Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-05-06 CC Agenda Packet
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV Regular City Council Meeting – Tuesday, May 6, 2025 Call to Order – 7:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance Resident Forum Agenda Approval 1. Approval of Minutes (4/15/25 Regular; 4/22/25 Workshop; 4/29/25 Board of Review) Consent Items 2. Approve Payment of Claims – Finance 3. Award Bid / 25-11D, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Andover Commercial Park) / 25-12A, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Tulip Street NW - 161st Avenue NW to 168th Lane NW) / 25-12B, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Kadlec Addition, Oakwood Estates, White Oaks Country Estates, 172nd Avenue) / 25- 12C, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Country Oaks West & Birch Point Estates) – Engineering 4. Approve Plans & Specs/Order Advertisement for Bid / 25-11A, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Meadows of Round Lake Area) & 25-8, 2025 Curb, Sidewalk Repairs – Engineering 5. Accept Petition/Order Feasibility Report/25-32, Dahlberg Addition – Engineering 6. Acknowledge and Accept Bids / 25-03, 2025 Crack Sealing / 25-05, 2025 Pavement Markings / 25-07, 2025 Trail Maintenance / 25-10, 2025 Parking Lot Maintenance – Engineering 7. Declare Surplus Equipment/Property – Finance 8. Adopt Resolution Setting Annual Income Level for Senior Citizens and Disabled Individuals for Deferral of Assessments & Reduced Sanitary Sewer Rates – Administration 9. Approve Used Vehicle Sales License – Administration 10. Approve 2026-2028 Urban County Requalification for Participation in the CDBG and HOME Programs – Planning 11. Approve Bid for Abatement at 2461 & 2501 Bunker Lake Blvd NW – Planning 12. Amend 2025 Fee Ordinance – Building 13. Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Lions – Administration 14. Approve Indemnification & Hold Harmless Agreement/495 – 165th Ave. NW – Engineering 15. Approve Purchase of Excavation Trench Box – Public Works 16. Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Lacrosse – Administration Discussion Items 17. Consider Acceptance of Fire Services Evaluation Final Report – Administration Staff Items 18. Administrator’s Report – Administration Mayor/Council Input Adjournment STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #1 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Michelle Hartner, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The following minutes were provided by TimeSaver and Staff, reviewed by Administration, and submitted for City Council approval: April 15, 2025 Regular April 22, 2025 Workshop April 29, 2025 Board of Review BACKGROUND The minutes are attached for your review. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to approve the above minutes. Attachment: Minutes 1 2 3 4 5 REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING – APRIL 15, 2025 6 MINUTES 7 8 9 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor 10 Barthel, April 15, 2025, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, 11 Andover, Minnesota. 12 13 Councilmembers present: Rick Engelhardt, Karen Godfrey, Scott Schue, and Jonathan Shafto 14 15 Councilmember absent: None 16 17 Also present: City Administrator, Sarah Cotton 18 Director of Public Works/City Engineer, David Berkowitz 19 Community Development Director, Joe Janish 20 City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner 21 Others 22 23 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 24 25 RESIDENT FORUM 26 27 Sally Holmgren, 114 143rd Avenue, came forward and discussed the Coon Creek Watershed Trail 28 which is planned on the northside of Coon Creek. She said she lives on the corner where there will 29 be a bridge. She shared when she purchased her home, she had a survey done, which showed there 30 was a 100-foot drainage and utility easement, which is where this trail is going. She stated this is 31 going to cause them to lose over a third of an acre of their property with no compensation. She 32 added she was told by City engineers this trail has been in the plans for 15 years, yet it was not on 33 her survey. She shared her concerns about her property rights. She noted this will also cause a loss 34 of privacy in her yard, and she is concerned with the liability issues. She stated she frequently has 35 ATVs driving through her backyard as it is, and if this trail is put in then she expects to see some 36 kind of guard rails in place. She explained the money from the DNR for this project has a lot of 37 strings attached, and she hopes the Council will review this thoroughly before moving forward. 38 She added the City engineers have not been very responsive to her concerns. She invited the 39 Council out to her property if they would like to see her concerns with this trail. 40 41 Mayor Barthel encouraged Ms. Holmgren to reach out to Director of Public Works/City Engineer 42 Berkowitz. He added if there are ATVs driving through her backyard, then she can call the Anoka 43 County Sheriff’s Office for them to respond to this matter. 44 45 AGENDA APPROVAL 46 47 Mayor Barthel shared staff’s request to remove Item #4. 48 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – April 15, 2025 Page 2 1 Motion by Engelhardt, Seconded by Schue, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried 2 unanimously. 3 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 6 March 25, 2025, Workshop Meeting: Correct as written 7 April 1, 2025, Regular Meeting: Correct as written 8 9 Motion by Shafto, Seconded by Engelhardt, to approve the March 25, 2025, Workshop meeting 10 minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 11 12 Motion by Shafto, Seconded by Engelhardt, to approve the April 1, 2025, Regular meeting minutes 13 as presented. Motion carried, 4 ayes, 1 present (Schue). 14 15 CONSENT ITEMS 16 17 Item 2 Approve Payment of Claims 18 Item 3 Award Bid / 25-02A,2025 Street Reconstruction (Xenia Street NW / Vintage Street NW / 19 161st Avenue NW) / 25-2B, 2025 Street Reconstruction (Indian Meadows 4th & 5th Additions / 25-20 11B, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Fox Meadows & Indian Meadows) / 25-11C, 2025 Full Depth 21 Reclamation (Pine Hills Addition) (See Resolution R043-25) 22 Item 5 Approve JPA with Anoka County / 23-18, Nightingale St. NW & Crosstown Blvd. NW 23 Roundabout 24 Item 6 Approve JPA with Anoka County / 24-34A, Bunker Lake Blvd. NW Traffic Signal 25 Improvements 26 Item 7 Approve Removal and Replacement of Bituminous Basketball Court at Sunshine Park 27 Item 8 Receive March 2025 City Investment Report 28 Item 9 Receive March 2025 General Fund Progress Report 29 Item 10 Award Bid / Down Payment for the City Hall Remodel Project 30 Item 11 Approve Exempt Permit/Andover Lions Club/Fun Fest 31 Item 12 Approve Temporary Liquor License/Andover Lions Club/Fun Fest 32 Item 13 Approve Used Vehicle Sales Business License 33 Item 14 Approve Request for Proposal/24-29, Crosstown Blvd. & Bluebird Street Roundabout 34 Item 15 Adopt Denial Resolution & Findings of Fact – Variance for Commercial Building 35 Construction Standards – 3149 162nd Ln NW; PID 16-32-24-23-0009 – Nick Morter, Minnesota 36 Irrigation/Landscapes Unlimited Outdoors Inc. (Applicant) (See Resolution R044-25) 37 38 Motion by Shafto, Seconded by Schue, to approve of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion carried 39 unanimously. 40 41 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT 42 43 Commander Paul Lenzmeier provided a monthly report including 940 calls for service, with two 44 burglaries, 10 thefts, six personal injury accidents, and 30 property damage accidents. He added 45 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – April 15, 2025 Page 3 they had four felony arrests, eight gross misdemeanor arrests, 10 misdemeanor arrests, and three 1 DWIs. He said the traffic stops increased in March to 460 total stops, which resulted in 126 traffic 2 arrests. He noted 51 of these arrests were due to drivers not having driver’s licenses or driver’s 3 licenses that had been revoked or suspended. He added there have been a lot of ATVs and other 4 motorbikes that have been seen around the community, and the deputies are trying to stay proactive 5 with enforcement of these vehicles as they are not allowed on roadways in Andover. He asked 6 residents to please call the Sheriff’s Office if they see one of these kinds of vehicles on the roads. 7 He said they want to use this as an educational opportunity to let them know that these vehicles 8 are not allowed on the roads. He shared they have completed their active shooter training over the 9 last month and a half. He added they have conducted interviews for a social worker who will ride 10 along with deputies when responding to calls that have mental health aspects to them to help with 11 the situation, and ongoing support after the call. He said they are hoping to have this social worker 12 on board by June 1st. He shared they will be doing a proactive, scam prevention workshop on May 13 15th from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office to help people safeguard 14 their savings. He said more information can be found on their website and Facebook page. He 15 asked those who are interested in attending to RSVP. 16 17 Councilmember Engelhardt thanked the Sheriff’s Office for all of their hard work and proactive 18 enforcement. He noted with the weather getting nicer, it is nice to see more people out and about 19 and encouraged everyone to talk with their neighbors and check in on them. 20 21 Mayor Barthel thanked the Sheriff’s Office for putting on the scam prevention workshop for the 22 community. He also shared his appreciation for adding a social worker to their Staff. He noted the 23 Sheriff’s Office is there for the big things, but also the little things. He encouraged residents to 24 utilize the Sheriff’s Office for any concerns, big or small. 25 26 CONSIDER A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION USING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 27 (PUD) ON THE PROPERTY AT 13624 GLADIOLA STREET NW (PID# 33-32-24-31-0042) 28 (APPLICANT: GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MN INC.) 29 30 The City Council is requested to review a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit 31 Development (PUD) for a five-lot single-family residential development as proposed by General 32 Contractors of MN Inc. and consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation of 33 approval. 34 35 Community Development Director Janish reviewed the staff report in regard to a PUD request for 36 a residential subdivision on Gladiola Street. 37 38 Doug Shultz, Grandemoore Homes, the applicant, came forward and thanked the Council for their 39 consideration. He said they have done a lot to try to listen to the concerns that were shared by 40 residents. 41 42 Councilmember Schue asked why one Planning and Zoning Commissioner did not vote in favor 43 of this. Mr. Janish said the Commissioner expressed concern with parking in the area. 44 45 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – April 15, 2025 Page 4 Councilmember Schue asked about a traffic study and why one was not done. Mr. Janish explained 1 there were originally seven homes proposed along Bunker Lake Boulevard, which was then 2 reduced to five. He noted five new homes do not warrant a traffic study on the impacts to Bunker 3 Lake Boulevard as it would be very minimal. 4 5 Mayor Barthel shared his appreciation for the applicant’s willingness to adjust their plans based 6 on feedback received on the proposed seven lots. 7 8 Motion by Engelhardt, Seconded by Schue, to adopt Resolution No. R045-25, approving the 9 Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development requested by General Contractors of MN Inc. 10 Motion carried unanimously. 11 12 CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A 5-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 13 THE PROPERTY AT 13624 GLADIOLA STREET NW (PID# 33-32-24-31-0042) 14 (APPLICANT: GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MN INC.) 15 16 The City Council is requested to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation 17 of approval of a Preliminary Plat of a five-lot single-family residential development as proposed 18 by General Contractors of MN Inc. 19 20 Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report concerning the preliminary plat for the residential subdivision 21 on Gladiola Street. 22 23 Councilmember Godfrey noted in the past, they have discussed closing Gladiola and tearing it up 24 to install utilities; however, the current proposal only states it will be closed for about two weeks. 25 She asked if there was a change in this plan to extend utilization. Mr. Janish said the utilities will 26 be a little shorter since they will be making two fewer connections. Mr. Berkowitz added they 27 want to limit the impacts in the area, which is why they shortened the road closure time to two 28 weeks. 29 30 Councilmember Godfrey mentioned on the maps they are reviewing; it shows the current fencing 31 extends beyond the property line. She asked if this will be adjusted during construction. Brian 32 Person, Hakanson Anderson, shared the fences are well placed on the property lines and do not 33 extend very much at all. He stated these fences, which are dilapidated will be removed and 34 replaced. 35 36 City Attorney Baumgartner asked if the HOA would be responsible for the repair and maintenance 37 of the dock. Mr. Janish said yes. 38 39 Mr. Baumgartner suggested they make a requirement in the resolution that the HOA documents 40 are acceptable to the City. He asked if there will be an easement across the properties to allow 41 residents to get to and from the dock. Mr. Janish said yes. 42 43 Mr. Baumgartner asked if easement documents will be drafted. Mr. Janish said yes. 44 45 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – April 15, 2025 Page 5 Motion by Schue, Seconded by Godfrey, to adopt Resolution No. R046-25, approving the 1 Preliminary Plat of “Lakeview at Sloth Farm” with added language that the HOA documentation 2 be acceptable to the City. Motion carried unanimously. 3 4 CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR THE ADDITION OF ANTENNAS 5 TO THE EXISTING WATER TOWER AND RELATED GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT 6 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1717 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW (PID# 22-32-24-41-00106) 7 (APPLICANT: AT&T MOBILITY ℅ TERRA CONSULTING GROUP, LTD.) 8 9 The City Council is requested to receive the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning 10 Commission, and materials presented as part of the application, and consider approval of the 11 proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for up to nine antennas to be located on the existing water 12 tower at 1717 Crosstown Boulevard NW. 13 14 Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report in regard to the requested CUP to allow antennas on the 15 existing water tower at 1717 Crosstown Boulevard. 16 17 Councilmember Godfrey noted when six antennas were requested back in 2023, there was some 18 supplemental information that was required through City Code subsection 9-11-9, C-1-c, which 19 would require a licensed engineer to address the tower’s capacity. She stated at the time six were 20 proposed, it would have brought the tower close to capacity. She asked if a capacity study has been 21 done for this request of 9 antennas. Mr. Janish explained this information has been sent to their 22 consultant to review. He noted there have been changes made to the antennas that are being used 23 since 2023 and they are smaller and lighter than what was previously discussed. 24 25 Councilmember Godfrey asked if staff will continue to monitor this capacity and act accordingly 26 when needed. Mr. Janish said yes. 27 28 Motion by Godfrey, Seconded by Engelhardt, to adopt Resolution No. R047-25 approving the 29 Conditional Use Permit amendment request to allow up to nine antennas to the existing 30 telecommunication tower for AT&T located at 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW (Water Tower #2, 31 1717 Crosstown Boulevard NW). Motion carried unanimously. 32 33 ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 34 35 City Staff updated the Council on the administration and city department activities, legislative 36 updates, updates on development/CIP projects, and meeting reminders/community events. 37 38 (Administrative Staff Report) City Administrator Cotton reviewed the administrative staff report. 39 She shared there have been 26 new single-family home permits pulled so far this year, with 14 40 issued in March alone. She added the financing for the J.A. Wedum project has officially closed, 41 and construction activity has begun at this site. She noted they held a neighborhood meeting for 42 the Red Oaks monitoring area on April 9th and they hope they will be able to receive some funding 43 to move forward with connecting residents in this area to the municipal water supply. 44 45 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – April 15, 2025 Page 6 (Public Works/Engineering Department Report) Mr. Berkowitz reviewed the Public Works and 1 Engineering Department report. He shared the fields have been open for use. He added they have 2 already completed one full round of street sweeping all of the streets in the City and have gotten 3 to some roads twice. He thanked the Public Works Staff for being aggressive with street sweeping 4 so early in the spring. He said they have started flushing the water system this week and hope to 5 have this completed by the end of next week. He thanked the utilities Staff for their work. He 6 discussed Ms. Holmgren’s previous concern about the City easement not showing on her survey. 7 He explained when a property is platted, there are only certain things that can be put on the plat, 8 and something that cannot be put on the plat is a trail easement. He said these are documents that 9 staff has to ensure are recorded as their own separate document, as when the surveyor puts on their 10 documentation is out of the City’s control. He noted it is very important that residents understand 11 and know their property. He added these documents from the City are often included in the closing 12 documents for the home and if these were not received at the time of closing, then residents should 13 reach out to their title company about this. He shared there is a lot of road construction taking 14 place, and road restrictions will be coming off tomorrow. 15 16 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT 17 18 Councilmember Schue thanked Staff for their outstanding work fielding complaints from 19 residents. He noted they show professionalism and courtesy to everyone who expresses concerns. 20 21 Councilmember Engelhardt shared a lot of people have been out walking due to the great weather 22 and encouraged drivers to be safe and cautious. 23 24 Mayor Barthel noted the Crooked Lake Area Association recently received a letter about their 25 water quality, which was an A-. He said this is very impressive as back in 1985 it was a C- and in 26 2005 it was a C+. He thanked the Crooked Lake Area Association for all that they do. 27 28 ADJOURNMENT 29 30 Motion by Schue, Seconded by Shafto, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting 31 adjourned at 7:58 p.m. 32 33 Respectfully submitted, 34 35 Ava Major, Recording Secretary 36 37 REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – APRIL 15, 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ..................................................................................................... 1 RESIDENT FORUM .................................................................................................................. 1 AGENDA APPROVAL.............................................................................................................. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES....................................................................................................... 2 CONSENT ITEMS ..................................................................................................................... 2 Item 2 Approve Payment of Claims ....................................................................................... 2 Item 3 Award Bid / 25-02A, 2025 Street Reconstruction (Xenia Street NW / Vintage Street NW / 161st Avenue NW) / 25-2B, 2025 Street Reconstruction (Indian Meadows 4th & 5th Additions / 25-11B, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Fox Meadows & Indian Meadows) / 25- 11C, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Pine Hills Addition) (R043-25) ....................................... 2 Item 5 Approve JPA with Anoka County / 23-18, Nightingale St. NW & Crosstown Blvd. NW Roundabout ......................................................................................................................... 2 Item 6 Approve JPA with Anoka County / 24-34A, Bunker Lake Blvd. NW Traffic Signal Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 2 Item 7 Approve Removal and Replacement of Bituminous Basketball Court at Sunshine Park ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Item 8 Receive March 2025 City Investment Report ............................................................. 2 Item 9 Receive March 2025 General Fund Progress Report .................................................. 2 Item 10 Award Bid / Down Payment for the City Hall Remodel Project .................................. 2 Item 11 Approve Exempt Permit/Andover Lions Club/Fun Fest ............................................... 2 Item 12 Approve Temporary Liquor License/Andover Lions Club/Fun Fest ............................ 2 Item 13 Approve Used Vehicle Sales Business License ............................................................ 2 Item 14 Approve Request for Proposal/24-29, Crosstown Blvd. & Bluebird Street Roundabout .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Item 15 Adopt Denial Resolution & Findings of Fact/Variance for Commercial Building Construction Standards/3149 162nd Lane NW/PID 16-32-24-23-0009/Nick Morter Minnesota Irrigation/Landscapes Unlimited Outdoors Inc. (Applicant) (R044-25) .................................... 2 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT ............................................ 2 CONSIDER A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION USING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ON THE PROPERTY AT 13624 GLADIOLA STREET NW (PID# 33-32-24-31-0042) (APPLICANT: GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MN INC.) (R045-25) ............................................................................................................................ 3 CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A 5-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON THE PROPERTY AT 13624 GLADIOLA STREET NW (PID# 33-32-24-31-0042) (APPLICANT: GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MN INC.) (R046-25) ......................... 4 CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR THE ADDITION OF ANTENNAS TO THE EXISTING WATER TOWER AND RELATED GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1717 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW (PID# 22-32-24-41-00106) (APPLICANT: AT&T MOBILITY ℅ TERRA CONSULTING GROUP, LTD.) (R047-25)......................................................... 5 ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT................................................................................................ 5 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT ...................................................................................................... 6 ADJOURNMENT....................................................................................................................... 6 1 2 3 4 5 ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING – APRIL 22, 2025 6 MINUTES 7 8 9 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Barthel, April 10 22, 2025, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, 11 Minnesota. 12 13 Councilmembers present: Rick Engelhardt, Karen Godfrey, Scott Schue, and Jonathan Shafto 14 15 Councilmember absent: None 16 17 Also present: City Administrator, Sarah Cotton 18 Community Development Director, Joe Janish 19 Director of Public Works/City Engineer, David Berkowitz 20 City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner 21 Finance Manager, Lee Brezinka 22 Natural Resources Technician, Kameron Kytonen 23 Nature Preserve Commissioners 24 Parks and Streets Operations Manager, Jason Baumunk 25 Others 26 27 28 JOINT MEETING WITH NATURE PRESERVE COMMISSION 29 30 Natural Resources Technician Kytonen introduced the Nature Preserve Commissioners and 31 reviewed a presentation with the Council on the Nature Preserve Commission. 32 33 Councilmember Schue asked what interaction the Nature Preserve Commission and the Planning 34 and Zoning Commission have. Councilmember Godfrey said she was involved with the Planning 35 and Zoning Commission for nine years, and they never had any involvement with the Nature 36 Preserve Commission. 37 38 Mayor Barthel shared since he became the Mayor, he has thought a lot about the Nature Preserve 39 Commission. He said he wants to have a conversation with the Council at an upcoming meeting 40 about what they should do with the Commission. He noted if all the Commission is ever going to 41 be is just overseeing the four nature preserves in the City, then it may not be worth having the 42 citizens appointed as Commissioners to come together a few times a year to discuss these 43 preserves. He added they could empower the Commission and give them a seat at the table with 44 the rural reserve to give them greater involvement in the development process. He said he would 45 want to see the Commission become something strong if it is going to stay. 46 47 Councilmember Godfrey agreed and added the Nature Preserve Commission was originally 48 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 2 created to help acquire land from open spaces, and now it is just for preserving what they already 1 have. She noted they are currently at a turning point for the future between just preserving the 2 existing land or to expand. 3 4 Mayor Barthel asked why the Commission only has the four preserves and not also the open space 5 on the southwest corner of Hanson Boulevard and 161st Avenue, as this is technically a nature 6 preserve. 7 8 Councilmember Schue asked when the Council will discuss the future of the Nature Preserve 9 Commission. Mayor Barthel said he would like the Council to have discussed the future of the 10 Commission by the end of 2025. 11 12 Councilmember Schue said he is in support of discussing this and engaging the Commission on 13 the future of the nature preserves. He thanked the Commissioners for all of the work they have 14 been doing. 15 16 Councilmember Godfrey shared her appreciation for the Nature Preserve Commission for putting 17 together a great presentation, which summarizes where they have been and how they got to where 18 they are. 19 20 Mayor Barthel noted in the six years he has been on the Council; he has felt that the Nature Preserve 21 Commission has not been given complete direction on where to go. He said he wants to make sure 22 that this direction is set moving forward. 23 24 Councilmember Shafto agreed with his fellow Councilmembers and added he does not want them 25 to lose sight of this throughout the year. He said he wants to make this a recurring discussion so 26 they keep it as a focus of the Council. He shared he loves the nature preserves and thinks they will 27 be a part of the City’s legacy. He shared his appreciation for the Commission and all of their work. 28 29 DISCUSS PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT AT 7TH AVE. (CSAH 7) AND 165TH AVE. (CR 30 158)/C.P. 24-35 31 32 Director of Public Works/City Engineer Berkowitz reviewed the staff report concerning the 33 roundabout at 7th Avenue and 165th Avenue. 34 35 Andrew Paulman, WSB, reviewed the proposed roundabout project with the Council. 36 37 Councilmember Godfrey asked what an MS4 community is defined as. Mr. Berkowitz explained 38 it has to do with stormwater requirements. 39 40 Mayor Barthel asked how long this roundabout would take to build. Mr. Paulman said it could take 41 as short as six weeks. 42 43 Michelle Pritchard, Anoka County Design Engineer, added the County will be doing pavement 44 preservation projects in this area, and everything will have new pavement. She said she believes 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 3 this will be a mill and overlay. 1 2 Mr. Berkowitz shared they had discussed in the past that they would not be doing any plants in the 3 roundabouts, and it would just be grass and colored concrete. 4 5 Mayor Barthel asked if the City or the County would be responsible for mowing the grass in the 6 middle of the roundabout. Ms. Pritchard said it will likely be done by the County when they are 7 mowing the rest of the area. 8 9 Councilmember Godfrey asked how extensive the communication with residents will be for this 10 project. Mr. Paulman shared they will have an open house that residents can attend in person or 11 virtually. He added they will also be mailing postcards to 650 residents in the area and posting on 12 social media. He noted message boards often help get the word out for these projects. 13 14 Mr. Berkowitz asked if they anticipate any utility relocation with the private utilities in the area. 15 Mr. Paulman said there may be some that require relocation to get them out of the way. 16 17 Councilmember Shafto shared he is looking forward to this roundabout as he drives this road a lot 18 and it can be very dangerous. 19 20 Mr. Berkowitz explained when the development in this area went in, the City and the County 21 discussed running the road through the development to lessen the curves; however, it came down 22 to the potential of two roundabouts, one at 165th and at the other intersection of 165th around the 23 curve. He said they were not likely to get funding for both of these projects, so they went with the 24 best candidate, which was this one. He stated they will evaluate the improvements made by this 25 roundabout before they discuss whether or not they need the second roundabout. He asked Mr. 26 Paulman how many roundabouts he has built. Mr. Paulman shared he has built 110 in the State 27 since 2005. 28 29 Councilmember Godfrey asked if this is a one or two-lane roundabout. Mr. Paulman said it will 30 be one lane. 31 32 Mr. Berkowitz asked about the population threshold for a four-lane road. Mr. Paulson shared the 33 State aid manual said it is 15,000; however, if there is a traffic study that would show how an area 34 could benefit from four lanes, they can request more lanes without the population requirement. He 35 added he does not see the need for more than one lane in this area. 36 37 PINE HILLS NORTH SHELTER RESERVATION POLICY/FEES 38 39 Parks and Streets Operations Manager Baumunk reviewed the staff report in regard to the Pine 40 Hills North shelter reservation policy and fees. 41 42 Mayor Barthel asked why someone would be required to have a park exclusive use permit to have 43 a food truck on site if the food truck could only operate there 21 days out of the year. Mr. Baumunk 44 explained the food truck would not normally be able to operate here as it is public property. He 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 4 noted it is a requirement in the code that if someone wants to bring in an entity to sell food or 1 merchandise, they are required to get a park exclusive use permit. 2 3 Councilmember Godfrey asked if there is electrical service available for the food trucks to use. 4 Mr. Baumunk said no and noted the food trucks would need to be able to provide their own 5 electricity. 6 7 Councilmember Godfrey shared she has a lot of experience working with food trucks at events, 8 and she thinks that anything they can do to streamline this process will be beneficial. She noted 9 this site is going to have a lot to offer; however, when comparing it to other sites that are available 10 in Anoka County for much less, the cost for this space seems a bit high. She added she does not 11 think they should allow alcohol in the park. 12 13 Councilmember Shafto stated he thinks that having a food truck for an event should be a part of 14 the application process, and the code should be adjusted for this. He asked if someone reserved a 15 food truck for an event; are other people who happened to be at the park able to purchase food 16 from the vendor. Mr. Baumunk noted it would likely be exclusive to the event. 17 18 Mayor Barthel shared he was also supportive of streamlining this process in any way possible. He 19 said he is fine with the fee where it is currently. 20 21 Mr. Baumunk noted if they start getting complaints about how high the fee is or the space is not 22 being reserved, then they can reevaluate the fee to see if it needs to be adjusted. He shared alcohol 23 is currently not allowed in any parks. He asked if they wanted to look into allowing alcohol in 24 parks or stay firm on not allowing alcohol. He noted most cities that do allow alcohol in their parks 25 only allow it from a licensed vendor. 26 27 Councilmember Shafto asked if there have been any residents who have asked to have alcohol in 28 the park at an event. Mr. Baumunk said he had never heard of anyone asking for this. 29 30 City Attorney Baumgartner asked if they had looked into Ramsey’s rules around alcohol in parks, 31 as he had his son’s graduation party in one of their parks, and alcohol was allowed. Mr. Baumunk 32 shared that Ramsey allows alcohol in some instances; however, it is up to the discretion of the 33 director. 34 35 Mr. Baumgartner shared he is also concerned about the possibility that someone could drink in the 36 park and then go drive drunk. He noted if they only allowed licensed and insured vendors to supply 37 alcohol, then they would take on this liability. 38 39 Councilmember Godfrey noted the capacity of this space is 50 people, and she does not think they 40 need to plan for allowing alcohol at this time. 41 Mr. Baumgartner asked if they have a different price for residents and non-residents to reserve this 42 space. Mr. Baumunk said no and explained they wanted to get the space up and running and 43 evaluate this before making a decision on changing the fee. 44 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 5 Councilmember Godfrey noted the language currently reads that the space will open for residents 1 to reserve. She said if this is also open to non-residents, then they should clarify this language. 2 3 Councilmember Schue stated this is just a pilot program for right now, and they can change it 4 down the road. He asked staff to keep the Council in the loop with what is going on with the space. 5 He agreed he is not supportive of allowing alcohol. He noted he does not want this to be exclusively 6 for Andover residents; however, he would prefer that residents have a lower fee than non-residents. 7 8 Councilmember Godfrey added Anoka has a policy that only residents can reserve park spaces. 9 10 Mr. Berkowitz shared the goal is to start getting reservations for this space in early June, and he 11 does not think they will be able to change the ordinance around food trucks by that time. 12 13 City Administrator Cotton shared they could put a question about food trucks on the application 14 for the space, and if someone is planning on having a food truck at their event, then there would 15 be a list of requirements that they would have to send to the City. She said this process will take 16 some time to review all of the requirements. She added she met with the Fire Department in regard 17 to food trucks, and they will soon be requiring fire inspections of these food trucks. 18 19 Councilmember Shafto asked if they would limit these events to one food truck. Mr. Baumunk 20 noted there is not enough room for more than one food truck. 21 22 Council consensus was reached to direct staff to streamline the reservation process for Pine Hills 23 North and continue to not allow alcohol in the parks. 24 25 COUNCIL TRAINING - OPEN MEETING LAW & CONFLICT OF INTEREST 26 DISCUSSION 27 28 Mr. Baumgartner reviewed the training with the Council on Open Meeting Law and conflicts of 29 interest. 30 31 Mayor Barthel asked if a resident emails all of the Councilmembers if he should include Ms. 32 Cotton on his reply so she is aware of the email. Mr. Baumgartner said yes. 33 34 Councilmember Schue asked if Ms. Cotton would be able to let the rest of the Council know when 35 one Councilmember has replied to a resident in a situation where they were all contacted, that is 36 why they ensure that the resident has been answered, and they are not breaking any open meeting 37 laws. 38 39 Mayor Barthel asked if they need to be careful about continuing to talk after meetings have 40 concluded. Mr. Baumgartner said yes and explained they would never want to give the public the 41 perception that the Council is discussing Council matters after meetings. 42 43 Councilmember Shafto asked how they would control the serial meetings. Mr. Baumgartner shared 44 it would be up to the Councilmember not to take a conversation that they have had with someone 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 6 else to another Councilmember. He noted this would be very hard to prove that it violated open 1 meeting laws; however, they do not want to get to the point where they would have to prove they 2 did not violate the open meeting laws. 3 4 Councilmember Shafto requested they add a copy of the conflict-of-interest form to Laserfiche for 5 easy access. 6 7 LAND USE AGREEMENT 8 9 Community Development Director Janish reviewed the staff report concerning a land use 10 agreement for a resident who would like to build a second home on their property to be their new 11 primary home once completed. 12 13 Councilmember Shafto shared he is generally supportive of this idea. He asked what would happen 14 if the property owner passed away or decided to sell the home while they were still in the process 15 of building the second home. Mr. Janish said this agreement does not cover this scenario. 16 17 Mr. Baumgartner noted this would be an unusual scenario, but if it were to happen, the new 18 property owner would have to come to the City to work on some kind of agreement. He asked if 19 they would want to limit this land use agreement to only homes, as this discussion originally started 20 because of an accessory structure. 21 22 Mayor Barthel noted as long as the resident follows the process of building the new structure and 23 tearing down the old, then he does not care if it is for homes or accessory structures. 24 25 Council consensus was reached to direct staff to move forward with the proposed land use 26 agreement. 27 28 CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS 29 30 Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report in regard to the current code enforcement process. 31 32 Mayor Barthel asked how much the tickets are for non-compliance. Mr. Baumgartner explained if 33 it is a payable offense, there is a set amount that is available on the State’s website that lists all 34 cities' payable offense amounts. He suggested the Council review the dollar amounts for each 35 offense periodically. 36 37 Mr. Janish noted the code enforcement system is currently operating on a complaint-based model. 38 39 Councilmember Shafto asked if complaints made to the Sheriff’s Office make it back to the City. 40 Mr. Baumgartner shared the Sheriff’s Office would likely call the City and ask them to address 41 the matter if they receive a complaint, as the Sheriff’s Office does not step into this process until 42 a citation needs to be issued. 43 44 Mayor Barthel asked if there is a maximum number of citations a person can receive. Mr. 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 7 Baumgartner said no. 1 2 Mayor Barthel shared a resident had come to him and showed him a property that has been out of 3 compliance for a long time, and the property owner has been getting citations and is still not taking 4 care of the issue. He asked at what point the City would be able to enforce more action. Mr. 5 Baumgartner explained the City always has the right to do an abatement process. He shared he has 6 concerns with abatements as they do not know the value of the items they would be disposing of. 7 He said he would like this to be the last resort to clean up a property. He added if they were to do 8 an abatement, he would want them to go through the court process to get a judge’s blessing and 9 order before removing any of the items. 10 11 Mr. Janish noted they can start running into issues when the complaints are for outdoor toys, patio 12 furniture, or other items that are made to be outside. He said there are no rules in code that limit 13 the number of toys, patio furniture, grills, or other outdoor items someone can have. 14 15 Mr. Baumgartner stated they do not want to set themselves up for discretionary enforcement. He 16 explained if a resident does not like what their neighbor has in their yard, then there is a civil statute 17 that would allow them to get a civil injunction against their neighbor. He said he has given this 18 option to residents in the past who are concerned with their neighbor’s property, but it is not 19 violating the City’s code. 20 21 Mr. Janish asked the Council if they would like to make any changes to the current process. 22 23 Mr. Baumgartner added there are some residents who will receive a payable ticket, and they will 24 choose to pay it rather than clean up their property. He said some of these citations he chooses to 25 make mandatory appearances as this is more inconvenient and will help get them into compliance. 26 27 Mr. Janish noted their ultimate goal is to see people come into compliance, not to penalize them. 28 29 Mayor Barthel said he would like to look over the fees. He stated he is not looking to increase 30 these fees so they can make a lot of money as a City; he wants to increase them to get people into 31 compliance. He noted this review has been very helpful and will aid him in speaking to residents 32 when they come to him with code enforcement concerns. 33 34 Councilmember Schue shared his appreciation for staff expressing reasonableness through this 35 process and how they evaluate every situation individually and with care. 36 37 Councilmember Godfrey said this will help her understand the code enforcement annual report 38 better as well as better be able to advise residents on the formal process in place. 39 40 Council consensus was reached to direct staff to keep the current code enforcement process and to 41 bring back information on the fees to the Council at a later meeting. 42 43 BUILDING MATERIALS NON-RESIDENTIAL 44 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 8 Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report concerning building materials for non-residential buildings. 