTM D2434)
P
Pinhole Test (ASTM D4647)
DH
Double hydrometer (ASTM D4221)
MA
Particle size analysis (A$TM D422)
R
Laboratory electreical resistivity, ohm -cm (ASTM G57)
VS
Field vane shear (ASTM D2573)
ROD
Rock quality designation, percent
TERMINOLOGY
Particle Sizes
Soil Layering and Moisture
pe
Size Rang
Visual Observation
Boulders
> 12"
Lenses
Small pockets of different soils
Cobbles
3" - 12"
Lamination
< 1/4" thick stratum
Coarse gravel
3/4" - 3"
Layer
1/4" - 12" thick stratum
Fine gravel
#4 sieve - 3/4"
Stratified
Altering lenses of varying materials or colors
Coarse sand
#4 sieve - #10 sieve
Varved
Altering laminations of clay, silt, fine sand, or colors
Medium sand
#10 sieve - #40 sieve
Dry
Powdery, no noticeable water
Fine sand
#40 sieve - #200 sieve
Moist
Damp, below saturation
Silt
100% passing #200 sieve, and> 0.002mm
Wet
MC above plastic limit
Clay
100% passing #200 sieve, and < 0.002mm
Waterbearing Pervious soil below water table
Saturated
Cohesive soil with MC above liquit limit
Gravel Content
Standard Pentration Resistance -value
Coarse -Grained Soils Fine -Grained Soils
Cohesionless Soils Cohesive Soils
o/ Gravel
ccrintion o/ Gravel Description
flu
Relative Density N -Value Consistency
2-15
A little gravel 2-5 Trace of gravel
0-4
Very loose 0-4 Very soft
16-30
With gravel 5-15 a little gravel
5-10
Loose 5 - 8 Soft
31-49
Gravelly 16-30 with gravel
11-30
Medium dense 9-15 Firm
31-49 Gravelly
31-50
Dense 16-30 Hard
>50
Verydense >30 Very hard
WS b5:,
NOTICE TO REPORT USERS BORING LOG INFORMATION
Subsurface Profiles
The subsurface stratification lines on the graphic representation of the test borings show an
approximate boundary between soil types or rock. The transition between materials is approximate
and is usually far more gradual than shown. Estimating excavation depths, soil volumes, and other
computations relying on the subsurface strata may not be possible to any degree of accuracy.
Water Level
WSB & Associates, Inc. took groundwater level readings in the exploratory borings, reviewed the data
obtained, and discussed its interpretation of the data in the text of this report. The groundwater level
may fluctuate due to seasonal variations caused by precipitation, snowmelt, rainfalls, construction or
remediation activities, and/or other factors not evident at the time of measurement.
The actual determination of the subsurface water level is an interpretive process. Subsurface water
level may not be accurately depicted by the levels indicated on the boring logs. Normally, a
subsurface exploration obtains general information regarding subsurface features for design purposes.
An accurate determination of subsurface water levels is not possible with a typical scope of work.
The use of the subsurface water level information provided for estimating purposes or other site
review can present a moderate to high risk of error.
The following information is obtained in the field and noted under "Water Level Measurements" at the
bottom of the log.
Sample Depth:
The lowest depth of soil sampling at the time a water level
measurement is taken.
Casing Depth:
The depth to the bottom of the casing or hollow stem auger
at the time of water level measurement.
Cave-in Depth:
The depth at which a measuring tape stops in the bore hole.
Water Level:
The point in the bore hole at which free-standing water is
encountered by a measure device from the surface.
Obstruction Depths
Obstructions and/or obstruction depths may be noted on the boring logs. Obstruction indicates the
sampling equipment encountered resistance to penetration. It must be realized that continuation of
drilling, the use of other drilling equipment or further exploration may provide information other than
that depicted on the logs. The correlation of obstruction depths on the log with construction features
such as rock excavation, foundation depths, or buried debris cannot normally be determined with any
degree of accuracy. For example, penetration of weathered rock by soil sampling equipment may not
correlate with removal by certain types of construction equipment. Using this information for
estimating purposes often results in a high degree of misinterpretation.
Accurately identifying the obstruction or estimating depths where hard rock is present over the site
requires a scope of service beyond the normal geotechnical exploration program. The risk of using the
information noted on the boring logs for estimating purposes must be understood.
UNIFIED SOIL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART
COARSE: GRAINED SOILS
(mop than, 50% of material. is larger than No. 200 stave size.)
Clean
Gravels (Less than. 50/4 fines
s!
GRAVELS ��• GW
ds, gravel -sand
mixtures, ittle or no dries
Poodygraded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
More than 50% •• ° GP
of coarse •�'•
fraction larger Gravels
than No.4
with fines (Mdre,than 12% fines)
Not meellrg all gradation requirements for GW
sieve sizeGM
Slitygravels,gravel sand silt mixtures
JCtayey
GG
graveisrgravolsand-clay
mixtures
Atterberg limits above °A'
Clean
Sands Less than 5%lines
SW
wet{graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines
SANDS
50% or moreSp
of coarse
C,,=-2-60 between 1 and 3
grealerthan 4 Cc =
SWDID
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,.
little or no fines
Sands with fines Were than 12% fines)
fraction smaller
than NO.4
sieve size
,is
F •?
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
SC
Clayey sands. Eand clay mixtures
SC
FINE GRAINED SOILS
(50°% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 slave size.)
line with PI. greater than 7
{gorganto silts end very fine, sande, rock
AND
¢LAYS
Liquid limit
less than
ML
iiporgsiltyofclayey fine sands or clayey
silts with sl(ghfplaslicily,
',z
-„
"'
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silly clays, Ieanclays
50%
—
-
OL
Organic sills and organic silty clays,of
law plasticily
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
SILTS
MH
dlatomaeeoua fine sandy or silty sells;
elastic sills.
AND
CLAYS
Liquid limit
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
clays
50°¢
A,
^„^
ON
Organic clays of medium to high.
plaslc(ly, organic silts"
or greater
HIGHLY
DRGANIC
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils
SOILS
WSO
Determine percentages of sand and gravel from gralro-s@e urve. Depending
on gercahlage of fines (fraction smallarthan No, 200 sieve size),
coarse-grained Solis ara classified as follows
Less than 5 percent ...:; GW, GP, SW, SP
More than 12 percent ....... GM, GC, SM, SC
6 to 12 percent ............, .. Bordod(no casos requiring dual symbols
PLASTICITY CHART
6
e �
rxir 40 �
0
�z 30
U 20
t-
90
4
O0 10 20'':30 46 60 50 70. l30 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)
LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
60
D%p
C'u ^ greater [lien 4;Cc = 'between I aml3
GV!
D D
10 10 60
GP
Not meellrg all gradation requirements for GW
GM
Atterberg limits below 'A"
line or P.l.less than 4
Above"A"line with P.I. between
-4'6ntl Tam bcrderline cases -
requiring useofdual symbols
GC
Atterberg limits above °A'
line with P.I. greaierlhan 7
2
D30
C,,=-2-60 between 1 and 3
grealerthan 4 Cc =
SWDID
D1.0xDf0
SP
Not meeting all gradation requirements for OW
SM
Alterherg limits below "A'
Limits plotting in shaded zone
line or P.I. fess than 4
with P.I. between 9 and 7 are
borderline cases requiring use
of dual symbas,
SC
Atterberg limits almve "A'
line with PI. greater than 7
Determine percentages of sand and gravel from gralro-s@e urve. Depending
on gercahlage of fines (fraction smallarthan No, 200 sieve size),
coarse-grained Solis ara classified as follows
Less than 5 percent ...:; GW, GP, SW, SP
More than 12 percent ....... GM, GC, SM, SC
6 to 12 percent ............, .. Bordod(no casos requiring dual symbols
PLASTICITY CHART
6
e �
rxir 40 �
0
�z 30
U 20
t-
90
4
O0 10 20'':30 46 60 50 70. l30 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION
- o
.. R
3
v
F
O
-
CQxN
3
N
3
N
N
A
mW
F
N
6
T
t
O
N
nN
n
(v
�
rr
Project Location
•
i.
. 0 0
e
j.-----------
I
Review Area
Crossing Location
Figure 1: Project Location
"ro O F
Dalske Woodlands Pedestrian Crossing
0 2,000
Feet wsb
Andover, MN
1 inch = 2,000 feet
FIGURE 2
904902 w 9 0O.
'^7R rte.. op 0 °O o 908 �. P
m
'000 00 q�A 902 90p 900 900
89a m q 906 po 0 9p 90Z�; ,`900.
m °+ q00 co 0 s X90
9°o N 996 06 908 �.. o° Og02
b �� ji•C..: 90� 9 906 f.. 906 AP
ro 8g8 00 906 i 9p4 J °O O 900 g0a q0. 90
�° p � � °� 8 q" n 9 p6 ° X00
908 r , : P� ,r•�. 90
m. m .
m 902 1 gp6, •�'' -� ° 904 / 000
! pb 90 900' 902 s o
is a o N N b 902
900 909 gOA 900 904 0°
900 904. 906 9
90q 900 900
•v, i9p, 906 ro.
Re iVVU .c- . 9 9 r0
.-906 00 o v 900 900
_970 ,e 908 y �+
O
iW ,p'•¢ 0 900 po 902 ° s
m-
9 A 0
' 906gp8 0 . • - 900 00 o .900
t
P9E 0
R rn 696 �t1 eoi p
44yv �a Np�p
g04
896 4 'd 902 �� �.jd. � ao gp4 190
Sao
904 g04 908][`4
r :f 0�x 906 �tR_
na,
At�$ - o� 908 900 900
906 904 ' „ •- - E g02 902
lip
opc
00 904 'yl'�.. �� {, � •'i_.' '°;r 00 _
0 u �f� k �1;' h ' r�T$,�f + t�• 900 '9
06
gp4'..:�. 900'.
gp6 �? pp 906 90
m \ 900 904 0 00
p 0
0
° 00 �+ � 910 906 c
�- y 90ti
90
4 97p 908 900 900
°° 9p0 �o+ • �'? F J A
Al
m .g12 m 0
900
910
A O S i
910 902 900 900
�! q12 ! 900. 902 °0 900 i, ! m a
O
- i 90 90A 90,L 906 :�
OWN"
-ory 9 906 0 91P o
`m 6' 904m 900 906 906 m 1 Foot
V4 Y�ypq _9�A°` 904 0 ;902isv.-.9041..w9 ��- 906 - ••
906 m 902. 9p`� - ___900--""g0.1 0q -!'�=9p4-x:-=_,129,08TwAVE V.V
FIGURE 3
DNR PUBLIC WATERS
Ce ]vd"
Cedar V+k�ng BlvdcNE,g Vikin
•4 'py. .` 02009800 • � 'f � r ro � .