1 2 Councilmember Shafto asked if the steel paneling would be allowed in a residential community. 3 Mr. Janish said no one has proposed this yet. 4 5 Mayor Barthel stated he likes the consolidation factors of aesthetics, use, and value when it comes 6 to building materials. He said knowing this makes him feel better about what they require 7 throughout the City. 8 9 Councilmember Engelhardt added this should help clarify the reasoning to the applicant who came 10 forward at a recent meeting wanting to build a steel storage building. 11 12 Councilmember Godfrey shared it looks like 3139 162nd, which is next to the property that wanted 13 to build a steel storage building, has a green metal building. Mr. Janish explained this property had 14 started developing before Andover was incorporated. He said they used to allow for steel in this 15 area, which is why there are some steel buildings out here. He stated the Council has looked at 16 these properties only when they change uses to make the upgrades to bring them into the current 17 standards. He said there is flexibility in these standards. 18 19 Councilmember Godfrey noted the 3139 162nd property has huge piles of dirt outside of it and 20 asked if it recently changed uses. Mr. Janish shared he believes this property was a landscaping 21 company in the past, but they did not have any outside materials. He noted there is a provision in 22 the code that states the Council can require a CUP for any property that has a lot of outside storage. 23 24 Councilmember Godfrey said the property looks neat; it is just much different than it used to be in 25 the past. 26 27 Council consensus was reached to keep the building material standards as is. 28 29 RECEIVE MARCH 2025 COMMUNITY CENTER UPDATE 30 31 Finance Manager Brezinka reviewed the March 2025 Community Center update. 32 33 Councilmember Godfrey asked when they would break even on the golf simulators. Mr. Brezinka 34 said they had projected they would break even in two years, making $20,000 a year. 35 36 Mayor Barthel shared switching from Subway to an ice cream shop has been a major success, as 37 he always sees lots of people standing in line for ice cream. 38 39 Mr. Brezinka shared the turf will be coming out this week, and they will be painting the lines for 40 hockey. 41 42 Ms. Cotton stated they will be hosting the puzzle exchange at the Community Center this weekend 43 and they have already received 1,100 puzzles. 44 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 9 CITY HALL REMODEL PROJECT UPDATE 1 2 Mr. Brezinka reviewed the staff report concerning the City Hall remodel project updates. 3 4 Mayor Barthel asked why a cubicle costs more than an office to remodel. Mr. Brezinka explained 5 it is because the walls of the cubicle are being replaced. 6 7 Councilmember Godfrey asked when they would be getting new chairs for the Council Chambers. 8 Mr. Brezinka shared they get $20,000 from QCTV and could use these funds for new chairs. He 9 noted it is typically very difficult to get everyone to agree on the same style of chair. 10 11 Ms. Cotton shared they can have a vendor come out with sample chairs for everyone to try out and 12 make a decision on. 13 14 Councilmember Godfrey stated the chairs are a lower priority than other remodel projects, but she 15 would like it added to the list if they happen to have some extra funds available. 16 17 Ms. Cotton shared they are trying to do these projects as cost-effectively as possible and noted 18 they have an employee from Public Works who will be removing all of the wallpaper, sanding, 19 and prepping the walls for painting, which will save them money by not having to hire an outside 20 vendor for this work. She added they would like furniture that will last, so they do not have to 21 replace it often and can just work on maintaining these projects. 22 23 Councilmember Schue thanked staff for thinking about this project in a cost-effective way. He 24 noted at first glance, the project costs seem very high, but they could have been a lot more if they 25 had not found cost-saving measures. 26 27 Council consensus was reached to direct staff to move forward with the proposed remodel projects 28 for 2025. 29 30 OTHER TOPICS 31 32 Mr. Berkowitz discussed the Station Parkway trail. He asked if the Council would like them to 33 remove this entire trail. 34 35 Councilmember Shafto shared he would be supportive of keeping the middle section of the trail as 36 they have been getting feedback from residents that they want this area to stay. 37 38 Councilmember Schue agreed and said he thinks the two ends of the trail can be removed, but keep 39 the middle section for now. 40 41 Mr. Berkowitz shared they would send notices to the residents letting them know that this middle 42 section will be replaced. 43 44 Councilmember Godfrey asked how much this will cost. Mr. Berkowitz said it will likely cost 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 10 around $25,000. 1 2 Mayor Barthel shared he would like to discuss the future of the Nature Preserve Commission at an 3 upcoming Workshop. 4 5 Councilmember Engelhardt shared he had met with Commissioner Gwinn and challenged him to 6 raise awareness and visibility into the nature preserves that could get people to visit them. 7 8 Ms. Cotton asked if the Council would like to discuss the Nature Preserve on their own or if they 9 would like to have another joint meeting with the Commission. Mayor Barthel said he would like 10 to start this discussion with just the Council. 11 12 Ms. Cotton stated she wants to ensure they come up with a clear strategic vision for the Nature 13 Preserve Commission, as staff currently struggles with how to direct this Commission. 14 15 Councilmember Godfrey noted without a clear direction or a vision, the Commission can spend 16 lots of time applying for grants, like they did for the bridge, that end up getting rejected. She said 17 it is not good for a City to not have a vision of where they want to go in the future, and they end 18 up spending resources without clear direction. 19 20 Mayor Barthel added this Commission also has a very high turnover rate. He said it seems as 21 though residents join the Commission with excitement about what the nature preserves can be, and 22 when they get on the Commission, they realize there is no direction, and they end up leaving. He 23 noted it is time for a change. 24 25 Councilmember Engelhardt shared he took his dog for a walk one day, and he saw an old railroad 26 sign off Nightingale Street that was dilapidated. He noted it would be nice to clean this up and 27 maintain it, and this could be done by the Nature Preserve Commission to preserve this piece of 28 Andover’s history. 29 30 Mayor Barthel noted it is so much easier for the Park and Recreation Commission to get things 31 done as they have a whole department behind them, while the Nature Preserve Commission does 32 not. 33 34 Ms. Cotton stated when they discuss this at a Workshop, she can review the City’s strategic plan 35 to see where the Nature Preserve Commission fits into the City’s goals and plans for the future. 36 37 Councilmember Godfrey asked if there is a schedule for updating the strategic plan. Ms. Cotton 38 said there is nothing currently planned to update the strategic plan, but they can put something 39 together if the Council wishes. She added there are no funds currently in the budget for this process. 40 41 Mayor Barthel shared the last time they updated the strategic plan, they designed it to be a five-42 year plan, meaning they would not readdress this until 2028. 43 44 Councilmember Schue said it would be very helpful to review the strategic plan as a part of this to 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2025 Page 11 help them guide their discussion on the future of the Nature Preserve Commission. 1 2 Councilmember Shafto added he would like to better understand what the next steps are for the 3 fire study that was conducted. Ms. Cotton shared she has requested a few updates from the vendor 4 that conducted the study, and once she receives the report back, she will bring it to the Council at 5 the May 6th Council meeting to accept the report, then they will discuss the findings more deeply 6 at upcoming Workshop meetings. 7 8 Mayor Barthel said he would like staff to do an overview of the report for the residents so they can 9 see what all went into this study. 10 11 Ms. Cotton asked if she could give the overview at the upcoming meeting or if they would like to 12 vendor to present the findings. Mayor Barthel said staff can do it as the vendor would likely charge 13 them to come back. 14 15 Councilmember Shafto asked if the entire report will be publicly available. Ms. Cotton said yes. 16 17 ADJOURNMENT 18 19 Motion by Schue, Seconded by Godfrey, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The workshop 20 meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. 21 22 Respectfully submitted, 23 24 Ava Major, Recording Secretary 25 1 2 3 4 5 ANDOVER BOARD OF REVIEW 6 APRIL 29, 2025 – MINUTES 7 8 9 The Annual Board of Review was called to order by Mayor Barthel at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 10 29, 2025, at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. 11 12 Councilmembers present: Rick Engelhardt, Karen Godfrey, Scott Schue and Jonathan Shafto 13 14 Councilmembers absent: None 15 16 Also Present: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator 17 Diana Stellmach, Anoka County Senior Manager Appraiser 18 Jake Stenzel, Anoka County Residential Appraiser 19 Ted Anderson, Anoka County Commercial Appraiser 20 21 22 Mayor Barthel read a statement regarding the purpose of the meeting. 23 24 Ms. Stellmach presented the Assessor’s Report through a PowerPoint presentation. 25 26 Mr. Stellmach indicated in 2023 there were 295 residential home sales in the city with a median 27 sale price of $409,500 and for 2024 there were 276 residential home sales with a median sale price 28 of $431,600. She added the 2023 median assessed value was $393,800 and $415,500 for 2024. 29 30 Mayor Barthel thanked Ms. Stellmach for the presentation. 31 32 Councilmember Schue stated on the Market Value Change table Andover agricultural property 33 from 2024 to 2025 is -5.14%, but Countywide shows 6.62%. He asked why Andover would have 34 a negative number. Ms. Stellmach replied she would have to do some research as to why, but her 35 thought is some agricultural property in Andover has lost their agricultural status. 36 37 Mayor Barthel noted no members of the public are present this evening. 38 39 Motion by Schue, Seconded by Shafto, to close the Board of Review. Motion carried 40 unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m. 41 42 Respectfully submitted, 43 44 Michelle Hartner 45 Recording Secretary 46 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #2 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Lee Brezinka, Finance Manager SUBJECT: Approve Payment of Claims DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION Attached are disbursement edit lists for claims related to the on-going business of the City of Andover. BACKGROUND Claims totaling $385,273.04 on disbursement edit list #1-6 from 04/18/2025 to 05/01/2025 have been issued and released. Claims totaling $340,354.95 on disbursement edit list #7 dated 05/06/2025 will be issued and released upon approval. BUDGET IMPACT The edit lists consist of routine payments with expenses being charged to various department budgets and projects. ACTION REQUESTED The Andover City Council is requested to approve total claims in the amount of $725,627.99. Please note that Council Meeting minutes will be used as documented approval. Attachment(s): Check Proof List(s) User: Printed:04/17/2025 - 1:47PM BrendaF Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Accounts Payable Batch:00414.04.2025 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:AKER Doors, Inc.Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: FalseAkerDoor 0101-41950-63105116981Replace Wall Station & Lubed Door 239.00 04/18/2025 239.00Check Total: Vendor:Alex Air Apparatus 2, LLC Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: FalseAlexAir 0101-42200-630109474FD - Full Service on Breathing Air Compressor @ FS#2 857.23 04/18/2025 0101-42200-630109475FD - Full Service on Breathing Air Compressor @ FS#3 857.23 04/18/2025 0101-42200-630109476FD - Full Service on Breathing Air Compressor @ FS#1 1,200.09 04/18/2025 2,914.55Check Total: Vendor:Allina Health Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: FalseAllina6 0101-42200-6102053548789692027FD - Albuterol Sulfate 23.40 04/18/2025 23.40Check Total: Vendor:Amazon Capital Services Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: FalseAmazonBu 0101-42200-6100516TQ-QPFY-693C FD - Privacy Screen Protector for iPad 84.97 04/18/2025 0101-41980-6112016YL-HVKM-JY6Y BM - Combo Unit Toilet Paper Dispenser 158.36 04/18/2025 0101-41970-6112019DV-D3NG-1XDM BM - Combo Unit Toilet Paper Dispenser 79.18 04/18/2025 0101-45000-611051NX9-YDTM-7KY3 PK - Solar Flag Pole Light 125.77 04/18/2025 5100-48100-612101TV4-QXXV-6LVV WTP - Wireless Mouse 42.74 04/18/2025 2130-44000-610201XCQ-CP6J-PJK6 CC - Golf Tees, Sign Holder, Bandages & Badge Holder 131.85 04/18/2025 2130-44300-610201XJ4-LHQF-CY39 CC - Space Heater 74.99 04/18/2025 2130-44000-610201Y1R-J3RL-KXVM CC - Embedded Fixed Mount Barcode Scanner 65.93 04/18/2025 763.79Check Total: Vendor:Andover Family Eyecare Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: FalseAndFamEy AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-42200-61305221366FD - Fire Helmet/Mask Insert for Eric Hime 635.00 04/18/2025 635.00Check Total: Vendor:City of Anoka Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: FalseAnkCity 0101-43400-62005INV02565Traffic Signal - Bunker & 7th Ave 27.31 04/18/2025 0101-43400-62005INV02566Traffic Signal - 7th Ave & 143rd 29.17 04/18/2025 56.48Check Total: Vendor:Anoka Co Fire Protect. Council Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: FalseAnkCo08 0101-42200-61315345FD - Fundamentals of Firefighter Books 350.00 04/18/2025 350.00Check Total: Vendor:Anoka County Union Herald Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: FalseUnionHer 0101-42200-61325ACU-190284 1 Year Subscription Renewal 135.80 04/18/2025 135.80Check Total: Vendor:Archkey Technologies Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: FalseArchkeyT 2130-44000-63105S0009661003CC - Aviglon Reviewing Footage 243.00 04/18/2025 243.00Check Total: Vendor:CenterPoint Energy Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: FalseCenterpt 6100-48800-6201511078651-4 Vehicle Maint Bldg 2,845.91 04/18/2025 11078651-4 0101-41940-6201511078654-8 Cold Storage 783.20 04/18/2025 11078654-8 4520-49300-6201511369722-1 2607 BunkerLkBlvd MAIN(4-plex) 297.95 04/18/2025 11369722 5200-48200-6201511530729-0 Lift Station #11 21.97 04/18/2025 11530729 0101-41950-6201513699088-4 1785 Crosstown Blvd (Generator) 20.02 04/18/2025 13699088-4 4520-49300-6201513731461-3 13718 Xavis St (Duplex) 136.31 04/18/2025 13731461-3 0101-41950-620155825952-4 Equipment Building 405.96 04/18/2025 5825952 5100-48100-620155840270-2 Water Treatment Plant 3,673.53 04/18/2025 5840270 0101-41990-620155840341-1 Prairie Knoll Park 75.55 04/18/2025 5840341 0101-41920-620155841153-9 Fire Station #1 1,268.75 04/18/2025 5841153 0101-41920-620155841451-7 Fire Station #2 1,027.23 04/18/2025 5841451 0101-41920-620155852601-3 Fire Station #3 1,555.90 04/18/2025 5852601 5100-48100-620155864630-8 Pumphouse #4 133.49 04/18/2025 5864630 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-41970-620155883191-8 Sunshine Park 301.45 04/18/2025 5883191 5100-48100-620155893307-8 Well #1 140.57 04/18/2025 5893307 5100-48100-620155907226-4 Pumphouse #6 23.34 04/18/2025 5907226 5100-48100-620155927939-8 Pumphouse #7 14.11 04/18/2025 5927939 5100-48100-620155945463-7 Well #3 133.81 04/18/2025 5945463 0101-41910-620155950580-0 City Hall/Senior Center 1,812.74 04/18/2025 5950580 5200-48200-620156122874-8 Lift Station #4 13.58 04/18/2025 6122874 5200-48200-620156402167055-5 Lift Station #10 27.15 04/18/2025 6402167055 4520-49300-620156402630849-0 2542 138th Ave NW - Unit #3 31.89 04/18/2025 8743371 4520-49300-620156402901722-1 2503 138th Ave NW - Residential (Duplex) 101.24 04/18/2025 13731461-3 4520-49300-620156402901726-2 2542 138th Ave #2 (4-plex) 38.63 04/18/2025 6402901726-2 0101-41980-620157575198-2 ASN Ballfields 379.93 04/18/2025 7575198 5200-48200-620157725077-7 Lift Station #1 13.61 04/18/2025 7725077 0101-45000-620158743371-0 Warming House 140.46 04/18/2025 8743371 15,418.28Check Total: Vendor:Cintas Corp Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: FalseCintasGK 0101-41910-622004226311246CH - Floor Mat Rental 35.00 04/18/2025 6100-48800-610204227118781VM - Uniform Cleaning & Shop Towels 124.32 04/18/2025 0101-45000-610204227119033Uniform Cleaning 106.07 04/18/2025 5200-48200-610204227119033Uniform Cleaning 53.04 04/18/2025 0101-43100-610204227119033Uniform Cleaning 185.69 04/18/2025 0101-43300-610204227119033Uniform Cleaning 26.54 04/18/2025 5100-48100-610204227119033Uniform Cleaning 26.54 04/18/2025 557.20Check Total: Vendor:Computer Integration Technologies Inc Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: FalseCompIntT 0101-41420-62305400673May 2025 CIT Managed Services 320.00 04/18/2025 320.00Check Total: Vendor:Core & Main LP Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: FalseCoreMain 5100-48100-61035W746698WTP - Meters 1,704.50 04/18/2025 1,704.50Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Crooked Lake Area Association Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: FalseCrookLak 5300-48300-63010040825-1 2025 Crooked Lake Invasive Plant Species Treatment 1,464.00 04/18/2025 1,464.00Check Total: Vendor:Davis Equipment Corporation Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: FalseDavisEqu 6100-48800-61115EI20498VM - Blades for Unit #20-595 & #22-596 801.21 04/18/2025 801.21Check Total: Vendor:Division 16 Electric, LLC Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: FalseDivisi16 0101-45000-631009019-9 Sunshine Park Lighting Retrofit 2,811.10 04/18/2025 5100-48100-656009695Well #9 Generator 4,713.68 04/18/2025 7,524.78Check Total: Vendor:Addison Dobratz Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: FalseDobratzA 2130-44400-630052025Soccer Coach 263.75 04/18/2025 263.75Check Total: Vendor:Dusty's Drain Cleaning Inc Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: FalseDustDrai 2130-44300-63105D25-014 Replacement for Zambonie Fill Plumbing 1,305.00 04/18/2025 1,305.00Check Total: Vendor:ECM Publishers, Inc.Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: FalseECM 4140-49300-6302510428342025 M&O - Country Oaks W/Birch Pt 165.00 04/18/2025 4140-49300-6302510428342025 Relaim - Andover Comm Pk 165.00 04/18/2025 4140-49300-6302510428342025 M&O - Tulip St. (161st Ave - 168 Lane) 165.00 04/18/2025 4140-49300-6302510428342025 M&O - Kadlec Oakwd WOCE172 165.00 04/18/2025 0101-41300-630251043746Ordinance No. 573 Summary 88.00 04/18/2025 0101-41300-630251043747Ordinance No. 574 88.00 04/18/2025 0101-41500-630251043748Ordinance No. 575 137.50 04/18/2025 973.50Check Total: Vendor:Gary Carlson Equipment Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: FalseGaryCarl 5300-48300-61145134891-1 WD - Blue, Orange, Red & Spot Marker 128.96 04/18/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 128.96Check Total: Vendor:Gopher State One-Call Inc Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: FalseGopherSt 5100-48100-630405030183March 2025 Billable Locates 144.45 04/18/2025 5200-48200-630405030183March 2025 Billable Locates 144.45 04/18/2025 288.90Check Total: Vendor:Grainger Check Sequence: 22 ACH Enabled: FalseGrainger 2130-44300-610209463827684CC - Window Squeegee, Pad Holder & Absorbent Powder 235.59 04/18/2025 5100-48100-611209467417318WD - White Plastic Grille 35.32 04/18/2025 270.91Check Total: Vendor:Tracey Griess Check Sequence: 23 ACH Enabled: FalseGriessTr 2130-44400-630052025Soccer Coach 354.75 04/18/2025 354.75Check Total: Vendor:Hach Company Check Sequence: 24 ACH Enabled: FalseHachCo 5100-48100-6104014452929WTP - Chemicals 552.70 04/18/2025 552.70Check Total: Vendor:Ideal Advertising, Inc Check Sequence: 25 ACH Enabled: FalseIDEAL 0101-42200-6130556337FD - Hats 3,461.00 04/18/2025 3,461.00Check Total: Vendor:Innovative Office Solutions, LLC Check Sequence: 26 ACH Enabled: FalseInnovOff 2130-44000-61020IN4808383CC - Tissue, Paper Towels, Soap & Nitrile Gloves 1,331.38 04/18/2025 1,331.38Check Total: Vendor:Jefferson Fire & Safety In Check Sequence: 27 ACH Enabled: FalseJEFFER 0101-42200-61020IN325726FD - Smokechaser Pro 5-Gallon Fire Pump 314.38 04/18/2025 314.38Check Total: Vendor:JR's Advanced Recyclers Check Sequence: 28 ACH Enabled: FalseJRAdvanc 0101-46000-63010115214Appliances, Electronics & Bulbs Recycling 160.00 04/18/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 5 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-46000-63010115215Appliances & Propane Tank Recycling 310.00 04/18/2025 470.00Check Total: Vendor:Kinect Energy Group Check Sequence: 29 ACH Enabled: FalseKinectEG 2130-44000-62015391186/11171502 Community Center 16,249.90 04/18/2025 0101-41930-62015391186/11171508 Public Works 2,450.44 04/18/2025 18,700.34Check Total: Vendor:Cloe Langmade Check Sequence: 30 ACH Enabled: FalseLangemaC 2130-44400-630052025Soccer Coach 120.00 04/18/2025 120.00Check Total: Vendor:Lumen Check Sequence: 31 ACH Enabled: FalseLumen 0101-41910-62030732250872Phone Service - City Hall 163.93 04/18/2025 0101-41920-62030732250872Phone Service - Fire Station #1 98.36 04/18/2025 0101-41920-62030732250872Phone Service - Fire Station #3 32.78 04/18/2025 0101-41920-62030732250872Phone Service - Fire Station #2 32.79 04/18/2025 6100-48800-62030732250872Phone Service - Vehicle Maint 65.57 04/18/2025 5100-48100-62030732250872Phone Service - WTP 32.78 04/18/2025 2130-44000-62030732250872Phone Service - Comm Ctr 131.14 04/18/2025 0101-41930-62030732250872Phone Service - Public Works 98.36 04/18/2025 655.71Check Total: Vendor:Marco Technologies LLC Check Sequence: 32 ACH Enabled: FalseMarco 2130-44000-62200553285404CC - Copier Rental 690.61 04/18/2025 0101-42200-62200553285404FS#1 - Copier Rental 422.07 04/18/2025 0101-41420-62200553285404CH - Copier Rental 738.91 04/18/2025 0101-42300-62200553285404Bldg. Dept - Copier Rental 481.56 04/18/2025 2,333.15Check Total: Vendor:Master Meter, Inc.Check Sequence: 33 ACH Enabled: FalseMastMete 4150-49300-61020282066Fields of Winslow Cove Park 1,446.64 04/18/2025 1,446.64Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 6 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Paige McKnight Check Sequence: 34 ACH Enabled: FalseMcKniPai 2130-44400-630052025Soccer Coach 243.75 04/18/2025 243.75Check Total: Vendor:Payton McKnight Check Sequence: 35 ACH Enabled: FalseMcKnighP 2130-44400-630052025Soccer Coach 243.75 04/18/2025 243.75Check Total: Vendor:Medline Industries, LP Check Sequence: 36 ACH Enabled: FalseMedline 0101-42200-610202365854563FD - Dressing, Chest Seal 40.96 04/18/2025 40.96Check Total: Vendor:Menards Inc Check Sequence: 37 ACH Enabled: FalseMenards 0101-41910-6112039535CH - Misc. Supplies 58.40 04/18/2025 0101-42200-6102039958FD - Spring Water, Premix Fuel, 4 Cycle Gas & Premix 110.65 04/18/2025 169.05Check Total: Vendor:Minnesota Equipment Check Sequence: 38 ACH Enabled: FalseMNEquipm 6100-48800-61115P68940VM - Mower Blades for Units #23-594 & 22-593 131.16 04/18/2025 0101-43100-61205P69187Streets - 36" Bar & Chain 182.57 04/18/2025 313.73Check Total: Vendor:MR Cutting Edge Check Sequence: 39 ACH Enabled: FalseMRCutEdg 2130-44300-610207306CC - Ice Scraper Blade Sharpen 206.00 04/18/2025 206.00Check Total: Vendor:NCPERS Group Life Ins Check Sequence: 40 ACH Enabled: FalseNCPERS 0101-00000-21205312000052025May 2025 Premium 176.00 04/18/2025 176.00Check Total: Vendor:North Metro Auto Glass Check Sequence: 41 ACH Enabled: FalseNorthMet 6100-48800-61115IEB-0407-44350 VM - Windshield for Unit #4802 480.75 04/18/2025 6100-48800-63135IEB-0407-44350 VM -Labor to Install Windshield for Unit #4802 125.00 04/18/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 7 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 605.75Check Total: Vendor:OneNet Global Check Sequence: 42 ACH Enabled: FalseOneNetGl 0101-41920-62030D-509226 May 2025 Fire Station Phone Service 179.00 04/18/2025 0101-41910-62030D-509226 May 2025 City Hall Phone Service 1,152.19 04/18/2025 0101-41930-62030D-509226 May 2025 Public Works Phone Service 369.00 04/18/2025 2130-44000-62030D-509226 May 2025 Comm Ctr Phone Service 174.00 04/18/2025 5100-48100-62030D-509226 May 2025 WTP Phone Service 75.00 04/18/2025 1,949.19Check Total: Vendor:O'Reilly Auto Parts Check Sequence: 43 ACH Enabled: FalseOReiAuto 6100-48800-611153253-474441 VM - Fuse Holder for Stock 8.14 04/18/2025 6100-48800-611153253-474448 VM - HD Air Filter for Unit #170 & Oil Filter for Stock 45.37 04/18/2025 6100-48800-611153253-474449 VM - HD Air Filter for Stock 30.83 04/18/2025 6100-48800-611153253-474465 VM - Brake Shoes for Unit #8 38.07 04/18/2025 6100-48800-610203253-474637 VM - Shop Supplies, Brake Cleaner 83.76 04/18/2025 6100-48800-611153253-475284 VM - Fuel Cap for Unit #65 8.45 04/18/2025 6100-48800-611153253-475302 VM - Rear View for Unit #14-562 24.99 04/18/2025 6100-48800-611153253-475556 VM - Connector for Unit #4818 20.99 04/18/2025 6100-48800-611153253-475572 VM - Oil Filters for Stock 21.16 04/18/2025 281.76Check Total: Vendor:Pilot Rock Check Sequence: 44 ACH Enabled: FalsePilotRoc 4150-49300-62010278615Pine Hills North Building 6,425.00 04/18/2025 6,425.00Check Total: Vendor:Plunkett's Pest Control, Inc.Check Sequence: 45 ACH Enabled: FalsePlunkett 2130-44000-630109091230CC - Pest Control 76.15 04/18/2025 76.15Check Total: Vendor:SaltCo Check Sequence: 46 ACH Enabled: FalseSaltCo 2130-44000-61020155153CC - Solar Salt Premium Crystals 776.60 04/18/2025 776.60Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 8 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Abigail Schroeder Check Sequence: 47 ACH Enabled: FalseSchroedA 2130-44400-630052025Soccer Coach 243.75 04/18/2025 243.75Check Total: Vendor:SiteOne Landscape Supply Check Sequence: 48 ACH Enabled: FalseSiteOneL 0101-45000-61130150843205-001 PK - Irrigation Parts 3,440.20 04/18/2025 3,440.20Check Total: Vendor:Smith Brothers Decorating Check Sequence: 49 ACH Enabled: FalseSmithBr 5100-48100-611201-8814 WD - Insl-x Tough Shield Coating Tint 79.26 04/18/2025 79.26Check Total: Vendor:Sterling Trophy Check Sequence: 50 ACH Enabled: FalseSterlTro 2130-44400-6105535010CC - Resin Trophy for Soccer Program 802.50 04/18/2025 802.50Check Total: Vendor:TC Tint Check Sequence: 51 ACH Enabled: FalseTC Tint 0101-42200-610204470FD - Chevy Tahoe Full Tint Discounted 400.00 04/18/2025 400.00Check Total: Vendor:Timesaver Check Sequence: 52 ACH Enabled: FalseTimesave 0101-41100-630053025504/01/25 - City Council Meeting 212.50 04/18/2025 0101-41500-630053028304/09/25 - Nature Preserve Commission Meeting 212.50 04/18/2025 0101-45000-630053029904/03/25 - Park & Environ Commission Work Shop 172.00 04/18/2025 597.00Check Total: Vendor:Total Mechanical Services, Inc Check Sequence: 53 ACH Enabled: FalseTotMechS 2130-44300-62300PM5692CC - Ammonia System Preventative Maintenance 1,225.00 04/18/2025 1,225.00Check Total: Vendor:Traut Companies Check Sequence: 54 ACH Enabled: FalseTrautWel 5100-48100-63115376496WD - Well #4 Pull Pump, Video & Inspect 6,595.00 04/18/2025 6,595.00Check Total: Vendor:Trust in Us LLC Check Sequence: 55 ACH Enabled: FalseTrustInU AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 9 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-41230-63005103821TIU Onsite Collection 430.00 04/18/2025 430.00Check Total: Vendor:Uhl Company Check Sequence: 56 ACH Enabled: FalseUhlCompa 2130-44000-6230079127CC - Maintenance Contract - 04/01/25 - 06/30/25 2,703.00 04/18/2025 2,703.00Check Total: Vendor:W. L. Hall Company Check Sequence: 57 ACH Enabled: FalseWLHallCo 2130-44000-6230016278CC - Room A/B Service Paired Panel System 630.00 04/18/2025 630.00Check Total: Vendor:Walters Recycling & Refuse Inc Check Sequence: 58 ACH Enabled: FalseWalterRR 4520-49300-62020210084/8706200 April 2025 Rental Property Garbage Service 197.50 04/18/2025 197.50Check Total: Vendor:WS & D Permit Service, Inc Check Sequence: 59 ACH Enabled: FalseWS&D Per 0101-42300-521852025-00840 Customer Cancelled Project @ 15315 Yukon St. 81.00 04/18/2025 81.00Check Total: Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: 95,053.96 59 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 1:47 PM)Page 10 User: Printed:04/17/2025 - 9:48AM BrendaF Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Accounts Payable Batch:00418.04.2025 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Optum Bank HSA Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: FalseOptumBan 0101-42300-6031020252025 Employer HSA Contributions - John Olson 1,750.00 04/21/2025 1,750.00Check Total: Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: 1,750.00 1 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/17/2025 - 9:48 AM)Page 1 User: Printed:04/23/2025 - 9:16AM BrendaF Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Accounts Payable Batch:00423.04.2025 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Innovative Office Solutions, LLC Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: FalseInnovOff 4160-49300-63010234169CH - Office Furniture 50% Down Payment 65,707.31 04/23/2025 65,707.31Check Total: Vendor:Richard's Carpet & Flooring Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: FalseRichCarp 0101-41910-631052776CH - Carpet Down Payment 13,050.00 04/23/2025 13,050.00Check Total: Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: 78,757.31 2 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 9:16 AM)Page 1 User: Printed:04/23/2025 - 3:18PM BrendaF Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Accounts Payable Batch:00424.04.2025 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Airgas USA, LLC Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: FalseAirgaUSA 6100-48800-610209160057949VD - Shop Supplies 231.71 04/24/2025 231.71Check Total: Vendor:All American Arena Products Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: FalseAllArena 2130-44300-610206338CC - Paint for Ice Arena 2,016.75 04/24/2025 2,016.75Check Total: Vendor:Amazon Capital Services Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: FalseAmazonBu 2130-44300-610201CWV-TL3D-697T CC - Flexzilla Pro Water Hoses 217.11 04/24/2025 6100-48800-610201HR3-DGJT-7VXD VM - Closed Ball Air Chuck W/Safety Clip-on Grip 19.98 04/24/2025 0101-41420-610051JWJ-GH13-76YP IT - Clear Plastic Vertical Name Badges 16.98 04/24/2025 0101-45000-610201KXY-DVLR-XY96 VM - Twisted Nylon Mason Line 55.02 04/24/2025 2130-44300-610201LL6-7DT9-W17N CC - Bunker Practice Mat for Golf Simulator 94.98 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611151P9C-WMLC-4QFG VM - Battery for Stock 245.00 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611151QJ6-P4YQ-JX46 VM - Trailer Deck Floorboard Screw 29.99 04/24/2025 6100-48800-612051QJ6-P4YQ-JX46 VM - Tool 7.56 04/24/2025 0101-41420-612101RC6-D9X4-G66R IT - Mini Desktop Computers 1,368.00 04/24/2025 2,054.62Check Total: Vendor:Andover Fun Fest Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: FalseAndFunFe 0101-41100-6132020252025 Fun Fest - 2 Community Booths 130.00 04/24/2025 130.00Check Total: Vendor:Anoka Co Sheriff - Andover Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: FalseAnkCo16 4180-49300-63005March 2025 Zero Drug After School Program 1,008.00 04/24/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 1,008.00Check Total: Vendor:CenterPoint Energy Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: FalseCenterpt 4520-49300-620156403777624-8 2501 Bunker Lake Blvd - Unit #3 (Duplex) 10.72 04/24/2025 10.72Check Total: Vendor:Chemsearch Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: FalseChemsear 2130-44000-610209107279CC - Cut-thru EF Aerosol 317.80 04/24/2025 317.80Check Total: Vendor:Cintas Corp Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: FalseCintasGK 0101-41930-622004227821357PW - Floor Mat Rental 30.00 04/24/2025 6100-48800-610204227821426VM - Uniform Clean & Shop Towels 108.34 04/24/2025 0101-43300-610204227821546Uniform Cleaning 26.54 04/24/2025 5200-48200-610204227821546Uniform Cleaning 53.04 04/24/2025 0101-45000-610204227821546Uniform Cleaning 106.07 04/24/2025 0101-43100-610204227821546Uniform Cleaning 185.69 04/24/2025 5100-48100-610204227821546Uniform Cleaning 26.54 04/24/2025 536.22Check Total: Vendor:City of St. Paul Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: FalseStPaulCi 0101-43100-61125IN62213Streets - Asphalt Mix 868.14 04/24/2025 868.14Check Total: Vendor:Corval Constructors, Inc Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: FalseCorvalCo 5100-48100-63105897711WTP - Boiler - Air Dryer Down 6,206.68 04/24/2025 6,206.68Check Total: Vendor:CUES, Inc.Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: FalseCues 5200-48200-62305503015WD - GraniteNet Inspection Basic Annual Support Plan 1,070.00 04/24/2025 1,070.00Check Total: Vendor:Dehn Oil Company Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: FalseDehnOil 6100-48800-61045112201Unleaded Fuel 2,511.80 04/24/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 6100-48800-61050112202Diesel Fuel 5,542.60 04/24/2025 8,054.40Check Total: Vendor:DK Mechanical Contractors LLC Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: FalseDKMechin 5100-48100-631001169WTP - Valve Actuator Replacement 4,855.00 04/24/2025 4,855.00Check Total: Vendor:Dresser Trap Rock, Inc.Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: FalseDresTrap 0101-43100-61125149362Streets - FA-2 - 1/4" Chips 1,379.73 04/24/2025 1,379.73Check Total: Vendor:ECM Publishers, Inc.Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: FalseECM 0101-46000-630251043077Monthly Recycling Program 270.00 04/24/2025 0101-46000-630251044042Andover Advocate - April 150.00 04/24/2025 0101-41410-630251044732April 29 Assessment Appeal 66.00 04/24/2025 486.00Check Total: Vendor:Environmental Equipment Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: FalseEnvEquip 6100-48800-6111524839VM - Dual Swivel Skimmer/Sep Door for Unit #18-172 244.93 04/24/2025 244.93Check Total: Vendor:Grainger Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: FalseGrainger 5200-48200-610059471433905WTP - Anchor Shackle 25.82 04/24/2025 0101-42200-610209482120467FD - Step Stool 181.92 04/24/2025 207.74Check Total: Vendor:Hach Company Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: FalseHachCo 5100-48100-6104014456582WTP - Chemicals 349.15 04/24/2025 349.15Check Total: Vendor:InfoSense, Inc.Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: FalseInfoSens 5200-48200-623055391WTP - SL-DOG Portal License Renewal 995.00 04/24/2025 995.00Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Brian Kraabel Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: FalseKraabeBr 7100-00000-212182025 - Brian May - July 2025 Medical Reimbursement 555.00 04/24/2025 7100-00000-21218April - Lynn April 2025 Medical Reimbursement 185.00 04/24/2025 740.00Check Total: Vendor:Madison National Life Ins Co, Inc Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: FalseMadNatlL 0101-00000-212161690053/026986 May 2025 Long Term Disability 995.33 04/24/2025 995.33Check Total: Vendor:Medica Check Sequence: 22 ACH Enabled: FalseMedica 0101-00000-21206384781626490May 2025 Medical Insurance Premium 80,761.67 04/24/2025 7100-00000-21218384781626490May 2025 Medical Insurance Premium 1,472.80 04/24/2025 82,234.47Check Total: Vendor:Menards Inc Check Sequence: 23 ACH Enabled: FalseMenards 0101-45000-6102040137PK - Misc. Supplies 123.30 04/24/2025 0101-45000-6102040206PK - Landscape Block & Batteries 72.90 04/24/2025 5100-48100-6100540251WD - Replace Red Mulch for Home Owner 8.00 04/24/2025 204.20Check Total: Vendor:MetLife Check Sequence: 24 ACH Enabled: FalseMetLife 7100-00000-21218TS05388399May 2025 Dental Insurance Premium 326.28 04/24/2025 0101-00000-21208TS05388399May 2025 Dental Insurance Premium 3,933.33 04/24/2025 4,259.61Check Total: Vendor:Metro Council Wastewater Check Sequence: 25 ACH Enabled: FalseMetCounW 5200-48200-632300001186442WTP - Permit Fee 525.00 04/24/2025 525.00Check Total: Vendor:Mickman Brothers Inc.Check Sequence: 26 ACH Enabled: FalseMickman 0101-41910-6301091933731804/25 Lawn Service @ City Hall 537.98 04/24/2025 2130-44000-6301091933731904/25 Lawn Service @ Comm Ctr 1,179.97 04/24/2025 0101-45000-6301091933732004/25 Lawn Service @ Crosstown Drive 244.99 04/24/2025 0101-41920-6301091933732104/25 Lawn Service @ Fire Station #1 604.98 04/24/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-41920-6301091933732204/25 Lawn Service @ Fire Station #2 389.98 04/24/2025 0101-41920-6301091933732304/25 Lawn Service @ Fire Station #3 403.98 04/24/2025 3,361.88Check Total: Vendor:Minnesota Life Insurance Company Check Sequence: 27 ACH Enabled: FalseMNLifeIn 7100-00000-21218034706/75774261 Msay 2025 Life Insurance Premium 392.46 04/24/2025 0101-00000-21205034706/75774261 Msay 2025 Life Insurance Premium 46.60 04/24/2025 0101-00000-21205034706/75774261 Msay 2025 Life Insurance Premium 1,881.60 04/24/2025 0101-42200-60330034706/75774261 Msay 2025 Life Insurance Premium 20.50 04/24/2025 2,341.16Check Total: Vendor:Mobil Vehicle Integration Check Sequence: 28 ACH Enabled: FalseMobVehic 5100-48100-6540025-041332 WD - Install LED Lights on Unit #25-77 1,148.12 04/24/2025 6100-48800-6313525-041333 VM - Labor for New LED Arrowstick on Unit #4800 315.00 04/24/2025 6100-48800-6111525-041333 VM - New LED Arrowstick on Unit #4800 456.29 04/24/2025 1,919.41Check Total: Vendor:Northern Tool Commercial Account Check Sequence: 29 ACH Enabled: FalseNoToolCo 5300-48300-61205F27a3cf8WTP - M18 Red Ext Rotary Laser Kit 1,196.14 04/24/2025 1,196.14Check Total: Vendor:ODP Business Solutions, LLC Check Sequence: 30 ACH Enabled: FalseODP Bus 0101-41200-61005413062132001CH Office Supplies 13.32 04/24/2025 0101-41400-61005413062132001CH Office Supplies 8.87 04/24/2025 0101-41500-61005413062132001CH Office Supplies 17.75 04/24/2025 0101-41600-61005413062132001CH Office Supplies 13.32 04/24/2025 0101-41420-61005413062132001CH Copy Paper 349.31 04/24/2025 0101-41300-61005413062132001CH Office Supplies 4.44 04/24/2025 0101-42300-61005413062132001CH Office Supplies 22.20 04/24/2025 0101-41230-61005413062132001CH Office Supplies 8.88 04/24/2025 0101-41300-61005413086823001Clerk - Name Badges 21.50 04/24/2025 2130-44000-61005416996789001CC Office Depot Supplies 90.05 04/24/2025 2130-44300-61005416996789001CC Office Depot Supplies 90.04 04/24/2025 2130-44300-61005417003236001CC Office Depot Supplies 6.40 04/24/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 5 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 2130-44000-61005417003236001CC Office Depot Supplies 6.40 04/24/2025 2130-44300-61005417003239001CC Office Depot Supplies 31.91 04/24/2025 2130-44000-61005417003239001CC Office Depot Supplies 31.91 04/24/2025 0101-43100-61005418945295001PW Office Depot Supplies 0.98 04/24/2025 0101-43200-61005418945295001PW Office Depot Supplies 0.65 04/24/2025 5200-48200-61005418945295001PW Office Depot Supplies 3.12 04/24/2025 6100-48800-61005418945295001VM - Office Supplies 59.33 04/24/2025 0101-45000-61005418945295001PW Office Depot Supplies 2.27 04/24/2025 0101-46000-61005418945295001PW Office Depot Supplies 0.46 04/24/2025 5100-48100-61005418945295001PW Office Depot Supplies 1.63 04/24/2025 784.74Check Total: Vendor:O'Reilly Auto Parts Check Sequence: 31 ACH Enabled: FalseOReiAuto 6100-48800-611153253--475791 VM - Brackted Cal for Unit #13-94 121.76 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-476748 VM - Flex Tube for Unit #17-587 47.75 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-476768 VM - Oil FIlter for Stock 18.59 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-476992 VM - Oil FIlters for Stock 21.16 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-477042 VM - Oil FIlter for Stock 5.29 04/24/2025 6100-48800-610203253-477160 VM - Power Steering Fluid 18.87 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-477469 VM - Oil Filter for Stock 15.83 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-477477 VM - Alternator for Unit #170 271.64 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-477601 VM - V-Belt for Unit #170 15.56 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-477640 VM - Wheel Seal for Stock 122.04 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-477668 VM - Core Credit -45.00 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-478319 VM - Core Credit -60.00 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-478415 VM - Copper Plugs for Stock 16.96 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-478423 VM - Wiper Blades, Oil, Fuel, Coolant Filters for Stock 273.73 04/24/2025 6100-48800-611153253-478527 VM - Oil Filters for Stock 21.16 04/24/2025 865.34Check Total: Vendor:Pioneer SecureShred Check Sequence: 32 ACH Enabled: FalsePionSecu 0101-46000-630105468703/13/2025 Shredding Service 245.00 04/24/2025 245.00Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 6 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Plunkett's Pest Control, Inc.Check Sequence: 33 ACH Enabled: FalsePlunkett 0101-41920-630109099760Pest Control @ FS#2 170.35 04/24/2025 5100-48100-630109099902Pest Control @ WTP 171.15 04/24/2025 6100-48800-630109099987Pest Control @ Vehicle Maint 170.35 04/24/2025 0101-41940-630109100012Pest Control @ Cold Storage 170.35 04/24/2025 0101-41920-630109100114Pest Control @ FS#1 170.35 04/24/2025 0101-41930-630109100339Pest Control @ Public Works 170.35 04/24/2025 0101-41910-630109100826Pest Control @ City Hall 170.35 04/24/2025 0101-41920-630109101102Pest Control @ FS#3 170.35 04/24/2025 1,363.60Check Total: Vendor:PreCise MRM LLC Check Sequence: 34 ACH Enabled: FalsePreCise 5200-48200-61320IN200-2004948 5MB Flat Data Plan US with NAF 132.00 04/24/2025 0101-43100-61320IN200-2004948 5MB Flat Data Plan US with NAF 99.00 04/24/2025 0101-43200-61320IN200-2004948 5MB Flat Data Plan US with NAF 297.00 04/24/2025 5100-48100-61320IN200-2004948 5MB Flat Data Plan US with NAF 132.00 04/24/2025 660.00Check Total: Vendor:RDO Equipment Check Sequence: 35 ACH Enabled: FalseRDOEquip 6100-48800-61115P6680401VM - Brake for Unit #171 304.46 04/24/2025 6100-48800-61115P6693901VM - Flasher & Relay for Unit #171 447.35 04/24/2025 751.81Check Total: Vendor:Reserve Account Check Sequence: 36 ACH Enabled: FalseReserAcc 0101-41400-6140531157951City Hall Postage Meter 5,000.00 04/24/2025 5,000.00Check Total: Vendor:Rivard Companies, Inc.Check Sequence: 37 ACH Enabled: FalseRivardCo 0101-45000-63010509247PK - Tree Waste Disposal 300.00 04/24/2025 300.00Check Total: Vendor:TC Tint Check Sequence: 38 ACH Enabled: FalseTC Tint 0101-42200-610204500FD - Chevy Tahoe Full Tint Discounted 400.00 04/24/2025 0101-42200-610204518Chevy Tahoe Visor Tint Discounted 35.00 04/24/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 7 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 435.00Check Total: Vendor:Total Mechanical Services, Inc Check Sequence: 39 ACH Enabled: FalseTotMechS 2130-44300-61020S13492(4) 5-Gallon Pails Ammonia Refrigeration 629.50 04/24/2025 629.50Check Total: Vendor:Uline Check Sequence: 40 ACH Enabled: FalseUline 2130-44000-61020191268330CC - Safety Cutter, Rubber Stop & Weatherproof Duffle Bag 751.06 04/24/2025 751.06Check Total: Vendor:Verizon Wireless Check Sequence: 41 ACH Enabled: FalseVerizon 0101-41910-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 46.39 04/24/2025 2130-44000-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 124.17 04/24/2025 0101-41200-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 46.39 04/24/2025 5100-48100-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 271.21 04/24/2025 0101-41500-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 41.39 04/24/2025 0101-42300-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 162.80 04/24/2025 0101-41600-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 162.18 04/24/2025 0101-41400-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 87.78 04/24/2025 0101-45000-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 492.78 04/24/2025 5200-48200-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 205.57 04/24/2025 0101-43300-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 81.40 04/24/2025 6100-48800-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 124.17 04/24/2025 0101-42200-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 835.78 04/24/2025 0101-43100-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 293.35 04/24/2025 0101-41420-620306110859612Monthly Cell Phone Service 35.01 04/24/2025 3,010.37Check Total: Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: 143,596.21 41 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/23/2025 - 3:18 PM)Page 8 User: Printed:04/29/2025 - 2:10PM BrendaF Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Accounts Payable Batch:00429.04.2025 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:Minnesota Department of Health Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: FalseMNDOH 4140-49300-630102025 Reclaim - Meadows Round Lk Area 150.00 04/29/2025 150.00Check Total: Vendor:Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: FalseMNPCA 4140-49300-630102025 Reclaim - Meadows Round Lake Area 310.00 04/29/2025 310.00Check Total: Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: 460.00 2 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (04/29/2025 - 2:10 PM)Page 1 User: Printed:05/01/2025 - 10:06AM BrendaF Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Accounts Payable Batch:00403.05.2025 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:AFLAC Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: FalseAFLAC 0101-00000-21209948695April 2025 Premium 541.44 05/01/2025 541.44Check Total: Vendor:Amazon Capital Services Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: FalseAmazonBu 6100-48800-611151FDY-1WVL-6D1J VM - Steel Broom Holder for Unit #25-77 15.96 05/01/2025 15.96Check Total: Vendor:Anoka-Hennepin ISD #11 Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: FalseAHSchDis 7200-00000-242072/18/22 - Escro Andover HS 2018 Expansion 202.44 05/01/2025 7200-41400-569102/18/22 - Inter Andover HS 2018 Expansion 0.59 05/01/2025 203.03Check Total: Vendor:Black & Veatch Holding Company Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: FalseBlaVeatc 7200-00000-24214EscrowAT&T at Tower #2 5,949.38 05/01/2025 7200-41400-56910InterestAT&T at Tower #2 36.17 05/01/2025 5,985.55Check Total: Vendor:Bonfe's Plumbing, Heating & Air Service, Inc.Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: FalseBonfePlu 0101-42300-522152024-00875 Job Cancelled - 13422 Hummingbird St. NW 72.00 05/01/2025 72.00Check Total: Vendor:Carr's Tree Service Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: FalseCarrTree 0101-43100-6301011651-I Diseased Tree Supr Program 900.00 05/01/2025 900.00Check Total: Vendor:Catalyst Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: FalseCatalyst AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-41210-6303043963May - June 2025 Andover Newsletter 2,024.00 05/01/2025 2,024.00Check Total: Vendor:Cintas Corp Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: FalseCintasGK 5100-48100-622004227821351WTP - Floor Mat Rental 71.76 05/01/2025 0101-41910-622004227821403CH - Floor Mat Rental 35.00 05/01/2025 6100-48800-610204228586647VM - Uniform Cleaning & Shop Towels 124.32 05/01/2025 5200-48200-610204228586857Uniform Cleaning 53.04 05/01/2025 0101-45000-610204228586857Uniform Cleaning 106.07 05/01/2025 0101-43300-610204228586857Uniform Cleaning 26.54 05/01/2025 0101-43100-610204228586857Uniform Cleaning 185.69 05/01/2025 5100-48100-610204228586857Uniform Cleaning 26.54 05/01/2025 628.96Check Total: Vendor:Comcast Midwest Region Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: FalseComcast7 2250-41600-54315CC21-22 Refund ROW Permit Fee from 08/05/2021 353.60 05/01/2025 353.60Check Total: Vendor:City of Coon Rapids Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: FalseCoonRapi 5100-48100-55110AR-0000014684 2025 1st Qtr Water Services 232.40 05/01/2025 5200-48200-55210AR-0000014684 2025 1st Qtr Sewer Services 10,104.04 05/01/2025 0101-43400-62005AR-0000014685 Traffic Signal - Crosstown & 133rd 33.77 05/01/2025 0101-43400-62005AR-0000014685 Traffic Signal - Crosstown & 133rd 26.59 05/01/2025 10,396.80Check Total: Vendor:Cornerstone Ford Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: FalseCornFord 6100-48800-6313516458124VM - Repair Brake Lamp on Dash for Unit #25-134 959.99 05/01/2025 959.99Check Total: Vendor:Cade Dorstad Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: FalseDorstadC 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 237.50 05/01/2025 237.50Check Total: Vendor:Egan Service Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: FalseEganServ AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-43400-62300MNT0000026000Andover Blvd & Crosstown RR Maint 580.00 05/01/2025 580.00Check Total: Vendor:Electric Systems Solutions Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: FalseElSysSol 0101-42400-631008983Repair Siren #12 Not Operating 221.05 05/01/2025 0101-42400-631008988Repair Siren #2 Not Operating 919.00 05/01/2025 0101-42400-631008989Repair Siren #3 That Did Not Sound 165.00 05/01/2025 0101-42400-631008990Repair Siren #9 That Turns Off & On 165.00 05/01/2025 0101-42400-631008991Repair Siren #13 Not Sounding 1,003.80 05/01/2025 2,473.85Check Total: Vendor:Emergency Apparatus Maint Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: FalseEmerAppa 6100-48800-61115135872VM - Parts to Repair Unit #4886 651.91 05/01/2025 6100-48800-63135135872VM - Labor to Repair Unit #4886 2,229.38 05/01/2025 6100-48800-63135135987VM - Labor to Repair Unit #4881 133.76 05/01/2025 6100-48800-61115135987VM - Parts to Repair Unit #4881 12.47 05/01/2025 3,027.52Check Total: Vendor:Chase Foy Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: FalseFoyChase 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 246.00 05/01/2025 246.00Check Total: Vendor:Frattallones Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: FalseFrattall 0101-43100-6102044502/J Streets - Shovels 59.96 05/01/2025 2250-41600-6102044517/J Ultra Lawn Patch Sun/Shade 18.99 05/01/2025 78.95Check Total: Vendor:Gary Carlson Equipment Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: FalseGaryCarl 5100-48100-61005135029-1 WD - Blue, Green Construction Marking & Marking Stick 142.56 05/01/2025 5200-48200-61005135029-1 WD - Blue, Green Construction Marking & Marking Stick 162.06 05/01/2025 304.62Check Total: Vendor:Jordan Giacomini Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: FalseGiacomiJ 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 255.75 05/01/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 255.75Check Total: Vendor:H&B Specialized Products, Inc Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: FalseHBSpecia 2130-44400-6310534742CC - Repair Baskets in Gym 2,250.00 05/01/2025 2,250.00Check Total: Vendor:Hach Company Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: FalseHachCo 5100-48100-6104014466331WTP - Chemicals 197.55 05/01/2025 197.55Check Total: Vendor:Jolie Hadtrath Check Sequence: 22 ACH Enabled: FalseHadtratH 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 233.00 05/01/2025 233.00Check Total: Vendor:Ben Hartman Check Sequence: 23 ACH Enabled: FalseHartmanB 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 255.75 05/01/2025 255.75Check Total: Vendor:Howies Hockey Tape Check Sequence: 24 ACH Enabled: FalseHowiesHo 2130-44200-61245INV000307830CC - Resale Items for Pro Shop 1,041.82 05/01/2025 1,041.82Check Total: Vendor:Jefferson Fire & Safety In Check Sequence: 25 ACH Enabled: FalseJEFFER 0101-42200-61005IN326283FD - Streamlight Vulcan Clutch 290.55 05/01/2025 290.55Check Total: Vendor:Carly Joy Check Sequence: 26 ACH Enabled: FalseJoyCarly 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 256.00 05/01/2025 256.00Check Total: Vendor:Ashley Kalmes Check Sequence: 27 ACH Enabled: FalseKalmesAs 2130-44300-610552025CC - Misc. Supplies for Learn to Skate 50.75 05/01/2025 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 680.00 05/01/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 730.75Check Total: Vendor:Logan Kieffer Check Sequence: 28 ACH Enabled: FalseKiefferL 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 233.00 05/01/2025 233.00Check Total: Vendor:Sadie Langsdorf Check Sequence: 29 ACH Enabled: FalseLangsdoS 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 255.75 05/01/2025 255.75Check Total: Vendor:Lawson Products, Inc.Check Sequence: 30 ACH Enabled: FalseLawson 6100-48800-610209312425478VM - Misc. Supplies 124.40 05/01/2025 124.40Check Total: Vendor:Legal Shield Check Sequence: 31 ACH Enabled: FalseLegShiel 0101-00000-2121931833April 2025 Premium - Employee Paid 69.80 05/01/2025 69.80Check Total: Vendor:LVC Companies Check Sequence: 32 ACH Enabled: FalseLVCCom 0101-41910-63105167751Maintenance Semi-Annual Kitchen Inspection 402.50 05/01/2025 402.50Check Total: Vendor:Maile Enterprises, Inc.Check Sequence: 33 ACH Enabled: FalseMaileEnt 5100-48100-61110WD - 4' Hydrant Markers W/Full Insert & Logo 1,999.32 05/01/2025 1,999.32Check Total: Vendor:Mailing Solutions Check Sequence: 34 ACH Enabled: FalseMailSolu 0101-41210-6140543361May - June 2025 Deliver Andover Newsletter 285.06 05/01/2025 285.06Check Total: Vendor:Medline Industries, LP Check Sequence: 35 ACH Enabled: FalseMedline 0101-42200-610202368003741FD - Sponge Gauze, Tourniquet & Nitrile Gloves 298.46 05/01/2025 0101-42200-610202368003742FD - Glucose Strips 112.78 05/01/2025 0101-42200-610202368003743FD - Electrode Pads, Aspirin & Heavy Duty Bandages 191.57 05/01/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 5 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 602.81Check Total: Vendor:Menards Inc Check Sequence: 36 ACH Enabled: FalseMenards 0101-41920-6112038375Voltage Tester & 20A/125V Heavy Duty Cnctr 33.82 05/01/2025 5100-48100-6100540416WTP - 3 Port Hose Tap Timer 199.96 05/01/2025 2130-44300-6102040485CC - Misc. Supplies 220.77 05/01/2025 0101-42200-6102040628FD - Spring Water 24.36 05/01/2025 0101-42200-6100540865FD - JB Superweld 20G 5.97 05/01/2025 484.88Check Total: Vendor:Minnesota Equipment Check Sequence: 37 ACH Enabled: FalseMNEquipm 6100-48800-61115P70083VM - Shield for Unit #14-539 35.76 05/01/2025 6100-48800-61115P70084VM - Air Filter for Stock 7.99 05/01/2025 43.75Check Total: Vendor:ODP Business Solutions, LLC Check Sequence: 38 ACH Enabled: FalseODP Bus 2130-44000-61005417003241001CC Office Depot Supplies 12.21 05/01/2025 2130-44300-61005417003241001CC Office Depot Supplies 12.20 05/01/2025 0101-41600-61005420375278001CH Office Supplies 6.90 05/01/2025 0101-42300-61005420375278001CH Office Supplies 11.50 05/01/2025 0101-41200-61005420375278001CH Office Supplies 6.90 05/01/2025 0101-41500-61005420375278001CH Office Supplies 9.20 05/01/2025 0101-41230-61005420375278001CH Office Supplies 4.60 05/01/2025 0101-41300-61005420375278001CH Office Supplies 2.30 05/01/2025 0101-41400-61005420375278001CH Office Supplies 4.60 05/01/2025 0101-42300-61005420375690001BD - Office Supplies 15.59 05/01/2025 86.00Check Total: Vendor:OPUS 21 Check Sequence: 39 ACH Enabled: FalseOPUS21 0101-43600-63010250359March 2025 Utility Billing 1,861.77 05/01/2025 5300-48300-63010250359March 2025 Utility Billing 2,674.53 05/01/2025 5200-48200-63010250359March 2025 Utility Billing 1,913.53 05/01/2025 5100-48100-63010250359March 2025 Utility Billing 1,708.43 05/01/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 6 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 8,158.26Check Total: Vendor:O'Reilly Auto Parts Check Sequence: 40 ACH Enabled: FalseOReiAuto 6100-48800-611153253-478632 VM - Shaft Seal for Unit #77 & P/S Fluid for Stock 30.09 05/01/2025 6100-48800-611153253-478863 VM - Oil & Fuel Filters for Stock 177.60 05/01/2025 6100-48800-611153253-479045 VM - A/T Filter for Unit #13-91 18.48 05/01/2025 6100-48800-611153253-479094 VM - Wipe Blades for Unit #13-91 47.98 05/01/2025 6100-48800-611153253-480009 VM - PVF Brk Line for Units #84 & #82 54.74 05/01/2025 6100-48800-611153253-480011 VM - Connectors for Stock 22.08 05/01/2025 350.97Check Total: Vendor:Sofia Pappas Check Sequence: 41 ACH Enabled: FalsePappasS 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 255.75 05/01/2025 255.75Check Total: Vendor:Print Central Check Sequence: 42 ACH Enabled: FalsePrintCen 0101-41500-61005157578Envelopes #10 Regular 204.98 05/01/2025 0101-41300-61005157578Envelopes #10 Regular 51.23 05/01/2025 0101-41200-61005157578Envelopes #10 Regular 153.74 05/01/2025 0101-42300-61005157578Envelopes #10 Regular 256.23 05/01/2025 0101-41600-61005157578Envelopes #10 Regular 153.74 05/01/2025 0101-41230-61005157578Envelopes #10 Regular 102.49 05/01/2025 0101-41400-61005157578Envelopes #10 Regular 102.49 05/01/2025 1,024.90Check Total: Vendor:R&R Specialties of Wisconsin Check Sequence: 43 ACH Enabled: FalseR&R 2130-44300-610200085231-IN CC - Jet Ice Pounce Stencil & Blue & Orange Logo 807.00 05/01/2025 807.00Check Total: Vendor:Registered Abstracters Check Sequence: 44 ACH Enabled: FalseRegAbstr 4140-49300-63005A25-04020 Road Easement for Xeon St North of Andover Blvd 75.00 05/01/2025 75.00Check Total: Vendor:Lauren Rockers Check Sequence: 45 ACH Enabled: FalseRockersL AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 7 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 255.75 05/01/2025 255.75Check Total: Vendor:Gred & Rebecca Roeder Check Sequence: 46 ACH Enabled: FalseRoederGR 0101-00000-242172022-00611 Pool Escrow - 16629 Marigold St. NW 1,500.00 05/01/2025 1,500.00Check Total: Vendor:Zane Spaniol Check Sequence: 47 ACH Enabled: FalseSpaniolZ 2130-44300-630052025CC - Learn to Skate Coach 245.75 05/01/2025 245.75Check Total: Vendor:Superior Vision Insurance Check Sequence: 48 ACH Enabled: FalseSuperVis 0101-00000-21222000892109May 2025 Vision Premium 168.40 05/01/2025 168.40Check Total: Vendor:Timesaver Check Sequence: 49 ACH Enabled: FalseTimesave 0101-41100-630053032204/15/25 City Council Meeting 172.00 05/01/2025 0101-45000-630053038504/17/25 Park Commission Meeting 172.00 05/01/2025 0101-41500-630053038604/08/25 Panning Commission Meeting 263.01 05/01/2025 607.01Check Total: Vendor:T-Mobile Check Sequence: 50 ACH Enabled: FalseT-Mobile 0101-41600-62030996808011April 2025 Eng - Cell Phone 161.98 05/01/2025 0101-41420-62030996808011April 2025 IS - Cell Phone 43.61 05/01/2025 2130-44000-62030996808011April 2025 CC - Cell Phone 87.22 05/01/2025 5100-48100-62030996808011April 2025 WTP - Cell Phone 43.61 05/01/2025 0101-43100-62030996808011April 2025 PW - Cell Phone 87.22 05/01/2025 423.64Check Total: Vendor:Total Mechanical Services, Inc Check Sequence: 51 ACH Enabled: FalseTotMechS 2130-44300-63105S14266CC - Rink #1 Heat Transfer Issues 1,436.03 05/01/2025 1,436.03Check Total: Vendor:Twin Cities Property Maintenance Inc Check Sequence: 52 ACH Enabled: FalseTCPropMt AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 8 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 4520-49300-63010239209April 2025 Rental Properties Lawn Service 2,285.00 05/01/2025 2,285.00Check Total: Vendor:Wells Fargo Bank Check Sequence: 53 ACH Enabled: FalseWellsFar 0101-42200-61020FD -FLO-FAST Plastic Diesel Exhaust Fuel Pump & Cart 553.58 05/01/2025 7100-00000-24208HR - Flowers for Rhonda 66.47 05/01/2025 0101-45000-61205Parks - Tools 485.48 05/01/2025 6100-48800-61115VM -Tires for Units #22-182 310.96 05/01/2025 0101-42200-61320FD - Membership Dues 600.00 05/01/2025 0101-41600-61315Eng - Registration for Conference 75.00 05/01/2025 5100-48100-61005WTP - Misc. Supplies 31.02 05/01/2025 0101-42200-61310FD - Unleaded Fuel 49.82 05/01/2025 0101-41910-61120Misc. Supplies for City Hall Remodel 527.09 05/01/2025 0101-42200-61020FD - Fuel 67.20 05/01/2025 6100-48800-61115VM - Parts for Units #T-158 & T-551 1,374.72 05/01/2025 0101-43100-61205Streets - Tools 1,118.41 05/01/2025 0101-43200-61325CALL-EM-ALL Subscription 39.00 05/01/2025 6100-48800-61115VM - Tires for Units # T-554 & T-158 580.00 05/01/2025 0101-41970-61120Misc. Supplies for Sunshine Park 86.49 05/01/2025 0101-42200-61020FD - Tags for Knox Box Keys 82.15 05/01/2025 2130-44300-61020CC - Paint 125.76 05/01/2025 0101-42200-61320FD - Membership Dues 360.06 05/01/2025 0101-42200-61310FD - Food 147.66 05/01/2025 2130-44300-61020CC - Misc. Supplies 136.37 05/01/2025 0101-41200-61310HR - All Staff Meeting 59.96 05/01/2025 2130-44400-61020CC - Pickleballs 249.20 05/01/2025 0101-42300-61315BD - Registration for Conferences 310.00 05/01/2025 0101-49100-61310Campus Clean Up Pizza 215.33 05/01/2025 7100-00000-24208Pop 50.32 05/01/2025 5100-48100-61405WTP - UPS Postage 152.49 05/01/2025 0101-43300-61020Signs - Bosch Battery 84.30 05/01/2025 0101-41420-61225IS - GIS Dept Portable Hard Drive 189.99 05/01/2025 0101-42200-61315FD - Registration for Conference 162.46 05/01/2025 0101-45000-61020PK - Fire Hydrant Security Lock 152.43 05/01/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 9 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 0101-41420-61320IS - Zoom.Com Licenses 299.80 05/01/2025 2130-44300-61020CC - Knee Pads 64.85 05/01/2025 0101-41100-61310City Council Workshop 125.52 05/01/2025 8,933.89Check Total: Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: 65,655.56 53 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:06 AM)Page 10 User: Printed:05/01/2025 - 10:26AM BrendaF Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Accounts Payable Batch:00406.05.2025 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor:American Engineering Testing Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: FalseAmEnginT 4170-49300-63005INV-254284 Coon Crk Crdr Trail E of Prairie Rd 13,397.25 05/06/2025 13,397.25Check Total: Vendor:Bolton & Menk, Inc.Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: FalseBolton 4170-49300-630050360429Crosstown Blvd Tr - Xeon to Priairie 19,697.50 05/06/2025 4110-49300-630050360430Red Oaks Water Cont fka 21-49 6,817.50 05/06/2025 4110-49300-630050360431WM Improve - Crosstown Blvd 1,267.50 05/06/2025 27,782.50Check Total: Vendor:Centricity GIS Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: FalseCentrici 2220-41600-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 140.00 05/06/2025 0101-41600-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 280.00 05/06/2025 5200-48200-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 2,800.00 05/06/2025 5100-48100-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 2,800.00 05/06/2025 2210-41600-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 1,120.00 05/06/2025 2250-41600-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 1,120.00 05/06/2025 0101-42200-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 140.00 05/06/2025 5300-48300-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 2,800.00 05/06/2025 0101-45000-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 700.00 05/06/2025 0101-43100-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 700.00 05/06/2025 0101-41600-630051706Cityworks Database Review, Training & Support 1,400.00 05/06/2025 14,000.00Check Total: Vendor:Country Side Services of MN, Inc Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: FalseCountSSv 4180-49300-654001-110381-01 Blade Assembly & Big Box Assembly for Unit #25-134 12,074.42 05/06/2025 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:26 AM)Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 12,074.42Check Total: Vendor:Fitch & Associates, LLC Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: FalseFitch 4180-49300-6300524-8438-01 Fire Services Evaluation for City of Andover 24,997.50 05/06/2025 4180-49300-6300524-8438-02 Fire Services Evaluation for City of Andover 24,997.50 05/06/2025 49,995.00Check Total: Vendor:Insight Public Sector Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: FalseInsight 0101-41420-613201101264655IT - Adobe Pro Licenses 240.45 05/06/2025 0101-41420-623051101265750IT - Barracuda E-Mail Protection License 10,938.48 05/06/2025 11,178.93Check Total: Vendor:Northwest Inspection Services Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: FalseNorthIns 0101-42300-630102025BD - Plan Review & Inspection Services 59,076.75 05/06/2025 59,076.75Check Total: Vendor:Pioneer Power, Inc.Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: FalsePioPower 5100-48100-63010Payment #6 WTP Radon Mitigation 99,054.60 05/06/2025 99,054.60Check Total: Vendor:Rum River Construction Consultants Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: FalseRumRivCC 0101-42300-63010922Jan - March 2025 Contract Bldg Inspection Services 11,644.50 05/06/2025 11,644.50Check Total: Vendor:Smith Septic & Excavating LLC Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: FalseSmithSep 4150-49300-630102752Pine Hills North Building 12,940.00 05/06/2025 12,940.00Check Total: Vendor:Towmaster Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: FalseTowmaste 4180-49300-65400476637Truck Chassis for Unit #25-134 29,211.00 05/06/2025 29,211.00Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:26 AM)Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: 340,354.95 11 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/01/2025 - 10:26 AM)Page 3 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #3 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM : Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Award Bid / 25-11D, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Andover Commercial Park) / 25-12A, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Tulip Street NW - 161st Avenue NW to 168th Lane NW) / 25-12B, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Kadlec Addition, Oakwood Estates, White Oaks Country Estates, 172nd Avenue) / 25-12C, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Country Oaks West & Birch Point Estates) DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to accept bids and award the contract for Projects 25-11D, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Andover Commercial Park) / 25-12A, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Tulip Street NW - 161st Avenue NW to 168th Lane NW) / 25-12B, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Kadlec Addition, Oakwood Estates, White Oaks Country Estates, 172nd Avenue) / 25-12C, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Country Oaks West & Birch Point Estates). BACKGROUND One neighborhood has been identified in the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan for a full depth reclamation of the streets during the summer of 2025 (see attachment for C.P. 25-11D Location Map). Three additional neighborhoods have been identified in the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan for a mill and overlay of the streets during the summer of 2025 (see attachments for C.P. 25-12A, B & C Location Maps). Bids for construction of these projects were solicited by the City and the projects are to be awarded based upon the lowest responsible total bid. The bid opening was held on April 16, 2025. The three lowest bids received are as follows: Contractor C.P. 25-11D C.P. 25- 12A C.P. 25- 12B C.P. 25- 12C Total Bid North Valley, Inc. $398,121.71 $233,582.64 $658,162.57 $365,211.94 $1,655,078.86 Park Construction Co. $504,754.50 $252,893.20 $645,590.32 $388,721.05 $1,791,959.07 ASTECH Corp. $441,175.20 $250,225.40 $705,175.30 $420,293.10 $1,816,869.00 Engineer's Estimate $456,455.00 $307,035.00 $766,444.00 $442,365.00 $1,972,299.00 Feas. Report Estimate $504,000.00 $326,000.00 $861,000.00 $461,000.00 $2,152,000.00 2 Mayor and Council Members May 6, 2025 Page 2 of 2 BUDGET IMPACT Twenty-five (25%) of the standard street section project costs will be assessed to the benefiting properties in accordance with the City’s Roadway Reconstruction Assessment Policy. The remainder of the project costs will be funded through the City’s Road and Bridge Fund. The City’s portion of City Projects 25-11D, 25-12A, and 25-12C will be reimbursed through Municipal State Aid funds. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested accept bids and award the contract to North Valley, Inc. in the amount of $1,655,078.86 for Projects 25-11D, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Andover Commercial Park) / 25- 12A, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Tulip Street NW - 161st Avenue NW to 168th Lane NW) / 25-12B, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Kadlec Addition, Oakwood Estates, White Oaks Country Estates, 172nd Avenue) / 25- 12C, 2025 Mill & Overlay (Country Oaks West & Birch Point Estates). Attachment(s): Resolution Bid Tabulation Location Maps (4) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XXX-25 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROJECT NOS. 25-11D, 2025 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (ANDOVER COMMERCIAL PARK) / 25-12A, 2025 MILL & OVERLAY (TULIP STREET NW - 161ST AVENUE NW TO 168TH LANE NW) / 25-12B, 2025 MILL & OVERLAY (KADLEC ADDITION, OAKWOOD ESTATES, WHITE OAKS COUNTRY ESTATES, 172ND AVENUE) / 25-12C, 2025 MILL & OVERLAY (COUNTRY OAKS WEST & BIRCH POINT ESTATES). WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement for bids as set out in Council Resolution No. 032-25 dated March 18, 2025, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law with results of the three lowest bidders as follows: Contractor C.P. 25- 11D C.P. 25- 12A C.P. 25- 12B C.P. 25- 12C Total Bid North Valley, Inc. $398,121.71 $233,582.64 $658,162.57 $365,211.94 $1,655,078.86 Park Construction Co. $504,754.50 $252,893.20 $645,590.32 $388,721.05 $1,791,959.07 ASTECH Corp. $441,175.20 $250,225.40 $705,175.30 $420,293.10 $1,816,869.00 Engineer's Estimate $456,455.00 $307,035.00 $766,444.00 $442,365.00 $1,972,299.00 Feas. Report Estimate $504,000.00 $326,000.00 $861,000.00 $461,000.00 $2,152,000.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby accept the bids as shown to indicate North Valley, Inc. as being the apparent low bidder. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TO HEREBY direct the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a contract with North Valley, Inc. in the amount of $1,655,078.86 for construction of the improvements; and direct the City Clerk to return to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders shall be retained until the contract has been executed and bond requirements met. Adopted by the Andover City Council this 6th day of May, 2025. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: ________________________________ Jamie Barthel – Mayor _______________________________ Michelle Hartner – City Clerk 2025 Full Depth Reclamation & 2025 Mill and Overlay (#9598319) - BID TABULATION Owner: Andover MN, City of Solicitor: Andover MN, City of 04/16/2025 09:00 AM CDT Line Item Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension 1 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $7,534.95 $7,534.95 $90,400.00 $90,400.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $19,961.00 $19,961.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2 2104.502 Salvage Casting EA 5 $175.00 $875.00 $166.13 $830.65 $240.00 $1,200.00 $275.00 $1,375.00 $380.00 $1,900.00 $368.00 $1,840.00 $145.00 $725.00 $150.00 $750.00 3 2104.502 Remove Casting EA 2 $150.00 $300.00 $166.14 $332.28 $240.00 $480.00 $275.00 $550.00 $450.00 $900.00 $460.00 $920.00 $120.00 $240.00 $350.00 $700.00 4 2104.503 Remove Curb & Gutter LF 2300 $9.00 $20,700.00 $6.56 $15,088.00 $8.80 $20,240.00 $9.35 $21,505.00 $3.50 $8,050.00 $6.33 $14,559.00 $17.40 $40,020.00 $9.00 $20,700.00 5 2104.503 Sawing Concrete Pavement (Full Depth)LF 50 $5.50 $275.00 $9.65 $482.50 $5.60 $280.00 $3.00 $150.00 $1.50 $75.00 $5.50 $275.00 $8.00 $400.00 $4.00 $200.00 6 2104.503 Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth)LF 375 $3.00 $1,125.00 $2.04 $765.00 $1.75 $656.25 $3.00 $1,125.00 $1.50 $562.50 $1.70 $637.50 $4.00 $1,500.00 $1.00 $375.00 7 2104.518 Remove Concrete Pavement SF 1600 $1.75 $2,800.00 $1.48 $2,368.00 $1.25 $2,000.00 $1.54 $2,464.00 $3.50 $5,600.00 $1.13 $1,808.00 $2.65 $4,240.00 $3.00 $4,800.00 8 2104.518 Remove Bituminous Pavement SF 1100 $1.00 $1,100.00 $1.75 $1,925.00 $2.25 $2,475.00 $1.54 $1,694.00 $0.75 $825.00 $1.32 $1,452.00 $2.96 $3,256.00 $1.50 $1,650.00 9 2104.602 Salvage and Reinstall Mailbox EA 6 $210.00 $1,260.00 $332.27 $1,993.62 $230.00 $1,380.00 $275.00 $1,650.00 $150.00 $900.00 $250.00 $1,500.00 $325.00 $1,950.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 10 2105.607 Common Excavation (EV)CY 50 $30.00 $1,500.00 $26.80 $1,340.00 $41.20 $2,060.00 $41.80 $2,090.00 $56.00 $2,800.00 $55.20 $2,760.00 $47.80 $2,390.00 $60.00 $3,000.00 11 2105.607 Subgrade Excavation (EV)CY 60 $25.00 $1,500.00 $26.80 $1,608.00 $41.20 $2,472.00 $44.00 $2,640.00 $48.00 $2,880.00 $46.00 $2,760.00 $47.80 $2,868.00 $70.00 $4,200.00 12 2105.607 Salvage Reclaim Material (LV) CY 1060 $15.00 $15,900.00 $17.15 $18,179.00 $21.20 $22,472.00 $18.02 $19,101.20 $13.50 $14,310.00 $13.02 $13,801.20 $10.20 $10,812.00 $16.00 $16,960.00 13 2105.607 Select Granular Borrow (LV)CY 80 $30.00 $2,400.00 $2.14 $171.20 $0.01 $0.80 $59.40 $4,752.00 $54.00 $4,320.00 $53.62 $4,289.60 $42.00 $3,360.00 $55.00 $4,400.00 14 2112.519 Subgrade Preparation RDST 17 $375.00 $6,375.00 $294.66 $5,009.22 $236.00 $4,012.00 $357.50 $6,077.50 $189.00 $3,213.00 $300.00 $5,100.00 $365.00 $6,205.00 $500.00 $8,500.00 15 2130.523 Water MGAL 25 $50.00 $1,250.00 $49.30 $1,232.50 $56.20 $1,405.00 $40.00 $1,000.00 $128.00 $3,200.00 $55.00 $1,375.00 $52.00 $1,300.00 $50.00 $1,250.00 16 2211.509 Aggregate Base Class 5 TN 40 $30.00 $1,200.00 $0.11 $4.40 $0.01 $0.40 $28.60 $1,144.00 $57.00 $2,280.00 $52.33 $2,093.20 $30.20 $1,208.00 $35.00 $1,400.00 17 2215.504 Full Depth Reclamation SY 6750 $1.35 $9,112.50 $1.49 $10,057.50 $0.92 $6,210.00 $1.50 $10,125.00 $0.98 $6,615.00 $1.85 $12,487.50 $4.35 $29,362.50 $2.50 $16,875.00 18 2232.504 Mill Bituminous Surface (1.5")SY 50 $18.00 $900.00 $8.57 $428.50 $6.35 $317.50 $8.80 $440.00 $0.89 $44.50 $20.00 $1,000.00 $24.00 $1,200.00 $18.00 $900.00 19 2357.506 Bituminous Material For Tack Coat Gal 350 $3.00 $1,050.00 $2.79 $976.50 $2.35 $822.50 $3.00 $1,050.00 $2.50 $875.00 $2.50 $875.00 $4.00 $1,400.00 $1.00 $350.00 20 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Wearing Course Mix (3,C)TN 690 $92.00 $63,480.00 $87.30 $60,237.00 $91.10 $62,859.00 $92.95 $64,135.50 $98.00 $67,620.00 $89.00 $61,410.00 $97.35 $67,171.50 $85.00 $58,650.00 21 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Bit Mixture for Patching (3,C)TN 20 $200.00 $4,000.00 $130.76 $2,615.20 $152.00 $3,040.00 $173.80 $3,476.00 $139.00 $2,780.00 $180.00 $3,600.00 $225.35 $4,507.00 $210.00 $4,200.00 22 2360.509 Type SP 12.5 Wearing Course Mixture (3,C)TN 1110 $87.00 $96,570.00 $82.99 $92,118.90 $85.90 $95,349.00 $84.76 $94,083.60 $98.00 $108,780.00 $89.00 $98,790.00 $90.10 $100,011.00 $90.00 $99,900.00 23 2504.602 Adjust Gate Valve Box EA 11 $800.00 $8,800.00 $480.66 $5,287.26 $448.00 $4,928.00 $330.00 $3,630.00 $335.00 $3,685.00 $334.55 $3,680.05 $495.00 $5,445.00 $320.00 $3,520.00 24 2504.602 Adjust Gate Valve Box - F&I New Valve Box Top EA 6 $800.00 $4,800.00 $688.40 $4,130.40 $551.00 $3,306.00 $385.00 $2,310.00 $1,075.00 $6,450.00 $1,072.33 $6,433.98 $715.00 $4,290.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 25 2504.602 Gate Valve Casting Adjustment EA 1 $125.00 $125.00 $688.39 $688.39 $53.60 $53.60 $330.00 $330.00 $475.00 $475.00 $460.00 $460.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 26 2504.602 Irrigation System Modifications EA 60 $125.00 $7,500.00 $117.90 $7,074.00 $115.00 $6,900.00 $165.00 $9,900.00 $150.00 $9,000.00 $115.00 $6,900.00 $250.00 $15,000.00 $400.00 $24,000.00 27 2506.502 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting EA 3 $1,100.00 $3,300.00 $1,092.81 $3,278.43 $1,120.00 $3,360.00 $1,051.60 $3,154.80 $845.00 $2,535.00 $843.33 $2,529.99 $625.00 $1,875.00 $1,300.00 $3,900.00 28 2506.502 Casting Assembly - Storm EA 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,060.04 $2,120.08 $973.00 $1,946.00 $990.00 $1,980.00 $980.00 $1,960.00 $977.50 $1,955.00 $755.00 $1,510.00 $2,100.00 $4,200.00 29 2506.502 Install Casting EA 5 $300.00 $1,500.00 $107.18 $535.90 $161.00 $805.00 $825.00 $4,125.00 $150.00 $750.00 $1,299.50 $6,497.50 $698.00 $3,490.00 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 30 2506.602 Mud Existing Casting Rings EA 3 $250.00 $750.00 $229.83 $689.49 $183.00 $549.00 $220.00 $660.00 $425.00 $1,275.00 $421.67 $1,265.01 $295.00 $885.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 31 2506.602 Mud Doghouse EA 3 $300.00 $900.00 $353.59 $1,060.77 $183.00 $549.00 $220.00 $660.00 $425.00 $1,275.00 $421.67 $1,265.01 $485.00 $1,455.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 32 2506.607 Fill Catch Basin Sump CY 4 $450.00 $1,800.00 $779.00 $3,116.00 $1,140.00 $4,560.00 $440.00 $1,760.00 $700.00 $2,800.00 $690.00 $2,760.00 $466.00 $1,864.00 $1,100.00 $4,400.00 33 2521.618 6" Concrete Walk - Special SF 1400 $18.00 $25,200.00 $13.08 $18,312.00 $14.80 $20,720.00 $13.20 $18,480.00 $9.00 $12,600.00 $12.00 $16,800.00 $18.25 $25,550.00 $15.00 $21,000.00 34 2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter B624 LF 2300 $35.00 $80,500.00 $31.23 $71,829.00 $32.40 $74,520.00 $31.57 $72,611.00 $35.00 $80,500.00 $28.65 $65,895.00 $30.45 $70,035.00 $31.00 $71,300.00 35 2531.604 8" Concrete Valley Gutter SY 75 $135.00 $10,125.00 $158.06 $11,854.50 $99.10 $7,432.50 $159.50 $11,962.50 $90.00 $6,750.00 $145.00 $10,875.00 $96.60 $7,245.00 $181.00 $13,575.00 36 2531.618 Truncated Domes SF 120 $75.00 $9,000.00 $61.04 $7,324.80 $51.50 $6,180.00 $61.60 $7,392.00 $100.00 $12,000.00 $56.00 $6,720.00 $55.00 $6,600.00 $56.00 $6,720.00 37 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,002.24 $6,002.24 $4,080.00 $4,080.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,850.00 $7,850.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 38 2573.502 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA 11 $170.00 $1,870.00 $48.23 $530.53 $200.00 $2,200.00 $165.00 $1,815.00 $175.00 $1,925.00 $250.00 $2,750.00 $185.00 $2,035.00 $175.00 $1,925.00 39 2573.503 Silt Fence, Type HI or MS LF 375 $5.50 $2,062.50 $3.50 $1,312.50 $3.15 $1,181.25 $3.00 $1,125.00 $2.50 $937.50 $5.65 $2,118.75 $3.50 $1,312.50 $6.00 $2,250.00 40 2573.607 Rock Ditch Check - 1.5" Nom. Diameter CY 5 $75.00 $375.00 $69.67 $348.35 $105.00 $525.00 $60.50 $302.50 $250.00 $1,250.00 $100.00 $500.00 $98.50 $492.50 $95.00 $475.00 41 2574.507 Loam Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 280 $35.00 $9,800.00 $1.07 $299.60 $59.70 $16,716.00 $51.48 $14,414.40 $55.00 $15,400.00 $52.67 $14,747.60 $20.00 $5,600.00 $65.00 $18,200.00 42 2575.504 Sodding Type Lawn SY 1020 $20.00 $20,400.00 $25.68 $26,193.60 $23.00 $23,460.00 $16.50 $16,830.00 $5.50 $5,610.00 $21.50 $21,930.00 $24.00 $24,480.00 $23.00 $23,460.00 43 2582.503 4" Solid Line Paint - White LF 110 $1.50 $165.00 $0.15 $16.50 $0.12 $13.20 $0.12 $13.20 $0.30 $33.00 $0.12 $13.20 $14.00 $1,540.00 $0.15 $16.50 44 2582.503 18" Solid Line Paint - White LF 70 $8.00 $560.00 $4.51 $315.70 $3.55 $248.50 $3.85 $269.50 $90.00 $6,300.00 $3.50 $245.00 $3.80 $266.00 $3.50 $245.00 45 2582.503 4" Double Solid Line Paint - Yellow LF 1625 $2.00 $3,250.00 $0.31 $503.75 $0.24 $390.00 $0.26 $422.50 $0.40 $650.00 $0.24 $390.00 $0.27 $438.75 $0.25 $406.25 $456,455.00 $398,121.71 $504,754.50 $441,175.20 $453,440.50 $466,064.09 $493,995.75 $510,602.75 101 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,421.30 $4,421.30 $5,520.00 $5,520.00 $13,200.00 $13,200.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $12,250.00 $12,250.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 102 2104.502 Salvage Casting EA 3 $175.00 $525.00 $166.13 $498.39 $240.00 $720.00 $275.00 $825.00 $310.00 $930.00 $306.67 $920.01 $145.00 $435.00 $140.00 $420.00 103 2104.503 Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth)LF 320 $3.00 $960.00 $2.04 $652.80 $1.75 $560.00 $3.00 $960.00 $1.50 $480.00 $1.70 $544.00 $4.00 $1,280.00 $1.00 $320.00 104 2104.503 Remove Curb & Gutter LF 180 $9.00 $1,620.00 $6.47 $1,164.60 $10.30 $1,854.00 $9.35 $1,683.00 $3.50 $630.00 $7.09 $1,276.20 $26.10 $4,698.00 $12.00 $2,160.00 105 2104.518 Remove Concrete Pavement SF 800 $1.75 $1,400.00 $1.48 $1,184.00 $1.25 $1,000.00 $1.54 $1,232.00 $3.50 $2,800.00 $1.60 $1,280.00 $4.65 $3,720.00 $2.50 $2,000.00 106 2104.518 Remove Bituminous Pavement SF 850 $1.00 $850.00 $1.75 $1,487.50 $2.25 $1,912.50 $1.54 $1,309.00 $0.98 $833.00 $1.50 $1,275.00 $4.46 $3,791.00 $1.25 $1,062.50 107 2232.504 Mill Bituminous Surface (1.5")SY 17900 $1.40 $25,060.00 $0.91 $16,289.00 $1.15 $20,585.00 $1.17 $20,943.00 $0.65 $11,635.00 $2.20 $39,380.00 $1.05 $18,795.00 $1.00 $17,900.00 108 2357.506 Bituminous Material For Tack Coat Gal 1260 $3.00 $3,780.00 $2.79 $3,515.40 $2.35 $2,961.00 $3.00 $3,780.00 $2.50 $3,150.00 $2.50 $3,150.00 $3.80 $4,788.00 $1.00 $1,260.00 109 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Wearing Course Mix (3,B)TN 2050 $89.00 $182,450.00 $73.70 $151,085.00 $77.40 $158,670.00 $78.43 $160,781.50 $92.00 $188,600.00 $78.00 $159,900.00 $95.50 $195,775.00 $72.00 $147,600.00 110 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Bit Mixture for Patching (3,B)TN 20 $200.00 $4,000.00 $130.76 $2,615.20 $142.00 $2,840.00 $166.10 $3,322.00 $139.00 $2,780.00 $175.00 $3,500.00 $230.40 $4,608.00 $150.00 $3,000.00 111 2504.602 Irrigation System Modifications EA 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 $117.90 $1,179.00 $115.00 $1,150.00 $165.00 $1,650.00 $150.00 $1,500.00 $115.00 $1,150.00 $150.00 $1,500.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 112 2506.502 Casting Assembly EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,071.83 $1,071.83 $867.00 $867.00 $990.00 $990.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,207.50 $1,207.50 $795.00 $795.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 113 2506.502 Install Casting EA 3 $300.00 $900.00 $166.13 $498.39 $161.00 $483.00 $825.00 $2,475.00 $915.00 $2,745.00 $900.83 $2,702.49 $698.00 $2,094.00 $1,150.00 $3,450.00 114 2506.602 Mud Existing Casting Rings EA 31 $250.00 $7,750.00 $229.83 $7,124.73 $135.00 $4,185.00 $132.00 $4,092.00 $410.00 $12,710.00 $409.92 $12,707.52 $295.00 $9,145.00 $375.00 $11,625.00 115 2506.602 Mud Doghouse EA 1 $300.00 $300.00 $353.58 $353.58 $183.00 $183.00 $220.00 $220.00 $633.00 $633.00 $632.50 $632.50 $485.00 $485.00 $700.00 $700.00 116 2506.607 Fill Catch Basin Sump CY 20 $500.00 $10,000.00 $820.99 $16,419.80 $1,140.00 $22,800.00 $440.00 $8,800.00 $690.00 $13,800.00 $690.00 $13,800.00 $466.00 $9,320.00 $950.00 $19,000.00 117 2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter B618 LF 260 $30.00 $7,800.00 $34.12 $8,871.20 $43.80 $11,388.00 $35.20 $9,152.00 $35.00 $9,100.00 $31.30 $8,138.00 $44.00 $11,440.00 $34.00 $8,840.00 118 2531.602 Saw and Seal Concrete Curb & Gutter EA 60 $35.00 $2,100.00 $40.71 $2,442.60 $15.50 $930.00 $41.14 $2,468.40 $100.00 $6,000.00 $37.35 $2,241.00 $19.00 $1,140.00 $38.00 $2,280.00 119 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,768.51 $1,768.51 $1,680.00 $1,680.00 $1,815.00 $1,815.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $2,900.00 $2,900.00 $3,650.00 $3,650.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 120 2573.502 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA 3 $170.00 $510.00 $133.98 $401.94 $200.00 $600.00 $165.00 $495.00 $175.00 $525.00 $250.00 $750.00 $185.00 $555.00 $200.00 $600.00 121 2574.507 Loam Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 50 $35.00 $1,750.00 $1.07 $53.50 $76.30 $3,815.00 $51.48 $2,574.00 $55.00 $2,750.00 $64.17 $3,208.50 $20.00 $1,000.00 $60.00 $3,000.00 122 2574.508 Fertilizer Type 1 LB 20 $2.00 $40.00 $2.33 $46.60 $2.10 $42.00 $1.10 $22.00 $1.50 $30.00 $1.50 $30.00 $2.20 $44.00 $1.50 $30.00 123 2575.504 Rolled Erosion Prevention Category 20 SY 220 $3.00 $660.00 $16.34 $3,594.80 $14.70 $3,234.00 $3.85 $847.00 $2.75 $605.00 $3.50 $770.00 $16.00 $3,520.00 $3.50 $770.00 124 2575.505 Weed Spraying ACRE 0.1 $5,000.00 $500.00 $1.20 $0.12 $1.00 $0.10 $4,950.00 $495.00 $260.00 $26.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $1.50 $0.15 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 125 2575.505 Seeding ACRE 0.1 $5,000.00 $500.00 $5,649.50 $564.95 $1.00 $0.10 $8,800.00 $880.00 $500.00 $50.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,245.00 $524.50 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 126 2575.508 Seed Mixture 25-151 LB 20 $5.00 $100.00 $5.25 $105.00 $2.10 $42.00 $3.85 $77.00 $4.75 $95.00 $10.00 $200.00 $6.00 $120.00 $10.00 $200.00 C.P. 25-12A - 2025 Mill & Overlay: Tulip Street (161st Ave to Valley Drive) C.P. 25-11D - 2025 FDR: Andover Commercial Park C.P. 25-11D - 2025 FDR: Andover Commercial Park Northwest Bituminous Roadways Inc. Engineer Estimate North Valley, Inc.Park Construction Company ASTECH Corp.North Oaks Paving KNIFE RIVER CORP. NORTH CENTR Northwest Bituminous Roadways Inc. Engineer Estimate North Valley, Inc.Park Construction Company ASTECH Corp.North Oaks Paving KNIFE RIVER CORP. NORTH CENTR 127 2582.503 4" Solid Line Paint - White LF 12300 $1.50 $18,450.00 $0.15 $1,845.00 $0.12 $1,476.00 $0.12 $1,476.00 $0.25 $3,075.00 $0.12 $1,476.00 $0.13 $1,599.00 $0.15 $1,845.00 128 2582.503 18" Solid Line Paint - White LF 30 $8.00 $240.00 $4.51 $135.30 $3.55 $106.50 $3.85 $115.50 $9.00 $270.00 $3.50 $105.00 $3.68 $110.40 $3.50 $105.00 129 2582.503 4" Double Solid Line Paint - Yellow LF 6700 $2.00 $13,400.00 $0.31 $2,077.00 $0.24 $1,608.00 $0.26 $1,742.00 $0.45 $3,015.00 $0.24 $1,608.00 $0.28 $1,876.00 $0.25 $1,675.00 130 2582.518 Pavement Message Paint SF 410 $4.00 $1,640.00 $5.16 $2,115.60 $4.10 $1,681.00 $4.40 $1,804.00 $5.80 $2,378.00 $4.00 $1,640.00 $4.60 $1,886.00 $4.00 $1,640.00 $307,035.00 $233,582.64 $252,893.20 $250,225.40 $313,145.00 $313,491.72 $300,944.05 $266,482.50 C.P. 25-12B - 2025 Mill & Overlay: Kadlec Estates, Oakwoods Estates, White Oaks Country Estates, 172nd Av 201 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $12,454.65 $12,454.65 $4,370.00 $4,370.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $29,820.00 $29,820.