Estates '�
.^.
%• m r "`7;Fri.�q � 02037,600_02034A38;100+,02037900
f . •L, NLS {•�`�#—�--,�
02039300 � ' • c
i �°'.-f1{ �1;:•",.� 5{, 1. 7 ; �A � . ._ � rx
.. .. _.... t • ~ .181st Ave NW 02038800• 8A
'^.0200 114j •.,,: 02039300 039
F400i` s,
�kl I� •1 al�, ir.
ForestMeadows
02070200
Park
'I . 02039500
020392 UI r
.17,74 h.-Ave.N1N,. S+"., t; j {•,.,� 77.
' 02039, h02047400 '
02039800..
02069500
f 02039900 !
c 02008500 .3rd?Ln-NES dta.
l'Nard Lak''e;
02039800 WZ
a rGoey
0
a e
- 1 w
. +
—y —. 02008.8D0�'
02041600 _ L 02040000
�"�� Puigors P1a7n, _
02041:700- Par Review-
Crossing Location
02041900'
ave-Nw
02041800 DNR Public Waters
�-Non DNR Streams
v•
m z i`
FIGURE 4
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
PS- SEPUBF_r PEO`!A
PEM1! PM
/A'F
C PF(
PEM1Ai
J. PE lAd F
. 9♦MM'
PEMiA PEM1A PEA P.EMAd
f-1' 1V PSS1
:P.EM C � EWA pUBF�
PE�MyA�p; PEAS`
PEM1F PF01A
PABGX
PABGx �PE;,�,
o PE
y PEMIA
JP Mt1`F
r. �PEM1B� Z
n/ �PEM1A
n PF01'A PEM1C PEM1C
v
o PF0,1APO�tA
PEM1A n6 PF01A
PUBG
PEM1C
PENS PSS1C
PEM1C
PI n- ^•� .i �PEM1C
M1C
PE :. PF,q�A P
is yam_ P M1Atl
II7�' "PEM1Ad �. PUBF`
PPEM1'Ad., PSS1Ad
S
Z.-
�PFhOPEM1A PEI
E K-� P.EM16 to
PEM16y
aF' PEM1A tea 6°
PEM1Ad PEty11A� PEM1A
PEM1C '�' PEM,1A r
W
PUBF '
ne..�..,.. __.... .. PEMIA PUE
` 6Fi
T3 q -W /�l E;Eh
PEM1B c
' gg1. ,th.Ave.NW....
uB r j • 1up`EEMM1 C
PEMK
W
PEM1A
EM, 6
✓ 3 PUB
N
Z
PEM1APUBGz
. �
x PEM1A^PU
Raw
P�•F
PEM1A
ren':
PSS2
}
PEel ,
.f
PEM,!T f
1B
�r
P.EM1F.
c
PUBG
( PUMBF100
#PEM
I B
PEM;1B! +
D
. <
PEM18
PUB
__._..
3
PEM1B c
' gg1. ,th.Ave.NW....
uB r j • 1up`EEMM1 C
PEMK
W
PEM1A
EM, 6
✓ 3 PUB
N
Z
PEM1APUBGz
. �
x PEM1A^PU
Raw
P�•F
PEM1A
ren':
PSS2
}
PEel ,
.f
FIGURE 5
COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
A � -
Y A ' r�
.., v
F4• Wt f,
e r
t f
J �t• . t ,rt xY y .� �� `
Q L `
4
I�
Review Area
Crossing Location
"t jl Hydric Soils Category
Unknown hydric
Not hydric; Predominantly non-hydric; Partially hydric
- L
t' 0 All hydric; Predominantly hydric
Apa
Figure 5: County Soil Survey 500
Dalske Woodlands Pedestrian Crossing OP� Feet ws b
NDOVER Andover, MN 1 inch = 500 feet
FIGURE 6
POTENTIAL AQUATIC RESOURCE BOUNDARY
Ilia 'v
T 5
Et
lSrcki,i-
.-
fi�� •F�
l
ak `
' J
F
r it+ {( Wetland 2-- en,.,°\„:
Wetland 3 ,t r r
F"
wr YrT y4�A., iCSr � F e rr7t. �{. r r � . '"•J. -'
4
wetland
s...,
Q Review Area
Crossing Location
M Potential Wetland Boundary
Potential Watercourse Centerline
Figure 6: Potential Aquatic Resource Boundary
kb—is
b Dalske Woodlands Pedestrian Crossing 0 500
Feet �/�/S
Andover, MN 1 inch = 500 feet
�
>1
n s
�
a„
l
ak `
' J
F
r it+ {( Wetland 2-- en,.,°\„:
Wetland 3 ,t r r
F"
wr YrT y4�A., iCSr � F e rr7t. �{. r r � . '"•J. -'
4
wetland
s...,
Q Review Area
Crossing Location
M Potential Wetland Boundary
Potential Watercourse Centerline
Figure 6: Potential Aquatic Resource Boundary
kb—is
b Dalske Woodlands Pedestrian Crossing 0 500
Feet �/�/S
Andover, MN 1 inch = 500 feet
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 of Pu"orks/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Discuss Construction Material Shortages & Supply — Engineering
DATE: April 26. 2022
The City Council is requested to discuss the current state of construction material shortages and
supply issue.
DISCUSSION
In recent weeks staff has been receiving requests for the development community to allow
alternative construction materials for new construction due to the availability of certain items.
Staff will discuss the details and specifics at the meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED
The City Council is requested to discuss construction material shortages and supply issues and
direct staff on how to proceed with alternative construction material requests.
Respectfully submitted,
David D. Berkowitz
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
2023-2027 CIP Development Discussion/2022 CIP Progress Report
April 26, 2022
INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION
Late March, Administration/Finance distributed baseline worksheets to Department Heads for the
2023-2027 CIP kick-off. Subsequent discussion centered on the 2023-2027 CIP development, the
need of other committees (Vehicle/Equipment Purchasing & Facility Management Committees)
and commissions (Parks and Recreation & Nature Preserve) to start their work and to work toward
a "draft" proposed 2023-2027 CIP to present to the City Council.
Throughout the summer a significant amount of time will be spent on evaluating utility
infrastructure, transportation improvements, building maintenance, equipment and park and
recreation needs. Each of these items will be supported by a detailed fund balance analysis of
funding sources (based on various assumptions and estimates) that will be presented to the Council
for review at future workshops.
At this time, the Staff would like to have a brief discussion with the Council to determine
Council's priorities for a 2023-2027 CIP. It is anticipated that interactive reviews will be
done at future workshop meetings, but the focus during those reviews will be on new projects
and outstanding questions on previously proposed projects where staff may need ongoing
Council direction (such as Street Reconstruction, Trial improvements & building renovation
projects).
Attached is a spreadsheet identifying the current 2022 Capital Improvement Plan Proiects
by Department and the progress on each vroiect, also attached for reference is the
introduction section of the 2022-2026 CIP adopted by the Council last November.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY
Capital Improvement Program:
Andover's Capital Improvement Program is intended to provide the City Council and staff with a
process for identifying and prioritizing capital projects to coordinate the financing and timing of
improvements, which maximizes the return to the public. The process enables the City to evaluate
long-term cost and benefits of projects being adopted for the coming year (2023) against those
projects planned between 2024 and 2027.
The Capital Improvement Program is guided by the following City adopted policy:
Capital Improvement Policy
1. A Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) will be developed for a period of five years. As
resources are available, the most current year of the CIP will be incorporated into the
current year operating budget as the Capital Improvements Budget (CIB). The CIP will be
reviewed and updated annually. Years two through five are for planning purposes only.
2. The City will maintain its physical assets in a manner, adequate to protect the City's capital
investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. The City will
provide for maintenance and replacement from current revenues where possible.
3. To be considered in the Capital Improvements Program, a project must have an estimated
cost of at least $5,000 in one of the calendar years of the project. Projects may not be
combined to meet the minimum standard unless they are dependent upon each other. Items
that are operating expense (such as maintenance agreements, personal computer software
upgrades, etc.) will not be considered within the CIP.
4. Capital projects, which duplicate other public and/or private service, will not be considered.
5. The City will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each capital
project prior to inclusion in the CIP. The operating costs to maintain capital projects shall
be considered prior to the decision to undertake the capital projects.
6. Capital projects and/or capital asset purchases will receive a higher priority if they meet
many of the following criteria:
A. Mandatory project
B. Maintenance project (approved replacement schedules)
C. Improve efficiency
D. Provide a new service
E. Policy area project
F. Broad extent of usage
G. Length of expected useful life
H. Positive effect on operation and maintenance costs
I. Availability of county/state/federal grants
J. Elimination of hazards (improves public safety)
K. Prior commitments
L. Replacement due to disaster or loss
7. The CIP is to be presented by the City Administrator and Management Team annually to
the City Council for approval. Any substantive change to the CIP after approval must be
approved by the City Council.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to review the attachments, receive a brief presentation on the staff report,
and provide direction to staff on Council priorities for the 2023-2027 CIP.