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 202 2101.502 Grubbing EA 13 $275.00 $3,575.00 $349.58 $4,544.54 $306.00 $3,978.00 $385.00 $5,005.00 $1,000.00 $13,000.00 $250.00 $3,250.00 $850.00 $11,050.00 $300.00 $3,900.00 203 2104.503 Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth)LF 1830 $3.00 $5,490.00 $2.04 $3,733.20 $1.75 $3,202.50 $3.00 $5,490.00 $1.50 $2,745.00 $1.70 $3,111.00 $3.00 $5,490.00 $1.00 $1,830.00 204 2104.503 Remove Pipe Culvert / Storm Sewer LF 730 $12.00 $8,760.00 $9.65 $7,044.50 $8.30 $6,059.00 $17.27 $12,607.10 $12.20 $8,906.00 $12.04 $8,789.20 $20.00 $14,600.00 $8.00 $5,840.00 205 2104.518 Remove Bituminous Pavement SF 12830 $1.00 $12,830.00 $1.19 $15,267.70 $1.20 $15,396.00 $0.95 $12,188.50 $0.98 $12,573.40 $1.21 $15,524.30 $1.08 $13,856.40 $1.50 $19,245.00 206 2105.607 Common Excavation (EV)CY 15 $28.00 $420.00 $26.80 $402.00 $48.40 $726.00 $41.80 $627.00 $123.00 $1,845.00 $122.67 $1,840.05 $65.00 $975.00 $90.00 $1,350.00 207 2105.607 Subgrade Excavation (EV)CY 540 $25.00 $13,500.00 $29.97 $16,183.80 $26.30 $14,202.00 $28.66 $15,476.40 $32.00 $17,280.00 $31.68 $17,107.20 $48.50 $26,190.00 $55.00 $29,700.00 208 2105.607 Select Granular Borrow (LV)CY 760 $30.00 $22,800.00 $21.79 $16,560.40 $30.80 $23,408.00 $28.27 $21,485.20 $32.00 $24,320.00 $31.71 $24,099.60 $34.21 $25,999.60 $45.00 $34,200.00 209 2211.509 Aggregate Base Class 5 TN 260 $30.00 $7,800.00 $5.36 $1,393.60 $33.80 $8,788.00 $36.85 $9,581.00 $35.00 $9,100.00 $32.29 $8,395.40 $28.65 $7,449.00 $27.00 $7,020.00 210 2232.504 Mill Bituminous Surface (1")SY 43060 $1.40 $60,284.00 $0.95 $40,907.00 $0.97 $41,768.20 $1.28 $55,116.80 $0.65 $27,989.00 $1.85 $79,661.00 $0.96 $41,337.60 $1.25 $53,825.00 211 2357.506 Bituminous Material For Tack Coat Gal 3020 $3.00 $9,060.00 $2.79 $8,425.80 $2.35 $7,097.00 $3.00 $9,060.00 $2.50 $7,550.00 $2.50 $7,550.00 $3.60 $10,872.00 $1.00 $3,020.00 212 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Wearing Course Mix (2,B)TN 4270 $89.00 $380,030.00 $75.58 $322,726.60 $77.20 $329,644.00 $78.27 $334,212.90 $92.00 $392,840.00 $78.00 $333,060.00 $91.78 $391,900.60 $73.00 $311,710.00 213 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Bit Mixture for Patching (2,B)TN 110 $200.00 $22,000.00 $179.22 $19,714.20 $146.00 $16,060.00 $138.60 $15,246.00 $139.00 $15,290.00 $155.00 $17,050.00 $216.45 $23,809.50 $165.00 $18,150.00 214 2360.509 Type SP 12.5 Bit Mixture for Patching (2,B)TN 90 $180.00 $16,200.00 $179.21 $16,128.90 $129.00 $11,610.00 $140.80 $12,672.00 $139.00 $12,510.00 $155.00 $13,950.00 $241.30 $21,717.00 $190.00 $17,100.00 215 2451.607 Trench Stabilization Material (CV)CY 20 $50.00 $1,000.00 $66.45 $1,329.00 $21.80 $436.00 $60.50 $1,210.00 $71.00 $1,420.00 $70.15 $1,403.00 $42.65 $853.00 $1.25 $25.00 216 2501.502 15" RC Pipe Apron & Grate EA 22 $1,750.00 $38,500.00 $2,103.86 $46,284.92 $2,240.00 $49,280.00 $1,903.00 $41,866.00 $2,815.00 $61,930.00 $2,812.27 $61,869.94 $1,945.55 $42,802.10 $3,300.00 $72,600.00 217 2501.502 15" CS Pipe Apron & Grate EA 6 $700.00 $4,200.00 $849.72 $5,098.32 $371.00 $2,226.00 $550.00 $3,300.00 $936.00 $5,616.00 $935.33 $5,611.98 $1,308.90 $7,853.40 $1,500.00 $9,000.00 218 2501.503 15" RC Pipe Culvert Des 3006 Class V LF 496 $70.00 $34,720.00 $71.82 $35,622.72 $61.10 $30,305.60 $81.40 $40,374.40 $98.00 $48,608.00 $96.90 $48,062.40 $69.83 $34,635.68 $100.00 $49,600.00 219 2501.503 16" Ductile Iron Pipe Culvert Class 52 LF 114 $150.00 $17,100.00 $177.90 $20,280.60 $171.00 $19,494.00 $182.60 $20,816.40 $220.00 $25,080.00 $218.70 $24,931.80 $178.30 $20,326.20 $180.00 $20,520.00 220 2503.603 Clean & Televise Storm Sewer and Culverts LF 496 $9.00 $4,464.00 $6.63 $3,288.48 $14.50 $7,192.00 $17.60 $8,729.60 $16.25 $8,060.00 $16.10 $7,985.60 $5.00 $2,480.00 $23.00 $11,408.00 221 2504.602 Irrigation System Modifications EA 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 $117.90 $1,179.00 $115.00 $1,150.00 $165.00 $1,650.00 $150.00 $1,500.00 $115.00 $1,150.00 $150.00 $1,500.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 222 2511.507 Random Riprap Class III CY 15 $120.00 $1,800.00 $149.17 $2,237.55 $124.00 $1,860.00 $143.00 $2,145.00 $145.00 $2,175.00 $150.00 $2,250.00 $185.00 $2,775.00 $390.00 $5,850.00 223 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,339.79 $1,339.79 $1,280.00 $1,280.00 $1,430.00 $1,430.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,900.00 $4,900.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 224 2573.503 Silt Fence, Type HI or MS LF 250 $5.50 $1,375.00 $3.50 $875.00 $3.15 $787.50 $3.30 $825.00 $2.50 $625.00 $5.65 $1,412.50 $4.00 $1,000.00 $6.00 $1,500.00 225 2573.503 Sediment Control Log Type Wood Chip LF 400 $4.00 $1,600.00 $4.09 $1,636.00 $3.65 $1,460.00 $2.75 $1,100.00 $3.50 $1,400.00 $2.29 $916.00 $4.50 $1,800.00 $2.50 $1,000.00 226 2574.507 Loam Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 530 $35.00 $18,550.00 $48.23 $25,561.90 $35.30 $18,709.00 $48.40 $25,652.00 $55.00 $29,150.00 $49.58 $26,277.40 $52.00 $27,560.00 $70.00 $37,100.00 227 2574.508 Fertilizer Type 3 LB 480 $1.25 $600.00 $1.17 $561.60 $1.05 $504.00 $1.00 $480.00 $1.30 $624.00 $1.50 $720.00 $1.20 $576.00 $1.50 $720.00 228 2575.504 Rolled Erosion Prevention Category 30 SY 770 $2.80 $2,156.00 $5.25 $4,042.50 $4.70 $3,619.00 $3.30 $2,541.00 $2.65 $2,040.50 $2.69 $2,071.30 $5.05 $3,888.50 $2.75 $2,117.50 229 2575.505 Weed Spraying ACRE 2.4 $1,500.00 $3,600.00 $1.17 $2.81 $1.05 $2.52 $1,650.00 $3,960.00 $260.00 $624.00 $800.00 $1,920.00 $10.00 $24.00 $800.00 $1,920.00 230 2575.505 Seeding ACRE 2.4 $1,200.00 $2,880.00 $2,848.12 $6,835.49 $2,550.00 $6,120.00 $3,850.00 $9,240.00 $500.00 $1,200.00 $800.00 $1,920.00 $2,580.00 $6,192.00 $800.00 $1,920.00 231 2575.508 Hydraulic Mulch Matrix LB 6000 $5.00 $30,000.00 $2.33 $13,980.00 $2.10 $12,600.00 $1.54 $9,240.00 $1.50 $9,000.00 $1.21 $7,260.00 $2.25 $13,500.00 $1.25 $7,500.00 232 2575.508 Seed Mixture 25-151 LB 480 $5.00 $2,400.00 $5.25 $2,520.00 $4.70 $2,256.00 $3.85 $1,848.00 $4.65 $2,232.00 $10.00 $4,800.00 $5.05 $2,424.00 $10.00 $4,800.00 C.P. 25-12B - 2025 Mill & Overlay: Kadlec Estates, Oakwoods Estates, White Oaks Country Estates, 172nd Ave $766,444.00 $658,162.57 $645,590.32 $705,175.30 $787,982.90 $776,949.67 $800,156.58 $789,970.50 C.P. 25-12C - 2025 Mill & Overlay: Country Oaks West, Birch Pine Estates, Wintergreen Street 301 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $6,752.52 $6,752.52 $2,640.00 $2,640.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $18,276.00 $18,276.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 302 2104.502 Salvage Casting EA 10 $175.00 $1,750.00 $166.13 $1,661.30 $240.00 $2,400.00 $275.00 $2,750.00 $460.00 $4,600.00 $460.00 $4,600.00 $145.00 $1,450.00 $140.00 $1,400.00 303 2104.503 Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth)LF 480 $3.00 $1,440.00 $2.04 $979.20 $1.75 $840.00 $3.00 $1,440.00 $1.50 $720.00 $1.70 $816.00 $4.00 $1,920.00 $1.00 $480.00 304 2104.503 Remove Curb & Gutter LF 295 $9.00 $2,655.00 $6.46 $1,905.70 $10.30 $3,038.50 $9.35 $2,758.25 $3.50 $1,032.50 $6.74 $1,988.30 $22.30 $6,578.50 $13.50 $3,982.50 305 2104.518 Remove Concrete Pavement SF 575 $1.80 $1,035.00 $1.48 $851.00 $2.30 $1,322.50 $1.54 $885.50 $3.50 $2,012.50 $2.22 $1,276.50 $7.62 $4,381.50 $3.00 $1,725.00 306 2104.518 Remove Bituminous Pavement SF 1330 $1.00 $1,330.00 $1.75 $2,327.50 $2.25 $2,992.50 $1.20 $1,596.00 $0.98 $1,303.40 $2.19 $2,912.70 $5.41 $7,195.30 $2.00 $2,660.00 307 2232.504 Mill Bituminous Surface (1.5")SY 12200 $1.40 $17,080.00 $1.00 $12,200.00 $1.15 $14,030.00 $1.39 $16,958.00 $0.65 $7,930.00 $2.50 $30,500.00 $1.00 $12,200.00 $1.50 $18,300.00 308 2232.504 Mill Bituminous Surface (2")SY 9550 $1.50 $14,325.00 $1.02 $9,741.00 $1.40 $13,370.00 $1.63 $15,566.50 $0.65 $6,207.50 $3.10 $29,605.00 $1.20 $11,460.00 $1.75 $16,712.50 309 2357.506 Bituminous Material For Tack Coat Gal 1540 $3.00 $4,620.00 $2.79 $4,296.60 $2.35 $3,619.00 $3.00 $4,620.00 $2.50 $3,850.00 $2.50 $3,850.00 $3.80 $5,852.00 $1.00 $1,540.00 310 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Wearing Course Mix (3,B)TN 2800 $89.00 $249,200.00 $77.67 $217,476.00 $79.20 $221,760.00 $80.15 $224,420.00 $92.00 $257,600.00 $83.00 $232,400.00 $91.30 $255,640.00 $73.00 $204,400.00 311 2360.509 Type SP 9.5 Bit Mixture for Patching (3,B)TN 45 $200.00 $9,000.00 $141.12 $6,350.40 $142.00 $6,390.00 $166.10 $7,474.50 $139.00 $6,255.00 $154.31 $6,943.95 $218.90 $9,850.50 $190.00 $8,550.00 312 2504.602 Gate Valve Casting Adjustment EA 16 $125.00 $2,000.00 $85.75 $1,372.00 $564.00 $9,024.00 $330.00 $5,280.00 $720.00 $11,520.00 $718.75 $11,500.00 $495.00 $7,920.00 $400.00 $6,400.00 313 2504.602 Irrigation System Modifications EA 30 $125.00 $3,750.00 $117.90 $3,537.00 $115.00 $3,450.00 $165.00 $4,950.00 $150.00 $4,500.00 $115.00 $3,450.00 $165.00 $4,950.00 $400.00 $12,000.00 314 2506.502 Manhole Casting Adjustment EA 36 $300.00 $10,800.00 $241.16 $8,681.76 $262.00 $9,432.00 $770.00 $27,720.00 $905.00 $32,580.00 $900.83 $32,429.88 $615.00 $22,140.00 $1,900.00 $68,400.00 315 2506.502 Casting Assembly EA 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,060.04 $2,120.08 $867.00 $1,734.00 $2,123.00 $4,246.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00 $1,207.50 $2,415.00 $805.00 $1,610.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 316 2506.502 Install Casting EA 10 $300.00 $3,000.00 $166.13 $1,661.30 $161.00 $1,610.00 $1,056.00 $10,560.00 $750.00 $7,500.00 $747.50 $7,475.00 $698.00 $6,980.00 $1,100.00 $11,000.00 317 2506.602 Mud Existing Casting Rings EA 25 $250.00 $6,250.00 $229.83 $5,745.75 $135.00 $3,375.00 $132.00 $3,300.00 $410.00 $10,250.00 $409.40 $10,235.00 $295.00 $7,375.00 $525.00 $13,125.00 318 2506.602 Mud Doghouse EA 13 $300.00 $3,900.00 $353.59 $4,596.67 $151.00 $1,963.00 $220.00 $2,860.00 $585.00 $7,605.00 $583.85 $7,590.05 $485.00 $6,305.00 $525.00 $6,825.00 319 2506.607 Fill Catch Basin Sump CY 22 $500.00 $11,000.00 $811.05 $17,843.10 $1,140.00 $25,080.00 $440.00 $9,680.00 $650.00 $14,300.00 $648.18 $14,259.96 $466.00 $10,252.00 $1,050.00 $23,100.00 320 2521.618 6" Concrete Walk - Special SF 1050 $18.00 $18,900.00 $13.08 $13,734.00 $14.90 $15,645.00 $13.20 $13,860.00 $9.00 $9,450.00 $12.00 $12,600.00 $19.30 $20,265.00 $15.00 $15,750.00 321 2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter Surmountable LF 295 $35.00 $10,325.00 $36.74 $10,838.30 $43.80 $12,921.00 $37.40 $11,033.00 $35.00 $10,325.00 $33.70 $9,941.50 $44.00 $12,980.00 $36.00 $10,620.00 322 2531.602 Saw and Seal Concrete Curb & Gutter EA 50 $35.00 $1,750.00 $40.61 $2,030.50 $15.50 $775.00 $41.03 $2,051.50 $100.00 $5,000.00 $37.25 $1,862.50 $17.10 $855.00 $38.00 $1,900.00 323 2531.618 Truncated Domes SF 190 $75.00 $14,250.00 $61.04 $11,597.60 $51.50 $9,785.00 $61.60 $11,704.00 $100.00 $19,000.00 $56.00 $10,640.00 $55.00 $10,450.00 $56.00 $10,640.00 324 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,714.93 $1,714.93 $1,630.00 $1,630.00 $1,760.00 $1,760.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,950.00 $3,950.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 325 2573.502 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA 10 $170.00 $1,700.00 $91.11 $911.10 $200.00 $2,000.00 $165.00 $1,650.00 $125.00 $1,250.00 $250.00 $2,500.00 $185.00 $1,850.00 $175.00 $1,750.00 326 2574.507 Loam Topsoil Borrow (LV)CY 74 $35.00 $2,590.00 $1.07 $79.18 $76.30 $5,646.20 $49.50 $3,663.00 $55.00 $4,070.00 $59.99 $4,439.26 $45.00 $3,330.00 $70.00 $5,180.00 327 2575.504 Sodding Type Lawn SY 350 $20.00 $7,000.00 $28.01 $9,803.50 $25.10 $8,785.00 $16.50 $5,775.00 $5.50 $1,925.00 $21.50 $7,525.00 $29.50 $10,325.00 $22.00 $7,700.00 328 2582.503 4" Solid Line Paint - White LF 130 $1.50 $195.00 $0.15 $19.50 $0.12 $15.60 $0.12 $15.60 $0.25 $32.50 $0.12 $15.60 $0.15 $19.50 $0.15 $19.50 329 2582.503 18" Solid Line Paint - White LF 85 $8.00 $680.00 $4.51 $383.35 $3.55 $301.75 $3.85 $327.25 $9.00 $765.00 $3.50 $297.50 $3.80 $323.00 $3.50 $297.50 330 2582.503 4" Double Solid Line Paint - Yellow LF 5250 $2.00 $10,500.00 $0.31 $1,627.50 $0.24 $1,260.00 $0.26 $1,365.00 $0.40 $2,100.00 $0.24 $1,260.00 $0.28 $1,470.00 $0.25 $1,312.50 331 2582.518 Pavement Message Paint SF 460 $4.00 $1,840.00 $5.16 $2,373.60 $4.10 $1,886.00 $4.40 $2,024.00 $5.80 $2,668.00 $4.00 $1,840.00 $4.40 $2,024.00 $4.00 $1,840.00 C.P. 25-12C - 2025 Mill & Overlay: Country Oaks West, Birch Pine Estates, Wintergreen Street $442,365.00 $365,211.94 $388,721.05 $420,293.10 $479,601.40 $500,168.70 $470,177.30 $504,109.50 Base Bid Total:$1,972,299.00 $1,655,078.86 $1,791,959.07 $1,816,869.00 $2,034,169.80 $2,056,674.18 $2,065,273.68 $2,071,165.25 C.P. 25-12A - 2025 Mill & Overlay: Tulip Street (161st Ave to Valley Drive) Engineer Estimate Bituminous Roadways Inc. Engineer Estimate North Valley, Inc.Park Construction Company ASTECH Corp.North Oaks Paving KNIFE RIVER CORP. NORTH CENTR Northwest Bituminous Roadways Inc. North Valley, Inc.Park Construction Company ASTECH Corp.North Oaks Paving KNIFE RIVER CORP. NORTH CENTR Northwest YU K O N S T RA V E N S T 138TH LN 136TH LN WR E N S T 133RD LN QUINN ST 134TH AVE HI D D EN CR E E K D R 136TH A V E PARTRIDGE CR 137TH LN SW A L L O W S T XAV I S ST PA RTRIDGE ST 13 5 T H A V E 138TH AVE PRIVATE DR UP L A N D E R S T BUNKER LAKE BLVD STATION PKWY CR O S S T O W N B L V D CR O S S T O W N B L V D 13567 13585 2308 13654 2218 2343 13586 13624 HIDDEN CREEK EASTHIDDEN CREEK SOUTH HIDDEN CREEK NORTH THR U S H S T TH R U S H S T 135TH LN Data Credit: Anoka County GIS ESRI MN Geospatial Commons City of Andover Incorporated 1 4 Date Exported: 8/23/2024 11:01 AMPath: H:\GIS\Working\Projects\Engineering\CIPMaps\2024\CIP_2024.aprx Andover GIS This map is intended for reference purposes only with mapping grade accuracy of the data. The City of Andover does not make claim that the features depicted represent true locations; therefore the City assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. 0 460230 Feet Project Location Project Limits Assessed Parcels (Proposed) Parcel Boundary City Limits ³CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (2025)PROJECT NAME: MUNICIPAL STATE AID ROUTES / NEW & RECONSTRUCT LOCATION: THRUSH STREET (FROM BUNKER LAKE BLVD TO CROSSTOWN BLVD) 164TH AVE DA K O T A S T 166TH LN 166TH AVE 162ND L N J ONQUIL ST OR C H I D ST 169TH LN MARIG OLD ST 163RD LN S I L V E R O D S T 165TH LN XE N I A S T RO S E S T PO P P Y S T 161ST AVE 164TH LN 160TH LN 167TH LN GENIE DR 16 8 T H L N VALLEY V IE W D R QU A Y S T NA R C I S S U S S T VI N T A G E S T N EN CHANTED DR 170TH LN 168TH AVE RO U N D L A K E B L V D TU L I P S T 161ST AVE VA L L EY DR TU L I P S T 165TH AVE 168TH L N VALLEY VIEW PINE HILLS SOUTH PINE HILLS NORTH 16772 1673516738 16781 16152 16134 16144 16212 16220 16236 16228 16485 16360 T U L I P S T Data Credit: Anoka County GIS ESRI MN Geospatial Commons City of Andover Incorporated 194 Date Exported: 10/31/2024 9:01 AMPath: H:\GIS\Working\Projects\Engineering\MeetingMaps\MeetingMaps.aprx Andover GIS This map is intended for reference purposes only with mapping grade accuracy of the data. The City of Andover does not make claim that the features depicted represent true locations; therefore the City assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. 0 930465 Feet Project Location Assessed Parcels (Proposed) Project Limits City Limits ³2025 MILL & OVERLAY LOCATION: TULIP STREET (161ST AVE TO 168TH LN) PROJECT NO: 25-12A ZI O N S T 174TH LN E I D E LWEI SS C T HEA T H E R S T FLO R A C T 167TH LN 174TH AVE 173RD LN RO U N D L A K E B L V D 174TH LN 168TH LN 17025 29643106 26842718 2695 16981 2675 17011 16951 16920 3105 3053 16971 2888 17020 17180 2654 2858 3130 3046 17181 3008 2685 2775 3045 3009 2935 17021 2963 289930953157 2938 3046 2941 16975313116976 16970 3174 2844 2857 2934 2765 2625 17078 2819 3172 2735 2675 17041 28863162 1702317026 17073 2764 17080 2740 2820 17020 17131 EI D E L W E I S S S T IV Y W O O D S T 171ST AVE B I T T E R S W E E T ST CRO CUSST 170TH LN 169TH LN 172ND AVE Data Credit: Anoka County *IS ESRI MN *eospatial Commons City of Andover IQFRUSRUDWHG 197 Date Exported: 1/23/2025 10:27 AMPath: H:\GIS\Working\Projects\Engineering\MeetingMaps\MeetingMaps.aprx Andover GIS This map is intended for reference purposes only with mapping grade accuracy of the data. The City of Andover does not make claim that the features depicted represent true locations; therefore the City assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. 0 650325 Feet Project Location Assessed Parcels (Proposed) Project Limits City Limits ³2025 MILL & OVERLAY LOCATION: KADLEC ADDITION, OAKWOOD ESTATES, WHITE OAKS COUNTRY ESTATES, 172ND AVE PROJECT NO: 25-12B YE L L O W PI N E S T A V O C E T S T VA L E S T 162ND AVE NW SY C A M O R E S T XE O N S T N W 1 6 2ND LN NW ZILLA ST N W QU I N C E ST 161ST LN 1 6 0 T H A VE 160TH LN 166TH AVE NW 166TH AVE 161ST AVE WI NTERGR E E N S T NW NORTH WOODS PRESERVE 16395 16324 16473 16466 16288 16452 16438 16270 16337 16252 16240 16381 16441 16429 16417 16387 16317 16297 16342 16480 16457 16373 16405 16228 16355 16306 16396 16410 16424 16360 16378 1064 1052 16227 16221 1209 11031091 1079 1066 1104 16233 1045 1167 1093 1153 1101 1206 1127 1115 1055 1090 1076 1177 1174 16215 16209 16203 1054 1077 1178 1076 1052 16185 10461088 16127 16119 16239 1088 1155 16179 16173 1113 1218 1179 1065 16140 16124 1116 1166 1126 161911190 1109 1165 1039 1067 1102 1078 1125 1223 16167 16161 1065 16197 1053 1154 1064 16132 1040 1189 1213 1089 1100 1114 Data Credit: Anoka County GIS ESRI MN Geospatial Commons City of Andover Incorporated 1 4 Date Exported: 10/30/2024 10:06 PMPath: H:\GIS\Working\Projects\Engineering\MeetingMaps\MeetingMaps.aprx Andover GIS This map is intended for reference purposes only with mapping grade accuracy of the data. The City of Andover does not make claim that the features depicted represent true locations; therefore the City assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. 0 560280 Feet Project Location Assessed Parcels (Proposed) Project Limits City Limits ³2025 MILL & OVERLAY LOCATION: COUNTRY OAKS WEST & BIRCH PINE ESTATES PROJECT NO: 25-12C STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #4 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM : Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Plans & Specs/Order Advertisement for Bid / 25-11A, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Meadows of Round Lake Area) & 25-08, 2025 Sidewalk Repairs DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to approve plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids for Projects 25-11A, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Meadows of Round Lake Area) & 25-08, 2025 Sidewalk Repairs. BACKGROUND Each year roadway segments in the City are identified for a full depth reclamation rehabilitation as part of the City’s street reconstruction program. The projects listed above have been identified in the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan for improvements during the summer of 2025. The full depth reclamation project will include reclaiming the existing bituminous roadway, replacing damaged existing concrete curb and gutter, minor storm sewer/culvert repairs, and paving 2 lifts of new bituminous for a total pavement thickness of 3 inches. Included as a Bid Alternate is extension of sanitary sewer and water main to serve one new single family residential lot in the Dahlberg Addition which is located on the south end of the Eldorado Street cul de sac (see attached location map). The 2025 Sidewalk Repairs includes replacement of several damaged sidewalk panels in various locations in the City. Plans and specifications are available in the City Engineer’s office for review. BUDGET IMPACT The full depth reclamation project will be funded through a combination of special assessments and City funds. Twenty-five percent of the total street related project costs will be assessed to the benefiting properties fronting the improvements as identified in the City’s Roadway Reconstruction Assessment Policy. The remaining costs will be funded through the City’s Road and Bridge Fund. If the Bid Alternate is awarded, 100% of the costs for extension of public utilities would be assessed to the Dahlberg Addition. 2 May 6, 2025 Page 2 of 2 ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to approve plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids for Projects 25-11A, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation (Meadows of Round Lake Area) & 25-08, 2025 Sidewalk Repairs. Attachment(s): Resolution Location Map CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XXX-25 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR PROJECT NOS. 25-11A, 2025 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (MEADOWS OF ROUND LAKE AREA) & 25-08, 2025 SIDEWALK REPAIRS WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 029-25, adopted by the City Council on March 4, 2025, the City Engineer has prepared final plans and specifications for Project Nos. 25-11A & 25- 08. WHEREAS such final plans and specifications were presented to the City Council for their review on the 6th day of May, 2025. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby approve the Final Plans and Specifications. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby direct the City Clerk to seek public bids as required by law, with such bids to be opened electronically and virtually at 9:00 am, Wednesday, June 4, 2025. Adopted by the Andover City Council this 6th day of May, 2025. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: ________________________________ Jamie Barthel – Mayor _______________________________ Michelle Hartner – City Clerk 147TH LN 140TH LN 1 4 5 T H A V E 141ST LN NW 142ND AVE GUA R A N I ST NW SI L V E R O D ST 146TH AVE GUA R A NI S T 145TH LN XE N I A S T UN D ERCLIFT S T AZ TEC S T 1 4 6 T H L N 142N D L N 144THAVE 141ST LN WO O D B I N E S T VI N T A G E S T BL A CKFO O T S T 147TH A VE 1 4 3RDAVE ROU ND LA K E BLVD 1 4 5THAVE Y U C C A S T COUNTY R D 116 Round Lake DEHN'S KELSEY ROUND LAKE PLEASANT OAKS PARK 14512 14524 14527 14536 14539 14548 14551 14560 14563 14572 14575 14587 14599 4114 4066 410340894075 411841044088407440604040 4123 40994087407740634111405140394027 4115 4061 40784090 14515 4102 14220 14248 367714226 14236 14215 14248 3656 14249 14239 14228 14235 14216 14204 14212 3684 14252 14249 14217 3670 14227 14244 14225 14207 14249 14236 3620 3642 14299 14289 14299 14289 14278 1427914279 14269 1425814259 14268 14269 14259 14278 14268 14279 14269 14289 14258 14288 1426014259 14288 14268 14278 14298 14450 14462 14457 14469 14474 14407 14417 14427 14380 14404 14416 14440 14452 14464 14467 14476 14477 14488 14489 14437 14447 14457 14428 14392 Data Credit: Anoka County GIS ESRI MN Geospatial Commons City of Andover ,nFoUSoUaWed Date Exported: 10/31/2024 9:04 AMPath: H:\GIS\Working\Projects\Engineering\MeetingMaps\MeetingMaps.aprx Andover GIS This map is intended for reference purposes only with mapping grade accuracy of the data. The City of Andover does not make claim that the features depicted represent true locations; therefore the City assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. 0 700350 Feet Project Location Assessed Parcels (Proposed) Project Limits City Limits ³2025 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION LOCATION: MEADOWS OF ROUND LAKE AREA PROJECT NO: 25-11A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #5 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Accept Petition/Order Feasibility Report/25-32/Dahlberg Addition/SS & WM DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to accept the petition and order preparation of a feasibility report for Project 25-32 for Dahlberg Addition. BACKGROUND The property owner at the south end of Eldorado Street is currently going through the process of having the right-of-way vacated and creating one lot through the plating process. Eldorado Street is no longer planned to be extended to the south as it has been deemed not feasible to construct the road through the wetland area. As the City plans to reconstruct Eldorado Street as part of the Meadows of Round Lake Area, 2025 Full Depth Reclamation project, now would be the time to extend the sanitary sewer and water main to serve the property so that the new road is not impacted in the future. See the attached location maps for details. The extension of the sanitary sewer and water main will be bid as an alternate to the roadway project so that at the time of award it can be determined if the sanitary sewer and water will be extended. BUDGET IMPACT A feasibility report will be prepared and provided at the next City Council meeting. All costs associated with the improvements and the sanitary sewer and water main costs would be the responsibility of the property owner along with sanitary sewer and water main area and connection charges. The property owner is requesting that costs be assessed to the property over an 8 year period. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to accept the petition and order preparation of a feasibility report for Project 25-32 for Dahlberg Addition. Attachment(s): Resolution Petition Location Map(s) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XXX-25 A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SANIATARY SEWER & WATER MAIN, FOR PROJECT NO.25-32, DAHLBERG ADDITION. WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition, dated April 15, 2025 requesting the construction of improvements; and WHEREAS, such petition has been validated to represent the signatures of 100% of the affected property owners requesting such improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover that: 1. The petition is hereby declared to be 100% of owners of property affected, thereby making the petition unanimous. 2. Escrow amount for feasibility report is 0 . 3. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to the City Engineer and he is instructed to provide the City Council with a feasibility report. Adopted by the Andover City Council this 6th day of May , 2025. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: ________________________________ Jamie Barthel – Mayor _______________________________ Michelle Hartner – City Clerk 147TH LN 140TH LN 1 4 5 T H A V E 141ST LN NW 142ND AVE GUA R A N I ST NW SI L V E R O D ST 146TH AVE GUA R A NI S T 145TH LN XE N I A S T UN D ERCLIFT S T AZ TEC S T 1 4 6 T H L N 142N D L N 144THAVE 141ST LN WO O D B I N E S T VI N T A G E S T BL A CKFO O T S T 147TH A VE 1 4 3RDAVE ROU ND LA K E BLVD 1 4 5THAVE Y U C C A S T COUNTY R D 116 Round Lake DEHN'S KELSEY ROUND LAKE PLEASANT OAKS PARK 14512 14524 14527 14536 14539 14548 14551 14560 14563 14572 14575 14587 14599 4114 4066 410340894075 411841044088407440604040 4123 40994087407740634111405140394027 4115 4061 40784090 14515 4102 14220 14248 367714226 14236 14215 14248 3656 14249 14239 14228 14235 14216 14204 14212 3684 14252 14249 14217 3670 14227 14244 14225 14207 14249 14236 3620 3642 14299 14289 14299 14289 14278 1427914279 14269 1425814259 14268 14269 14259 14278 14268 14279 14269 14289 14258 14288 1426014259 14288 14268 14278 14298 14450 14462 14457 14469 14474 14407 14417 14427 14380 14404 14416 14440 14452 14464 14467 14476 14477 14488 14489 14437 14447 14457 14428 14392 Data Credit: Anoka County GIS ESRI MN Geospatial Commons City of Andover ,nFoUSoUaWed Date Exported: 10/31/2024 9:04 AMPath: H:\GIS\Working\Projects\Engineering\MeetingMaps\MeetingMaps.aprx Andover GIS This map is intended for reference purposes only with mapping grade accuracy of the data. The City of Andover does not make claim that the features depicted represent true locations; therefore the City assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. 0 700350 Feet Project Location Assessed Parcels (Proposed) Project Limits City Limits ³2025 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION LOCATION: MEADOWS OF ROUND LAKE AREA PROJECT NO: 25-11A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #6 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM : Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Acknowledge and Accept Bids / 25-03, 2025 Crack Sealing / 25-05, 2025 Pavement Markings / 25-07, 2025 Trail Maintenance / 25-10, 2025 Parking Lot Maintenance DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to acknowledge and accept bids and authorize the City of Coon Rapids to award the contract for Projects 25-03, 2025 Crack Sealing, 25-05, 2025 Pavement Markings, 25-07, 2025 Trail Maintenance, and 25-10, 2025 Parking Lot Maintenance. BACKGROUND The projects identified above are important maintenance projects to prolong the life of the pavement infrastructure throughout the City which includes roads, parking lots and trails. The City of Coon Rapids prepared the final plans and specifications and administered the bid opening through a previously approved JPA. The City of Coon Rapids determined that the low bidders for the crack sealing and pavement markings were nonresponsive bidders based upon past performance issues and their bids were rejected. Consideration of award for these two projects is recommended to the second lowest bidders. The determination that the two lowest bidders were nonresponsive results in an cost increase for the City of Andover of $21,555 for C.P. 25-05 and $14,280 for C.P. 25-03 compared to the next lowest responsive bid. Through the JPA the City has the right to accept or reject all or portions of the bid. The contractors listed below submitted the lowest responsive bids (Andover’s portion of the project identified). For a complete bid tabulation of all contractors’ bids, refer to the attachments. Lowest Responsive Contractor Bid Andover’s Portion Allied Blacktop Co. (Crack Sealing C.P. 25-03 / 25-10) $133,168.40* Sir Lines-A-Lot (Pavement Markings C.P. 25-05) $110,090.00 Allied Blacktop Co. (Fog Sealing C.P. 25-07 / 25-10) $63,243.50** Total $306,501.90 *Includes $132,388.00 for Project 25-03 & $780.40 for Project 25-10 ** Includes $40,523.00 for Project 25-07 & $22,720.50 for Project 25-10 2 Mayor and Council Members May 6, 2025 Page 2 of 2 BUDGET IMPACT These projects have been identified in the City’s 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with crack seal project funded from the Road & Bridge Fund and Crack Seal and Pavement Seal Fund (new developments), pavement markings and trail maintenance funded from the Road & Bridge Fund, and parking lot maintenance funded from the Building Fund (includes crack sealing and fog sealing). ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to acknowledge and accept bids and authorize the City of Coon Rapids to award the contract for Projects 25-03, 2025 Crack Sealing, 25-05, 2025 Pavement Markings, 25-07, 2025 Trail Maintenance, and 25-10, 2025 Parking Lot Maintenance to the lowest responsive bidders. The City of Coon Rapids will enter into a contract based upon the JPA for the North Metro Street Maintenance Consortium. Attachment(s): Resolution Overall JPA Bid tabulation Andover Portion Crack Seal Bid Tab (CP 25-03 & 25-10) Andover Portion Pavement Markings Tab (CP 25-05) Andover Portion Fog Sealing (CP 25-07 & 25-10) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XXX-25 A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING AND ACCEPTING BIDS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROJECT NOS. 25-03, 2025 CRACK SEALING / 25-05, 2025 PAVEMENT MARKINGS / 25-07, 2025 TRAIL MAINTENANCE / 25-10, 2025 PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement with Coon Rapids, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law on March 21, 2025, at Coon Rapids City Hall with the low responsive bidder results as follows: Lowest Responsive Contractor Bid Andover’s Portion Allied Blacktop Co. (Crack Sealing C.P. 25-03 / 25-10) $133,168.40* Sir Lines-A-Lot (Pavement Markings C.P. 25-05) $110,090.00 Allied Blacktop Co. (Fog Sealing C.P. 25-07 / 25-10) $63,243.50** Total $306,501.90 * Includes $132,388.00 for Project 25-03 & $780.40 for Project 25-10 ** Includes $40,523.00 for Project 25-07 & $22,720.50 for Project 25-10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby acknowledge and accept the bids as shown to indicate Allied Blacktop, Sir Lines-A-Lot, and Allied Blacktop Co. as being the apparent low responsive bidders for their respective projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TO HEREBY direct the City of Coon Rapids to enter into a contract with Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount of $133,168.40, Sir Lines-A-Lot in the amount of $110,090.00, and Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount of $63,243.50 for construction of the improvements and direct the City of Coon Rapids to proceed with the project as specified in the project specifications. Adopted by the Andover City Council this 6th day of May, 2025. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: ________________________________ Jamie Barthel – Mayor _______________________________ Michelle Hartner – City Clerk Street Maintenance JPA (#9485043)Determined to be unresponsive bidders by City of Coon Rapids for past performance issues Owner: Coon Rapids MN, City of Solicitor: Coon Rapids MN, City of 03/21/2025 10:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Description UofM Quantity Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension BID SCHEDULE NO. 1 - SEAL COATING $224,293.00 $0.00 $306,450.00 $243,170.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dresser Trap Rock (Base Bid) - Furnish and Install FA-1 1/8 SY 123500 $1.21 $149,435.00 $1.60 $197,600.00 $1.41 $174,135.00 Furnish and Install CRS-2 Seal Coat Oil GAL 24360 $2.15 $52,374.00 $3.00 $73,080.00 $1.89 $46,040.40 Furnish and Install CRS-2P (Polymer Mod)GAL 10220 $2.20 $22,484.00 $3.50 $35,770.00 $2.25 $22,995.00 BID SCHEDULE NO. 1A - SEAL COAT ALTERNATE $224,293.00 $0.00 $318,800.00 $243,170.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Granite Alternate - Furnish and Install FA-1 (Modified 1/8â€)SY 123500 $1.21 $149,435.00 $1.70 $209,950.00 $1.41 $174,135.00 Furnish and Install CRS-2 Seal Coat Oil GAL 24360 $2.15 $52,374.00 $3.00 $73,080.00 $1.89 $46,040.40 Furnish and Install CRS-2P (Polymer Mod)GAL 10220 $2.20 $22,484.00 $3.50 $35,770.00 $2.25 $22,995.00 BID SCHEDULE NO. 2 - PAVEMENT MARKINGS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $387,953.00 $316,171.25 Furnish and Install Street Markings GAL 5461 $41.00 $223,901.00 $35.24 $192,445.64 Furnish and Install Parking Lot Markings GAL 24 $208.00 $4,992.00 $165.63 $3,975.12 Furnish and Install Symbol Markings GAL 723 $220.00 $159,060.00 $165.63 $119,750.49 BID SCHEDULE NO. 3 - CRACK SEALING $447,945.32 $539,745.91 $1,381,811.20 $0.00 $399,468.00 $0.00 $0.00 Furnish and Install Street Rout & Seal Crack Sealing LF 393572 $0.58 $228,271.76 $0.71 $279,436.12 $1.70 $669,072.40 $0.50 $196,786.00 Furnish and Install Street Blow & Go Crack Sealing LF 375839 $0.54 $202,953.06 $0.61 $229,261.79 $1.70 $638,926.30 $0.50 $187,919.50 Furnish and Install Trail Rout & Seal Crack Sealing LF 19425 $0.58 $11,266.50 $1.12 $21,756.00 $2.50 $48,562.50 $0.50 $9,712.50 Furnish and Install Trail Blow & Go Crack Sealing LF 10100 $0.54 $5,454.00 $0.92 $9,292.00 $2.50 $25,250.00 $0.50 $5,050.00 BID SCHEDULE NO. 4 - FOG SEALING - STREETS $213,693.00 $0.00 $0.00 $154,435.80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Furnish & Install Street Fog Sealing GAL 26220 $8.15 $213,693.00 $5.89 $154,435.80 BID SCHEDULE NO. 5 - FOG SEALING - TRAILS & PARKING LOTS $93,899.50 $0.00 $0.00 $100,327.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Furnish & Install Trail Fog Sealing GAL 13900 $4.90 $68,110.00 $5.25 $72,975.00 Furnish & Install Parking Lot Fog Sealing GAL 5210 $4.95 $25,789.50 $5.25 $27,352.50 Base Bid Total:$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Warning LitesAllied Blacktop Company Fahrner Asphalt Sealers, LLC Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp.Pearson Bros, Inc. Northwest Asphalt & Maintenance Sir Lines-A-Lot 2025 CRACK SEAL (C.P. 25-03) & 2025 PARKING LOT MAINTEANCE (C.P. 25-10) - BID TABULATION Bids opened March 21, 2025 at 10:00 am at City of Coon Rapids 2025 Crack Sealing - COMBINED C.P. 25-03 & 25-10 Est.Units Pay Item Quan F&I Street Route & Seal Crack Sealing 119,180 LF 0.65$ 77,467.00$ $0.50 59,590.00$ $0.58 69,124.40$ 0.71$ 84,617.80$ $1.70 202,606.00$ F&I Street Blow & Go Crack Sealing 118,600 LF 0.55$ 65,230.00$ $0.50 59,300.00$ $0.54 64,044.00$ 0.61$ 72,346.00$ $1.70 201,620.00$ Total 142,697.00$ 118,890.00$ 133,168.40$ 156,963.80$ 404,226.00$ 2025 Crack Sealing (C.P. 25-03) Est.Units Pay Item Quan F&I Street Route & Seal Crack Sealing 118,300 LF 0.65$ 76,895.00$ $0.50 59,150.00$ $0.58 68,614.00$ $0.71 83,993.00$ $1.70 201,110.00$ F&I Street Blow & Go Crack Sealing 118,100 LF 0.55$ 64,955.00$ $0.50 59,050.00$ $0.54 63,774.00$ $0.61 72,041.00$ $1.70 200,770.00$ Total 141,850.00$ 118,200.00$ 132,388.00$ 156,034.00$ 401,880.00$ 2025 Crack Sealing (C.P. 25-10) (Parking Lot Maintenance) Est.Units Pay Item Quan F&I Street Route & Seal Crack Sealing 880 LF 0.65$ 572.00$ $0.50 440.00$ $0.58 510.40$ $0.71 624.80$ $1.70 1,496.00$ F&I Street Blow & Go Crack Sealing 500 LF 0.55$ 275.00$ $0.50 250.00$ $0.54 270.00$ $0.61 305.00$ $1.70 850.00$ Total 847.00$ 690.00$ 780.40$ 929.80$ 2,346.00$ Northwest Asphalt & Maintenance's bid was rejected as contractor was determined to be unresponsive by the City of Coon Rapids based upon past performance issues. Engineer's AlliedNorthwest Asphalt Fahrner Asphalt ASTECH Estimate Blacktop& Maintenance Sealers Engineer's AlliedNorthwest Asphalt Fahrner Asphalt ASTECH Estimate Blacktop& Maintenance Sealers Engineer's AlliedNorthwest Asphalt Fahrner Asphalt ASTECH Estimate Blacktop& Maintenance Sealers Bid Tabulation 2025 Pavement Markings (City Project 25-05) Bids opened March 21, 2025 at 10:00 am at City of Coon Rapids Item Units Quantity Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost F&I Street Markings Gallons 1,290 37.00$ 47,730.00$ 35.24$ 45,459.60$ 41.00$ 52,890.00$ F&I Street Symbols Gallons 260 160.00$ 41,600.00$ 165.63$ 43,063.80$ 220.00$ 57,200.00$ Totals 89,330.00$ 88,523.40$ 110,090.00$ Warning Lites of MN's bid was rejected as contractor was determined to be unresponsive by the City of Coon Rapids based upon past performance issues. Engineer's Estimate Sir Lines A LotWarning Lites of MN Bid Tabulation 2025 Trail Maintenance (City Project 25-07) & 2025 Parking Lot Maintenance (City Project 25-10) Bids opened March 21, 2025 10:00 am at City of Coon Rapids BOTH PROJECTS COMBINED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE EST.Unit Unit Unit QUAN.Price AMOUNT Price AMOUNT Price AMOUNT 1 F&I Trail Fog Sealing Gal 8,270 $6.50 $53,755.00 $4.90 $40,523.00 $5.25 $43,417.50 2 F&I Parking Lot Fog Sealing Gal 4,590 $6.00 $27,540.00 $4.95 $22,720.50 $5.25 $24,097.50 Total 12,860 $81,295.00 $63,243.50 $67,515.00 Project 25-07 Trail Maintenance ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE EST.Unit Unit Unit QUAN.Price AMOUNT Price AMOUNT Price AMOUNT 1 F&I Trail Fog Sealing Gal 8,270 $6.50 $53,755.00 $4.90 $40,523.00 $5.25 $43,417.50 Total 8,270 $53,755.00 $40,523.00 $43,417.50 Project 25-10 Parking Lot Maintenance ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE EST.Unit Unit Unit QUAN.Price AMOUNT Price AMOUNT Price AMOUNT 2 F&I Parking Lot Fog Sealing Gal 4,590 $6.00 $27,540.00 $4.95 $22,720.50 $5.25 $24,097.50 Total 4,590 $27,540.00 $22,720.50 $24,097.50 Allied Blacktop Co.ASTECH Allied Blacktop Co.Pearson Bros. ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT Allied Blacktop Co.ASTECH STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #7 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM: Lee Brezinka, Finance Manager SUBJECT: Declare Surplus Equipment/Property DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The Finance Department is requesting City Council’s approval to declare the following list of equipment/property as surplus property and to authorize the disposal or sale of these items through a State of Minnesota authorized process immediately or once the replacement item is put into service. • 2000 Sterling Dump Truck w/ Plow – 85,631 miles • 2007 International Dump Truck w/ Plow – 99,460 miles • 2008 Ford F450 w/ Utility Box – 102,257 miles • 2003 Chevrolet S-10 – 102,400 miles • Thermal Imaging Cameras (4), base chargers (4), extra batteries (2) A/C plugin chargers (3) & manual DISCUSSION These items are no longer in use, outdated, and/or have been (will be) replaced and no longer needed by staff. BUDGET IMPACT The revenues from the sale of the equipment will be recorded in the appropriate funds and used for future purchases and/or operations. ACTION REQUESTED Staff is recommending that the City Council declare all items as surplus property and authorize the disposal or sale through a State of Minnesota authorized process. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #8 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Michelle Hartner, City Clerk SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Setting Annual Income Level for Senior Citizen and Disabled Individuals for Deferral of Assessments & Reduced Sanitary Sewer Rates DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City offers deferral of assessments and reduced sanitary sewer rates for senior citizen and disabled individuals. BACKGROUND The annual income is $43,500 for senior citizens and $68,500 for disabled individuals set in 2024 and should be increased according to the Federal Rent Assistance for Section 8 Housing. The 2025 income limits are now $46,350 for senior citizens and $72,950 for disabled individuals. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to adopt the attached resolution setting the annual income at $46,350 for senior citizen and $72,950 for disabled individuals for deferral of special assessments and reduced sanitary sewer rates. Attachment(s): Resolution CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RXXX-25 A RESOLUTION SETTING THE ANNUAL INCOME LEVEL FOR SENIOR CITIZEN AND DISABLED INDIVIDUALS FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND SANITARY SEWER RATES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY RESOLVES: Annual Income Level for Special Senior Citizen Deferral of Special Assessments and Reduced Sanitary Sewer Rates $46,350 (Not to Exceed) Annual Income Level for Disabled Individuals of Special Assessments and Reduced Sanitary Sewer Rates $72,950 (Not to Exceed) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6th day of May, 2025. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: ________________________________ Jamie Barthel – Mayor _______________________________ Michelle Hartner – City Clerk STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #9 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Michelle Hartner, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approved Used Vehicle Sales License DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION Used Vehicle Sales Business licenses expired on December 31, 2024. BACKGROUND The following has applied for renewal of their Used Vehicle Sales License and paid the appropriate fee. Their State of Minnesota Dealer License is valid until May 31, 2025. ABJ & Son Auto LLC – 3138 162nd Lane, Suite 1 BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to approve the above license for the period May 7, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Attachment(s): None STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #10 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Joe Janish, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve 2026-2028 Urban County Requalification for Participation in the CDBG and HOME Programs DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION Every three years, Anoka County must complete an Urban Requalification process in order to continue receiving and administering HUD funds for the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and HOME (HOME Investment Partnership) programs. Part of that process includes communicating with participating communities of their option to be excluded from the Anoka County “Urban County” qualification. BACKGROUND Currently, the City of Andover participates in the Anoka County “Urban County” program, has been successful over the past years in receiving funding from the CDBG program, and has benefited from the County’s HOME neighborhood stabilization program. Attached to this staff report is a letter from Anoka County explaining the requalification process and what the City of Andover needs to do to remain an opt-in community. Staff is recommending that the City Council continue as a participating community. To opt out and qualify for the programs as an “urban community,” the City would need to have a population of over 50,000; otherwise, the City could roll into the state-wide program managed by the State of Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) or pursue a HUD Small Cities Grant. BUDGET IMPACT Potential for CDBG & HOME funds. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the current opt-in status that allows the City to participate in the Anoka County CDBG and HOME programs. Attachment(s): Urban Requalification Letter from Anoka County STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #11 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Joe Janish, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve Bid for Abatement at 2461 & 2501 Bunker Lake Blvd NW DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The duplex acquired by the Andover EDA, located 2461 & 2501 Bunker Lake Blvd NW, is currently vacant. Direction from the EDA and City Council has been to attempt to provide training in the buildings, followed up by demolition as they become vacant. BACKGROUND In order to provide training opportunities for the Fire Department and demolition within the buildings, asbestos cannot be present in the buildings. Staff obtained an asbestos report to determine where asbestos is present within the structure. This information was then emailed to four companies that remove asbestos from buildings. Staff had two contractors walk through the duplex, and a third submitted a bid based on the report sent. Overall, staff had three bids to review. Envirobate, Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc, and M.A.A.C. submitted bids for the removal of asbestos. BUDGET IMPACT $16,995.00 ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to contract with Envirobate to remove the asbestos material at a cost of $16,995.00. Attachment(s): None. • None. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #12 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM: Joe Heidelberger, Building Official SUBJECT: Amend 2025 Fee Ordinance DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The Andover Building Official is recommending the following changes/additions to the fee ordinance. Proposed fee changes would go into effect 05/07/2025. DISCUSSION The proposed changes to the fee ordinance are attached. Additions are highlighted in red and deletions are designated with a strike-through. BUDGET IMPACT Theses changes will help offset the operational costs of the Building Department. ACTION REQUESTED The Andover City Council is requested to adopt the attached Fee Ordinance changes effective May 7th, 2025 and the summary of the ordinance for publication. Attachments: 2025 Fee Ordinance Changes Summary of 2025 Fee Ordinance Changes Page 5 BUILDING INSPECTION & PERMIT FEES BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE FEE: BUILDING PERMIT FEES: Valuation Based Building Permit Fees (Fees are to be based on Building Valuation as detem1ined by current State of Minnesota Building Valuation Data and Building Official) Building Permit 1997 Uniform Building Permit Fee Schedule as Extracted from the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table No. 1 -A $95.00 minimum or Based on Valuation, whichever is greater Plan Review If building valuation exceeds $1,000 and a plan is required to be submitted, a plan review fee of 65% of the building permit fee must be paid in addition to the building permit fee. (Except as per MN Rules 1300.0160, Subp. 5 for similar plans after the first submittal, a 25% plan review fee may be paid) Agricultural Land Use $25.00 Permit Basement Finish Permit $200.00 House Moving Permit $200.00 Roofing, Siding, Window or $100.00 Door Replacement Permit Fixed Fee Demolition Permit Single Family Dwelling $150.00 Building Permits Two-family Dwelling $200.00 Residential Garage $90.00 Agricultural Structures $90.00 Multifamily Structures: I st Two Units $200.00 Each Additional Unit $50.00 Commercial/Industrial $300.00 State Surcharge: State Surcharge must be paid per MN Statutes 326B.148, in addition to the building permit fee. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES: Fixed Fee Mechanical Permits New Residential Complete HVAC Combination Permit $175.00 (Does not include Gas Fireplaces - permitted separately, see below) Existing Residential Repair/Replacement Mechanical Permit $95.00 per Fixture ("Fixture" includes: Heating/Air Conditioning Combination, Air to Air Exchanger, Gas Fireplace, Geo-Themzal Heating/Cooling, Boiler, In-Floor Heating & Boiler, Exhaust Fan, Direct Fired Heater, Unit Heater Heat Pumo and other mechanical eauiµmentJ Commercial Mechanical Permit $95.00 per Fixture or 1.5% of job valuation, whichever is greater ("Fixture" includes: Furnace, Air Conditioning, Air to Air Exchanger, Gas Fireplace, Geo- Thermal Healing I Cooling, Boiler, In-Floor Heating & Boiler, Exhaust Fan, Direct Fired Heater, Unit Heater, Heat Pump, Commercial Hood, Make-Up Air Unit, and other mechanical eauioment) Commercial Mechanical Plan Review I 0% of permit fee when job valuation exceeds $50,000 Gas Piping Permit- Not Associated With A Fixture $90.00 minimum or $15.00 per gas opening, whichever is greater State Surcharge: State Surcharge must be paid per MN Statutes 326B.148, in addition to the building permit fee. Permit Refund 20% of Permit Fee Re-Inspection Fee $50.00 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORD. NO. _____ SUMMARY AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PERMIT FEES, SERVICE CHARGES AND VARIOUS OTHER FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF ANDOVER. The City Council of the City of Andover ordains: Section 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Law, the Andover City Code and upon a review by city staff, a fee schedule for city services, permit fees and various other fees is hereby adopted. 2025 Fee Schedule Changes a) The city code of the City of Andover establishes that certain fees be set from time to time by the City Council. b) City staff has reviewed the current Fee Schedule for the City of Andover and is hereby recommending that the 2025 Fee Schedule changes, which are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk, be adopted. c) Upon consideration and review by the City Council, the 2025 Fee Schedule changes is hereby adopted and becomes effective May 7th, 2025. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect May 7th, 2025. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6th day of May, 2025. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: ___________________________ Jamie Barthel – Mayor _______________________________ Michelle Hartner – City Clerk STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #13 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Michelle Hartner, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Andover Lions Club DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION Gary Wrobel of the Andover Lions Club has submitted a request for a Park Exclusive Use Permit. BACKGROUND The event will be held June 3, 2025, from 2:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at Lions Park. The Lions Club will be handing out free pre-packaged ice cream and freezies. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED Council is requested to approve the Park Exclusive Use Permit for the Andover Lions Club, June 3, 2025, from 2:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at Lions Park. Attachment(s): None STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #14 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Indemnification & Hold Harmless Agreement/495 – 165th Ave. NW DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to approve the Indemnification & Hold Harmless Agreement/ for 495 – 165th Avenue NW. BACKGROUND To resolve an outstanding lot grading issue from 2019, staff recommends entering into an Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement with the property owner and builder of 495 – 165th Ave. NW. A storm water infiltration basin was constructed in the rear yard of the subject property and when the house was constructed the rear yard near the basin was not graded properly. In high water events storm water could go outside the basin and essentially outside the easement impacting the rear yard of the property. An escrow was collected from the builder in 2019. Since the time of the house final in 2019 a new owner has purchased the property. The new owner along with the builder would prefer to leave the area as is and enter into the agreement instead of bringing in fill and regrading the rear yard. To ensure that the City would not be liable for storm water impacting the property outside the easement the City Attorney drafted the attached agreement that will indemnify the City from any and all liabilities as described within the agreement. Upon recording of the document, the escrow will be released back to the builder and this grading item will be considered resolved. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to approve the Indemnification & Hold Harmless Agreement/ for 495 – 165th Avenue NW. Attachment: Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #15 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: DATE: Approve Purchase of Excavation Trench Box May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to approve the purchase of an excavation trench box. BACKGROUND Public Works crews excavate gate valves in the street to replace bolts that have shown to have significant deterioration. A new, deeper trench box enhances safety for these excavations, which are often deeper than our current equipment allows. By performing this work in-house for the past two years, we've significantly reduced costs compared to the initial contractor-bid project done in conjunction with a full-depth street reclamation project. BUDGET IMPACT The funding will be from the Water Trunk Capital Projects Fund. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to approve the purchase of an excavation trench box in the amount of $20,864.61. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #16 1 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator FROM : Michelle Hartner, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Andover Area Lacrosse DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION Shannon Kangas, Andover Area Lacrosse President, has submitted a request for a Park Exclusive Use Permit. BACKGROUND Shannon Kangas, Andover Area Lacrosse President, has submitted a request for a Park Exclusive Use Permit. The events will be held May 17, 2025, and June 1, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. at Prairie Knoll Park. There will be two food trucks at both events. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED Council is requested to approve the Park Exclusive Use Permit for the Andover Area Lacrosse, May 17, 2025, and June 1, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. at Prairie Knoll Park. Attachment(s): None STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #17 1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Sarah Cotton, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consider Acceptance of Fire Services Evaluation Final Report DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to formally accept the final Fire Services Evaluation Report prepared by Fitch & Associates. The Fire Services Evaluation Report provides a comprehensive analysis of the City's fire operations, along with recommendations for future improvements. Acceptance of the report will allow the City to move forward with reviewing and potentially implementing the identified recommendations. BACKGROUND In late 2024, the City engaged Fitch & Associates to conduct a comprehensive study of its fire operations. This study was undertaken to evaluate staffing and service levels for Fire and EMS to ensure effective fire and rescue response, a key short-term goal in the City’s Strategic Plan. Fitch & Associates was selected based on their company capability, relevant experience, project communication, and the quality of their proposal. During the March 2025 City Council Workshop, representatives from Fitch & Associates presented the results of their comprehensive Fire Services Evaluation, providing valuable insights and recommendations. Council members and staff had the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback on the draft report. The final Fire Services Evaluation Report (attached) provides a detailed analysis of the City's current fire operations, highlighting both strengths and areas where improvements can be made. Key topics covered in the report include: • Risk Assessment: Analysis of risk factors within the City, including population density, demographics, occupancy types, and historical call data. • Call Volume and Trends: Examination of call volume by month, day of the week, and hour of the day, as well as call types (EMS, Fire, Other). • Response Times: Analysis of average and 90th percentile response times for different call types, including dispatch, turnout, and travel times. • Staffing and Resources: Evaluation of staffing levels, vehicle deployment, and resource allocation. • Projected Growth: Forecasting of future call volume and potential impact on fire services. 2 • Staff Survey Summary: Results of a staff survey, including comments and feedback on training, morale, equipment, leadership, staffing, recruitment, and other operational issues. The report also includes numerous short-term (1-3 years), mid-term (4-6 years), and long-term (7-10 years) recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Fire Department across several areas: • Administration: Policies and procedures, strategic planning, leadership development, communication, and performance management. • Data: Record keeping, data accuracy, and performance measurement. • Staffing: Staffing models, recruitment, retention, and compensation. • Facilities and Equipment: Replacement plans, maintenance, and resource allocation. • Fire Operations: Response protocols, equipment maintenance, and inter-agency coordination. • EMS Operations: Service delivery, training, and medical direction. • Dispatch: Alerting systems, call triage, and technology. • Community Risk Reduction: Inspections, pre-planning, and community engagement. • Training: Scheduling, curriculum development, and delivery methods. • Policy Considerations: Defining acceptable response times and service delivery standards. Acceptance of this Final Report is a crucial step in moving forward with a thorough review of the consultant's findings and recommendations. It signifies the Council's acknowledgment of the work completed and allows Staff and the Council to begin the process of evaluating the feasibility and potential implementation of the proposed improvements. BUDGET IMPACT Acceptance of this report has no direct financial implications. The implementation of any recommendations contained within the report may require future budgetary considerations. These will be brought forward to the Council for review and approval. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to accept the final Fire Services Evaluation Report prepared by Fitch & Associates. Attachment(s): Fitch & Associates Fire Services Evaluation Final Report Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 1 March 2025 Top Five Priorities 1.Define acceptable response time and reliability of response. 2.Plan for fire station locations and infrastructure to meet the demand of a growing community. 3.Identify staffing strategy to meet the community’s demand for service. 4.Introduce Outcome Measures to Performance Management Strategies. 5.Develop a Strategic Plan to help accomplish the recommendations in this master plan. s Andover continues to grow, so do the demands on its fire and emergency medical services. The Andover Fire Department 2025 Agency Master Plan outlines a strategic approach to emergency services delivery that balances efficiency, resource allocation, and fiscal responsibility. With a population that has increased by 6.6% since 2010—now exceeding 33,000 residents—the city must prepare for the future by addressing rising emergency call volumes and challenges in response times, as well as staffing and infrastructure needs. One of the most visible concerns is response time. The Andover Fire Department’s current response times exceed national benchmarks, with EMS calls averaging 13.1 minutes and fire-related incidents taking 15.6 minutes. These figures fall short of the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) goal of 10 minutes for suburban communities. The plan highlights that Station 1 is responsible for nearly 50% of all calls, which strains resources, while longer travel times from Station 2 expose gaps in coverage. Addressing these issues will require a combination of staffing adjustments, evaluations of station placement, and improvements in processes. Staffing presents another significant challenge. The department is supported by 55 paid-on-call firefighters and full-time staff that include a Fire Chief, a Deputy Chief, and three day shift fire technician positions. Although this model has effectively served the city, maintaining reliable coverage has become increasingly difficult, particularly during weekday hours. To ensure sufficient emergency response, the plan recommends establishing dedicated weekday duty crews, expanding full-time staffing options, and enhancing recruitment and retention efforts. Executive Summary Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 2 March 2025 Executive Summary (Continued) nfrastructure improvements will also be essential. Though strategically situated when they were built, Andover's three fire stations may no longer sufficiently meet future demand. The plan recommends thoroughly evaluating fire station locations, possible expansions, and facility upgrades to enhance full-time staffing and improve response efficiency. The department should use data-driven strategies to manage risk via continuous Geographic Demand Zone (GDZ) analysis. This method enables the allocation of fire and EMS resources according to historical call volumes, population density, and risk factors. Furthermore, adopting automated dispatch systems and enhancing turnout efficiency can greatly decrease response times. In addition to emergency response, the plan highlights the importance of proactive community risk reduction. Given that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) calls account for between 78% and 97% of all annual incidents annually, public education initiatives, fire prevention programs, and targeted risk assessments are prioritized to mitigate emergency incidents. Furthermore, executing a comprehensive Community Risk Assessment (CRA) will enable Andover to effectively identify particular vulnerabilities and develop appropriate mitigation strategies. Financial sustainability constitutes a fundamental element of the plan. The 2025 adopted budget for the Andover Fire Department for the year 2025 is $5.36 million, which encompasses significant capital investments, including $1 million for the replacement of an aging fire engine, and $335,000 for a rescue vehicle. These investments are imperative to ensure that the department possesses the requisite tools and equipment to address the escalating demands for services. Furthermore, partnerships for mutual aid with neighboring agencies may offer cost-effective solutions for sustaining service levels. The Andover Fire Department’s 2025 Agency Master Plan is not only a response to current challenges; it is a proactive roadmap for the future. By strategically investing in staffing, infrastructure, and technology, Andover can continue to provide high-quality emergency services, while also maintaining fiscal responsibility. The city’s leadership has a unique opportunity to make data-driven decisions that will enhance public safety and ensure that Andover remains a safe and well-protected community for years to come. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 3 March 2025 Response Area Characteristics ndover, Minnesota, is a city in Anoka County with a population of approximately 33,233 as of 2024. The community is predominantly White (87.4%), with African American (4.1%), Asian (3.5%), and individuals identifying with two or more races (3.3%) making up the remaining demographic groups. The median age in Andover is 39.3 years, which signifies a mature demographic. The average household size in the city is 2.99 individuals, with a substantial majority (93.7%) of these households being owner-occupied. From an economic perspective, residents of Andover report a median household income of $123,054, significantly surpassing both state and national averages. The per capita income is recorded at $49,978, while the poverty rate remains relatively low at 3.3%. In terms of education, 95.4% of residents aged 25 and over have attained at least a high school diploma, and 36.5% hold a bachelor's degree or higher. The workforce participation rate is robust, with 72.3% of individuals aged 16 and over engaged in the civilian labor force. Overall, Andover is characterized by a predominantly white, well-educated, and economically prosperous community with a high homeownership rate and a low incidence of poverty. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 4 March 2025 Economic and Demographic Assessment he City of Andover, Minnesota, has experienced notable demographic and economic growth in recent years. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city's population increased from 30,598 in 2010 to 32,601 in 2020, reflecting a growth rate of approximately 6.6%. This upward trend indicates Andover's appeal as a residential community, characterized by a high homeownership rate and a substantial proportion of families with school-age children. The city's median household income is $123,054, indicating a relatively affluent population. These demographic factors contribute to a stable economic environment, fostering opportunities for local businesses and community services. Andover's economic landscape is predominantly residential, with limited commercial development. Despite this, the city has successfully maintained strong occupancy rates in existing commercial centers, such as the Downtown Center. It has redeveloped former industrial properties into areas like Andover Station and Andover Station North. The Metropolitan Council's 2040 Regional Development Framework designates Andover as an Emerging Suburban Edge, suggesting balanced urban and rural development potential. This designation presents growth opportunities in expanding the commercial tax base and enhancing community amenities, aligning with residents' values of preserving rural character while accommodating development. The city's growth directly impacts fire and emergency medical services (EMS). The Andover Fire Department operates three stations with 55 paid-on-call firefighters, managed by a full-time Fire Chief and support staff. As the population increases, the demand for these services is expected to rise, necessitating strategic planning to ensure adequate response times and resource allocation. Challenges such as workforce recruitment and retention, which are common in rural EMS, may also impact service delivery. Proactive measures, including community engagement and investment in emergency services infrastructure, will be essential to meet the evolving needs of Andover's residents and maintain public safety standards. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 5 March 2025 Community Legal Basis he City of Andover, Minnesota, operates as a statutory city in accordance with Minnesota law, specifically following the provisions set forth in Chapter 412 of the Minnesota Statutes. As a statutory city, Andover utilizes the "Plan A" form of government, which features a city council made up of a mayor and four council members. The mayor is elected for a two-year term, while council members serve staggered four-year terms. This structure fosters continuity in governance while providing residents with regular opportunities to influence the council’s composition through elections. The city council is tasked with enacting ordinances, establishing policies, approving budgets, and guiding the city’s strategic direction, ensuring compliance with state laws and responsiveness to local needs. Andover’s government emphasizes participatory democracy and transparency. The city council holds regular public meetings where residents are encouraged to share their opinions and concerns. The city also employs a city administrator who serves as the chief administrative officer, managing daily operations and implementing policies set by the council. This separation of legislative and administrative responsibilities ensures efficient and effective governance, with the council focused on policy-making and the city administrator managing operational execution. Additionally, the city maintains various boards and commissions, like the Planning and Zoning Commission, which provide specialized input and support the council in decision-making. The legal framework governing Andover emphasizes compliance with state regulations while allowing the city to address its unique challenges and opportunities. Local ordinances, adopted by the council, regulate issues such as zoning, public safety, and community development, aligning with state and federal laws. As a growing suburban community in Anoka County, Andover balances the needs of its residents with the requirements of regional planning and development. This structured yet flexible legal and governmental framework enables Andover to maintain its character as a safe, vibrant, and family-friendly city while fostering growth and innovation. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 6 March 2025 he Andover Fire organizational structure includes a full-time Fire Chief, a Deputy Chief, and three day shift fire technician positions responsible for managing day-to- day operations. In 2024, the Department reported 44 staff members, and the 2025 adopted budget has appropriations for a staff of 57. Each station has one captain and two lieutenants overseeing station operations. The officers at each station are responsible for the facilities and equipment assigned. Each station has paid-on-call firefighters assigned. The number varies depending on station locations and the firefighters' ability to respond within established agency guidelines. Housing availability in certain areas of the city presents challenges. However, the city has a “dual role” policy that allows full-time city employees to take on the role of firefighter, compensating them at 1.5 times the firefighter rate during their non-working hours. The Duty Officer is responsible for taking on the role of Shift Commander when the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief are unavailable. This coverage generally occurs from 5:00 PM to 5:00 AM, Monday through Friday, and 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday. These employees receive a stipend while performing this role. During an incident, they are compensated according to their current wage scale. The duty crew staffing allows in-station staff during hours when paid on-call coverage is low. The agency faces challenges in filling the available hours. There are 333 labor hours available each week. From August 2022 to March 2024, the department was fully staffed 63.60%. Current Agency Configuration Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 7 March 2025 Fire Station Locations 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 Æÿ Æÿ Æÿ Æÿ 4567 4567 Æÿ 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 4567 Æÿ 4567 Æÿ Æÿ 4567 Æÿ (4400)(4000) (4800) (3600) (2800)(2400)(2000)(1200)(800)(400)(0) (5200)(4800)(4400)(4000)(3600)(2800)(2400)(2000)(1200)(800)(400)(0) Crooked Lake Ward Lake Lake Leman Round Lake Bunker Lake Coon C r e e k Rum R i v e r Ce d a r C r e e k Coo n C r e e k Coon Cr e e k Ru m R i v e r Rum R i v e r ŊőŊ¬¯x§° Ŋőʼn¡¯x§° ŊŐŒ¡¯x§° ŊŐő¡¯x§° ŊŐŐ¡¯x§° ŊŐŏ¡¯x§° ŊŐŎ¡¯x§° ŊŐō¡¯x§° ŊŐŌ«¯x§° ŊŐŋ§¯x§° ŊŐŊ¬¯x§° ŊŐʼn¡¯x§° ŊŏŒ¡¯x§° Ŋŏő¡¯x§° ŊŏŐ¡¯x§° Ŋŏŏ¡¯x§° ŊŏŎ¡¯x§° Ŋŏō¡¯x§° ŊŏŌ«¯x§° Ŋŏŋ§¯x§° ŊŏŊ¬¯x§° Ŋŏʼn¡¯x§° ŊŎŒ¡¯x§° ŊŎő¡¯x§° ŊŎŐ¡¯x§° ŊŎŏ¡¯x§° ŊŎŎ¡¯x§° ŊŎō¡¯x§° ŊŎŌ«¯x§° ŊŎŋ§¯x§° ŊŎŊ¬¯x§° ŊŎʼn¡¯x§° ŊōŒ¡¯x§° Ŋōő¡¯x§° ŊōŐ¡¯x§° Ŋōŏ¡¯x§° ŊōŎ¡¯x§° Ŋōō¡¯x§° ŊōŌ«¯x§° Ŋōŋ§¯x§° ŊōŊ¬¯x§° Ŋōʼn¡¯x§° ŊŌŒ¡¯x§° ŊŌő¡¯x§° ®§¤«¥¤¥¯x ŊŌŏ¡¯x§° ŊŌŎ¡¯x§° ŊŌō¡¯x§° ŊŌŌ«¯x§° ¥ ¨ ® « ¢ § ¬ x § ° « ¤ ¢ ® ¦ ¬ x § ° ² ¬ © « ¨ ¬ ¢ ® ¦ ¬ x § ° ¨ ¥ ¬ x § ° « ¨ § ¬ x § ° ³® § ¢ ¬ x § ° ° ¨ ¬ x § ° ® ¬ x § ° ¬ ¥ ¢ ¬ ¡ ¬ x § ° «¨ § ¨ ¤ ¬ x § ° ©¨ ° ¨ ¦ ¢ ¬ x § ° ¨§ ¢ ¬ x § ° ¥¢ © § ¬ x § ° ¤¢ ¨ ° ¬ x § ° ¢§ ¬ x § ° ® « § ¢ ¬ x § ° ¥ ¨ « ¨ ¬ x § ° ¤ ¨ ¬ x § ° ¥ ¤ ¨ ¨ ¬ x § ° ³ ¬ x § ° ± § ¢ ¬ x § ° ¯¢ § ¬ x § ° ®§ « ¥ ¢ ¬ x § ° ª® ² ¬ x § ° § « ¢ ¬ ¬ ® ¬ ¬ x § ° ¥¢ ¥ ² ¬ x § ° ¢¯ ² ° ¨ ¨ ¬ x § ° ¡ ¥ ¢ ¬ x § ° ¢ « ¬ ° ¬ x § ° ± ¯ ¢ ¬ ¬ x § ° ®© ¥ § « ¬ x § ° ¡ « ® ¬ ¡ ¬ x § ° © « « ¢ ¬ x § ° ¨¬ ¬ x § ° ¦ « ¢ § ¬ x § ° £ ² ¬ x § ° ¢ ¢ ¬ ¬ x § ° ¥ ¬ x § ° « § ¬ x § ° ¯ ¨ ¬ x § ° ± ¨ § ¬ x § ° °¢ § « « § ¬ x § ° ®§ ¢ ² ¬ x § ° ¬² ¦ ¨ « ¬ x § ° ª® ¢ § ¬ x § ° §¨ « ° ² ¬ x § ° ¤® ¦ ª ® ¬ x § ° ¢¥ ± ¬ x § ° ¥ ¢ § ° ¨ ¨ ¬ x § ° ¨ ° ¨ ¨ ¬ x § ° « ¢ ® ¦ ¬ x § ° ² ¤ ¢ ¦ ¬ x § ° ±¤ ¢ ¦ ¨ ¬ x § ° ¯ § « ¬ x § ° ¨ § ¨ ¬ x § ° ª® © ° ¬ x § ° § ¯ £ ¨ ¬ x § ° ¦ ¤ ¡ ¬ x § ° £¢¯ « ¨ ¬ x § ° ¡¨ © ¢ ¬ x § ° ¨ ± ¬ x § ° « ¬ x § ° ³ ¬ x § ° ²® ¬ x § ° °¨ ¨ ¢ § ¬ x § ° ® ¥ ¢ © ¬ x § ° «¨ ¬ ¬ x § ° ¨« ¡ ¢ ¬ x § ° ¤ « « ² ¬ x § ° ¡ ¡ « ¬ x § ° ¥ ¢ ¨ ¥ ¬ x § ° ¢ ¥ ° ¢ ¬ ¬ ¬ x § ° « ¨ ® ¬ ¬ x § ° « « ¨ ° ¡ ¬ x § ° ²® ¤ ¨ § ¬ x § ° ¯ « ¢ § ¬ x § ° ¬° ¥ ¥ ¨ ° ¬ x § ° « ¯ § ¬ x § ° §¢ ¡ ¢ § ¥ ¬ x § ° ¤¢¥ ¥ « ¬ x § ° ¡® ¦ ¦ ¢ § ¢ « ¬ x § ° ¥ ¦ ¢ § ¨ ¬ x § ° « ¤ ¬ x § ° ³¢ ¥ ¥ ¬ x § ° ² ¥ ¥ ¨ ° © ¢ § ¬ x § ° ¯ ¥ ¬ x § ° ¦ « ¤ ¬ x § ° « ° ¨ ¨ ¬ x § ° © ¥ ¦ ¬ x § ° ¨¥ ¢ ¯ ¬ x § ° ¦ § ¨ ¥ ¢ ¬ x § ° ¥ « ¡ ¬ x § ° £® § ¢ © « ¬ x § ° ¡¨ ¥ ¥ ² ¬ x § ° ¨ ¥ § « ¨ ¬ x § ° ¯ « « § ¬ x § ° ® « § ® ¬ x § ° ¨ ¨ § ° ¨ ¨ ¬ x § ° ¥ « ¬ x § ° ®§ ¢ ¯ « ¬ ¢ ² ¯ x ± x ¬¢ ¥ ¯ « ¨ ¬ x § ° ©¨ © © ² ¬ x § ° ¦ « ¢ ¨ ¥ ¬ x § ° £¨ § ª ® ¢ ¥ ¬ x § ° ¥ ¨ « ¬ x § ° ³¢ ¨ § ¬ x § ° °« § ¬ x § ° ª® ¢ § § ¬ x § ° ¥¢ § § ¬ x § ° « ¨ ® ¬ ¬ x § ° ¥ ® ¢ « ¬ x § ° ¥¦§¬§¢¯«¢¬¥¨°«¬¢«¬«¬ ĸĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸ #11#7 #14 #4 #28 #33 #27 #26 #35 #17 #37 #9 #36 #19 #2 #20 #24 #16 #13 #15 #8 #22 #34 #12 #18 #30 #3 #21 #32 #23 #25 #1 #31 #5 #10 #29 #6 Bla i n e Coo n R a p i d s BlaineHam Lake Ramsey Nowthen Ramsey Oak Grove Ram s e y Ano k a East BethelHam Lake Ea s t B e t h e l Oa k G r o v e Coon R a p i d s Anoka No w t h e n Oa k G r o v e TIMBERRIVERSPARK RIVERTRAILS SHADOWBROOKWEST PARK GREEN ACRES HIDDENCREEK EAST FOXMEADOWS RED OAKS EAST WILDIRIS RED OAKS WEST CHESTERTONCOMMONS PARK BIRCHRIDGE HILLS OFBUNKERLAKE WEST ROUNDLAKEBOAT LANDING DEHN'S REDWOOD PARK PRAIRIEKNOLL NORTHWOODS EAST NORTHWOODS WEST HIDDEN CREEKSOUTH MEADOWOOD SOUTH MEADOWS OFROUND LAKE MEADOWOODNORTH STROOTMANPARK HARTFIEL'S WOODLANDMEADOWS THEOAKS OAK BLUFF NORDEEN'S FORESTMEADOWS LANGSETH OAK HOLLOW LANDLOCKEDPARK MOORESESTATES HAWK RIDGE WOODLANDESTATES PARK VALLEYVIEW TIMBERTRAILS MARTIN'SMEADOWS CEDAR CRESTESTATE CEDAR CREST SHADY KNOLL PINEHILLSSOUTH LUND'SNORTH WHITEOAKS ANDOVERLIONS HIDDENCREEKNORTH CROOKED LAKEBOAT LANDING TERRACE PARK ROSEPARK SUNSHINE PARK SHADOWBROOKEAST PARK COUNTRY OAKSPARK SOPHIE'S PARK EVELANDFIELDS OAKVIEW PARK KELSEYROUND LAKE 138THAVE PARK COON CREEKPARK/TOMANDERSON TRAIL PLEASANTOAKS PARK WOODLANDCROSSINGSPARKS PINE HILLSNORTH HICKORYMEADOWS PARK CITY CAMPUSOUTDOOR HOCKEYCOMPLEX CREEKRIDGE ANDOVERSTATIONNORTH BUNKER HILLSREGIONAL(COUNTY) PURPLEPARK MARTIN'SMEADOWSPRESERVE NORTH WOODSPRESERVE MAPLE VIEWPRESERVE DALSKEWOODLANDS FIELDS OFWINSLOW COVE PARK 145THAVE IVYWOODST TULIPST 159THLN 137THLN 162NDAVE HUMMINGBIRD CT SYCAMOREST OR C H I D S T RAVEN ST142ND LN MARIGOLDCIR RAV E N S T 144THAVE 142ND AVE 151STAVENW VE R D I N S T 143RD AVE RO S E ST 143RDAVE NW XEO N S T YELLOWPINE STNW YU K O N S T 170THLN 153RD AVE ORCHIDCIR 149THLN 161ST LN EVERGREENST 154TH LN 169THLN YU C C A S T ARRO W H E A D S T 138TH LN DR A K E S T OLIVEST JUNIPERST LILYST UPLANDERST ORCHID CT 139TH LN CROCUSST 157TH LN 170TH LN MAGNOLIA ST RA V E N S T 150THAVE MARIGOLDST WINTERGREENST NW ZILLA ST C OTTONWOO D S T 141ST LNUNDERCLIFT CT 133RDLN 149TH LN AV O C E T S T HEATHERST 151ST AVE 151ST LN ORCHARDST HUMMINGBIRDST MAGNOLIAST 162ND AVENW 145THAVE 138THLN VALLEY DR AVOCET ST 136TH LN PAL M S T WRENST SILVEROD CT 137TH LN 141ST LN 174TH AVE RAV E N S T QUINCE ST MARIGOLDCT NA R C I S S U S ST YELLOWPINEST FLO R A ST 160THAVE 178TH LN 157TH LN ONEIDA ST 151STLN BUTTERNUT CT VAL E S T 133RDLN 137TH LN YUK O N ST TONTO ST UP L A N D E R S T KERRYST 149THAVE AZTEC ST ROS E ST YEL L O W PIN EST NIG H T I N G A L E S T YEL L O W PIN E S T QU I N N S T AV O C E T S T CRA N E S T 144THAVENW THRUSHST 134TH AVE 156THLN VINTAGE CT NORWAY CT NORWAYST EVE R G R E E N S T 158THAVE 146THAVE 142NDAVE 164THAVE NO RWAY ST 173RD AVE ZILLAST 139THLN JUNIPERCIR UN I V E R S I T Y AV E 150THLN 180 THAVE HUMMINGBIRDST MAGNOLIA ST 135TH AVE 135THCIR SYCAMOR EST 142NDAVE KU M Q U A T S T WINTERGREENST ELDORADOST 171STAVE GOLDENROD ST NW 147THLN EIDELWEISS ST REDWOODST QU A Y S T GUARANI STNW OLIVE ST 138THAVE HE A T H E R ST 136T HAVE HEA T H E R ST VA L E S T 155TH AVE BITTERSWEET CT 172NDAVE 176TH CIR GOLDENRODST CR A N E S T 151STLN NW SYCAMORECT 153RD LN 147TH AVE 148THLN 152THAVE 159TH AVE FLINTWOODST LARCHST JA Y S T BITTERSWEET S T 141STLN 143RDAVE NARCISSUSST 139TH LN139TH LN 159TH AVE JIVAROST NW PA L M S T SERVICE RD 138TH LN MA R I G O L D S T UNDERCLIFT ST IB I S S T JAYST KILDEERST W RE N ST 179TH AVE 143RDAVE 168THAVENW 142NDAVE NARCISSUSCT 138THAVE EAGLEST 174TH LN 142NDAVE 139THAVE 160TH LN 146TH AVE OR C H I D S T 164THLN 153RDAVE OS A G E S T 158TH AVE 140THLN AZT E C S T ORCHIDST 175THLN YELLOW PINECTNW OLIVEST GLAD I O L A ST XEONST WINTERGREEN ST 178THAVE 140THLN UN I T Y S T DAK O T A S T WOO DBINEST MAKAH CIR 151STLN 175TH AVE 155THAVE WACOST CRANEST 137THLN REDWOOD ST 137TH LN SILV E R O D CT 166TH LN OSA G E S T OSAGECT 157TH CIR 146TH AVE DAKOTAST 176THAVE MARTIN CT 138TH AVE 149TH AVE FLAMINGO ST 159THAVE IBISST HIDDEN CR EEKDR 151ST AVE WR E N CT 151ST L N VALEST DOGWOOD ST 140THLN 153RD LN GR O U S E S T EID E L W E I S S ST 158TH AVE 158TH LN 143RD AVE 158THAVE 176TH LN YELLOWPINE ST 162NDLNNW PA L MST 152ND LN 155THLN RAV E N S T ZILLA ST 143RDLN ZILLASTNW UNDERCLIFTST THRUSH ST 138THCT 146THLN 145THAVE 138THLN 155THAVE 138THAVE 145THAVE BLUEBIRD ST 140THLN PO P P Y S T PA R T R I D G E S T DRAKE ST QUINNST 154THLN GUA R A N I ST AVOCET ST 139THAVE 153RDLN 155THLN TU L I P ST 181ST AVE PARTRIDGEST HUMMINGBIRDST SA L I S H ST EID E L W E I S S ST PAR T R I D G E ST PARTRIDGE ST 161STLN 173RD CIR 166T H AVE XEONST 175TH AVE SW A L L O W ST KE R R Y S T DAHLIA ST 169THLN BLU E B I R D S T MA R T I N ST JA Y S T BLUEBIRD ST 155TH LN 135THLN DOGWOODST ROSEST PARTRIDGECR NARCISSUSST 155THAVE 145THLN IN C AST NARCISSUS ST QU A Y S T PO P P Y S T MAKA H ST 169TH AVE NW 154THAVE 152ND L N LIP A N S T 145TH LN TH R U S H ST DA K O T A S T MAKAH ST 180THLN LINNET ST UPL A N D E R CT OSAGE ST 156THLN 140THLN 142NDLN 166THLN 155TH AVE INCA ST 1 50THLN SWALLOWCR JONQUIL ST OS A G E ST 172ND AVE FLIN T W O O D ST 141ST AVE OR C H I D ST 140THAVE 137THAVE 160THAVE XE N I A S T XAVISST 139T H AVE 150TH LN 134TH LN THRUSHCIR 139THLN QUINCE ST YU K O N S T 163RDLN TOWER DR 140TH AVE CR E E S T 165TH AVE 144THLN 154THAVE 174THCIR 140THAVE XENIA ST JUNIPERST NW JUNIPERST ALDER ST PARTRIDGEST 169THLN NORWAY ST EAG L E S T 166TH AVE 161STLN SENCHANTEDDR 150THLN NW HOPI ST UPL A N D E R CIR 146THAVE EL D O R A D O S T EIDELWEISSST 140TH AVE UN D E R C L I F T S T 171ST AVE HOPIST 145THLN 145THLN QUINNST ILEXST 147THLN COTTONWOO D ST 135 T H A V E 146TH LN 139THAVE AZT E C S T 160TH LN 140TH AVE 159THLN HOLLY STNW 142NDLN 144THAVE 169TH LN GU A R A N I S T 168THLNNW 158THAVE AZT E C S T 151STAVE FLORACT 134THAVE CRANEST ZIL L A S T 164TH AVE CR A N E S T BITT E R S W E E T S T LINNETST 156THAVE 164THAVE WOO D B I N E S T 160THLN REDWOOD ST 142ND AVE 156THAVE 147THCT 140THAVE 177TH LN 166THAVE 153RD AVE SWALLOW ST 146THLN 152ND LN MARIGOLDST 163RD LN ARGONST NORTHWOODDR EIDELWEISSCT QUAYST UPLANDERST BUTTERNUTST IVYWOODST ILEXST GROUSE ST 171ST AVE 144THAVE BL A C K F O O T S T 159TH LN QUA Y S T SILVERODST BLUEBIRD ST HUMMINGBIRDST IBISST 136TH LN 135TH AVE 138THLN 135TH LN 136TH AVE KILLDEER ST 158THLN LILYST DRAKEST SI L V E R O D S T XEONST NW QUINNST 165TH LN JO N Q U I L S T INC A S T 169TH LN BUTTERNUTST 162NDLN MA R I G O L D ST 141ST AVE 166THAVENW SYCAMOREST XE N I A S T 139THAVE 172ND AVE GL A D I O L A S T FOX S T 168THAVE OS A G E S T WR E N S T YA K I M A S T 134THAVE 149TH LN AR G O N S T AVO C E T S T AZTECST 143RDAVE 179THAVE 175THAVE THRUSHST 139THAVE 144TH LN BUTTERNUTST 142ND LN WR E N S T 167TH AVE 158THAVE 177THAVE 169THLN UN I V E R S I T Y A V E YE L L O W PIN E S T 143RDAVE RO S E S T GO L D E N R O D ST LINNETST MAK A H S T PO P P Y ST DR A K E S T ONEIDAST 152ND LN SI L V E R O D S T 161ST AVE SW A L L O W S T ZIO N S T NIGHTINGALEST 162ND AVE 148TH AVE 1 41S T AV E 141STLNNW SWALLOW ST CR O C U S S T EA G L E S T 162ND LN LA R C H S T 176TH LN IV Y W O O D S T 141STLN 167TH LN 141ST AVE 139THAVE UPL A N D E R S T 152NDAVE 156TH LN 174TH LN GENIE DR IN C A C I R 136THAVE PALM ST 154THAVE 160TH LN TH R U S H S T 161ST LN RO A N O K E S T VETERANSMEMO RIAL BLVD KIOWAST 16 8TH LN 163RD LN 153RD LN LIN N E T S T TULIPST 166TH AVE TULIPST ROSE ST KILLDEERST 139TH LN 177TH AVE OR C H I D S T QU A Y S T 148THAVE 167TH LN 134TH AVE 134TH LN 165THAVENW MARTINST QUINCEST 167T HAVE 133RD LN TAMARACK ST 150TH LN 175TH LN 160THLN 135TH AVE 176TH LN 176TH AVE BLACKFOOTST 172ND LN U NITYST PARTRIDGE ST SWALLOWST JO N Q U I L S T KIO W A S T QU I N N DR WO O D B I N E S T 142NDLN 144TH LN NW 180TH AVE SW A L L O W S T ZI O N S T 166TH AVEIVYWOODST 153RD LN NENCHANTEDDR WINTERGREEN ST 170TH LN XENIA ST HEATHERST 138TH AVE 170TH AVE TAM A R A C K S T 154TH LN 144TH LN ZU N I S T QU I N N S T 154TH LN 149TH LN 170TH LN 173RDLN JUNIPER STNW 147THLN UP L A N D E R S T 150THLN 148TH LN ELDORADOST 146TH L N MANITEAUBLVD MARYSTONEBLVD BLB SERVICERD VIN T A G E S T PRIVATEDR 173RD LN YAK I M A S T 148TH LN ARROWHEADST VINTAGE ST 170THLN 141ST LN 138THAVE EID E L W E I S S S T ARR O W H E A D S T BARIUMST ON E I D A S T QU A P A W S T GL A D I O L A S T IVYWOOD ST INCASTNW 142ND AVE UPLANDERDR 155THLN 174TH AVE XE O N S T 141ST LN VA L E S T 173RD LN 162ND LN 171STCIR POTAW AT OMI ST CR O C U S S T GROUSEST 164THLN HOL LY ST 176TH A VE MARTINST UPLANDERST 140THAVE QUAYST 154THLN 164TH LN 164THLN 135THLN 170THAVE SYC A M O R E S T 139THL N 170T H A V E 154THAVE BLACKFOOTST 159TH AVE VALLEY VIE W DR COUNTY PKWYC 140TH LN 152NDAVE NAVAJOST 176TH AVE CO UNTY PK WYA 173RD LN FO X S T 156THAVE UPL A N D E R S T 175T H A V E OLDCONSTA NCE BLVD 154TH LN 149TH AVE BU T T E R N U T S T COUNTYPKWYB EVERGREEN ST BL U E B I R D S T 172ND AVE C OU NTYPKWYD MA K A H S T EAGLEST GUARANI ST TU L I P S T RO U N D L A K E B L V D S COON CREEK DR VETERANSMEMORIAL BLVD CROOKED LAKE BLVD 143RD AVE ANDOVERBLVD X E O N ST 157TH AVE VE R D I N S T 159TH AVE NIGHTINGALE ST CROSSTO W N DR 161ST AVE 7T H A V E 157TH AVE WA R D L A K E D R ROUND LAKEBLVD UN I V E R S I T Y A V E 145THAVE PR A I R I E R D BUNKERLAKE BLVD VENTRE ST 173RDAVE 167TH AVENW TU L I P S T 7T H A V E 7TH AVE 177TH LN 168TH LN 174TH LN CROS S T O W N B L V D CROS S T O W N B L V D VALLEYDR VE R D I N S T 181ST AVE STATION PKWY ANDOVER BLVD 133RD AVE CRO S S T O W N B L V D WINT ERGREENSTNW JAY ST HA N S O N B L V D 147TH AVE 146TH LN 161ST AVE COUNTY R D 116 181ST AVE 177TH AVE 167TH AVE BUTTERNUTST HA N S O N B L V D 173RD LN PRAIRIE RD CONSTANCE BLVD 165TH AVE 177TH AVE PA L M S T FLINTWOODST XE O N S T HA N S O N B L V D TU L I P S T RO A N O K E S T 167TH AVE UNIVERSITY AVE NE 167TH LNNE UN I V E R S I T Y AV E N W 3R D S T N E Crooked LakeElementarySchool LegacyChristianAcademy Anoka CountySheriff'sOffice CountyHighwayDepartment County ParksMaintenanceShop AndoverCity Hall OakviewMiddleSchool AndoverElementary MetropolitanMosquitoControl RecyclingCenter AndoverHigh School Rum RiverElementary AndoverPublicWorks CommunityCenter / YMCA E911 Building BH Pavilion 1 BH Pavilion 2BH Pavilion 3 BH Pavilion 4 BH Pavilion 5 CenterPointPeak ShavingNorthernNatural Gas Odorizing Plant Odorizing Plant 116 9 7 78 20 116 59 158 58 58 58 78 18 78 116 9 7 20 58 20 7 9 18 59 18 16 58 116 60 Fire Station #2 Fire Station #1 Fire Station #3 Incorporated 1974 Data Credit: Anoka County GIS, ESRI, MN Geospatial Commons, City of Andover Date Exported: 4/22/2024 1:51 PMPath: H:\GIS\Working\Projects\Fire\GeneralMapping\GeneralMapping.aprx Andover GIS This map is intendedfor referencepurposes only withmapping gradeaccuracy of the data.The City of Andoverdoes not make claimthat the featuresdepicted representtrue locations;therefore the Cityassumes no liability forany errors or omissionsherein. 0 10.5 Miles ³ City Hall School Sheriff City Facility County Facility Andover Recycle BH Pavilion Railroad Crossing Odorizing Plant CenterPoint Peak Shaving MUSA Pipeline Pipeline - 50 ft Buffer Pipeline - 200 ft Buffer Schools Fire Grid Park Preserve Waterbody City Limits Coverage Boundary Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 Fire Station #3 Andover Fire Grid Overview Map MA N I T E A U B L V D S ENCHANTED DR N ENCHANTED DR GENIE DR MARYSTONE BLVD Station 2 Built in 1991 2 Apparatus Bays -Engine -Rescue -Water Tender -Brush Truck ✦Some ability to convert spaces for overnight staff ✦Some health and wellness facilities ➡No direct capture exhaust system ➡Fire gear stored in apparatus bay ✦Outdoor training space ✦On well water Station 1 Built in 1991 3 Apparatus Bays -Engine -Ladder -Rescue ✦Some ability to convert spaces for overnight staff ✦Some health and wellness facilities ➡No direct capture exhaust system ➡Fire gear stored in apparatus bay ✦Training Room and EOC Station 3 Built in 2005 3 Apparatus Bays -Engine -Reserve Engine -Water Tender -Rescue -Brush Truck -Rehab Trailer -Attic Vac Trailer ✦Some ability to convert spaces for overnight staff ✦Some health and wellness facilities ➡No direct capture exhaust system ➡Fire gear stored in apparatus bay Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 8 March 2025 Historical Performance he department understands the relative opportunity to improve the citizens’ experience by maximizing the efficiency of the dispatch interval and turnout time. Dispatch Time is defined as the time from when the 911 center receives a request for service until the fire department is notified to respond. Turnout Time is defined as the time between the fire department being notified of a call (dispatched) and when they are actually driving to the incident. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 and 1225, recommend a 64- and 60- second dispatch time, respectively. The current performance is 8.8 minutes for all types of calls at the 90th percentile. Similarly, the NFPA and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI), recommend a turnout time of 60-seconds for EMS incidents and between 80 and 90 seconds for non-EMS incidents, respectively. The department’s current performance is at 8.4 minutes for EMS and 9.8 minutes for fire related incidents, both exceeding the recommended best practice performance. Travel Time is measured from when the apparatus and crews make notification that they are driving to the incident until they notify that they are on-scene. NFPA 1710 recommends a 4-minute travel time at the 90th percentile. CFAI had historically provided for a 5.2-minute travel time at the 90th percentile. However, the current performance 8.1 minutes is reasonably well aligned with the national experience for departments with similar geographic challenges. Response Time is the total time from 911 receipt to arrival. 2023 90th Percentile Response Time Performance Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 9 March 2025 Historical Service Demands Historical service demands for Andover Fire were classified by risk and distributed across low, moderate, high, and maximum risk. Four program areas were analyzed: EMS, Fire, Hazmat, and Rescue. Overall, during the 5-year reporting period, the predominant demand was for low-risk incidents between 92.6% and 96.8%, followed by moderate-risk events between 2.1% and 5.4%. High- risk incidents were between 0.7% and 1.5%. Based on agency data, over 95% of the risk in all years was categorized as low risk. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 10 March 2025 Distribution Study Geographic Demand Zone (GDZ) is a concept used in fire response studies to analyze and optimize emergency response coverage. It involves dividing a community or jurisdiction into specific geographic zones based on emergency call volume, response times, population density, and risk factors. These zones help fire departments and municipal planners assess resource distribution, identify service gaps, and determine the optimal placement of stations or deployment of units. Key Aspects of GDZ in Fire Response Studies: •Risk-Based Analysis: GDZs classify areas according to fire risk, EMS demand, and hazard potential, ensuring that resources are distributed where they are most needed. •Response Time Optimization: By analyzing GDZs, departments can determine if response times meet national standards (e.g., NFPA 1710 for career departments or NFPA 1720 for volunteer/combination departments). •Fire Station Location Planning: GDZs help identify optimal locations for fire stations to enhance coverage and shorten response times. •Resource Allocation: This tool helps fire departments effectively allocate personnel, apparatus, and specialized resources based on demand in each zone. •Predictive Modeling: GDZs can be utilized alongside GIS and statistical modeling to forecast future trends in fire and EMS calls, facilitating proactive planning. sing GDZ analysis, fire departments can make data-driven decisions that enhance emergency response efficiency, improve public safety, and justify resource investments to elected officials and stakeholders. Analysis of the Andover Fire Department consisted of data submitted by the agency from 1/1/2019 to 6/29/2024. In 2021, there was a 56% increase in incidents due to a change in response policy. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 11 March 2025 Station Demand Zone Level Risk he Andover Fire Department’s (AFD) performance, as evaluated through 90th percentile response times, provides valuable insight into its alignment with national standards and the risks faced by the community. According to NFPA 1720, which applies to volunteer and combination fire departments, the standard recommends that departments serving suburban populations (1,000–2,000 people per square mile) achieve a response time of 10 minutes for 80% of incidents. AFD’s 90th percentile total response times for EMS calls (13.1 minutes) and fire incidents (15.6 minutes) exceed these benchmarks, indicating a potential gap in meeting national standards for timely responses. Station-specific performance, such as Station 2’s response time of 14.2 minutes, highlights challenges in achieving compliance with NFPA 1720 across all service areas. The department’s workload distribution further underscores the difficulty in meeting NFPA 1720 recommendations. With Station 1 handling nearly 50% of all responses, its capacity to maintain consistent performance during peak demand periods is strained. Meanwhile, Station 2's extended travel times suggest potential vulnerabilities in reaching more remote or less densely populated areas promptly. This disparity could impact the department’s ability to provide equitable service coverage, a core principle of NFPA 1720. Furthermore, the department’s reliance on paid-on-call staff adds variability in response time performance, as staff availability during off-hours or simultaneous calls can delay response initiation. Aligning with NFPA 1720 also requires adequate assembly of personnel at emergency scenes. The standard recommends that 10 firefighters arrive on the scene of structural fires within the response time goal for suburban areas. Data from AFD indicates that response to structure fires often involves five or more units, but the department’s ability to meet the personnel assembly benchmark consistently requires further evaluation. Addressing these gaps is crucial to ensure effective fire suppression and life safety operations, particularly during high-risk incidents where the timing of interventions can significantly influence outcomes. To enhance compliance with NFPA 1720 recommendations, AFD should explore strategies such as pre-positioning resources in high-demand zones, improving turnout time through training and station readiness, and enhancing volunteer availability with recruitment and retention initiatives. Additional investments in fire station infrastructure, such as adding or relocating stations to better serve demand zones, could reduce travel times significantly. Leveraging technology, such as automated dispatch optimization tools, can also streamline response processes. By prioritizing these enhancements, AFD can bolster its ability to meet national standards, reduce risks to the community, and maintain its commitment to delivering exceptional emergency services. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 12 March 2025 Community Risk Assessment (CRA) ndover Fire Department Overall Risk Evaluation: •EMS Calls dominate overall demand, making up 78-97% of annual incidents. Most are categorized as low-risk. •Fire Risk is primarily low to moderate, but certain categories, such as structure fires and hazardous conditions, contribute higher risks. •Occupancy Risk is mainly moderate, with 131 moderate-risk structures, 11 high-risk, and no maximum-risk buildings. •Geographic Distribution of Risk: ◦Station 1: Higher call volume and concurrency rates than Stations 2 and 3. ◦Station 3: Significant growth in EMS and fire demand, showing a consistent trend of increased service needs. Service Gaps and Station Response Areas: •Station 2 reports fewer calls and overlaps, indicating potentially underutilized resources relative to others. •Response areas near jurisdictional boundaries and structures mapped outside AFD’s jurisdiction create potential service challenges. Economic Impacts: •An aging population and certain socio-economic variables like unemployment influence the high demand for EMS. •Risk tied to older building stock (15-18% over 55) suggests maintenance-driven fires or hazard incidents. A Community Risk Assessment (CRA) is a thorough evaluation of a community’s specific hazards, vulnerabilities, and emergency response capabilities, assisting fire and EMS agencies in aligning resources with the most critical areas of need. Guided by standards from the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) and NFPA 1300: Standard on Community Risk Assessment and Community Risk Reduction Plan Development, a CRA examines factors such as population demographics, building types, fire incident data, EMS call volume, and response times to pinpoint risks and create targeted mitigation strategies. By utilizing data- driven decision-making, fire and EMS agencies can enhance public safety, improve emergency response effectiveness, and proactively reduce risks before incidents arise. Involving community stakeholders in the CRA process fosters a collaborative approach to risk reduction, resulting in better resource allocation, improved service delivery, and a safer community for everyone. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 13 March 2025 Correlated Risks isks may be divided into correlated and uncorrelated risks. All previous risk analyses have been primarily based on uncorrelated risks such as single unique events for EMS or a single property structure fire. Risks were calculated based on socioeconomic and demographic factors that may contribute to unique events. All previous analyses utilized a robust quantitative approach to leasing risk using a 3-axis, 3-dimensional Heron formula. However, correlated risks occur with much less frequency and were assessed using a 2- dimensional probability and consequence model. Example of correlated risks would include more regional or system wide events such as natural hazards and pandemics. Andover Fire Department (AFD) has identified several correlated risks through its performance metrics, highlighting areas for improvement to align with NFPA standards and reduce community risk. A critical metric is the department’s 90th percentile response times, which for EMS calls is 13.1 minutes and for fire calls is 15.6 minutes. These exceed the NFPA 1720 recommendation of 10 minutes for 80% of incidents in suburban communities. Historical data from 2019-2023 shows consistent challenges in meeting this benchmark, with Station 2 exhibiting the longest response times due to its service area’s geographical size and call density. AFD’s historical service demand data reveals rising call volumes across all three first-due stations. For example, Station 1 experienced a 58.9% increase in total calls between 2019 and 2023, growing from 689 calls to 1,095 calls annually. This growth was driven largely by EMS incidents, which accounted for 82% of all calls in 2023. Furthermore, the department recorded moderate and high-risk incidents rising from 3.3% in 2019 to 4.0% in 2023, emphasizing an upward trend in more complex emergencies. Call concurrency rates, such as Station 1’s 5.1% overlap rate, add another layer of operational strain, where simultaneous calls challenge response capabilities. Maximum/ Special Risk Low Probability High Consequence CO N C E N T R A T I O N Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 14 March 2025 Correlated Risks (Continued) Another key performance indicator is fire response effectiveness. NFPA 1720 emphasizes the importance of assembling a minimum of 10 firefighters on the scene within the recommended time frame. AFD data indicates that while this goal is often met for structure fires at Station 1, Stations 2 and 3 struggle to achieve this due to lower staffing levels and response times exceeding 14 minutes in certain cases. This increases the likelihood of fire escalation beyond the critical flashover point, as outlined in NFPA 1700, which defines flashover as occurring within 4-6 minutes in uncontrolled conditions. To mitigate these risks, AFD should prioritize resource redistribution and station-specific improvements. For example, increasing staffing levels at Station 2 and deploying resources dynamically during peak hours can reduce response times and enhance service equity. Upgrades to technology, such as automated dispatch systems, can streamline unit assignments, addressing the concurrency issue. Historical metrics also underscore the importance of community outreach—educating residents on fire prevention and emergency preparedness could help reduce incident rates. By using these data-driven insights and aligning operations with NFPA 1700, 1710, and 1720 standards, AFD can better respond to the community’s needs while mitigating correlated risks. Historical service demands were classified by risk and distributed across low, moderate, high, and maximum risk. Overall, during the 5-year reporting period, the predominant demand was for low-risk incidents between 47.9% and 52.5%, followed by moderate-risk events between 43.6% and 47.3%. High risk incidents were between 3.7% and 4.8%. Over 84% of the fire risk in all years was categorized as low risk. Andover Fire Department provides or receives aid from several agencies, including Alina Health Emergency Medical Services (EMS), which provides treatment and medical transport within the Andover Fire Department's primary Response area. Automatic Aid and mutual aid allow communities like Andover to increase the level of service at a cost- effective solution. In addition to response efficiencies, communities can share training opportunities, joint capital purchases, and staffing solutions across geographical borders. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 15 March 2025 Automatic/ Mutual Aid ire department Automatic Aid or Mutual Aid is a cooperative agreement between neighboring fire departments to provide assistance during emergencies that surpass a single department’s available resources. This collaboration is vital for ensuring an adequate response force and maintaining essential staffing during high-acuity incidents, or multiple simultaneous emergencies. A working relationship with mutual-aid partners enhances operational efficiency, interoperability, and response effectiveness, ensuring that personnel, equipment, and specialized resources can be smoothly integrated into incident operations. Regular joint training, standardized procedures, and clear communication channels build trust and coordination, ultimately enhancing firefighter safety and guaranteeing that the community receives timely and effective emergency services when demand exceeds local capacity. An Effective Response Force (ERF), as defined by NFPA 1720: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments, refers to the minimum number of trained personnel required to safely and effectively mitigate an emergency incident within a specified response time. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 16 March 2025 Commensurate Risk Model and Projected Growth A proactive approach using a Commensurate Risk Model helps city leaders make informed decisions, balancing public safety with fiscal responsibility. By planning now, Andover can maintain a high level of service while adapting to future demands. Commensurate Risk Model ensures that fire and emergency services grow in proportion to the community's risks and demands. This model assesses population growth, building density, infrastructure development, and emergency response trends to determine the necessary staffing, equipment, and station locations. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, it aligns fire department resources with Andover's evolving risks, ensuring efficient and effective service without unnecessary overspending. From 2025 to 2030, the Commensurate Risk Model will guide Andover’s Fire and EMS services by ensuring public safety resources scale with the city’s growth and evolving risks. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Andover has experienced steady population growth, increasing from approximately 26,000 residents in 2000 to over 32,000 in 2024 —a nearly 25% increase. Historical data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) indicates that as communities expand, emergency call volumes rise proportionally, particularly in medical responses, which now comprise over 70% of fire department calls nationwide. onsiderations for maintaining adequate levels of protection •Ensuring adequate staffing levels to manage rising call volumes and response times. •Strategic placement of fire stations to reduce response times. •Investing in modern equipment and competency based training to improve efficiency. •Identifying long-term financial strategies to match service levels with growth. Demographic projections from the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities indicate continued population growth, increasing residential density, and expanded commercial development, all of which will place greater demands on Andover’s emergency services. By applying a data-driven approach to staffing, station placement, equipment investments, and service delivery, elected officials can ensure that Andover’s emergency response capabilities remain both effective and fiscally sustainable. This forward-thinking strategy, based on empirical data and best practices, positions the city to proactively address public safety challenges, maintaining reliable and efficient fire and EMS services through 2030 and beyond. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 17 March 2025 Employee Engagement and Agency Leadership he City of Andover Fire Department's employee satisfaction survey reveals a comprehensive view of workforce sentiment, offering a clear path for organizational growth. The survey achieved an impressive participation rate of 84%, with 44 responses out of 52 employees invited, reflecting a high level of engagement and interest in shaping the department’s future. The results show a diverse range of opinions, with 47.6% of respondents expressing positive sentiments through agreement or strong agreement, 33.6% highlighting areas of concern with disagreement or strong disagreement, and the remaining responses either neutral or not applicable. Among the strengths identified, many employees appreciated the department’s investment in ongoing training, which equips them to handle their duties effectively and safely. Respondents highlighted the value of teamwork and the trust shared among peers, which form a critical foundation for operational success. The positive responses also underscored a shared commitment to serving the community and pride in the department’s mission. These areas of strength serve as a solid base to build further improvements. However, the survey also revealed areas requiring attention. Concerns about communication were prominent, with employees seeking more consistent and transparent updates from leadership. Feedback indicated a desire for improved recognition of individual and team contributions and concerns about equity in resource allocation. Additionally, respondents expressed frustration with limited opportunities for career advancement, which could affect long-term employee engagement and retention. Addressing these concerns is essential to fostering a more satisfied and motivated workforce. To build on the insights provided, the department should consider implementing structured communication strategies, such as regular leadership updates, town hall meetings, and accessible communication channels to foster dialogue. A formalized employee recognition program linked to measurable performance metrics could ensure equitable acknowledgment of efforts. Creating mentorship programs and clearly defined career pathways would address professional development and growth concerns. Regularly scheduled follow-up surveys and focus groups could provide ongoing feedback, allowing the department to measure progress and adapt to evolving needs. By focusing on these opportunities, the Andover Fire Department can enhance its organizational culture, improve employee satisfaction, and strengthen its ability to serve the community with excellence. These efforts will not only address current challenges but also lay the groundwork for sustained success and resilience in the face of future demands. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 18 March 2025 he 2025 Andover Adopted Budget reflects a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing fire department operations and capital improvements. The budget allocates $3.75 million (Operations and Capital) to fire protection, representing an increase from previous years to support operational needs, equipment replacements, and firefighter compensation. Fire represents 7.27% of Andover’s overall 2025 Budget. Operational Impact on Fire Department The fire department operates on a paid-on-call model, with increasing call volumes and training requirements driving up costs. The 2025 budget allocates $2.33 million for service expenditures, which cover personnel, supplies, and operational expenses. The most significant increase over the 2024 budget stems from salary adjustments designed to retain and recruiting firefighters in a competitive labor market. Capital Investments for 2025: The City’s 2025-2029 Capital Improvement plan includes the following approved capital expenditures in 2025: •$1 million to replace a 2010 Fire Engine •$335,000 for a Rescue Vehicle replacement •$50,000 for 800 MHz radio replacements •$35,000 for Thermal Imaging Cameras These investments demonstrate Andover’s commitment to maintaining an effective fire department. They balance fiscal responsibility with the need for modern, reliable emergency response resources. The capital projects are mainly funded through the Capital Equipment Reserve and Equipment Bonds, ensuring financial sustainability while addressing public safety demands. The total adopted expenditure budget for 2025 is $51.59 million. The budget is broken down by department below: 1.Public Works – $29.35 million 2.Public Safety (Police & Fire) – $8.35 million 3.Parks & Recreation – $8.09 million 4.General Government – $5.80 million Financial Analysis Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 19 March 2025 Staffing Consideration nsuring adequate staffing for fire and emergency response in Andover requires balancing community risk, resource availability, and best practices in emergency services. Overall, the fire risk in Andover is low, according to data provided to FITCH. This is mainly due to modern building codes, fire prevention initiatives, and a strong focus on community risk reduction. However, emergency medical services (EMS) pose the greatest risk to public safety, as medical emergencies account for the majority of 911 calls. While a third-party provider primarily manages EMS response, fire department staffing remains vital in facilitating rapid intervention, especially during life- threatening situations such as cardiac arrests, strokes, and severe trauma. The Andover Fire Department follows staffing guidelines within NFPA 1720, which provides staffing and response times benchmarks in combination with volunteer-based fire departments. NFPA 1720 recommends response standards based on population density: •Suburban areas (500–1,000 people per square mile): At least six personnel from a fire response team should arrive on the scene within 10 minutes, 80% of the time. •Rural areas (fewer than 500 people per square mile): A fire response team of six personnel should arrive within 14 minutes, 80% of the time. Andover falls between suburban and rural classifications, requiring strategic staffing and deployment to meet these standards. As a combination department with part-time or on-call firefighters, maintaining a reliable response force requires ongoing recruitment, training, and scheduling flexibility. Key Staffing Considerations for Andover •Optimized Deployment: Ensuring that personnel are strategically positioned to respond, striving towards the NFPA 1720 guidelines. •Community Risk Reduction (CRR): Continuous fire prevention, public education, and inspection programs designed to reduce fire hazards and lower the necessity for emergency responses. •EMS Support Readiness: Ensuring sufficient staff to deliver prompt medical first response while assisting the third- party EMS provider as necessary. •Volunteer and Paid-on-Call Sustainability: Ensuring that retention and recruitment efforts align with call volume and community expectations. •Performance-Based Evaluation: Using data analytics and response metrics to improve staffing and station deployment for maximum efficiency and safety. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 20 March 2025 Adopting Agency Outcome Measures esides establishing goals or benchmarks related to impact or outcome measures, systems usually set goals or benchmarks concerning outputs or process measures because of the assumed or evidence-based relationship between these two types of measures. For instance, it is believed that a quicker response time would improve outcomes for structure fires. Outputs or process measures are generally easier to evaluate, as the system directly influences these outputs and processes, and it can manage related data collection and oversight. In contrast, impact or outcome measures are more challenging to evaluate when data collection and management fall outside the system’s control, requiring data interpretation to consider other intervening factors. Considering outcome measures enables the agency to desensitize some of the assumed output and process measures. For instance, if structure fires are contained to the room of origin a desired percentage of the time, the department may not need to act immediately if response times increase by 30 seconds compared to the previous year. This allows the policy group greater flexibility to understand which variables are contributing and to identify their root causes. Nevertheless, systems are encouraged to move beyond goal setting or benchmarking and evaluation related to outputs or process measures, and consider ways that impact or outcome measures can be evaluated. The following example is provided below. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 21 March 2025 Community-Driven Strategic Planning est practices support the concept that the fire department would benefit from a focused strategic planning exercise to help guide the next five- year period. Therefore, it is recommended that the fire department create a strategic plan for the fire department that would include results found in the CRA and SOC. In FITCH’s experience, the most successful strategic planning processes typically include a high level of involvement from key leaders, both formal and informal, from within the organization, such as the fire chief and labor group leadership, and external stakeholders and community members. While their participation is not required at each and every step, their buy-in along the way provides the highest chances of a successful planning effort for all stakeholders in the end. At a high level, the process is intended to answer the following main questions: Recommendation It is recommended that the department conduct a community-driven strategic planning process to help guide the next three to five years that, at a minimum, includes the results from the Standards of Cover and Community Risk Assessment. n integral part of the strategic planning process is completing a SWOT analysis. SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT). The process is a broad- based stakeholder gap analysis, with Opportunities and Threats more focused on external origins and Strengths and Weaknesses more focused on internal origins. The strategic planning process will assist the department in focusing on key initiatives for the next 5- year period. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 22 March 2025 Continuous Improvement and Annual Appraisal ontinuous improvement and annual agency appraisals are crucial for upholding high standards of emergency response, operational efficiency, and firefighter/paramedic safety within the fire service. Fire departments work in dynamic environments where risks, community needs, and best practices are continually changing. By implementing a structured evaluation process, fire and EMS agencies can remain effective, efficient, and in alignment with industry standards. 1.Enhancing Operational Effectiveness An annual review of department operations, response times, and incident outcomes allows leadership to assess performance against established benchmarks, By identifying areas where efficiency can be improved and can optimize service delivery. 2. Strengthening Firefighter and EMS Provider Safety Regular assessment ensures that firefighter and EMS safety policies, personal protective equipment (PPE) usage, and training programs align with the latest industry best practice recommendations. 3. Meeting Accreditation and Industry Standards Accreditation through the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) requires fire agencies to demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement through self-assessment and strategic planning. 4. Improving Community Risk Reduction (CRR) Fire departments play a proactive role in reducing risks within the communities they serve. An annual review of Community Risk Reduction (CRR) programs (aligned with NFPA 1300) helps agencies evaluate fire prevention efforts, public education initiatives, and risk mitigation strategies to ensure they remain effective and data- driven. 5. Advancing Training and Professional Development A strong commitment to continuous improvement ensures that fire and EMS personnel receive ongoing, competency-based training rather than just fulfilling mandatory hours. Annual appraisals help evaluate training effectiveness and identify gaps in skill development, ensuring personnel remain proficient in required skill sets. 6. Optimizing Resource Management and Budgeting Fire and EMS agencies operate within financial constraints that require strategic planning. An annual review of expenditures, equipment lifecycles, staffing models, and facility needs allows leadership to make informed decisions about future investments and operational priorities. 7. Enhancing Public Trust and Accountability As taxpayer-funded organizations, fire and EMS agencies must demonstrate transparency and accountability. Conducting an annual appraisal and publishing findings in a community report allows stakeholders to understand how the department works to improve service delivery. Key Reasons for Continuous Improvement and Annual Appraisal The Importance of Continuous Improvement and Annual Agency Appraisal in Fire and EMS Departments Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 23 March 2025 Administrative Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Implement a best practice policies and procedures manual with input from front-line staff - Develop a strategic plan to implement recommendations with input from front-line staff - Increase trust through shared experiences - •Evaluate the effectiveness of the current leadership development program - Acquire leadership coaching and training for officers - Conduct an employee engagement survey - Simplify the payroll process to eliminate duplicate effort and tracking - Establish a performance management system to ensure all supervisors are holding staff to the same standards - Evaluate the communication between administration and all staff in the department Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Establish a succession plan - Establish task book for all positions and develop future leaders Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Evaluate administrative structure - Consider adding more administrative support (may need sooner if OSHA rules change) Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 24 March 2025 Data Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Ensure records system can capture and export date/time for each time field - Set up records system to differentiate between the duty-crew and paid-on-call response - Report response times from 911 calls until unit(s) arrives on scene - Create local rules to ensure all data is collected and accurate (i.e. Pre-incident values, response mode, EMS treatments in searchable field) -Implement quality assurance of reports to ensure completeness, consistency, and accuracy - Track duty crew staffing levels/openings compared to minimum staff requirements Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Evaluate available records management systems and transition to a new system if there is a better fit for the organization - Make decisions based on quality data - Publish a performance dashboard Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Consider developing a standards of coverage document - Align response plans with identified effective response force needs Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 25 March 2025 Staffing Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Base duty crew hours based on paid-on-call turnout by time of day and day of week. If turnout drops below an average of four per call, plan to implement duty crew for those hours - Plan to implement two dedicated weekday/daytime full-time staff, with an option for paid-on- call staff to sign up to be the third firefighter working with the full-time staff - Continue to compare wages to neighboring agencies, considering total compensation and workload - Consider measuring duty crew requirements by quarter - Create a recruitment committee with line staff and communicate the process internally Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - If duty crew is not filled over 90 percent of the time for a specific day of week and hour of day, consider hiring full-time staff to fill those day of week and hour of day. Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Consider staffing a second station with duty crew or full-time staff if concurrent calls increase and paid-on-call response does not remain reliable Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 26 March 2025 Facility and Equipment Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Establish a vehicle and equipment replacement plan based on best practices beyond the budget process - Consider contracting hose testing to a 3rd party to open up training opportunities and increase validity with a 3rd party test of hoses - Establish a documented facilities maintenance plan - Plan to implement vehicle exhaust removal in fire stations - Consolidate vehicles to reduce duplication and base on current community risk (i.e. Rescue and brush trucks) Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Consider remodeling station 1 to better accommodate 24/7 staff Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Consider remodeling a second station to better accommodate 24/7 staff Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 27 March 2025 Fire Operation Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Operate the newest equipment and vehicles from fire station 1 to ensure warranties are exercised - Ensure the logistics system is supported beyond staff members who developed the system or use a commercially available system - Ensure staff receive feedback on repairs completed to equipment, vehicles or facilities - Evaluate the effectiveness of the current dashboard to see current equipment, vehicle, or facility issues and communicate messages throughout the department - Ensure vehicles/equipment are checked and maintained according to industry and manufacturer best practices. (i.e. SCBA batteries) - Develop and follow a response matrix for each call type - Continue to increase efforts to build relationships with all neighboring agencies Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Align with industry best practices that are following modern research Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Determine effective response force needs Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 28 March 2025 EMS Operation Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Continue to provide a high level of first response - Develop a response matrix based on severity of incident and response time of ambulance - Continue EMS training to ensure staff are confident in their skills - Monitor ambulance performance and reliability to determine appropriate first response Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Consider additional variances for EMS case - Evaluate procuring industry best practices for EMS equipment that is researched (i.e. CPAP, LUCAS) - Consider obtaining independent medical direction to allow local control of the clinical first- response services provided Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Evaluate effectiveness of EMS response Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 29 March 2025 Dispatch Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Work to implement automatic alerting similar to other departments and counties in the metro - Implement a call triage system to standardize fire and EMS call-taking - Dispatch by unit, rather than station and all-call - Determine calls that need an EMS first response with additional call types Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Evaluate CAD system and ensure all functions available are being used - Integrate CAD, pre-plans and records system to ensure all responders and dispatch have available information - Consider implementing closest unit dispatching and auto-aid with neighboring agencies for high acuity incidents Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Monitor technology developments and opportunities to improve dispatch processes Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 30 March 2025 Community Risk Reduction Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Obtain plan review training for fire inspection staff - Implement a system to document inspection findings on permits - Ensure all inspections are documented in one system that can also retrieve the data - Establish a policy prioritizing inspections of existing facilities - Establish a pre-plan program used by all staff - Contribute to the fire investigation team with interested staff member(s) - Establish a community event sign-up easily accessible for all - Implement community event documentation Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Collect occupancy-based information and risk assessments - Conduct a community risk assessment - Prioritize resources based on risk assessment Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Plan for needs based on risk assessment Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 31 March 2025 Training Recommendations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Publish training schedule that is followed - Create task book for each knowledge/skill/ability needed to be successful in the department - Have numerous and diverse skills-based training sessions that can be executed on short notice - Ensure instructors are scheduled at least a week in advance of the training session - Implement online learning management and records management system - Maximize the use of online training for required compliance training and as a make-up option when feasible - Incorporate after-action reviews in training - Prioritize training based on risk (i.e. basics vs technical rescue) Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) - Convert to competency-based training for all positions - Ensure best practice and emerging training topics are being implemented Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Evaluate the need for additional training staff (may be necessary earlier if OSHA regulations change) Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 32 March 2025 Policy Considerations Short-Term Recommendations (1-3 Years) - Define acceptable response time (Consider dispatch processing, turnout, and travel times, changes based on staffing model) - Determine acceptable reliability of paid-on-call response model - Identify acceptable ambulance response without first response Mid-Term Recommendations (4-6 Years) Identify long-term staffing model to ensure reliable response - Plan for long-term facility needs to support acceptable response Long-Term Recommendations (7-10 Years) - Consider a collaborative approach for providing services to the community Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 33 March 2025 Community Risk Reduction Strategies Community Risk Reduction Fire Prevention: •Increase public education efforts about fire risks associated with older homes. •Conduct targeted building inspections to enforce safety standards, especially for high-risk structures. •Modernize older facilities and residential building codes to mitigate risk related to aging infrastructure. •Explore community funding opportunities to upgrade fire suppression systems in high-risk occupancies. Community EMS and Preventative Care: •Invest in programs to address community health trends like aging-related falls or cardiac emergencies. •Partner with local health organizations to reduce non-emergency EMS calls through preventive care. Operational Adjustments: Station Staffing: •Balance staffing to align resources with the growing demand in Station 3's coverage area. •Consider dynamic resource allocation or peak-demand units to effectively manage concurrency and surge periods. •Invest in fire station upgrades to provide appropriate code compliant living quarters for future staffing needs. Response Boundaries: •Reassess jurisdictional overlaps or areas served outside AFD to establish agreements ensuring optimal coverage. •Maximize Mutual aid and Automatic Aid with neighboring communities to provide personnel and equipment at effective levels Economic Resilience and Community Planning: •Create recovery strategies for businesses and homes affected by fires or hazardous incidents to reduce extended economic disruption. •Incorporate economic impact assessments in all significant risk mitigation initiatives to justify funding and community support. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 34 March 2025 Appendices and Supporting Documents he community risk assessment (CRA) is presented as a supporting document to provide greater detail and transparency into the risk assessment process. This summary report provided the high-level substantive results of the community risk assessment. However, if greater detail is desired, please refer to the Community Risk Assessment report provided in the appendices. he comprehensive quantitative data analysis is presented as a supporting document to provide greater detail and transparency into the historical performance of the fire department. This summary report provided the high-level substantive results of the comprehensive data analysis. However, if greater detail is desired, please refer to the Data Analysis report provided in the appendices. Andover Fire Department Agency Master Plan Page 34 March 2025 Appendices and Supporting Documents he Geographic Information System (GIS) Report is a comprehensive analysis of your current infrastructure and community demand for service. The analysis is able visually identify areas of coverage within a specified drive time. That coverage area than can be used to quantify the percentage and number of calls that can be met within the desired drive time. This report can be useful in setting a current and future policy on desired drive times for the fire department. The report can also be useful in determining future infrastructure needs for the department. he Staff Survey Responses is a compilation of the results that were obtained through an electronic survey that was sent to all staff within the fire department. Each staff member had an opportunity to provide their perspective on the department anonymously. The text results in the survey were based on two or more staff members commenting on the same or similar topics. PO Box 170, 2901 Williamsburg Terrace, Suite G, Platte City, Missouri 64079 March 2025 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT (816) 431-2600 (816) 431-2653 www.fitchassoc.com DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE i TABLE of CONTENTS METHODOLOGY _______________________________________________________________________________ 1 2023 SNAPSHOT ______________________________________________________________________________ 2 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE _________________________________________________________________________ 2 Table 1: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Program– First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction _____________ 2 Table 2: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 COMMUNITY DEMAND __________________________________________________________________________ 3 Table 3: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – All Jurisdictions _______________________________________ 3 RESPONSE VOLUME AND BUSY TIME _________________________________________________________________ 4 Table 4: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Program – AFD Units in All Jurisdictions ____ 4 DISTRIBUTION STUDY __________________________________________________________________________ 5 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE _________________________________________________________________________ 5 Cascade of Events _________________________________________________________________________ 5 Figure 1: Cascade of Events _________________________________________________________________________ 6 Response Time Continuum __________________________________________________________________ 7 Figure 2: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhythm ________________________________ 8 Figure 3: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve ________________________________________________ 9 Figure 4: Ventilation-Controlled Time Temperature Curve _______________________________________________ 10 First Arriving Unit Performance _____________________________________________________________ 11 Table 5: Average Performance Times by Program – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction _________________ 12 Table 6: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Program– First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction ____________ 12 Table 7: 90th Percentile Travel Times by Unit Type – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction ________________ 12 Figure 5: Average Performance Times by Program – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction ________________ 13 First Arriving Unit Performance by Demand Zone (First Due Station) ________________________________ 14 Table 8: Average Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 14 Table 9: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction _____________________________________________________________________________________ 14 Figure 6: Average Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction _____________________________________________________________________________________ 15 Figure 7: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction _____________________________________________________________________________________ 16 CONCENTRATION STUDY ______________________________________________________________________ 17 COMMUNITY DEMAND _________________________________________________________________________ 17 Figure 8: Percentage of Total Calls by Program – All Jurisdictions __________________________________________ 17 Table 10: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – All Jurisdictions _____________________________________ 18 Table 11: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – AFD’s Jurisdiction ____________________________________ 19 Table 12: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – Outside Jurisdictions _________________________________ 20 Table 13: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month _________________________________________ 21 Figure 9: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Month ______________________________________________________ 22 Table 14: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week ____________________________________ 23 Figure 10: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Day of Week ________________________________________________ 23 Table 15: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day _____________________________________ 24 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE ii Figure 11: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day ________________________________________________ 25 Figure 12: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – First Due Station 1 (n=1,095) _______________________ 26 Figure 13: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – First Due Station 2 (n=418) _________________________ 26 Figure 14: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – First Due Station 3 (n=660) _________________________ 27 Community Demand for Emergency Medical Services ____________________________________________ 28 Table 16: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month _____________________________________ 28 Figure 15: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Month _________________________________________________ 29 Table 17: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week ________________________________ 30 Figure 16: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Day of Week ____________________________________________ 30 Table 18: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day _________________________________ 31 Figure 17: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day ____________________________________________ 32 Table 19: Total EMS Related Calls by Nature of Call _____________________________________________________ 33 Community Demand for Fire Related Services __________________________________________________ 34 Table 20: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month ______________________________________ 34 Figure 18: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Month _________________________________________________ 35 Table 21: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week _________________________________ 36 Figure 19: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Day of Week ____________________________________________ 36 Table 22: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day _________________________________ 37 Figure 20: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day _____________________________________________ 38 Table 23: Total Fire Related Calls by Nature of Call _____________________________________________________ 39 RESPONSE VOLUME AND BUSY TIME ___________________________________________________________ 40 Table 24: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Program – AFD Units ____ 40 Table 25: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Program – Outside Agency Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction _________________________________________________________________________ 41 Number of Responding Units _______________________________________________________________ 42 Table 26: Number of Responding AFD Units to Calls Within AFD’s Jurisdiction by EMS Related Call Type ___________ 42 Table 27: Number of Responding AFD Units to Calls Within AFD’s Jurisdiction by Fire Related Call Type ___________ 43 Workload by Station ______________________________________________________________________ 44 Table 28: Overall Workload by AFD Station ___________________________________________________________ 44 Workload by Demand Zone (First Due Station) _________________________________________________ 45 Table 29: Department Workload by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – AFD Units ____________________________ 45 Figure 21: Department Workload by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – AFD Units ____________________________ 46 SYSTEM RESILIENCY ___________________________________________________________________________ 47 UNIT HOUR UTILIZATION _______________________________________________________________________ 47 Table 30: Unit Hour Utilization ______________________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 31: Unit Response Volume and Total Busy Hours __________________________________________________ 48 Table 32: Unit Response Volume by Program __________________________________________________________ 49 SYSTEM RELIABILITY ___________________________________________________________________________ 50 Table 33: First Due Compliance by Demand Zone (First Due Station) _______________________________________ 50 Figure 22: Percentage of First Due Compliance by Demand Zone (First Due Station) ___________________________ 50 OVERLAPPED CALLS ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________________ 51 Table 34: Overlapped Calls by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – AFD’s Jurisdiction ___________________________ 51 Figure 23: Percentage of Overlapped Calls by Demand Zone (First Due Station) ______________________________ 52 BASELINE DATA ______________________________________________________________________________ 53 COMMUNITY DEMAND _________________________________________________________________________ 53 Table 35: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – All Jurisdictions ______________________ 53 Figure 24: Observed and Projected Growth in Call Volume 2019-2033 – All Jurisdictions _______________________ 54 Table 36: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – AFD’s Jurisdiction ____________________ 55 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE iii Table 37: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – Outside Jurisdictions __________________ 56 RESPONSE VOLUME AND BUSY TIME ________________________________________________________________ 57 Table 38: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Reporting Period – AFD Units __________________________________________________________________________________________ 57 Table 39: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Reporting Period – Outside Agency Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction ________________________________________________________________________________ 58 AVERAGE TURNOUT BY TIME OF DAY AND DAY OF WEEK __________________________________________________ 59 Table 40: Average Turnout by Time of Day and Day of Week 2023 _________________________________________ 59 Table 41: Average Turnout by Time of Day and Day of Week 2022 _________________________________________ 59 Table 42: Average Turnout by Time of Day and Day of Week 2021 _________________________________________ 60 AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES ____________________________________________________________________ 60 Figure 25: Ambulance Response Times 2020-2023 ______________________________________________________ 61 APPENDIX __________________________________________________________________________________ 62 AUDIT, EXCLUSIONS, AND CLASSIFICATIONS ___________________________________________________________ 62 Table 40: Exclusions from Data File Prior to Call Volume and Temporal Analyses – 2019-2024 ___________________ 62 Table 41: Exclusions from Data File Prior to Response Volume and Busy Time Analyses – 2019-2023 ______________ 63 Table 42: Exclusions from Data File for Performance Time Analyses – 2019-2023 _____________________________ 64 Table 43: Classification of Incident Description into Program and Call Category _______________________________ 65 CALCULATION OF 90TH PERCENTILE VALUES ___________________________________________________________ 67 Table 44: Example Scenarios for Weighted Average Formula Components When N = 13 to N = 2, p = 0.9 __________ 68 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 METHODOLOGY We obtained data files from Andover Fire Department (AFD) spanning January 1, 2019 through June 29, 2024, with one record appearing for June 30, 2024. Based on the date range of data provided, five full calendar years of data (i.e., 2019 through 2023) were available for baseline analysis, as presented in the last section of this report. The comprehensive data report (i.e., all sections prior to the baseline section) reflects data from the 2023 calendar year spanning January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, hereinafter referred to as 2023 or the 2023 reporting period. We utilize two distinct measures in this report—call volume and workload. Requests for service are defined as “incidents” or “calls” (i.e., call volume). Call volume reflects the number of times a distinct incident was created involving one or more AFD units, and/or calls received in AFD’s jurisdiction. “Responses” are the number of times that an individual unit (or units) responded to a call (i.e., workload). Audits of the data files were first conducted to identify any anomalies for attention and reconciliation prior to data analysis (Table 39 through Table 41 in the Appendix). Prior to call volume and temporal analyses, records with select incident type values were deleted, per AFD leadership (Table 39). Exclusion criteria were applied to records prior to response volume and busy time analyses (Table 40), and additional exclusion criteria were applied to records prior to the analysis of performance time metrics (e.g., dispatch time; turnout time; Table 41). Entries with negative times or with times of zero minutes, and entries with extremely high busy or performance times (i.e., outliers) were excluded. Classifications of responses into call categories and program areas based on incident types appear in Table 42 in the Appendix. Responses were also classified based on response priority status and role of the responding unit. Analyses of performance times focused on emergency (lights and sirens) responses from AFD’s first arriving primary front-line units for all unique calls. Only values representing “Emergent” for the unit response code variable in the RMS data file were considered to represent emergency (lights and sirens) responses. AFD units considered by department leadership to be primary front-line units appropriate for inclusion in performance time analyses included aerial, engine, grass truck, ladder, rescue, and water tender units. Analyses related to performance (e.g., travel time) were restricted based on these classifications to include only primary front-line units responding as emergency (lights and sirens) responses, and are identified in the report where applicable. Any reduced sample sizes due to missing or excluded data are also noted in the report where applicable. Performance time summary statistics are often reported as 90th percentile values in this report. See the Appendix section for information related to the calculation of these metrics, and the restriction to calculation for only sample sizes containing at least ten observations. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 2023 SNAPSHOT System Performance Table 1: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Program– First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) EMS 0.6 8.4 8.1 13.1 1,457 Fire 0.6 9.8 9.3 15.6 189 Hazmat 0.8 10.2 8.5 13.7 48 Rescue -- -- -- -- 0 Total 0.6 8.8 8.1 13.6 1,694 1Sample sizes reflect the number of responses to emergency calls made by first arriving primary front-line units assigned to AFD; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. Table 2: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Demand Zone (First Due Station) Dispatch Time (Minutes) Turnout Time (Minutes) Travel Time (Minutes) Response Time (Minutes) Sample Size1 1 0.6 9.1 6.7 13.2 849 2 0.6 8.4 9.8 14.2 324 3 0.6 8.1 8.0 13.6 521 Total 0.6 8.8 8.1 13.6 1,694 1Sample sizes reflect the number of responses to emergency calls made by first arriving primary front-line units assigned to AFD; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 Community Demand Table 3: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – All Jurisdictions Program and Call Type1 Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage EMS 1,760 4.8 80.7 Breathing Difficulty 253 0.7 11.6 Cardiac and Stroke 221 0.6 10.1 Fall and Injury 119 0.3 5.5 Illness and Other 972 2.7 44.6 Lift Assist 118 0.3 5.4 Overdose and Psychiatric 5 < 0.1 0.2 Seizure and Unconsciousness 72 0.2 3.3 Fire 366 1.0 16.8 Fire Alarm 107 0.3 4.9 Fire Investigation 12 < 0.1 0.6 Fire Other 94 0.3 4.3 Hazardous Condition 87 0.2 4.0 Outside Fire 7 < 0.1 0.3 Public Assistance 37 0.1 1.7 Structure Fire 17 < 0.1 0.8 Vehicle Fire 5 < 0.1 0.2 Hazmat 53 0.1 2.4 Hazmat 53 0.1 2.4 Rescue 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Rescue 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Total 2,180 6.0 100.0 1Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 4 Response Volume and Busy Time Table 4: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Program – AFD Units in All Jurisdictions Program Number of Calls1 Number of Responses2 Average Responses per Call Total Busy Hours Responses with Time Data3 Average Busy Minutes per Response Average Calls per Day Average Responses per Day EMS 1,733 2,834 1.6 1,055.7 2,834 22.4 4.7 7.8 Fire 270 535 2.0 361.5 535 40.5 0.7 1.5 Hazmat 52 102 2.0 83.7 102 49.2 0.1 0.3 Rescue 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 2,055 3,471 1.7 1,501.0 3,471 25.9 5.6 9.5 1“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD, regardless of calculated busy time. 2“Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 5 DISTRIBUTION STUDY System Performance The first step in determining the current state of the system’s deployment model is to establish baseline measures of performance. This analysis is crucial to the ability to discuss alternatives to the status quo and in identifying opportunities for improvement. This portion of the analysis will focus efforts on elements of response time and the cascade of events that lead to timely response with the appropriate apparatus and personnel to mitigate the event. Response time goals should be examined in terms of total reflex time, or total response time, which includes the dispatch or alarm processing time, turnout time, and travel time. Cascade of Events The cascade of events is the sum of the individual elements of time beginning with a state of normalcy and continuing until normalcy is once again restored through the mitigation of the event. The elements of time that are important to the ultimate outcome of a structure fire or critical medical emergency begin with the initiation of the event. For example, the first onset of chest pain begins the biological and scientific time clock for heart damage irrespective of when 911 is notified. Similarly, a fire may begin and burn undetected for a period of time before the fire department is notified. The emergency response system does not have control over the time interval for recognition or the choice to request assistance. Therefore, the department utilizes quantifiable “hard” data points to measure and manage system performance. These elements include alarm processing time, turnout time, travel time, and total response time. An example of the cascade of events and the elements of performance utilized by the department is provided on the next page (Figure 1).1 Detection Detection is the element of time between the time an event occurs (when someone detects it), and the time the emergency response system has been notified. This is typically accomplished by calling the 911 Primary Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Alarm Processing Time Alarm processing time (or dispatch time) is the element of time measured between when 911 answers the 911 call, processes the information, and subsequently dispatches departmental units. 1 Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover. Olathe, Kansas: Author. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 6 Turnout Time Turnout time is the element of time that is measured between the time the department is dispatched or alerted of the emergency incident, and the time when the unit is en route to the call. Travel Time Travel time is the element of time between when a unit went en route, or began to travel to the incident, and the unit’s arrival on scene. Total Response Time Total response time, or total reflex time, is the total time required to arrive on scene beginning with 911 answering the phone request for service and the time that the units arrive on scene. Figure 1: Cascade of Events DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 7 Response Time Continuum Emergency Medical Services The effective response to EMS incidents has a direct correlation to the ability to respond within a specified period of time. However, unlike structure fires, responding to EMS incidents introduces considerable variability in the level of clinical acuity. From this perspective, the association of response time and clinical outcome varies depending on the severity of the injury or the illness. Research has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of requests for EMS are not time sensitive between five minutes and 11 minutes for emergency responses and 13 minutes for non-emergency responses.2 The 12-minute upper threshold is only the upper limit of the available research and is not a clinically significant time measure, as patients were not found to have a significantly different clinical outcome when the 12-minute threshold was exceeded.3 Out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the most identifiable and measured incident type for EMS. In an effort to demonstrate the relationship between response time and clinical outcome, a representation of the cascade of events and the time to defibrillation (shock) is presented in Figure 2. The American Heart Association (AHA) has determined that brain damage will begin to occur between four and six minutes and become irreversible after ten minutes without intervention. Modern sudden cardiac arrest protocols recognize that high quality Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level is a quality intervention until defibrillation can be delivered in shockable rhythms. Figure 24 on the next page is representative of a sudden cardiac arrest that is presenting in a shockable heart rhythm such as Ventricular Fibrillation or Ventricular Tachycardia. 2 Blackwell, T.H., & Kaufman, J.S. (April 2002). Response time effectiveness: Comparison of response time and survival in an urban emergency medical services system. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(4): 289-295. 3 Blackwell, T.H., et al. (Oct-Dec 2009). Lack of association between prehospital response times and patient outcomes. Prehospital Emergency Care, 13(4): 444-450. 4 Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover. Olathe, Kansas: Author. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 8 Figure 2: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhythm DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 9 Fire Related Services The number one priority with structural fire incidents is to save lives followed by the minimization of property damage. A direct relationship exists between the timeliness of the response and the survivability of unprotected occupants and property damage. The most identifiable point of fire behavior is flashover. Flashover is the point in fire growth where the contents of an entire area, including the smoke, reach their ignition temperature, resulting in a rapid-fire growth rendering the area un-survivable by civilians and untenable for firefighters. Best practices would result in the fire department arriving and attacking the fire prior to the point of flashover. A representation of the traditional time temperature curve and the cascade of events is provided in Figure 3.5 Figure 3: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve 5 Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee- break/time-vs-products-of-combustion.pdf DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 10 Recent studies by Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL) have found that in compartment fires such as structure fires, flashover occurs within four minutes in modern fire environment. In addition, the UL research has identified an updated time temperature curve due to fires being ventilation-controlled rather than fuel-controlled as represented in the traditional time temperature curve. While this ventilation-controlled environment continues to provide a high risk to unprotected occupants to smoke and high heat, it does provide some advantage to property conservation efforts, as water may be applied to the fire prior to ventilation and the subsequent flashover. An example of UL’s ventilation- controlled time temperature curve is provided in Figure 4.6 Figure 4: Ventilation-Controlled Time Temperature Curve 6 UL/NIST Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/fire/fire_behavior.cfm DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 11 First Arriving Unit Performance The analyses in this section focus on performance times related to dispatch (or alarm processing), turnout, travel, and response times, as follows: “Dispatch Time” was calculated as Unit Dispatch Date and Time minus Call Received Date and Time “Turnout Time” was calculated as Unit Enroute Date and Time minus Unit Dispatch Date and Time “Travel Time” was calculated as Unit Arrival Date and Time minus Unit Enroute Date and Time “Response Time” was calculated as Unit Arrival Date and Time minus Call Received Date and Time “Response Time” may also be calculated by summing relevant dispatch, turnout, and travel times, and “Average Response Time” may be derived by summing relevant average dispatch, turnout, and travel times, but only when the sample data used during calculation of the outcomes are identical for all three outcomes. Average performance times and performance times at the 90th percentile are reported in this section. The 90th percentile is presented as a more conservative and reliable measure of performance, as this measure is often more robust, or less influenced by outliers, than measures of central tendency such as the average. Best practice is to measure at the 90th percentile. In other words, 90% of all performance is captured, expecting that 10% of the time the department may experience abnormal conditions that would typically be considered outliers. For example, if the department were to report an average response time of six minutes, then in a normally distributed set of data, half of the responses would be longer than six minutes and half of the responses would be shorter than six minutes. Utilizing six minutes as an example again, a 90th percentile value of six minutes communicates that 9 out of 10 times, the department performance is six minutes or better (faster) and is therefore more predictable and more clearly articulated to policy makers and the community. Note, however, that the sum of the 90th percentile values for dispatch, turnout, and travel times is not equivalent to the 90th percentile response time. See the Appendix section for additional information related to the calculation of these metrics, and the restriction to calculation for only sample sizes containing at least ten observations. Analyses of performance times focused on emergency (lights and sirens) responses from AFD’s first arriving primary front-line units for all unique calls. Only values representing “Emergent” for the unit response code variable in the RMS data file were considered to represent emergency (lights and sirens) responses. AFD units considered by department leadership to be primary front-line units appropriate for inclusion in performance time analyses included aerial, engine, grass truck, ladder, rescue, and water tender units. During the audit and exclusion process, calculated times with negative or zero values were excluded from all related analyses, and calculated times considered to be outliers were also excluded from all related analyses (see Appendix for more details). DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 12 Average and 90th percentile dispatch, turnout, travel, and response times by program are presented in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. Average dispatch, turnout, travel, and response times by program are additionally depicted in Figure 5. Lastly, 90th percentile travel times by unit type are presented in Table 7. Table 5: Average Performance Times by Program – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) EMS 0.4 3.7 4.7 8.7 1,457 Fire 0.3 5.0 5.4 10.7 189 Hazmat 0.5 4.7 5.1 10.4 48 Rescue -- -- -- -- 0 Total 0.4 3.8 4.7 9.0 1,694 1Sample sizes reflect the number of responses to emergency calls made by first arriving primary front-line units assigned to AFD; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. Table 6: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Program– First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) EMS 0.6 8.4 8.1 13.1 1,457 Fire 0.6 9.8 9.3 15.6 189 Hazmat 0.8 10.2 8.5 13.7 48 Rescue -- -- -- -- 0 Total 0.6 8.8 8.1 13.6 1,694 1Sample sizes reflect the number of responses to emergency calls made by first arriving primary front-line units assigned to AFD; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. Table 7: 90th Percentile Travel Times by Unit Type – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Unit ID Travel Time (Minutes) Number of First Arrivals Number of First Arrivals with Travel Times AA1 -- 6 6 AE1 8.6 355 354 AE2 8.5 23 23 AE3 7.5 44 44 AG2 -- 2 2 AG3 -- 2 2 AR1 8.5 973 966 AR2 6.6 104 104 AR3 6.5 185 184 Total 8.1 1,694 1,685 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 13 Figure 5: Average Performance Times by Program – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction 8.7 10.7 10.4 9.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 EMS Fire Hazmat Total Ti m e ( M i n u t e s ) Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 14 First Arriving Unit Performance by Demand Zone (First Due Station) Further analyses were conducted for demand zones to measure the performance of the first arriving primary front-line AFD units to emergency calls in each first due station’s area. Performance times are reported at the average (Table 8; Figure 6) and 90th percentile (Table 9; Figure 7) values. Table 8: Average Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Demand Zone (First Due Station) Dispatch Time (Minutes) Turnout Time (Minutes) Travel Time (Minutes) Response Time (Minutes) Sample Size1 1 0.4 3.8 3.9 8.2 849 2 0.3 3.8 6.3 10.4 324 3 0.4 3.9 5.1 9.4 521 Total 0.4 3.8 4.7 9.0 1,694 1Sample sizes reflect the number of responses to emergency calls made by first arriving primary front-line units assigned to AFD; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. Table 9: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Demand Zone (First Due Station) Dispatch Time (Minutes) Turnout Time (Minutes) Travel Time (Minutes) Response Time (Minutes) Sample Size1 1 0.6 9.1 6.7 13.2 849 2 0.6 8.4 9.8 14.2 324 3 0.6 8.1 8.0 13.6 521 Total 0.6 8.8 8.1 13.6 1,694 1Sample sizes reflect the number of responses to emergency calls made by first arriving primary front-line units assigned to AFD; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 15 Figure 6: Average Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 Total Ti m e ( M i n u t e s ) Demand Zone (First Due Station) Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 16 Figure 7: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 Total Ti m e ( M i n u t e s ) Demand Zone (First Due Station) Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 17 CONCENTRATION STUDY Community Demand During the 2023 reporting period, community demand from all jurisdictions for AFD services included calls related to the program areas of EMS (n=1,760; 80.7%), fire (n=366; 16.8%), hazmat (n=53; 2.4%), and rescue (n=1; < 0.1%; Figure 8; Table 10). Requests for service from the community across all programs during 2023 totaled 2,180, averaging 6.0 calls per day. These same metrics are presented for calls occurring within AFD’s jurisdiction, and for calls occurring outside of AFD’s jurisdiction in Table 11 and Table 12, respectively. Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in Table 42 in the Appendix. Figure 8: Percentage of Total Calls by Program – All Jurisdictions 80.7% 16.8% 2.4% 0.0% EMS Fire Hazmat Rescue Total Number of Calls: 2,180 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 18 Table 10: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – All Jurisdictions Program and Call Type1 Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage EMS 1,760 4.8 80.7 Breathing Difficulty 253 0.7 11.6 Cardiac and Stroke 221 0.6 10.1 Fall and Injury 119 0.3 5.5 Illness and Other 972 2.7 44.6 Lift Assist 118 0.3 5.4 Overdose and Psychiatric 5 < 0.1 0.2 Seizure and Unconsciousness 72 0.2 3.3 Fire 366 1.0 16.8 Fire Alarm 107 0.3 4.9 Fire Investigation 12 < 0.1 0.6 Fire Other 94 0.3 4.3 Hazardous Condition 87 0.2 4.0 Outside Fire 7 < 0.1 0.3 Public Assistance 37 0.1 1.7 Structure Fire 17 < 0.1 0.8 Vehicle Fire 5 < 0.1 0.2 Hazmat 53 0.1 2.4 Hazmat 53 0.1 2.4 Rescue 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Rescue 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Total 2,180 6.0 100.0 1Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 19 Table 11: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – AFD’s Jurisdiction Program and Call Type1 Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage EMS 1,759 4.8 80.9 Breathing Difficulty 253 0.7 11.6 Cardiac and Stroke 221 0.6 10.2 Fall and Injury 118 0.3 5.4 Illness and Other 972 2.7 44.7 Lift Assist 118 0.3 5.4 Overdose and Psychiatric 5 < 0.1 0.2 Seizure and Unconsciousness 72 0.2 3.3 Fire 361 1.0 16.6 Fire Alarm 107 0.3 4.9 Fire Investigation 12 < 0.1 0.6 Fire Other 91 0.2 4.2 Hazardous Condition 87 0.2 4.0 Outside Fire 7 < 0.1 0.3 Public Assistance 36 0.1 1.7 Structure Fire 17 < 0.1 0.8 Vehicle Fire 4 < 0.1 0.2 Hazmat 52 0.1 2.4 Hazmat 52 0.1 2.4 Rescue 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Rescue 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Total 2,173 6.0 100.0 1Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 20 Table 12: Number of Calls by Program and Call Type – Outside Jurisdictions Program and Call Type1 Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage EMS 1 < 0.1 14.3 Breathing Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 Cardiac and Stroke 0 0.0 0.0 Fall and Injury 1 < 0.1 14.3 Illness and Other 0 0.0 0.0 Lift Assist 0 0.0 0.0 Overdose and Psychiatric 0 0.0 0.0 Seizure and Unconsciousness 0 0.0 0.0 Fire 5 < 0.1 71.4 Fire Alarm 0 0.0 0.0 Fire Investigation 0 0.0 0.0 Fire Other 3 < 0.1 42.9 Hazardous Condition 0 0.0 0.0 Outside Fire 0 0.0 0.0 Public Assistance 1 < 0.1 14.3 Structure Fire 0 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Fire 1 < 0.1 14.3 Hazmat 1 < 0.1 14.3 Hazmat 1 < 0.1 14.3 Rescue 0 0.0 0.0 Rescue 0 0.0 0.0 Total 7 < 0.1 100.0 1Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 21 Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community demands. These analyses are based on the 2,180 total requests for service received from the community across all jurisdictions during 2023, and examine the frequency of incidents by month, day of week, and hour of day. Overall, average requests per month ranged from a low of 4.6 calls per day in March to a high of 6.6 calls per day in August (Table 13; Figure 9). The three months with the most requests for service in descending order were: August (6.6 per day), December (6.5 per day), and September (6.3 per day). The three months with the fewest requests for service in ascending order were: March (4.6 per day), July (5.2 per day), and November (5.7 per day). Table 13: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month Month Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage January 180 5.8 8.3 February 176 6.3 8.1 March 144 4.6 6.6 April 186 6.2 8.5 May 190 6.1 8.7 June 182 6.1 8.3 July 162 5.2 7.4 August 206 6.6 9.4 September 190 6.3 8.7 October 191 6.2 8.8 November 171 5.7 7.8 December 202 6.5 9.3 Total 2,180 6.0 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 22 Figure 9: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Month 5.8 6.3 4.6 6.2 6.1 6.1 5.2 6.6 6.3 6.2 5.7 6.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jan u a r y Feb r u a r y Ma r c h Ap r i l Ma y Jun e Jul y Au g u s t Sep t e m b e r Oc t o b e r No v e m b e r De c e m b e r Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Month EMS Fire Other DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 23 Similar analyses were conducted for requests by day of week (Table 14; Figure 10). The lowest average number of calls per day occurred on Sunday (5.2 per day), and the highest average number of calls per day occurred on Thursday (6.6 per day). Table 14: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week Day of Week1 Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage Sunday 277 5.2 12.7 Monday 326 6.3 15.0 Tuesday 311 6.0 14.3 Wednesday 277 5.3 12.7 Thursday 345 6.6 15.8 Friday 342 6.6 15.7 Saturday 302 5.8 13.9 Total 2,180 6.0 100.0 1There were 53 Sundays and 52 of all other days of the week during 2023. Figure 10: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Day of Week 5.2 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.6 6.6 5.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Day of Week EMS Fire Other DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 24 Overall demands were also evaluated by hour of the day (Table 15; Figure 11). Variability exists in the time of day that requests for services were received. Peak demand occurred at 0900 and 1600 (tied, 0.36 average calls per day during each of those hours in 2023). The hours of the day with the lowest average number of calls per day (range 0.10 to 0.13) were between 0100 and 0500. Table 15: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Hour of Day Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage 0 59 0.16 2.7 1 46 0.13 2.1 2 37 0.10 1.7 3 41 0.11 1.9 4 39 0.11 1.8 5 39 0.11 1.8 6 75 0.21 3.4 7 79 0.22 3.6 8 115 0.32 5.3 9 133 0.36 6.1 10 112 0.31 5.1 11 125 0.34 5.7 12 114 0.31 5.2 13 118 0.32 5.4 14 131 0.36 6.0 15 124 0.34 5.7 16 133 0.36 6.1 17 116 0.32 5.3 18 124 0.34 5.7 19 100 0.27 4.6 20 99 0.27 4.5 21 88 0.24 4.0 22 78 0.21 3.6 23 55 0.15 2.5 Total 2,180 6.0 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 25 To provide a more granular understanding of the community’s demand for services, this temporal analysis included the average number of calls per day by hour of day. In other words, when referring to Figure 11 below, the busiest hours were at 0900 and 1600, with 133 calls occurring during each of those hours in 2023. The average number of calls per day for those hours is a daily average for the 133 calls if they were distributed equally across the year (i.e., 133/365 = 0.36). Figure 11: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Figure 12 through Figure 14 depict hourly demand by AFD first due stations 1 through 3. Figures represent 2,173 calls, as seven calls occurred in jurisdictions outside of AFD’s jurisdiction during 2023. 