submitted,
Attachments
Park & Recreation - Operations
Replace/Repair Play Structures - Various Parks
CITY OF ANDOVER
Replace/Repair Major Park Projects - Various Parks
2022 Capital Improvement Plan
bid opening late May, late summer start
Replacement - Cushman #546
Projects By Department - Use of Funds
ordered
Project l Equipment
Budget
Progress to Date -04/20122
Community Center
10,000
ordered
Replacement - Walk Behind Floor Scrubber
$ 15,000
equipment demo in May
Exterior Caulking
50,000
seeking bids
New -Scissor Lift
15,000
purchased
Storm Sewer
80,000
Emergency Management
68,000
ongoing
Replacement - Emergency Sirens
50,000
in the process
Emergency Operations Center Improvement
15,000
ordered
Replacement - Asphalt Roller #114
65,000
nothing available at this time
Engineering
255,000
ordered
New Development Projects
185,000
ongoing
Pedestrian Trail Maintenance
60,000
bids received, summer start
Replacement - Pick Up Truck #6
50,000
to be ordered soon
295,000
Facility Management
Annual Parking Lot Maintenance
275,000
plans being prepared, late summer start
Replacement - Roof Top Package Unit PW
45,000
bids received
Replacement - Furnace CH
8,000
completed
328,000
Fire
New- First Response Vehicle
70,000
will be ordered later in the year
New - Digital Fire Extinguisher Training System
12,000
Grant funded - not approved
Replacement- 800 MHz Radios
50,000
ordered
Replacement - Grass / Rescue Vehicle
275,000
Grant funded - not approved
New- Mobile CAD
12,000
working on specs
419,000
Park & Recreation - Operations
Replace/Repair Play Structures - Various Parks
100,000
Replace/Repair Major Park Projects - Various Parks
35,000
bid opening late May, late summer start
Replacement - Cushman #546
13,000
ordered
Replacement - Tractor #515
50,000
ordered
New -Zero -Turn Mower
10,000
ordered
Replacement - Large Capacity Mower #585
130,000
ordered
Sanitary Sewer
338,000
Park & Recreation - Projects
Annual Miscellaneous Projects
25,000
Pine Hills North - Parking Lot
400,000
bid opening late May, late summer start
Dog Park - Parking Lot & Trail
37,500
bid opening late May, late summer start
Pine Hills South - Parking Lot
67,000
bid opening late May, late summer start
Oak Bluff Park - New Basketball Court
10,000
bid opening late May, late summer start
539,500
Sanitary Sewer
Replacement - One Ton Truck w/ Plow #78
85,000
to be ordered soon
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewer Improvements
68,000
ongoing
Streets - Equipment
New - Dump Truck w/ Snow Removal Equipment
250,000
ordered
Replacement - Asphalt Roller #114
20,000
nothing available at this time
Replacement - Dump Truck w/ Snow Removal Equipment
255,000
ordered
525,000
CITY OF ANDOVER
2022 Capital Improvement Plan
Projects By Department - Use of Funds
Project / Equipment Budget Progress to Date - 04/20/22
Streets - Roadways
Annual Street Crack Seal Project
190,000
bids awarded, summer construction
Annual Pavement Markings
60,000
bids awarded, summer construction
Curb, Sidewalk & Pedestrian Ramp Replacement
105,000
bid awarded, summer construction
Municipal State Aid Routes / New & Reconstruct
1,600,000
Design in 2022, construction 2023
Annual Street Reconstruction
3,400,000
bids awarded, construction late April
Gravel Road Improvement
19,000
work this summer
Street Mill & Overlay
2,000,000
bids awarded, summer construction
Municipal State Aid Routes / Mill & Overlay
170,000
bids awarded, summer construction
Bunker Lake Blvd Concrete Median
150,000
ACHD to administer project, summer start
7,694,000
Water
Recondition & Paint Water Tower
1,655,000
in the process
Residential Meter Replacement
100,000
ordered in Jan, still unavailable
Water Main Gate Valve Rehabilitation
200,000
will be completed w/ road projects
WTP Valve Actuator Replacement
52,000
completed
2,007,000
Grand Total
$ 12,443,500
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2022 — 2026 Capital Improvement Plan
DATE: October 19, 2021
On behalf of the City's Management Team, I am pleased to present the City of Andover's Capital
Improvement Plan for years 2022 through 2026. The City's management team and their respective staff
worked diligently to produce a document that was both practical, substantive in addressing needed capital
improvements and insightful regarding the underlying factors associated with the City's rapidly changing
suburban landscape.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GOALS
ACKNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNICATE
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES AND DYNAMICS
ENSURE APPROPRIATE RESPONSES
TO CHANGING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEMANDS
DEVELOP A FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO MEET FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECT PLANNING NEEDS
INSTITUTE A STRATEGIC VISION
PREDICATED ON MAINTAINING A HIGH QUALITY SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE CAPABLE OF
MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR CITIZENS FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW
The purpose of the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is to identify, prioritize and address community
needs through careful long -tern capital planning and balanced public investment in supporting physical
infrastructure. To ensure that this commitment is both meaningful and achievable, appropriate capital
improvement factors were given significant consideration in developing a CIP that addresses community
priorities over the next five (5) years. The CIP will also provide a planning foundation for future needs
assessments to ensure the City is appropriately responding to the critical infrastructure needs necessary for
sustainable future growth. The CIP represents a beginning in terms of producing a comprehensive planning
response to address changing capital needs by developing a project schedule that will lead to timely and
cost-effective project completions.
The 2022 - 2026 CIP has been prepared as a strategic planning tool to assist the City Council in identifying
proposed capital improvement projects over the next five years. With the inclusion of preliminary financing
sources, appropriate background information citing needs and projected cost estimates, this document will
provide Council with the needed information to begin the process for planning improvements that meet the
City's physical infrastructure needs. Consequently, the CIP serves as a flexible guide plan to properly
identify the critical components of the City's infrastructure, yet maintain flexibility in determining project
timeframes, project scope and possible funding sources. The 2022 - 2026 CIP continues the emphasis of
judiciously managing the City's limited resources by prudently planning for known and/or anticipated
future capital expenditures.
A critical step in the plan adoption process is the collaborative nature of plan review that involves the
leadership of the City Council, the input of appointed Commissions and staff, and most importantly,
affected residents of the community. Consequently, the strategic value of this plan lies in the
acknowledgement of future needs by the governing body and the effective communication of those needs
to the general public during project development stages. Likewise, the availability and preliminary
designation of fiscal resources to serve both current and future needs is critical to the achievement of plan
outcomes that meet with Council approval. Following the approval of the plan, feasibility studies are
performed, affected constituencies are notified to formally disseminate and receive public feedback on
proposed project plans. This process culminates with the City Council considering all relevant information
and making a final decision on whether to proceed with the proposed capital improvement.
The public process that supports the advancement of these projects from inception to completion is
engendered in the CIP project development and authorization schedule. Formalizing the steps in the CIP
project advancement process serves a number of purposes and ensures that the Council and public are kept
well informed regarding project purposes and desired outcomes, estimated project costs, funding sources,
progress and final status. It should be emphasized that projects will require approval in various stages of
project development by the City Council in accordance with approved policies.
The objectives of the 2022 - 2026 Capital Improvement Plan are to present a comprehensive capital
improvement program that communicates efforts:
➢ to ensure that community priorities are reflected in the capital investment plans of
each City department;
➢ to provide a consolidated financial picture of anticipated expenditures and outline
recommended funding strategies to underwrite anticipated capital improvements;
➢ to document and communicate capital improvement processes for City projects
that will ensure consistency, a full appreciation of both the costs and benefits of
proposed capital investments, and raises the level of public understanding
regarding the City's public improvement processes;
➢ to provide information on the fiscal impacts of capital investment plans on total
City finances; and
➢ to effectively plan for public improvements that support community needs in the
areas of private development infrastructure, transportation, public safety, parks
and recreation, utilities, and commercial/industrial growth through fiscally
responsible economic development initiatives.
Accordingly, this document attempts to recognize known or perceived capital improvement needs, but as
with any plan recognizes that social, economic and political considerations will by necessity determine final
project outcomes. The major categories of expenditures that are identified within the CIP include, but are
not limited to:
1. New Public Facilities Planning
2. Street Construction, Maintenance and Reconstruction
3. Utility Construction, Maintenance and Reconstruction
4. Construction, Maintenance and Upgrade of Parks, Playgrounds and Trails
5. Capital Improvements to Existing Facilities
6. Private development infrastructure
7. Capital equipment and vehicle planning needs (Equipment purchases to be determined through
normal budgetary process)
The City Council, consequently, accepts this document with the provision that capital improvement
planning is subject to the dynamics of community growth, political leadership and acknowledges that other
unanticipated needs may take precedence over planned projects.
RECOMMENDATION
The 2022 - 2026 Capital Improvement Plan is the product of collaborative planning efforts by City staff,
Park and Recreation Commission, Community Center Advisory Commission and the City Council. Projects
have been introduced based on 1) anticipated future growth trends articulated in the City's current
Comprehensive Plan, 2) the natural cycle of deterioration and decay evident in all physically constructed
and engineered improvements in the more established areas of the community and 3) capital deficiencies
or infrastructure issues brought to the City's attention through a variety of sources.
Capital expenditures identified within the CIP are the best estimates available, and once the CIP is adopted,
will be reviewed and confirmed through individual feasibility reports where appropriate. I am appreciative
of the commitment, good judgment and expertise that each department has contributed to the capital
improvement planning process.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Dickinson
City Administrator
CIP PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
PROCESS AUTHORIZATION SCHEDULE
The following process is a Council/staff guideline for authorizing public improvement projects. As this process is
controlled by State Statute and other influencing environmental factors, it is subject to change and should be
viewed as a guide to assist the Council and public in understanding the public improvement process used by City
staff. A separate Council meeting would facilitate each step in the process, and accomplishment of respective
activities. As a result, the process time frame is a significant factor affecting City staff s ability to properly manage
and complete approved Council ordered projects within budget and on time.
I. Council Approval of Annual CIP Projects by City Resolution will authorize the following outcomes:
a) Staff and/or Consultant preparation of project feasibility studies
b) Staff preparation of detailed financial review of project funding sources
c) Neighborhood Meeting may be held prior to Feasibility Study subject to need and type of project.
TIME FRAME: October -November of each preceding year.
2. Presentation of Feasibility Study
a) Feasibility Study Components:
1) Review of Project Engineering and Construction Estimates
2) Total Project Costs (All related project costs, i.e. land, soft costs)
3) Project Financial Plan/Fiscal Implications (Engineering/Finance)
4) Authorization to develop a Preliminary Assessment Roll, if any, for the Public Hearing. (Engineering)
• If Council accepts Feasibility Study, A Resolution "Accepting Feasibility Study and Setting Date for
Public Hearing on the Project" when appropriate (Engineering Department) would initiate the following:
1) Notices mailed to affected Residents per statute requirements no less than 10 days before Public
Hearing. (Engineering)
2) Public Hearing Notice is published. Two publications one week apart, with the second publication no
less than three days before the hearing. (Engineering/City Clerk)
TIME FRAME: February -March -April -May of current year.
3. Neighborhood Meeting— City staff will hold neighborhood project meetings, when appropriate, to review and
present Project Feasibility Studies, answer questions and meet with affected property owners. These meetings
will include a question and answer component designed specifically to bring awareness to the property owner,
obtain citizen input and produce an understanding of the purposes behind the City's attempts to construct
public improvements in the affected area.
TIME FRAME: Following the presentation of the Feasibility Study to Council, but prior to the holding of a
Public Hearing by Council.
4. Council holds a Public Hearing when appropriate for following purposes:
a) Presentation of Project (Engineering Department)
b) Presentation of Preliminary Special Assessment Rolls and Financing Implications (Engineering/Finance
Department)
c) Council to hear Affected Resident Input
d) Council determines whether to "order" the public improvement
• A Council Resolution is drafted "Ordering the Project and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and
Specifications" (Engineering Department). Council may ORDER THE IMPROVEMENT after the public
hearing is closed or at a subsequent Council Meeting within 6 months of the public hearing date.
(Statutory Requirement - Council Resolution ordering project must be approved on 4/5 Council vote if it
is Council initiated project with assessments).
• If Council decides to reject the project as presented, a Council vote should be taken to officially determine
the final status of the project.
TIME FRAME: April -May -June of current year
5. Plans and Specifications are presented to Council for approval. (Engineering Department)
a) A Council Resolution is drafted authorizing the following:
1) Accepting and Approving Project Plans and Specifications
2) Authorizing the Advertisement for Project Bids. Bids are developed and invitation to Bid is processed.
Bid opening date is no less than 3 weeks after publication. (Engineering)
3) Authorize staff to pursue an appropriate funding mechanism to underwrite project costs
TIME FRAME: May -June of each year
6. Council Acceptance of Project Bids and Awarding of Contracts would authorize the following outcomes:
a) A Council Resolution is drafted "Accepting Project Bids and Awarding Contracts" (Engineering)
b) Initiation of Project Construction and work (Engineering)
TIME FRAME: April -May -June -July of current year.
7. Project Completion
a) Council Acceptance of Project
b) Final Presentation and Review of Project Costs versus Project Budget by Finance Department.
c) If Special Assessments are financing a portion of the Project, A Council Resolution "Setting the Special
Assessment Hearing for Project #" is adopted at this same meeting. (Engineering/Finance)
TIME FRAME: Upon completion of project.
8. If Special Assessments would finance a portion of the projects costs, Council Holds a Special Assessment
Hearing to review the following:
a) Affected Property owners would be officially notified per statute no less than two weeks prior to Special
Assessment Hearing. (Clerk/Engineering)
b) Public Notice is published no less than two weeks prior to Special Hearing per statute (Clerk/Engineering)
c) Staff prepares a proposed roll and Council Approves Final Assessment Roll (Engineering/Finance)
d) Council consideration of Assessment Appeals and Requested Deferrals filed prior to hearing or during
the hearing.
e) Meets M.S. Chapter 429 statutory requirements
• A Council Resolution is drafted "Adopting Final Special Assessment Roll"(Engineering), and is adopted
at this meeting.
TIME FRAME: October/November of current year depending on finalization of project and status of
completion.
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021 Adopted
$0
Streets - Roadways
61.83%
CITY OF ANDOVER
2022 CIP Expenditures By Year
Water
16.13%
Fire
$4,000,000 $8,000,000 $12,000,000 $16,000,000
2
CITY OF ANDOVER
2022 CIP
Expenditures By Department
Parks -
Prom
Parks -Oper.
Comm Ctr
0.64% 4'340/
2.72%
Sanitary Sewer Streets-
Engineering
Emerg.
p.68oy Equipment
2.37%
Mgmt
4.22%
0.52%
Storm Sewer
0.55%
Facility Mgmt.
2.64%
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021 Adopted
$0
Streets - Roadways
61.83%
CITY OF ANDOVER
2022 CIP Expenditures By Year
Water
16.13%
Fire
$4,000,000 $8,000,000 $12,000,000 $16,000,000
2
City of Andover, MN
Capital Plan
2022 thru 2026
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
Department 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
Central Equipment
45.000
45,000
Community Center
80,000
1.454.000
475,000
12.000
40,000
2,067,000
Emergency Management
65.000
25,000
90,000
Engineering
295,000
1,052,000
525,000
1,482,000
662,500
4,076,500
Facility Management
328.000
492,000
327,000
166,500
70,000
1,383,500
Finance
15.000
75,000
Fire
419,000
198,000
875,000
50,000
1,245,000
7,787,000
Information Technology
30.000
40.000
70,000
Park&Rec - Operations
338,000
135,000
825,000
430,000
185,000
1,913,000
Park & Rec - Projects
539,500
215,000
25.000
25.000
135,000
939,500
Sanitary Sewer
85,000
3,500,000
3,585,0470
Storm Sewer
68,000
70,000
320,000
73.000
74.000
605,000
Streets - Equipment
525,000
60.000
600,000
200,000
270,000
7,655,0470
Streets - Roadways
7,694,000
3,382.000
6,092,000
7.913,000
6.067.000
31,748,000
Water
2,007,000
2.731,000
440,000
384.000
300.000
5.862,000
TOTAL 12,443,500 9,889,000 14,044,000 10,750,500 9,049,500 56,175,500
II
City of Andover, MN
Capital Plan
2022 thru 2026
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
Source 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
Assessments
1.431,500
589,000
2,429,500
860,000
1,251,000
6,561,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
482.500
358,000
265,000
271,500
580,000
7,957,000
Comm Cir Operations
80,000
1.454,000
475,000
12,000
40,000
7,067,000
Construction Seal Coat Fund
10.000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
County Reimbursement
200,000
200,000
Economic Development Authority
150.000
40,000
190,000
Equipment Bond
785,000
1,590,000
245,000
995,000
3615,000
Facility Maintenance Reserve
328,000
492.000
327,000
160,000
70,000
7,377,000
G.O. Bond
4,150,000
2,150,000
6,300,000
General Fund
135,000
135,000
475,000
685,000
185,000
7,675,000
Grant
287,000
1,902,600
110,000
2,299,600
Municipal State Aid Funds
1,588,500
251,000
1,182,500
1,652,400
519,000
5,793,400
Park Dedication Funds
222,000
215,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
512,000
Road & Bridge Funds
424.000
444,000
3.784,000
3,355,000
4,357,000
12,364,000
Sanitary Sewer Fund
42.500
42,500
Sewer Revenue Bonds
2,250,000
2,250,000
Sewer Trunk Fund
125.000
130,000
135,000
140,000
145,000
675,000
Storm Sewer Fund
110.500
70.000
320,000
73,000
74,000
647,500
Trail Funds
800.000
231.000
705,000
312,500
2048,500
Water Fund
177.000
211.000
240.000
184,000
100,000
972,000
Water Trunk Fund
1,915,000
2.580.000
265,000
270,000
275,000
5,305,000
GRAND TOTAL 12,443,500 91989,000 14,044,000 10,750,500 9,048,500 56,175,500
8
City of Andover, MN
Capital Plan
2022 thm 2026
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
Central EOniDment 1
Replacement -Service Truck#371
23-48800.01
2
Cap01E9u1pmentReserve
45,000
75,000
Emergency Operations Center Improvement 22-42400-02
45,000
Capital Equipment Raw-
Capital Equipment Re-
13007
13000
45,000
44000
Central Equipment Total
45,000
45,000
Community Center
Replacement- Walk Behind Floor Scrubber
22-44000-01
1
15,000
15,000
Carom COOpmdws
15,000
13000
Exterior Caulking
22-44000-02
1
50,000
50,000
comm CirOperations
50,000
54000
New - Scissor Lift
22-44000-03
1
15.000
15,000
Comm Cir Operations
13000
13000
Carpet- EntrylFieldhouse Foyer
2144000-01
1
15.000
15,0017
C=m CrrOpemoms
15,000
15,000
Replacement- Community Center Roof
23-44000-02
1
1,300,000
7,300,000
Comm Car Opmoons
1,300000
113001000
Replacement - Water Heater
23.44000-03
1
80,000
80,000
Comm aroperations
80,000
00,000
Replacment- Kivac Cleaning Machine
23.44000-04
1
8,000
8,000
Cannot cer Operations
4000
8004
Replacement -Original Zamboni Battery Pack
23-44300-01
1
15,000
15,000
Comm CirOpm ums
15,000
1500
Concrete Floor Sealant
24-44000-01
1
36,000
36,000
Comm Crroperations
36,000
34000
Replacement - East Parking Lot Pavement
24-44000-02
1
400,000
400,000
Comm CtrOpmaons
400,000
400,000
Replacement - Heat Exchangers-Munters Unit
24.44300.01
1
25,000
25,0047
Comm Ctr Operations
15,0170
15,000
Repaint Field House Ceiling
24-44400.01
1
50,000
50,000
Camra Cir Operations
54070
50,000
Replacement -Carpet Track Level
25-44300-01
1
12,000
12,000
comm Ctr operations
12,000
12000
Replacement - Generator
26-44000-01
1
40,000
40,000
Comm criOperations
40,000
40,000
Community Center Total
80,000
1,454,000
475,000
12,000 40,000
7,061,000
Emereencv Management
Replacement -Emergency Sirens 22-42400-01
1 50.000 25,000
75,000
Cap01E9u1pmentReserve
SO, WO 15,0100
75,000
Emergency Operations Center Improvement 22-42400-02
1 15.000
15,000
Capital Equipment Re-
13007
13000
E
Department Project# Priority 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
Emergency Management Total 65,000 25,000 901000
Engineerine 1
New Development Projects
22-41600-01
1 185,000
190,000
200,000
210,000
220,000
1,005,000
Sewer rmakFzmd
715,000
1301000
135,800
140,000
145OW
675,0100
Waren Trunk Fund
22-41900.02
60,000
MOW
651000
70,000
75,000
330,000
Pedestrian Trail Maintenance
22.41600-02
1 60,000
62,000
64,000
67.000
70,000
323,000
Road&Badge Funds
22-41900-03
601000
61,000
64,000
67,000
74000
323,000
PedesuiardPark Trail Reconstruction
22-41600-03
1
8,000
500,000
500,000
Gexat Fund
23-41900-01
1
50,000
5010000
500,000
New Pedestrian Trail and Sidewalk Segments
22.41600-04
1
800,000
231,000
705,000
312,500
2048,500
Tail Funds
23-41900-04
1
800,000
131,WO
70.000
31;500
2,048,500
Replacement - Pick Up Truck R6
22-41600.06
2 50,000
715,007
50,000
Equipment Band
23-41900-05
50,000
25,000
54000
Replacement- Total Staten Survey Equipment
24-41600-01
1
30,000
30,000
Capitat£quipmentReserve
23-41900-06
1
30,000
30, WO
Replacement - Chevy Tahoe #16
26-41600-07
1
112,000
60,000
50,000
CapitatEquipmentReserve
23-41900-07
1
10,000
60,000
60,000
Engineering Total
295,000
1,052,000
525,000
1,482,000
662,500
4,016,500
Replacement - Carpet / Tile
24-41900.01
1
Facilitv Management
Annual Parking Lot Maintenance7Replacemenl
22-41900-01
1
275,000
170,000
50,000
60,000 70,000
625,000
FmitilyMamlewnce Reserve
175,000
170,000
50,000
64000 70,OW
625,000
Replacement - Roof Top Package Unit PW
22-41900.02
2
45.0110
45,000
Facility Maintenance Reserve
44000
45,000
Replacement - Furnace CH
22-41900-03
1
8.000
8,000
FaciltyMaintenance Reserve
8,000
4000
Replacement - Emergency Generator FS 61
23-41900-01
1
50,000
50,000
FmiiiryMaintenance Reserve
50,000
50,000
Replacement - Make Up Air Unit /Exhaust Fan PW
23-41900-04
1
125,000
125,000
Faci7ityMaimenance Reserve
715,007
125,000
Replacement- Tube Heaters FS M7
23-41900-05
1
25,000
25,000
Facility MaintenmrceReserve
15,000
15,000
Replacement- Roof Top Package Units 1 - 8 CH
23-41900-06
1
112,000
172,000
FacitiryMalntenanceRes a
112,000
712,000
Replacement- Furnace FS3
23-41900-07
1
10,000
10,000
FaciiityMaintenarum Reserve
70,000
70,000
Replacement - Carpet / Tile
24-41900.01
1
30,000
30,000
Fmitiry4laintenax Reserve
30,000
34000
Replacement- Emergency Generator FS 62
2441900-02
1
35,000
35,000
FaciiiryMainnaua7ceReserve
35,000
35,000
Replacement - Fire Sprinkler System FS 41
24-41900-03
1
50,000
50,000
FX111(yklaint"nceResenve
54WO
50,000
Replacement- Fire Sprinkler System PW
24-41900-04
1
50,000
50,000
Faci7ilyMaintenance Reserve
50,000
50, am
Replacement - Roof Top Package Units 9 -16 CH
24-41900-05
1
112,000
112,000
Fmitity4Mintenarme Reserve
11ZO6d
111,000
Replacement- Emergency Generator FS 43
25-41900.01
1
50,000
50,000
FmiOryMaintanance Reserve
50,000
50,000
Replacement- Fire Sprinkler System CH
25-41900-03
1
50,000
50,000
Facility6laintenance Reserve
501000
54WO
Replacement - Mini Split Unit QCN
25-41900-04
1
6,500
6,500
10
Department Project# Priority 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
Capita/ Equipment Reserve 6,500 6,500
Facility Management Total 328,000 492,000 327,000 166,500 70,000 1,383500
Fines 1
Financial/ Payroll System Upgrade
25-41400-01
1
15,000
15,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
15,000
75000
Finance Total
15,000
15,000
Fire
New- First Response Vehicle
22.42200-01
1
70,000
70,000
Equipmcrn Bad
70,000
70000
New- Digital Fire Extinguisher Training System
22-42200-02
1
12,000
11,000
Giant
11,000
1;000
Replacement -800 MHz Radios
22-42200-03
1
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
200,000
Camoil£quipment Reserve
54000
50,000
50,000
50,000
100000
Replacement- Grass l Rescue Vehicle
22-42200-05
1
275.000
275,000
Grant
275,000
175000
New - Mobile CAD
22-42200-06
1
12.000
12,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
12000
11,000
New- First Response Vehicle
23-42200.01
1
75,000
75,000
Capital£quipmentReserve
75,000
75,000
Replacement - UT -10 #4810
23.42200.02
1
65,000
65,000
Capital £quipmanlRes-
65,000
65000
New - Forcible Entry Prop
23.42200-03
1
8,000
8,000
Capital £quipmentReserve
8,000
8,000
Replacement - Rescue 31 #4B18
24-42200-01
1
125,000
125,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
125,000
125,000
Replacement -Engine 31#4800
24-42200-03
1
700,OOo
700,000
Equipment Bond
700,000
700,000
Replacement -SCBA Equipment
26-42000-04
1
425,000
425,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
425,000
425,000
Replacement- Ford Interceptor #4827
26-42200-01
1
50,000
50,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
50,000
50,000
Replacement- Grass Utility Vehicle (UTV) #4813
26-422DO.02
1
45,000
45,000
CapdalEqulpmenll? s
45,000
45,000
Replacement - Engine 11 #4821
26-42200-03
1
725,000
725,000
£quipmentSond
715,000
725,000
Fire Total
419,000
198,000
875,000
50,000
1,245,000
2787,000
Information Technology
Replacement- Data SAN (Storage Area Network)
2341420-01
2
30,000
30,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
30,000
30,000
Message Board Upgrade (Bunker)
2441420-01
1
40.000
40,000
EconornicBevelopm l,lolhordy
40,000
40,000
Information Technology Total
30,000
40,000
70,000
Park & Ree - Operations
Replace/Repair Play Structures - Various Parks
22-45000.01
1
100.000
100,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
650,000
GerrealFund
100,000
100000
150,070
150001
750,0017
650,000
Replace/Repair Major Park Projects - Various Parks
22-45000-02
1
35.000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35.000
175,000
11
Department Project# Priority 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
General fund
35000
35,000 35000
35,000 35,000
175,070
Replacement- Cushman #546
22.45000-03 1
13,000
13.000
Capital Equipment Reserve
14000
Annual Miscellaneous Park Projects
13,000
Replacement - Tractor #515
22-45000-04 1
50.000
25,000 25,000
25,000
50,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
25000
25OW
15,000
25,000
Water Fund
125,000
151000
22.45001.02
1
25,000
New Zero -Turn Mower
22-45000-05 1
10.000
400,000
CapiialEquipmenr Reserve
10,000
Equipment Bond
280,000
10,000
mom
Replacement- Large Capacity Mower#585
22-45000-06 1
130,000
120,000
130,000
Equipment BmW
1201000
130,000
22-05001.03
2
1301000
Replacement - Toro Groundsmaster #561
24-45000-01 1
60,000
Capital£quipmentReserve
60,000
Capital Equipment Reserve
37,500
60,000
60,000
Replacement - One Ton Truck wl Plow #569
24-45000-02 1
2
80,000
80,000
Equipment Bond
67,000
Park Dedica6onfunds
80,000
80,000
Replacement- One Ton lnigation Truck
24-45000-03 1
60,000
Oak Bluff Park New Basketball Court
60,000
Equipment Band
10,000
60,000
601000
New - Trail Machine
24-45000-05 1
150,000
750,000
Equipment Bmld
10,000
Prairie Knoll Park Warming House Expansion
150,007
1
150,000
Replacement- Sunshine Park Parking Lot
24-45000-06 1
290,000
Park Dedication Funds
290,0670
General Fund
100,000
290,000
290,OW
Replacement- Toro Groundsmaster#564
25-45000-01 1
2
80,000
80,000
Equipment Bond
40,000
Park Dedication Funds
80,000
80,000
Replacement- Toro Groundsma ster #550
25.45000-03 1
44WO
80,000
80,000
Equipment Bond
50.000
80,000
80070
Replacement- One Ton Truck wl Plow #577
25-45000-04 1
85,000
85,000
Equipment Bond
SB000
Dalske Preserve Boardwalk
26-45001.01
85,000
85,000
Park & Rec - Operations Total
338,000
135,000
825,000 430,000
185,000
1,913,010
Park & Rec - Projects
Annual Miscellaneous Park Projects
22-45001-01
1
25,000
25.000
25,000 25,000
25,000
725,000
Park Dedication funds
25OW
15,000
15000 15,000
25,000
125,000
Pine Hills North - Phase II Parking Lot Improve
22.45001.02
1
400,000
400,000
CapiialEquipmenr Reserve
280,000
260,000
Park Dedication Funds
120,000
1201000
Dog Park Parking Lot and Trail Paving
22-05001.03
2
37.500
37,500
Capital£quipmentReserve
37,500
37,500
Pine Hills South Parking Lot Paving
22-45001-04
2
67,000
67,000
Park Dedica6onfunds
64000
67,000
Oak Bluff Park New Basketball Court
22-45001-05
2
10,000
10,000
ParkOedicalion Funds
10,070
10,000
Prairie Knoll Park Warming House Expansion
23.45001-01
1
100,000
700,000
Park Dedication Funds
100,000
107,000
Hidden Creek North Park Medium Shelter
23-45001-02
2
40,000
40,000
Park Dedication Funds
40,000
44WO
Lunds North Park New Playground Equipment
23-45001-03
2
50.000
50,000
Perk Dedirmhon Funds
50,000
SB000
Dalske Preserve Boardwalk
26-45001.01
1
110,000
770,000
Grant
110,007
110,000
Park & Rec - Projects Total
539,500
215,000
25,000 25,000
135,000
939,500
Sanitary Sewer
Replacement - One Ton Truck wl Plow #78
22-48200-01
1
85.000
85.000
Sanitary Sever Fuad
4;500
42,500
12
Department Project# Priority 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
Storm Sewer£und
42,5010
4;588
Rural Reserve Trunk Sanitary Sewer
24-48200-01
1
3.500.000
3,500,000
Assessments
1,250,000
1,250,000
Sewer Revenue Bonds
2,250,000
2,250,800
Sanitary Sewer Total
85,000
3,500,000
3,585,000
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewer Improvements
22-48300-01
1
68,000
70,000
70,000
73,000
74,000
355,000
Strom Sew Fund
6810100
70,000
70,000
730100
74,000
355,000
Replacement- Elgin Street Sweeper#169
24.48300-01
1
250,000
250,000
Storm Sewer Fund
250,11W
250,070
Storm Sewer Total
68,000
70,000
320,000
73,000
74,000
605,000
Streets - Equipment
New - Dump Truck w/ Snow removal equipment
22.43100-01
1
250,000
250,000
Equipment Bond
250,007
150,000
Replacement- Asphalt Roller#114
22-43100-02
1
20,000
20,000
Equipment Bond
20,070
20,00
Replacement- Dump Truck wl Snow removal#198
22.43100.03
1
255.000
255,000
Equipment Bond
155,000
255,000
Replacement -Bobcat 5185#120
23-43100-01
1
60.000
60,000
Capital£qutpmentReserve
60,0170
60'Wo
New- Dump truck wl Snow removal equipment
24-43100-01
1
255,000
255,000
EquipmardBond
155,00
255,000
Replacement - One Ton Truck w/Plow #134
24.43100-03
1
85,000
85,000
Equipment Baird
85,800
85,00
Replacement- Dump Truck wl Snow removal#200
24.43100-04
1
260,000
260,000
Equipment Bond
260,000
260,000
Replacement- Aerial bucket truck #00-139
25-43100.02
1
200,000
100,000
Capital£quipment Reserve
20,00
2081080
Replacement - Dump Truck wl Snow removal #201
26-43100-01
1
270,000
170,000
Equipment Bond
270,008
270,000
Streets - Equipment Total
525,000
60,000
600,000
200,000
270,000
1,655,000
[Streets - Roadways
Annual Street Crack Seal Project
22-49300.01
1
190.000
200,000
210,000
220.000
230,000
1,050,000
ConSbtVIM Seat Coat Fund
ntwo
10,00
10,00
1400
10,000
50,000
Road &Bodge Funds
180,007
180007
200000
210,000
220000
1,000,000
Annual Pavement Markings
22.49300.02
1
60,000
62,000
64,000
66,000
69.000
321,000
Road &Bridge Fords
60,007
62,010
64,000
66,[10
69,00
321,000
Curb, Sidewalk and Pedestrian Ramp Replacement
22-49300-03
1
105,000
110,000
115,000
120,000
125,000
575,000
Rod &Bridge Funds
lo5,00o
110,000
115,070
120,110
125,00
575,000
Municipal State Aid Routes/ New& Reconstruct
22-49300-04
1
1,600,000
670,000
335.000
2,605,000
Assessments
144,000
138,000
58100
338,000
MuntrtpatState Aid Funds
1,458100
531,00
179,00
1,267,00
Annual Street Reconstruction
22-49300-05
1
3,400,1100
730,000
2,300,000
1,700,000
3,000,000
11,730,000
Assessments
85000
180100
580,000
41400
750,00
2,79000
Gtr. Bond
1,55401
5501000
3,10000
Road & Bridge £unds
1,720,01
1,270,000
2,250,00
5,240,00
Gravel Road Improvements
22.49300.07
1
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23.000
105,000
Road &Bridge funds
Island
20,01
21,08
2;000
1300
105,00
Street Mill& Overlay
22-49300.08
1
2.000.000
2.000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
10,000,000
13
Department Project # Priority 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total
Assessments
400000
400,000
400,QX
400,000
467,0010
2,0.7,000
GO. Band
Water
1,6X,000
11600,0010
3,200,000
Road &Bridge Funds
Recondition& Paint Water Tower R2
22-48100-01
11600,000
1,600,000
11400000
4,800,000
Municipal State Aid RouteslMill & Overlay
22-49300-09 1
170,000
260,000
312,000
185,000
285,000
1,2120470
Assessments
37,500
9,000
61,500
30,X0
45,0010
783,11M
Municipal State Aid Funds
132,500
25tOW
250,500
155,070
140,000
1,029,000
Bunker Lake Boulevard Concrete Median
22-49300-10 1
150,000
60000
1151000
Residential Meter Replacement
750,000
Economic Development Authority
100,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
150,000
Intersection Upgrades
24-49300-01 1
700,060
100000
400,000
3,600,000
167,000
4,0470,000
CountyRe/mbursemeat
22-48100-04
1
200,000
200,000
200090
200,000
200,000
Grant
Water Tmnk Fund
2W,,006
1,902,600
200,0W
11902,600
MunlapalState Aid Funds
11000,000
WTP Valve Actuator Replacement
22-48100-05
400,000
1,497,400
1,897,400
Streets - Roadways Total
7,694,000
3,382,000
6,092,000
7,913,000
6,067,000
31,148,0100
Water
Recondition& Paint Water Tower R2
22-48100-01
1
1,655,000
1,655,000
Water Tmnk Fund
1,655,000
1,655000
Rehabilitation of Wells
22-48100-02
1
55,000
60,000
115,000
Water Fund
551X0
60000
1151000
Residential Meter Replacement
22-48100-03
1
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
Water fund
700,060
100000
100,090
167,000
167,000
500,000
Water Main Gate Valve Rehabilitation
22-48100-04
1
200,000
200,000
200.000
200,000
200,000
1000,000
Water Tmnk Fund
2W,,006
200,000
200,0W
2WWO
267,000
11000,000
WTP Valve Actuator Replacement
22-48100-05
1
52,000
51,000
Wafer Fund
52,000
54000
WTP Valve Actuator Replacement
23-48100-01
1
56,000
56,000
Water fund
56,600
56,900
Bunker Lake Blvd Control Valve Upgrade
23-48100-02
1
20,000
20,000
Wafer Tmnk Fund
20,000
24000
Water Main Improvements
23-48100.03
1
2,300,000
2300,000
Wales Tmnk Fund
2,300,600
2,300,000
WTP Valve Actuator Replacement
24-48100-01
1
25,000
25,000
Water Fund
25,000
25,000
Plate Settler Plate Replacement
24-48100.02
1
115,000
115,000
Water Fund
115,000
715,000
WTP Valve Actuator Replacement
2548100-01
2
24,000
24,000
Water Fund
24,000
24,000
Water Total
2,007,000
2,731,000
440,000
384,000
300,000
5,862,000
GRAND TOTAL
12,443,500
9,889,000
14,044,000
10,750,500
9,048,500
56,175,500
14
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
2023 Budget Development Discussion
April 26, 2022
it3
City Administration has starting to focus on the 2023 Annual Operating Budget Development
process and is looking to update the City Council and seek direction as the preparation of the 2023
Annual Operating Budget proceeds.
City Administration will review briefly with the Council the bold italics items at the meeting.
The following are the 2023 Budget Development guidelines adopted at the April 19th City Council
meeting:
1) A commitment to a City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization and
positioning the City for long -tern competitiveness using sustainable revenue sources and
operational efficiencies.
Note: Preliminary Anoka County Assessor estimated taxable market value figures for the
City of Andover base on numbers presented at the Board of Review meeting are reflecting
close to a 22% increase in total taxable market value.
2) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at
no less than 45% of planned 2023 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 2022
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 2022 budget development exceeded this guideline for cash flow, also
Emergency Fund Balances (approximately 3% of planned General Fund expenditures per
finance policy) are in place to stabilize a situation, not be a complete solution. Staff will
review with the Council the final -audited 2021 General Fund Fund Balance Analysis at the
May/June workshop meeting.
3) A commitment to limit the 2023 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 2022 debt levy was 23.29% of the gross tax levy, the 25% guideline for
2023 will be attained via the structured management of the current long-term debt
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 been meeting and is performing this
analysis and will make recommendations on equipment needs to the City Council as part of
the 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) development process. This will be covered
in more detail with CIP discussions.
5) The use of long-term financial models that identify anticipated trends in community growth
and financial resources that will help designate appropriate capital resources for future City
needs. The financial models will be used in the budget planning process to ensure that key
short-term fiscal targets are in line with long-term fiscal projections.
Note: The City continually maintains various financial models to determine the long-term
impacts ofpresent-day expenditures and financing decisions. Fiscal assumptions are based
upon a set of financial data including growth factors, tax capacity valuations, per capita
spending, fund balance reserve, and debt ratios.
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 will be given to fiscal values, commercial & residential development
or redevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery, livability, and image of the
community.
Staffing:
Fire Department — The proposed 2022 budget looks to fill the Assistant Chief position. The proposed
2022 budget also contains funds to help meet acceptable response times with an enhanced Duty Crew
model.
Administration is expecting new staffing requests from various Departments for the 2023
budget Deadline for submission of those requests will be July is
There are some anticipated retirements and staff vacancies within the coming year and 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
realignment of resources.
Personnel Related Implications:
To date the following are the other projected issues facing personnel related expenses:
1. Human Resources will review all position -based salaries and the associated benefit
package to determine if the total package is competitive with other government entities.
Pay steps for eligible employees will be included in a 2023 budget proposal A cost -of -
living adjustment (COLA) for non -bargaining employees will also be evaluated
The current Public Works Union contract expires December 31, 2023. A 2.75% increase
effective January 1, 2023, is provided for in that contract
2. A midyear review of the employee health plan for the 2023 Budget will be conducted
with our broker in late June.
For the 2022 budget, Administration recommended to stay with the Health Partners Open
Access program. The existing HSA plan with higher deductibles ($6,900 single and
$13,800 family) and stacked with an HRA (Health Reimbursement Arrangement) was
offered for 2022. The HRA was funded utilizing premium savings that were achieved from
the proposed renewal to a new higher deductible plan. Employees have $3,500 single and
$7,000 family deductibles; but with the stacked HRA, the City will reimburse the
remainder of the deductible, if needed, to the provider up to $3,400 for single and $6,800
for family.
The plan offered is accompanied with a health spending account (HSA), originally
implemented in 2006. The City does contribute annually to an employee's HSA to assist
with the high deductible out of pocket costs. That contribution is evaluated annually as part
of the marketing of the health insurance plans.
Contractual Departments:
1. The City Attorney 2022 contract reflected a 2% increase over the 2021 contract. There
have been limited discussions to date for 2023.
2. The 2022 City of Andover Law Enforcement expenditure is budgeted at $3,337,486 which is offset
by a Police State Aid revenue budget of $137,280 and School Liaison revenue budget of $106,465
reflecting a net tax levy impact of $3,093,741.
The 2022 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.
Staff has had initial discussions with the Anoka County Sheriff for a 2023 status quo
contract, and the Anoka County Sheriff's Office will be scheduled to be before the City
Council at the June or August workshop meeting.
Council Memberships and Donations/Contributions:
The following memberships/contributions are in the 2022 proposed 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
■ Andover Senior Center
$14,405 (GF)
$ 9,569 (GF)
$ 3,816 (GF)
$ 9,000 (GF)
$20,928 ($15,328 GF & $5,600 CG)
$15,000 ($12,000 GF & $3,000 CG)
$10,000 (GF)
$26,000 ($8,100 GF & $17,900 CG)
$ 3,000 (CG)
$ 1,500 (GF)
$ 1,000 (CG)
$ 1,000 (CG)
$ 1,000 (CG)
$ 2,500 (GF)
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.
Council direction will be sought on the memberships/contributions for 2023.
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.
The 2022 Debt Service levy is as follows:
• 2010A G.O. Open Space Referendum
• 2012C Taxable G.O. Abatement Bonds
• 2018A Capital Improvement Plan Bonds
• 2019A GO Abatement Bonds
• 2020A GO Equipment Certificates
• 2021 GO Equipment Certificates
• 2022 GO Street Reconstruction
Total
$ 0
Final levy year 2021
$ 974,628
Final levy year 2031
$ 617,519
Final levy year 2043
$1,014,065
Final levy year 2039
$ 374,850
Final levy year 2023
$ 170,000
Final levy year 2025
$ 600.000
New levy for 2022
3 751 062
Staff will review with the Council at the meeting, primarily to determine how the debt service
budget guideline will be met
ACTION REQUESTED
Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff.
illy submitted,
LNDON T Y O F
9 aq
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: March 2022 General Fund Budget Progress Report
DATE: April 26, 2022
INTRODUCTION
The City of Andover 2022 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $12,699,145 and total
expenditures of $13,450,593 (includes $68,500 carried froward from 2021); a decrease in fund
balance is planned.
Monthly reporting of the City Budget progress to the Governing body is a recommended financial
practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies.
DISCUSSION
Attached is the General Fund Revenue & Expenditure Budget Summary - Budget Year 2022,
reflecting year to date actual through March 2022.
The following represents Administration's directives and departmental expectations for 2022:
1. Expenditure budgets while approved, expenses are to meet with the spirit that needs are
fulfilled first, expansions of service and special requests are to be reviewed with City
Administration before proceeding.
2. Departments are to be committed to search for the best possible prices when purchasing goods
and services.
3. Departments are to be committed to continually searching out new efficiencies and to
challenge the status quo of how the City provides services.
4. Departments are to be committed to searching out collaborative opportunities to facilitate
efficient and cost-effective utilization of governmental assets and personnel.
5. Departments are to be committed to developing effective, consistent and ongoing
communications with City residents, businesses and other stakeholders.
6. Departments are to be cognizant that services provided are subject to available revenues and
should not commit to services that are not sustainable.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review and receive a brief presentation of the March 2022 General Fund Budget Progress Report.
submitted,
CRY OF ANDOVER
General Food Budget Summary Totals
Budget Year 2022
2021 2022
REVENUES Budget Mar YTD %Bud Pre -Audit Budget Mar YTD %Bud
General Property Tax
$ 9,594,493
$ -
0%
$ 9,522,862
$ 10,076,370 $
11,362
0%
Licenses and Permits
436,450
157,354
36%
891,762
535,500
147,182
27%
Intergovernmental
938,041
217,469
23%
939,174
817,284
239,540
29%
Charges for Services
752,360
141,688
19%
989,223
799,110
204,414
26%
Fines
50,250
10,125
20%
53,747
50,500
6,251
12%
Investment Income
75,000
(31,430)
42%
(15,184)
75,000
0
0%
Miscellaneous
138,850
23,251
17%
167,966
148,300
28,436
19%
Transfers In
212,031
212,031
100%
212,031
197,081
197,081
100%
Total Revenues
$ 12,197,475
S 730,488
6%
S 12,761.581
$ 12 699145 $
834166
7
2021 1 2022
EXPENDITURES Budget Mar YTD %Bud Pre -Audit Budget Mar YTD %Bud
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Mayor and Council
$ 108,015
$ 40,066
37%
$ 95,659
$ 107,347 $
39,276
37%
Administration
236,244
49,277
21%
229,314
238,442
49,297
21%
Newsletter
25,000
7,295
29%
22,945
27,300
7,741
28%
Human Resources
35,202
8,293
24%
20,836
34,661
8,531
25%
Attorney
206,941
33,214
16%
199,809
212,041
34,429
16%
City Clerk
176,206
39,144
22%
175,177
185,278
39,515
21%
Elections
74,212
3,018
4%
20,260
77,188
3,079
4%
Finance
320,768
89,406
28%
307,009
337,466
85,362
25%
Assessing
161,000
-
0%
128,829
161,000
-
0%
Information Services
213,738
42,272
20%
185,642
226,601
48,602
21%
Planning & Zoning
504,204
107,011
21%
491,395
526,669
108,141
21%
Engineering
631,401
131,359
21%
594,718
652,908
132,216
20%
Facility Management
713,197
103,872
15%
548,744
742,688
134,172
18%
Total General Gov
3,406,128
654,227
19%
3,020,337
3 29 89
690,361
20
PUBLICSAFETY
Police Protection
3,287,046
821,761
25%
3,287,046
3,337,486
834,371
25%
Fire Protection
1,711,769
282,947
17%
1,704,706
1,841,166
303,157
16%
Protective Inspection
533,561
115,904
22%
516,466
529,812
89,698
17%
Civil Defense
26,844
4,450
17%
15,202
29,003
1,641
6%
Animal Control
5,950
200
3%
3,517
5,950
103
2%
Tow Public Safety
5,565,170
1,225,262
22%
5,526,937
5,743,417
1,228,970
21%
PUBLIC WORKS
Streets and Highways
788,241
145,496
18%
804,392
868,864
150295
17%
Snow and Ice Removal
675,888
178,272
26%
540,226
702,923
254,795
36%
Street Signs
240,842
38,094
16%
196,783
230,094
39,578
17%
Traffic Signals
40,000
3,813
10%
33,374
40,000
5,503
14%
Street Lighting
40,400
6,049
15%
36,533
40,400
5,904
15%
Street Lights - Billed
180,500
26,345
15%
156,841
180,500
26,409
15%
Park & Recreation
1,560,640
241,152
15%
1,505,145
1,613,086
240,408
15%
Natural Resource Preservation
13,383
299
2%
9,738
17,811
5,567
31%
Recycling
233,759
56,992
24%
239,607
237,981
27,910
12%
Total Public Works
3,773,653
696,512
18%
3,522,639
3,931,659
756,369
19%
OTHER
Miscellaneous 806,828 - 0% 757,109 209,328 151,590 72%
Youth Services 39,100 0% 9,000 36,600 0%
Total Other 845,928 0% 766,109 245.928 151,590 62%
Total Expenditures $ 13,590,879 $ 2,576,001 19% $ 12,836,022 $ 13,450,593 $ 2,827,290 21%
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) S (1,393,404) S (1,845,513) $ (74,441) $ (751,448) $ (1,993,024)
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Counciln
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City
SUBJECT: February 2022 Ando
DATE: March 29, 2022
Attached for Council review is the Andover Community Center (ACC) Budget Summary Report
for Budget Year 2022. The reports reflect activity through March 2022, comparative data with
March 2021 and the entire year of 2021 (Pre -Audit).
March 2022
Coming off 2020 imposed COVID restrictions shutting down the entire facility mid-March of
2020, the facility was allowed to reopen in a restricted capacity early January 2021. The ACC
operated at near full capacity for close to twelve months in 2021 making current year (2022)
activities comparable to the previous year.
2022 Revenues are ahead by percentage comparison to 2021, this is due to assorted reasons
attributed to successful sports seasons, payment timing and advertising. 2022 expenses are also a
few percentage points ahead of 2021 primarily in salaries and operating costs. 2022 Full capacity
reflects additional utility costs and hiring challenges have required the use of more full-time
staffing overtime hours rather than the use of part-time staffing.
Also provided is an ACC historical perspective of actual costs dating back to 2015. This is the
reporting previously provided to the ACC Advisory Commission. This report also provides history
on debt service payments and the property tax levy assigned to debt and operations.
Pre Audit 2021
As the Council well knows, the year 2020 was a difficult year, in part because of the expansion
construction, but heavily with imposed COVID restrictions shutting down the entire facility mid-
March of 2020 and then finally allowed to reopen in a restricted capacity early January 2021. The
ACC had some form of operations all twelve months of 2021 since the reopening. The 2021
activities are difficult to compare to 2020 with only the first three months of 2020 containing full
operations.
The pre -audit actuals through December 2021 when compared to the 2021 Budget are favorable
relative to revenues, and expenditures are below budget. In Administration's opinion, while the
expenditures are below budget, which may look good from a budget perspective, but is not
reflective of how Administration would like to see the facility operate. Having adequate staffing
was a challenge during 2021, and while the financial result was positive for 2021, the stretching
of the current staffing to produce the result is not sustainable.
It is anticipated the Pre -Audit numbers will be finalized in early May.
March 2022 FACILITY UPDATE:
Please refer to the attached ACC Facility Update for Major Events and monthly Walking Track
activity. Major events are fewer as the sports seasons transition, this does not mean ACC is not
busy, just not a lot of April events. The bad weather and slow start to spring has helped ACC sell
additional turf time. Fieldhouse activities are strong as well as people are stuck inside.
Other ACC Highlights:....
FIELD HOUSEADMISSIONS
Open Basketball
$3,320.00
Open Pickleball
$5,574.00
Open Volleyball
$2,970.00
$25 Punch Cards
$10,075.00
Skills R Drills Pickleball
$846.00
1st Quarter 2022 (Jan, Feb,
March
$22,785.ao
1st Q )arter 2019 (Jan, Feb, I I I $23,118.00
Marc
ACC has seen admissions revenues return to comparable numbers prior to COVID. Daily
admission fees have gone up $1/admission since 2019 so overall the number of people is still down
but is trending the right direction. There was some fear that our seniors and pickleball would suffer,
but the numbers are showing a continued come back. ACC is again offering pickleball skills and
drills and ACC will also have lessons starting in May where players will need to pre -register for
the program as it will fill quickly.
FIELDHOUSE PROGRAMS(INDOOR SOCCER)
1st Quarter 2022 (Jan, Feb, I $g,gsa.00
March)
1st Quarter 2019 (Jan, Feb,
March
FIELD HOUSE ADVERTISING
12022 (ESTIMATE) I 1 1 $24,100.00
2019 1 $14,000.00
UTILIZATION, COURTS 1.2.3.4
Reservation Date: From Jan 1, 2022, through Mar 31, 2022,
Schedule Type: External Reservation, Internal Reservation
Reservation Site: Andover Community Center
Facility: Court 1, Court 2, Court 3, Court 4
Facility / Equipment/ Instructor
Name (Number)
Court 1 Q
Court 2 O
Court 3 Q
Court 4 Q
Days
Days
Hours
Hours
Average
Available
Reserved
Available (24)
Reserved
`Hours per day
90
90
2,160.00
1,180.92
13.11
90
90
2,160.00
1,163.25
12.92
90
90
2,160.00
1,133.17
12.58
90
83
2,160.00
711.34
7.90
Hours per day include all bookings in the fieldhouse, many of which are not hourly rentals.
-Private Rentals, practices, tournaments, special events are hourly/daily rental fees.
-Open Gym, Basketball, Pickleball, Volleyball, etc. are daily admission fees.
-After School Program is a free program with no revenue.
MEMBERSHIP USEAGE REPORT
505 Resident Passes Redeemed for FH Admissions
112 Resident Passes Redeemed for IA Admissions
617 Resident Passes Redeemed
These are the free passes that Andover Residents can get for admissions to ACC activities. Each
household can get fifteen (15) free passes with an account set up. These passed are valued at
$5/each.
131111 IMM r,Y
ACC has a spring soccer session starting March 26 in the Sports Complex on the turf. A Spring
Learn to Skate is back, ACC is offering a 6 -week program on Thursday nights starting March 24th.
Both programs have over one hundred (100) participants each.
CONCESSIONS -
A Request For Proposal (RFP) was posted and closed on April 7th. ACC received two separate
proposals. The proposals are currently being reviewed by Community Center, Finance &
Administration. The goal is to secure a vendor in the next few weeks and get them started this
summer to get set up, train, and be ready to go full time in September.
STAFFING-
The
TAFFING
The new Assistant Manager (replacing a 17 -year employee) started on March 7a` and the new
fulltime Building Supervisor started on March 11
All around, ACC staffing is currently in good shape, although we are always looking for part-time
staffing year-round.
SCHEDULING-
Scheduling
CHEDULING
Scheduling for winter 2022-23 is almost complete. The coming season is anticipated to be as busy
as 2021-2022 if not busier. ACC is in contact with all our user groups to better understand how we
can better address their needs for the coming year.
ACTION REQUESTED
Administration will review the staff report and discuss the attached reports with the Council at the
meeting.
Attachments
CITY OF ANDOVER
Community Center Budget Summary Totals
Budget Year 2022
2021 2022
REVENUES Budget Mar YTD %Bud PrnAudit Budget Mar YTD %Bud
Charges for services
155,000
-
0%
154.534
155,000
-
0%
Ice Rental
$ 668,000
$ 168178
25%
S 823,857
$ 729,000 $
242,187
33%
Turf Rental
70,000
1,688
Na
3.782
50.000
561
1%
Track
-
948
o/a
3,950
2,500
1,838
Na
Fieldhouse Rental
270,000
78,586
29-A
220,527
240,000
133,325
56%
Proshop
15.000
2,790
19%
9,606
13,000
4,373
34%
Vending
16,000
905
6%
7,763
15,000
7,001
47%
Advertising
50,000
5.100
10%
84,700
63,000
17,066
27%
Total Charges for services
1,089,000
258,295
24%
1,154,185
1.112.500
406,351
37%
Miscellanrous
140,000
17,796
13%
122,139
138,000
29,687
22%
Total revenues
1,229,000
276,091
22%
1.276,324
1,250,500
436,038
75
2021
2022
EXPENDITURES
Budget
Mar YTD
%Bud
Pre -Audit
Budget
Mar YTD
%Bud
Current:
155,000
-
0%
154.534
155,000
-
0%
Salaries& benefits
757,753
137,024
18%
692,744
770,110
176,421
23%
Departmental
105,100
25,183
24%
82,655
93,100
18,202
20%
Operating
635,197
92,824
15%
515,308
599.233
118,940
20%
Professional services
154,375
13,197
9%
85,130
224,525
34,103
15%
Capital outlay
Ne
30,000
16,575
55%
Current
1,652,425
268,228
16%
1375,837
1.716,968
364,241
21%
Revcnue ovc,(under) expense
(423,425)
7,863
-2%
(99,513)
(466,468)
71,797
-IS%
Other Bouncing sources (uses)
General Property Tax Levy
155,000
-
0%
154.534
155,000
-
0%
Investment income
-
(1,112)
Na
1,094
-
-
n/a
Rental/Lease Pymt
638,000
483,783
76%
635,026
638,000
490,678
77%
Transfers out
(300,000)
(300,000)
100%
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
100%
Total financing sources(usm)
493,000
182,671
37%
490,654
493,000
190,678
39%
Net increase(decrease) in
fwd balance $
69.575
S 190.534
274°G
S 391 141 S
7A Sit S
767475
9A9°%
CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
Andover Community Center / YMCA Historical Comparison
Debt Service Payments
2012C GO Abatement Bonds (P+1)
2015
2016
S
2017
S
2018
2019
1,211,481
2020
2021
2022
2022
$
Actual
Actual
$ 1,213,931
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Pr Audit
Budget
Mar -YTD
Revenues:
590,150
819,725
1,109,755
1,109,755
S
1,214,906
S
1,216,506
Charges for services
1,213,731
S
1,211,481
S
1,208,931
S
1,806,131
$
2,032,356
S 2,323,686
S 2,32306
Property Tax Levy
Ice Rental
$ 400,619
S 405,990
$
392,828
S
435,716
$ 442,995
$
361,796
S 823,857
S 729,000
$ 242,187
Turf Rental
-
-
2012C GO Abatement Bonds
-
975,632
-
-
$
-
3,782
50,000
561
Track
-
-
$
-
$ 974,628
-
-
301
3,950
2,500
1,838
Fieldhouse Rental
187,007
199,286
215,089
218,667
220,225
976,966
133,126
220,527
240,000
133,325
Proshop
9,258
9,412
9,247
8,606
9,680
-
4,394
9,606
13,000
4,373
Vending
9,279
8,588
$
9,182
$
7,470
8,427
974,418
6,148
7,763
15,000
7,001
Advertising
31,758
26,450
2,105,229
38,819
$ 2,143.693
34,000
40,850
8,000
84,700
63,000
17,066
Charges for services
637,921
649,726
665,165
704,459
722,177
513,765
1,154,185
1,112,500
406,351
Miscellaneous
174,788
136,552
136,149
142,768
131,386
110,781
122,139
138,000
29,687
Taal revenues
812,709
786,278
801,114
847,227
853,563
624,546
1,276,324
1,250,500
436,038
Expenditures:
Current:
Salaries & benefits
439,304
451,332
481,926
501,108
533,044
503,842
692,744
770,110
176,421
Departmental
74,949
77,945
65,612
76,448
66,570
74,809
82,655
93,100
18,202
Operating
388,492
364,935
364,242
352,067
330,084
345,588
515,308
599,233
118,940
Professional services
142,602
106,381
125,034
104,076
77,818
129,261
85,130
214,525
34,103
Capital outlay
47,859
4,900
11,442
39,888
100,000
30,000
16,575
Current
1,045,347
1,048,452
1,041,714
1,045,141
1,047,404
1,153,500
1,375,837
1,706,968
364,241
Revenue over under expenditures
232638
262174
240400
197914
193841
528954
99513
456468
71,797
Other financing sources (uses)
General Property Tax Levy
-
-
-
-
-
-
154,534
155,000
-
Investment income
(1,078)
2,190
2,779
5,780
16,107
6,793
1,094
-
-
Rental/Lease Pymt
638,220
640,303
641,691
637,150
636,803
635,629
635,026
638,000
490,678
Transfers out
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
Total financing sources (uses)
337,142
342,493
344,470
342,930
352,910
342,422
490,654
493,000
190,678
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance
104,504
80,319
104,070
145,016
159,069
(186,532)
391,141
36,532
262,475
Fund balance (deficit)- January )
(48,364)
56,140
136,459
240,529
385,545
544,614
358,082
749,223
749,223
Fund balance(deficit)- December 31
$ 56,140
S 136,459
$
240,529
$
385,545
5 544,614
S
358,082
_L_249223
$ 785,755
S 1,011,698
Fund Balance Detail:
FB - Replac Ra for Common Space
$ 143,702
S 154,449
S
179,283
S
173,560
$ 200,606
S
190,067
$ 216,790
S 241,790
$ 241,790
FB - Unassigned
(87,562)
(17,990)
61,246
211,985
344,008
168,015
532,433
543,965
769,908
$ 56,140
$ 136,459
$
240,529
S
385.545
$ 544,614
$
358,082
$ 749,223
S 785,755
S 1,011,698
Debt Service Payments
2012C GO Abatement Bonds (P+1)
$
1,214,906
S
1,216,506
S
1,213,731
$
1,211,481
S
1,208,931
S
1,215,981
$
1,212,631
S 1,213,931
$ 1,213,931
2019A GO Abatement Bonds (P+1)
590,150
819,725
1,109,755
1,109,755
S
1,214,906
S
1,216,506
S
1,213,731
S
1,211,481
S
1,208,931
S
1,806,131
$
2,032,356
S 2,323,686
S 2,32306
Property Tax Levy
2012C GO Abatement Bonds
$
975,632
S
977,332
$
974,418
$
972,05S
$
969,378
$
976,780
$
973,263
$ 974,628
$ 974,628
2019A GO Abatement Bonds
-
-
-
-
-
1,001,090
976,966
1,014,065
1,014,065
Community Center Operations
-
-
155,000
155,000
155,000
$
975,632
$
977,332
$
974,418
$
972,055
$
969,378
$
1977870
$
2,105,229
$ 2,143,693
$ 2,143.693
Pre - Audit
AND%VER
COMMUNITY CENTER
FACILITY UPDATE
APRIL 2022
APRIL 4 -10 -JUST BETWEEN FRIENDS KIDS SALE
APRIL 17 - FACILITY CLOSED
APRIL 23-24 - MN PREMIER VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT
TRACK CHECK IN IS REQUIRED. MONDAY -FRIDAY, 6 30AM-4 30PM.
NUMBERS BELOW REFLECT THOSE CHECKED IN DURING THESE TIMES.
JAN:- 1846
FEB -1960
MARCH - 2054
MARCH -MAY -SPRING LEARN TO SKATE
MARCH -MAY - SPRING INDOOR SOCCER