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.22 0.32 0.36 0.31 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.15 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Hour of Day EMS Fire Other DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 26 Figure 12: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – First Due Station 1 (n=1,095) Figure 13: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – First Due Station 2 (n=418) 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Hour of Day EMS Fire Other 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Hour of Day EMS Fire Other DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 27 Figure 14: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – First Due Station 3 (n=660) 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Hour of Day EMS Fire Other DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 28 Community Demand for Emergency Medical Services Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community demand for EMS related services. These analyses are based on the 1,760 total EMS related requests for service received from the community across all jurisdictions during 2023, and examine the frequency of requests for service by month, day of week, and hour of day. Results indicated that there was some variability by month (Table 16; Figure 15). The three months with the most EMS related calls in descending order were: August (5.4 per day), February (5.2 per day), and December (5.2 per day). The three months with the fewest EMS related calls in ascending order were: March (tied with July; 4.1 per day), July (tied with March; 4.1 per day), and June (4.6 per day). Table 16: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month Month Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage January 157 5.1 8.9 February 146 5.2 8.3 March 126 4.1 7.2 April 146 4.9 8.3 May 145 4.7 8.2 June 138 4.6 7.8 July 126 4.1 7.2 August 168 5.4 9.5 September 149 5.0 8.5 October 153 4.9 8.7 November 145 4.8 8.2 December 161 5.2 9.1 Total 1,760 4.8 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 29 Figure 15: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Month 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jan u a r y Feb r u a r y Ma r c h Ap r i l Ma y Jun e Jul y Au g u s t Sep t e m b e r Oc t o b e r No v e m b e r De c e m b e r Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Month DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 30 Similar analyses were conducted for EMS related calls by day of week (Table 17; Figure 16). The data revealed that there was some variability in demand for services by day of week. Thursday had the highest frequency of requests for EMS related services, averaging 5.5 calls per day and accounting for 16.2% of all EMS related calls. Wednesday had the lowest frequency of requests for EMS related services, averaging 4.2 calls per day and accounting for 12.5% of all EMS related calls. Table 17: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week Day of Week1 Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage Sunday 241 4.5 13.7 Monday 267 5.1 15.2 Tuesday 252 4.8 14.3 Wednesday 220 4.2 12.5 Thursday 285 5.5 16.2 Friday 263 5.1 14.9 Saturday 232 4.5 13.2 Total 1,760 4.8 100.0 1There were 53 Sundays and 52 of all other days of the week during 2023. Figure 16: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Day of Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Day of Week DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 31 EMS related calls were also evaluated by hour of the day (Table 18; Figure 17). Variability exists in the time of day that requests for EMS related services were received. The hours from 0100 to 0500 had the lowest demands, when average number of calls per day for those hours ranged from 0.09 to 0.10. The highest demand for EMS related services occurred at 1600, when average number of calls per day during that hour was 0.30. Table 18: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Hour of Day Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage 0 54 0.15 3.1 1 38 0.10 2.2 2 33 0.09 1.9 3 37 0.10 2.1 4 32 0.09 1.8 5 36 0.10 2.0 6 56 0.15 3.2 7 63 0.17 3.6 8 89 0.24 5.1 9 103 0.28 5.9 10 89 0.24 5.1 11 97 0.27 5.5 12 86 0.24 4.9 13 95 0.26 5.4 14 99 0.27 5.6 15 91 0.25 5.2 16 108 0.30 6.1 17 95 0.26 5.4 18 101 0.28 5.7 19 88 0.24 5.0 20 77 0.21 4.4 21 74 0.20 4.2 22 67 0.18 3.8 23 52 0.14 3.0 Total 1,760 4.8 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 32 Figure 17: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Hour of Day DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 33 EMS related requests accounted for 80.7% of the total requests for service across all jurisdictions during 2023 and averaged 4.8 requests per day (Figure 8; Table 10). EMS related calls are an aggregated category of the various incident types available in the data file. Table 19 provides details for these EMS related calls by nature of the call (i.e., “Incident_Type” variable in the data file; entries are presented verbatim from the data file). Table 19: Total EMS Related Calls by Nature of Call Nature of Call1 Number of Calls Percentage of Total EMS Demand Medical 855 48.6 Medical-Breathing-Difficult 195 11.1 Medical-Heart 160 9.1 Lift Assist 118 6.7 PI Accident 93 5.3 Medical-Misc 82 4.7 Medical-Seizure 62 3.5 Medical-Stroke 61 3.5 Medical-Breathing-NOT 51 2.9 Medical-Allergic 17 1.0 Medical-Fall 11 0.6 Medical-Uncon 10 0.6 Medical-Alarm 8 0.5 Medical-Assault 7 0.4 Medical-Choking 7 0.4 Medical-Severe Bleed 7 0.4 Medical-OB 5 0.3 Suicide in Progress 5 0.3 CO Alarm - Ill 3 0.2 Medical-ILL 2 0.1 Medical-Stab-Gunshot 1 0.1 Total 1,760 100.0 1Entries are presented verbatim from the data file. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 34 Community Demand for Fire Related Services Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community demand for fire related services. These analyses are based on the 366 total fire related requests for service received from the community across all jurisdictions during 2023, and examine the frequency of requests for service by month, day of week, and hour of day. Results found that there was some variability by month (Table 20; Figure 18). The three months with the most fire related calls in descending order were: June (1.3 per day), May (1.3 per day), and September (1.2 per day). The three months with the fewest fire related calls in ascending order were: March (0.5 per day), January (0.6 per day), and November (0.8 per day). Table 20: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month Month Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage January 18 0.6 4.9 February 28 1.0 7.7 March 16 0.5 4.4 April 33 1.1 9.0 May 41 1.3 11.2 June 40 1.3 10.9 July 30 1.0 8.2 August 35 1.1 9.6 September 37 1.2 10.1 October 32 1.0 8.7 November 24 0.8 6.6 December 32 1.0 8.7 Total 366 1.0 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 35 Figure 18: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Month 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Jan u a r y Feb r u a r y Ma r c h Ap r i l Ma y Jun e Jul y Au g u s t Sep t e m b e r Oc t o b e r No v e m b e r De c e m b e r Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Month DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 36 Similar analyses were conducted for fire related calls by day of week (Table 21; Figure 19). The data revealed that there is some variability in the demand for services by day of week. The three days with the most fire related calls in descending order were: Friday/Saturday (tied; 1.3 per day) and Tuesday (1.0 per day). The three days with the fewest fire related calls in ascending order were: Sunday (0.5 per day) and Monday/Wednesday (tied; 1.0 per day). Table 21: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week Day of Week1 Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage Sunday 27 0.5 7.4 Monday 51 1.0 13.9 Tuesday 53 1.0 14.5 Wednesday 51 1.0 13.9 Thursday 52 1.0 14.2 Friday 66 1.3 18.0 Saturday 66 1.3 18.0 Total 366 1.0 100.0 1There were 53 Sundays and 52 of all other days of the week during 2023. Figure 19: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Day of Week 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Day of Week DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 37 Fire related calls were also evaluated by hour of the day (Table 22; Figure 20). Some variability exists in the time of day that requests for fire related services were received. The hours between 2300 and 0500 had the lowest demands, when average number of calls per day for those hours ranged from 0.01 to 0.02. The highest demand for fire related services occurred at 1500 (31 total fire calls during that hour in 2023), when average number of calls per day during that hour was 0.08. Table 22: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Hour of Day Number of Calls Average Calls per Day Call Percentage 0 5 0.01 1.4 1 6 0.02 1.6 2 2 0.01 0.5 3 3 0.01 0.8 4 6 0.02 1.6 5 3 0.01 0.8 6 19 0.05 5.2 7 12 0.03 3.3 8 23 0.06 6.3 9 25 0.07 6.8 10 20 0.05 5.5 11 26 0.07 7.1 12 22 0.06 6.0 13 21 0.06 5.7 14 30 0.08 8.2 15 31 0.08 8.5 16 25 0.07 6.8 17 14 0.04 3.8 18 18 0.05 4.9 19 12 0.03 3.3 20 18 0.05 4.9 21 12 0.03 3.3 22 10 0.03 2.7 23 3 0.01 0.8 Total 366 1.0 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 38 Figure 20: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r D a y Hour of Day DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 39 Fire related requests accounted for 16.8% of the total requests for service during 2023 across all jurisdictions and averaged 1.0 request per day (Figure 8; Table 10). Fire related calls are an aggregated category of the various incident types available in the data file. Table 23 provides details for these fire related calls by nature of the call (i.e., “Incident_Type” variable in the data file; entries are presented verbatim from the data file). Table 23: Total Fire Related Calls by Nature of Call Nature of Call1 Number of Calls Percentage of Total Fire Service Demand Fire Alarm - No Smoke 94 25.7 Information 64 17.5 Public Assist 36 9.8 CO Alarm - No Ill 32 8.7 Illegal Burn 23 6.3 Structure Fire 16 4.4 Anoka Co Fire Inv Tm (ACFIT) 12 3.3 Misc Fire 12 3.3 Phone Call Request 12 3.3 Powerlines 12 3.3 Water Flow Alarm 12 3.3 Electrical smell 7 1.9 Smoke Inside 7 1.9 Grass Fire 6 1.6 Vehicle Fire 5 1.4 Road closure info 4 1.1 Smoke Outside 3 0.8 Flooding 2 0.5 Station Staffing 2 0.5 Animal Rescue (BART) 1 0.3 Dumpster Fire 1 0.3 Explosion heard in area 1 0.3 Fire Alarm - With Smoke 1 0.3 Oven Fire 1 0.3 Total 366 100.0 1Entries are presented verbatim from the data file. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 40 RESPONSE VOLUME AND BUSY TIME Busy time, or time on task, was measured from unit dispatch date and time to unit clear date and time. All units assigned to AFD made 3,471 responses across all jurisdictions, and were busy on calls for a total of 1,501.0 hours during 2023 (Table 24). Overall, average busy minutes per response was 25.9 minutes, and average number of responses per call was 1.7. The EMS program was the busiest program in the department, accounting for 81.6% of the department’s total response volume, and 70.3% of the department’s total busy hours. Table 25 presents these same metrics for outside agency units making responses within AFD’s jurisdiction. Table 24: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Program – AFD Units Jurisdiction Program Number of Calls1 Number of Responses2 Average Responses per Call Total Busy Hours Responses with Time Data3 Average Busy Minutes per Response Average Calls per Day Average Responses per Day All EMS 1,733 2,834 1.6 1,055.7 2,834 22.4 4.7 7.8 Fire 270 535 2.0 361.5 535 40.5 0.7 1.5 Hazmat 52 102 2.0 83.7 102 49.2 0.1 0.3 Rescue 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 2,055 3,471 1.7 1,501.0 3,471 25.9 5.6 9.5 Within AFD EMS 1,732 2,829 1.6 1,052.3 2,829 22.3 4.7 7.8 Fire 266 523 2.0 350.2 523 40.2 0.7 1.4 Hazmat 51 99 1.9 81.9 99 49.6 0.1 0.3 Rescue 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 2,049 3,451 1.7 1,484.4 3,451 25.8 5.6 9.5 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 41 Jurisdiction Program Number of Calls1 Number of Responses2 Average Responses per Call Total Busy Hours Responses with Time Data3 Average Busy Minutes per Response Average Calls per Day Average Responses per Day Outside of AFD EMS 1 5 5.0 3.4 5 41.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fire 4 12 3.0 11.4 12 56.9 < 0.1 < 0.1 Hazmat 1 3 3.0 1.8 3 36.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 Rescue 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 6 20 3.3 16.6 20 49.8 < 0.1 0.1 1“Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls to align with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD. 2“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD, regardless of calculated busy time. 3“Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. Table 25: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Program – Outside Agency Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Program Number of Calls1 Number of Responses2 Average Responses per Call Total Busy Hours Responses with Time Data3 Average Busy Minutes per Response Average Calls per Day Average Responses per Day Within AFD EMS 11 17 1.5 20.7 17 73.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fire 26 217 8.3 283.9 215 79.2 0.1 0.6 Hazmat 1 2 2.0 0.8 2 23.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 Rescue 1 2 2.0 0.2 2 5.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 Total 39 238 6.1 305.6 236 77.7 0.1 0.7 1“Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls to align with responses made by valid units assigned to outside agencies. 2“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to outside agencies, regardless of calculated busy time. 3“Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to outside agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 42 Number of Responding Units Emergency Medical Services We analyzed number of responding AFD units to calls within AFD’s jurisdiction by EMS related call type (Table 26). Overall, 48.6% of EMS related calls were responded to by one unit, 42.4% were responded to by two units, and 6.8% were responded to by three units. Average number of responses per call was 1.6 (Table 24). Table 26: Number of Responding AFD Units to Calls Within AFD’s Jurisdiction by EMS Related Call Type Call Category Number of Responding Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or More Total Breathing Difficulty 101 111 26 9 1 1 0 249 Cardiac and Stroke 88 113 15 3 0 0 0 219 Fall and Injury 27 45 23 11 5 3 0 114 Illness and Other 524 387 42 3 1 0 0 957 Lift Assist 71 40 6 0 0 0 0 117 Overdose and Psychiatric 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 Seizure and Unconsciousness 30 36 6 0 0 0 0 72 Total 842 735 118 26 7 4 0 1,732 Percentage 48.6 42.4 6.8 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 43 Fire Related Services We also analyzed number of responding AFD units to calls within AFD’s jurisdiction by fire related call type (Table 27). Overall, 48.1% of fire related calls were responded to by one unit, 34.2% were responded to by two units, 6.4% were responded to by three units, and 5.3% were responded to by four units. Average number of responses per call was 2.0 (Table 24). For structure fires, 58.8% of calls (10/17) were responded to by five or more AFD units (Table 27). The maximum number of AFD units responding to a structure fire call during 2023 was 12. AFD units were busy on structure fire calls for 147.6 hours during 2023, making 97 responses to 17 structure fire calls and averaging 5.7 responses per call. Average busy minutes per response was 91.3 minutes. Table 27: Number of Responding AFD Units to Calls Within AFD’s Jurisdiction by Fire Related Call Type Call Category Number of Responding Units Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or More Fire Alarm 48 36 9 2 0 0 0 95 Fire Other 15 5 1 0 1 0 0 22 Hazardous Condition 39 36 3 5 2 1 0 86 Outside Fire 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 7 Public Assistance 24 9 1 1 0 0 0 35 Structure Fire 0 2 1 4 2 4 4 17 Vehicle Fire 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 Total 128 91 17 14 6 6 4 266 Percentage 48.1 34.2 6.4 5.3 2.3 2.3 1.5 100.0 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 44 Workload by Station The station-level demand (Table 28) is more reflective for deployment decisions, and the unit-level workload (Table 30 and Table 31; Error! Reference source not found. as Unit Hour Utilization analyses) will help evaluate the utilization of physical apparatus, and assist with apparatus procurement or maintenance decisions. Station 1 was the busiest station during 2023 based on number of responses made by units assigned to the station (1,747 responses; Table 28), and based on total busy hours (696.6 hours; 46.4% of departmental busy hours). Table 28: Overall Workload by AFD Station Station Number of Responses Made by Units Assigned to Station1 Responses with Time Data2 Total Busy Hours Average Busy Minutes per Response Percentage of Total Busy Hours 1 1,747 1,747 696.6 23.9 46.4 2 253 253 143.8 34.1 9.6 3 355 355 184.5 31.2 12.3 Admin 1,116 1,116 476.1 25.6 31.7 Total 3,471 3,471 1,501.0 25.9 100.0 1“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD, regardless of calculated busy time. 2“Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 45 Workload by Demand Zone (First Due Station) Workload was also assessed at the demand zone level based on the first due station areas. Within AFD’s jurisdiction, Station 1’s demand zone had the highest volume of responses made by departmental units to the area (1,715 responses), requiring 49.4% of AFD’s total responses during 2023 (Table 29; Figure 21). Table 29: Department Workload by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – AFD Units Jurisdiction Demand Zone (First Due Station) Number of Responses Made by Department in Demand Zone1 Percent of Department Workload2 Within AFD 1 1,715 49.4 2 690 19.9 3 1,046 30.1 Within AFD Total 3,451 99.4 Outside of AFD Outside of AFD Total 20 0.6 Department Total 3,471 100.0 1“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD, regardless of calculated busy time. 2“Percent of Department Workload” is based on “Number of Responses Made by Department in Demand Zone.” Individual values may not sum to total values due to rounding. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 46 Figure 21: Department Workload by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – AFD Units 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 1 3 2 Outside of AFDDemand Zone (First Due Station) Number of Responses Percent of Total Workload DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 47 SYSTEM RESILIENCY Unit Hour Utilization Another measure, time on task, is necessary to evaluate best practices in efficient system delivery and consider the impact workload has on personnel. Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) values represent the proportion of the work period (e.g., 24 hours) that is utilized responding to requests for service. Historically, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has recommended that 24-hour units utilize 0.30, or 30% workload as an upper threshold.7 In other words, this recommendation would have personnel spend no more than 7.2 hours per day on emergency incidents. These thresholds take into consideration the necessity to accomplish non-emergency activities such as training, health and wellness, public education, and fire inspections. The 4th edition of the IAFF EMS Guidebook no longer specifically identifies an upper threshold. However, FITCH recommends that an upper unit utilization threshold of approximately 0.30, 0r 30%, would be considered best practice. In other words, units and personnel should not exceed 30%, or 7.2 hours, of their work day responding to calls. These recommendations are also validated in the literature. For example, in their review of the City of Rolling Meadows, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association utilized a UHU threshold of 0.30 as an indication to add additional resources.8 Similarly, in a standards of cover study facilitated by the Center for Public Safety Excellence, the Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department utilizes a UHU of 0.30 as the upper limit in their standards of cover due to the necessity to accomplish other non-emergency activities.9 UHU analyses for AFD were unable to be completed as the current data set does not differentiate between staffed units (Duty Crew) and a paid-on-call response. UHU analysis would be helpful in the future to monitor individual resource workload. Unit response volume and busy time analyses included all AFD units designated by the AFD leadership team as valid units (Table 30; Table 31 presents response volume by unit and program). The busiest unit in the department during 2023 was rescue unit AR1 (1,130 responses; 411.9 busy hours), followed by duty officer ADO (931 responses; 376.7 busy hours), and engine AE1 (469 responses; 211.7 busy hours). 7 International Association of Firefighters. (1995). Emergency Medical Services: A Guidebook for Fire-Based Systems. Washington, DC: Author. (p. 11) 8 Illinois Fire Chiefs Association. (2012). An Assessment of Deployment and Station Location: Rolling Meadows Fire Department. Rolling Meadows, Illinois: Author. (pp. 54-55) 9 Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department. (2011). Community Risk Analysis and Standards of Cover. Castle Rock, Colorado: Author. (p. 58) DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 48 Table 30: Unit Response Volume and Total Busy Hours Station Unit ID Unit Type Number of Responses1 Responses with Time Data2 Total Busy Hours Average Busy Minutes per Response 1 AA1 Aerial 35 35 26.1 44.8 AE1 Engine 469 469 211.7 27.1 AL1 Ladder 2 2 3.9 118.4 AR1 Rescue 1,130 1,130 411.9 21.9 AU1 Utility 1 1 0.1 4.5 AU10 Utility 27 27 13.5 29.9 AU24 Utility 82 82 29.3 21.4 AU4 Utility 1 1 < 0.1 2.5 Station 1 Total 1,747 1,747 696.6 23.9 2 AE2 Engine 73 73 51.4 42.2 AG2 Grass Truck 6 6 5.2 51.7 AR2 Rescue 159 159 70.9 26.8 AT2 Water Tender 15 15 16.3 65.3 Station 2 Total 253 253 143.8 34.1 3 AE3 Engine 94 94 65.2 41.6 AG3 Grass Truck 5 5 6.6 79.0 AG32 Grass Truck 3 3 2.7 53.4 AR3 Rescue 244 244 103.0 25.3 AREH Rehab Trailer 3 3 1.1 21.9 AT3 Water Tender 6 6 5.9 59.4 Station 3 Total 355 355 184.5 31.2 Admin ACA12 Captain 1 1 0.7 42.4 ACH1 Chief 70 70 40.0 34.3 ACH2 Chief 106 106 52.0 29.4 ADO Duty Officer 931 931 376.7 24.3 AI1 Inspector 7 7 6.4 54.7 AL11 Lieutenant 1 1 0.3 20.0 Admin Total 1,116 1,116 476.1 25.6 Total 3,471 3,471 1,501.0 25.9 1“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD, regardless of calculated busy time. 2“Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 49 Table 31: Unit Response Volume by Program Number of Responses1 Station Unit ID Unit Type EMS Fire Hazmat Total 1 AA1 Aerial 20 13 2 35 AE1 Engine 283 149 37 469 AL1 Ladder 0 2 0 2 AR1 Rescue 1,070 52 8 1,130 AU1 Utility 1 0 0 1 AU10 Utility 21 6 0 27 AU24 Utility 76 5 1 82 AU4 Utility 0 1 0 1 Station 1 Total 1,471 228 48 1,747 2 AE2 Engine 35 31 7 73 AG2 Grass Truck 1 5 0 6 AR2 Rescue 152 6 1 159 AT2 Water Tender 4 11 0 15 Station 2 Total 192 53 8 253 3 AE3 Engine 32 49 13 94 AG3 Grass Truck 1 4 0 5 AG32 Grass Truck 0 3 0 3 AR3 Rescue 237 7 0 244 AREH Rehab Trailer 0 3 0 3 AT3 Water Tender 0 6 0 6 Station 3 Total 270 72 13 355 Admin ACA12 Captain 1 0 0 1 ACH1 Chief 46 21 3 70 ACH2 Chief 76 25 5 106 ADO Duty Officer 777 129 25 931 AI1 Inspector 0 7 0 7 AL11 Lieutenant 1 0 0 1 Admin Total 901 182 33 1,116 Total 2,834 535 102 3,471 1“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD, regardless of calculated busy time. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 50 System Reliability The reliability of the distribution model is a factor of how often the response model is available and able to respond to a call within the assigned demand zone. Reliability analyses were conducted using the first due station as the demand zone and awarding compliance to the department when any valid unit assigned to the station in the demand zone was dispatched to the call (Table 32; Figure 22). Table 32: First Due Compliance by Demand Zone (First Due Station) Number of Calls Dispatched Unit’s Assigned Station Demand Zone (First Due Station) 1 2 3 Admin Outside Agency Total1 Percent Compliance 1 942 56 63 538 22 1,043 90.3 2 274 140 29 199 6 397 35.3 3 398 30 241 323 11 620 38.9 Total 1,614 226 333 1,060 39 2,060 -- 1“Total” values may not equal the sum of the cell values across columns per row because units from multiple stations may have responded to a call within the given demand zone. Figure 22: Percentage of First Due Compliance by Demand Zone (First Due Station) 90.3 38.9 35.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 2 Pe r c e n t C o m p l i a n c e Demand Zone (First Due Station) DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 51 Overlapped Calls Analysis Overlapped or simultaneous calls are defined as another call being received in a demand zone (or first due station’s area) while one or more calls are already ongoing for the same demand zone (or first due station’s area). For example, if there is an ongoing call in Station 1’s demand zone wherein all units have not yet been cleared, and one or more requests for service subsequently occur in Station 1’s demand zone, the subsequent call or calls would be captured as overlapping. Understanding the percentage of overlapped calls may help to determine the number of units to staff for each station. In general, the larger the call volume for a demand zone, the greater the likelihood of overlapped calls occurring. The distribution of the demand throughout the day will impact the chance of having overlapped calls. Additionally, the duration of a call plays a significant role; the longer it takes to clear a request, the greater the likelihood of having an overlapping request. Within AFD’s jurisdiction, AFD first due station 1 experienced the highest percentage of overlapped calls during 2023 at 5.6% (61/1,095), followed by AFD first due station 3 at 5.3% (35/660; Table 33; Figure 23). Table 33: Overlapped Calls by Demand Zone (First Due Station) – AFD’s Jurisdiction Demand Zone (First Due Station) Overlapped Calls Total Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls 1 61 1,095 5.6 2 15 418 3.6 3 35 660 5.3 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 52 Figure 23: Percentage of Overlapped Calls by Demand Zone (First Due Station) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 3 2 Pe r c e n t a g e o f O v e r l a p p e d C a l l s Demand Zone (First Due Station) DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 53 BASELINE DATA Community Demand From the reporting periods of 2019 to 2023, year-over-year (YoY) growth related to total call volume across all jurisdictions ranged from -18.6% to 56.6% (Table 34). Average number of calls per day across all jurisdictions increased from 3.7 in 2019 to 6.0 in 2023. Data are presented for calls within AFD’s jurisdiction in Table 35, and for calls outside of AFD’s jurisdiction in Table 36. Table 34: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – All Jurisdictions Reporting Period1 Program and Call Type2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 EMS 986 786 1,391 1,668 1,760 Breathing Difficulty 189 192 258 242 253 Cardiac and Stroke 164 143 202 201 221 Fall and Injury 81 80 87 111 119 Illness and Other 390 252 677 936 972 Lift Assist 107 69 91 106 118 Overdose and Psychiatric 0 4 3 1 5 Seizure and Unconsciousness 55 46 73 71 72 Fire 320 282 301 333 366 Fire Alarm 78 73 75 90 107 Fire Investigation 2 6 2 5 12 Fire Other 23 20 57 82 94 Hazardous Condition 168 125 98 105 87 Mutual Aid 2 2 0 1 0 Outside Fire 7 14 24 3 7 Public Assistance 13 16 22 22 37 Structure Fire 18 19 12 14 17 Vehicle Fire 9 7 11 11 5 Hazmat 61 44 52 48 53 Hazmat 61 44 52 48 53 Rescue 1 2 1 0 1 Rescue 1 2 1 0 1 Total 1,368 1,114 1,745 2,049 2,180 Average Calls per Day3 3.7 3.0 4.8 5.6 6.0 YoY Growth N/A -18.6% 56.6% 17.4% 6.4% 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective period. 2Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. 3Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 54 Figure 24 depicts observed annual call volume from 2019 to 2023, and projected growth in annual call volume from 2024 to 2033. Projections were made based on the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR; 12.4%), or annualized average, derived from five years of observed call volume data, as well as one lower and one higher hypothetical annual growth rate scenario to provide a plausible range around the CAGR. Because the observed range of YoY growth from 2019 to 2023 was -18.6% to 56.6%, plausible range values of 6.0% and 17.0% were selected instead. Figure 24: Observed and Projected Growth in Call Volume 2019-2033 – All Jurisdictions 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Nu m b e r o f C a l l s Year Low 6.0%High 17.0%CAGR 12.4% DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 55 Table 35: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – AFD’s Jurisdiction Reporting Period1 Program and Call Type2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 EMS 983 783 1,388 1,666 1,759 Breathing Difficulty 188 192 258 242 253 Cardiac and Stroke 164 143 201 201 221 Fall and Injury 79 78 86 110 118 Illness and Other 390 251 676 935 972 Lift Assist 107 69 91 106 118 Overdose and Psychiatric 0 4 3 1 5 Seizure and Unconsciousness 55 46 73 71 72 Fire 320 282 301 333 361 Fire Alarm 78 73 75 90 107 Fire Investigation 2 6 2 5 12 Fire Other 23 20 57 82 91 Hazardous Condition 168 125 98 105 87 Mutual Aid 2 2 0 1 0 Outside Fire 7 14 24 3 7 Public Assistance 13 16 22 22 36 Structure Fire 18 19 12 14 17 Vehicle Fire 9 7 11 11 4 Hazmat 59 44 52 48 52 Hazmat 59 44 52 48 52 Rescue 1 2 1 0 1 Rescue 1 2 1 0 1 Total 1,363 1,111 1,742 2,047 2,173 Average Calls per Day3 3.7 3.0 4.8 5.6 6.0 YoY Growth N/A -18.5% 56.8% 17.5% 6.2% 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective period. 2Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. 3Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 56 Table 36: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – Outside Jurisdictions Reporting Period1 Program and Call Type2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 EMS 3 3 3 2 1 Breathing Difficulty 1 0 0 0 0 Cardiac and Stroke 0 0 1 0 0 Fall and Injury 2 2 1 1 1 Illness and Other 0 1 1 1 0 Lift Assist 0 0 0 0 0 Overdose and Psychiatric 0 0 0 0 0 Seizure and Unconsciousness 0 0 0 0 0 Fire 0 0 0 0 5 Fire Alarm 0 0 0 0 0 Fire Investigation 0 0 0 0 0 Fire Other 0 0 0 0 3 Hazardous Condition 0 0 0 0 0 Mutual Aid 0 0 0 0 0 Outside Fire 0 0 0 0 0 Public Assistance 0 0 0 0 1 Structure Fire 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Fire 0 0 0 0 1 Hazmat 2 0 0 0 1 Hazmat 2 0 0 0 1 Rescue 0 0 0 0 0 Rescue 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 3 3 2 7 Average Calls per Day3 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 YoY Growth N/A -40.0% 0.0% -33.3% 250.0% 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective period. 2Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. 3Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 57 Response Volume and Busy Time From the reporting periods of 2019 to 2023, the total number of responses to calls made by units assigned to AFD across all jurisdictions increased from 1,949 (average 5.3 responses per day) to 3,471 (average 9.5 responses per day; Table 37). Total busy hours increased from 988.6 hours in 2019 to 1,501.0 hours in 2023. Average number of responses per call has remained fairly consistent across reporting periods at 1.5 to 1.8. Average busy minutes per response has ranged from 25.5 to 36.5 across the five reporting periods. Table 37: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Reporting Period – AFD Units Jurisdiction Reporting Period1 Number of Calls2 Number of Responses3 Average Responses per Call Total Busy Hours Responses with Time Data4 Average Busy Minutes per Response Average Calls per Day5 Average Responses per Day5 All 2019 1,268 1,949 1.5 988.6 1,949 30.4 3.5 5.3 2020 1,043 1,828 1.8 1,111.2 1,827 36.5 2.8 5.0 2021 1,635 2,488 1.5 1,059.1 2,488 25.5 4.5 6.8 2022 1,926 3,078 1.6 1,361.8 3,078 26.5 5.3 8.4 2023 2,055 3,471 1.7 1,501.0 3,471 25.9 5.6 9.5 Within AFD 2019 1,263 1,936 1.5 981.4 1,936 30.4 3.5 5.3 2020 1,040 1,822 1.8 1,110.5 1,821 36.6 2.8 5.0 2021 1,632 2,481 1.5 1,057.2 2,481 25.6 4.5 6.8 2022 1,924 3,075 1.6 1,360.3 3,075 26.5 5.3 8.4 2023 2,049 3,451 1.7 1,484.4 3,451 25.8 5.6 9.5 Outside of AFD 2019 5 13 2.6 7.2 13 33.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 2020 3 6 2.0 0.7 6 7.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 2021 3 7 2.3 1.8 7 15.6 < 0.1 < 0.1 2022 2 3 1.5 1.6 3 31.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 2023 6 20 3.3 16.6 20 49.8 < 0.1 0.1 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. 2“Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls to align with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD. 3“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD, regardless of calculated busy time. 4“Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to AFD with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 5Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 58 From the reporting periods of 2019 to 2023, the total number of responses to calls made by units assigned to outside agencies in AFD’s jurisdiction increased from 109 (average 0.3 responses per day) to 238 (average 0.7 responses per day; Table 38). Total busy hours increased from 83.4 hours in 2019 to 305.6 hours in 2023. Average number of responses per call has varied across reporting periods, ranging from 2.8 to 6.1. Average busy minutes per response has ranged from 40.6 to 132.1 across the five reporting periods. Table 38: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Reporting Period – Outside Agency Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Reporting Period1 Number of Calls2 Number of Responses3 Average Responses per Call Total Busy Hours Responses with Time Data4 Average Busy Minutes per Response Average Calls per Day5 Average Responses per Day5 Within AFD 2019 29 109 3.8 83.4 108 46.3 0.1 0.3 2020 26 86 3.3 189.4 86 132.1 0.1 0.2 2021 28 79 2.8 53.5 79 40.6 0.1 0.2 2022 41 158 3.9 160.1 158 60.8 0.1 0.4 2023 39 238 6.1 305.6 236 77.7 0.1 0.7 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. 2“Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls to align with responses made by valid units assigned to outside agencies. 3“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to outside agencies, regardless of calculated busy time. 4“Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by valid units assigned to outside agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 5Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 59 Average Turnout by Time of Day and Day of Week The tables below depict the average staff turnout by year based on time of day and day of week. The average turnout includes all responders, whether full-time or paid-on-call. The average turnout does not differentiate between paid-on-call responders coming from home versus those at the fire station on the duty crew. Table 40: Average Turnout by Time of Day and Day of Week 2023 Table 41: Average Turnout by Time of Day and Day of Week 2022 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 60 Table 42: Average Turnout by Time of Day and Day of Week 2021 Ambulance Response Times The figure below depicts the average and 90th percentile response time by year for ambulances that responded to 911 calls for service in the city of Andover. The data reflects the time from the ambulance service dispatch center is notified until the ambulance arrives on the scene. This data does not include the time from when 911 is called until the ambulance dispatch center is notified. The data depicted below is from publicly available data obtained through the Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 61 Figure 25: Ambulance Response Times 2020-2023 DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 62 APPENDIX Audit, Exclusions, and Classifications This section reflects the audit, exclusion, and classification activities performed on the data files provided by AFD spanning January 1, 2019 through June 29, 2024, with one record appearing for June 30, 2024. Based on the date range of data provided, five full calendar years of data (i.e., 2019 through 2023) were available for baseline analysis. The comprehensive data report (i.e., all sections prior to the baseline section) reflects data from the 2023 calendar year spanning January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023. The CAD data file provided by AFD originally contained 26,424 records (Table 39), and was considered to be the master data file. Select variables from two separate RMS data files were then mapped to records in the CAD data file through use of the master incident number (i.e., for call-level variables) or through use of the master incident number plus apparatus name (i.e., for unit-level variables). Prior to call volume and temporal analyses, records were examined for full duplication (i.e., records would be considered to be fully duplicated records if they matched on values for all variables), but none were identified. Records reporting a phone pick-up year of 2024 (n=2,728) or an incident type value of “Test” (n=52) were excluded. Records reflecting responses from outside agency units to calls outside of AFD’s jurisdiction were also excluded (n=21). For temporal analyses, year, month, day of week, and hour of day were based on the date and time stamp values for the “Time_PhonePickUp” variable. Table 39: Exclusions from Data File Prior to Call Volume and Temporal Analyses – 2019-2024 Exclusion Activity1 Frequency (n) Percent of Total (%) Number of Records in Data Set 26,424 -- Fully Duplicated Record2 0 0.0 Phone Pick-Up Year = 2024 2,728 10.3 Incident_Type = Test 52 0.2 Outside Agency Unit in Outside Jurisdiction 21 0.1 Number of Records Excluded 2,801 10.6 Number of Records Remaining in Data Set 23,623 89.4 1Exclusion activities were sequential, such that frequency data are additive. 2Records would be considered fully duplicated records if they matched on values for all variables. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 63 Prior to response volume and busy time analyses, records reporting a unit ID that was not considered to be representative of a valid responding unit were excluded (Table 40). Records indicating a duplicate unit response (i.e., records matched on incident number, responding unit ID, and responding unit dispatch date and time stamp) were also excluded. Busy time (i.e., time on task, as measured from unit dispatch date and time to unit clear date and time) was then calculated for all remaining records in the data file. Records with negative busy times, busy times of zero minutes, and busy times > 24 hours (i.e., considered to be extreme outliers), as applicable, were excluded from analyses. Table 40: Exclusions from Data File Prior to Response Volume and Busy Time Analyses – 2019-2023 Exclusion Activity1 Frequency (n) Percent of Total (%) Number of Records in Data Set 23,623 -- Radio_Name = 2ABOX 6 < 0.1 Radio_Name = A1 1,686 7.1 Radio_Name = A2 698 3.0 Radio_Name = A3 1,093 4.6 Radio_Name = AALL 590 2.5 Radio_Name = AALLCALL 14 0.1 Radio_Name = ACFIT 32 0.1 Radio_Name = ADC 5,551 23.5 Radio_Name = AFBASE1 2 < 0.1 Radio_Name = AGEN 18 0.1 Radio_Name = AINFO 4 < 0.1 Radio_Name = AINFO1 219 0.9 Radio_Name = AINFO2 17 0.1 Radio_Name = AINFO3 5 < 0.1 Radio_Name = AINFO4 4 < 0.1 Radio_Name = ASTA 2 < 0.1 Duplicate Unit Response Record2 198 0.8 Number of Records Excluded 10,139 42.9 Number of Records Remaining in Data Set 13,484 57.1 Busy Time Could Not Be Calculated Due to Missing Date and Time Stamps 0 0.0 Unit Dispatch Date and Time to Unit Clear Date and Time (Unit Busy Time) < 0 Minutes 0 0.0 Unit Clear Date and Time = Unit Dispatch Date and Time (Unit Busy Time = 0 Minutes) 0 0.0 Unit Dispatch Date and Time to Unit Clear Date and Time (Unit Busy Time) > 24 Hours3 4 < 0.1 Number of Individual Time Values Missing or Excluded 4 < 0.1 1Exclusion activities were sequential, such that frequency data are additive. 2Records were considered to be duplicate unit response records if they matched on incident number, responding unit ID, and responding unit dispatch date and time stamp. 3Retained records to reflect response workload, but excluded busy times from all related analyses. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 64 Records in the data file were further examined following the calculation of performance time metrics. Calculated times with negative or zero values were excluded from all related analyses, and calculated times considered to be outliers were also excluded from all related analyses (Table 41). Table 41: Exclusions from Data File for Performance Time Analyses – 2019-2023 Exclusion Activity1 Frequency (n) Percent of Total (%) Number of Records in Data Set 13,484 -- Call Received Date and Time to Unit Dispatch Date and Time (Unit Dispatch Time) < 0 Minutes 0 0.0 Unit Dispatch Date and Time = Call Received Date and Time (Unit Dispatch Time = 0 Minutes)2 2 < 0.1 Call Received Date and Time to Unit Dispatch Date and Time (Unit Dispatch Time) > 30 Minutes2 8 0.1 Unit Dispatch Date and Time to Unit Enroute Date and Time (Unit Turnout Time) < 0 Minutes3 1 < 0.1 Unit Enroute Date and Time = Unit Dispatch Date and Time (Unit Turnout Time = 0 Minutes)3 2 < 0.1 Unit Dispatch Date and Time to Unit Enroute Date and Time (Unit Turnout Time) > 30 Minutes3 224 1.7 Unit Enroute Date and Time to Unit Arrival Date and Time (Unit Travel Time) < 0 Minutes 0 0.0 Unit Arrival Date and Time = Unit Enroute Date and Time (Unit Travel Time = 0 Minutes)4 83 0.6 Unit Enroute Date and Time to Unit Arrival Date and Time (Unit Travel Time) > 60 Minutes4 1 < 0.1 Call Received Date and Time to Unit Arrival Date and Time (Unit Response Time) > 60 Minutes5 1 < 0.1 Number of Individual Time Values Excluded6 322 -- 1Exclusion activities were sequential, such that frequency data are additive. 2Retained records to reflect response workload, but excluded dispatch times and corresponding response times from all related analyses. 3Retained records to reflect response workload, but excluded turnout times and corresponding response times from all related analyses. 4Retained records to reflect response workload, but excluded travel times and corresponding response times from all related analyses. 5Retained records to reflect response workload, but excluded response times from all related analyses. 6Plus additional exclusion of corresponding response times, where applicable. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 65 Table 42: Classification of Incident Description into Program and Call Category Program Call Category “Incident_Type” Values from Data File1 DELETE DELETE Test EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Breathing-Difficult EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Breathing-NOT EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Choking EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Drown EMS Cardiac and Stroke Medical-Heart EMS Cardiac and Stroke Medical-Stroke EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Assault EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Electro EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Fall EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Severe Bleed EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Stab-Gunshot EMS Fall and Injury PI Accident EMS Illness and Other CO Alarm - Ill EMS Illness and Other Medical EMS Illness and Other Medical-Alarm EMS Illness and Other Medical-Allergic EMS Illness and Other Medical-ILL EMS Illness and Other Medical-Misc EMS Illness and Other Medical-OB EMS Illness and Other Slumper EMS Lift Assist Lift Assist EMS Overdose and Psychiatric Suicide in Progress EMS Seizure and Unconsciousness Medical-Seizure EMS Seizure and Unconsciousness Medical-Uncon Fire Fire Alarm Fire Alarm - No Smoke Fire Fire Alarm Fire Alarm - With Smoke Fire Fire Alarm Water Flow Alarm Fire Fire Investigation Anoka Co Fire Inv Tm (ACFIT) Fire Fire Other Information Fire Fire Other Misc Fire Fire Fire Other Phone Call Request Fire Fire Other Road closure info Fire Fire Other Station Staffing Fire Hazardous Condition CO Alarm - No Ill Fire Hazardous Condition Electrical smell Fire Hazardous Condition Explosion heard in area Fire Hazardous Condition Flooding Fire Hazardous Condition Illegal Burn DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 66 Program Call Category “Incident_Type” Values from Data File1 Fire Hazardous Condition Powerlines Fire Hazardous Condition Smoke Inside Fire Hazardous Condition Smoke Outside Fire Hazardous Condition System work, flaring, confined Fire Mutual Aid Fire Mutual Aid Fire Outside Fire Dumpster Fire Fire Outside Fire Grass Fire Fire Public Assistance Animal Rescue (BART) Fire Public Assistance Public Assist Fire Structure Fire Oven Fire Fire Structure Fire Structure Fire Fire Vehicle Fire Vehicle Fire Hazmat Hazmat Chem Assessment Team (CAT) Hazmat Hazmat Fluid Spills (Gasoline, etc) Hazmat Hazmat Gas Cut Inside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Cut Outside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Leak/Odor Inside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Leak/Odor Outside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Odor Inside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Odor Outside Hazmat Hazmat Hazmat Rescue Rescue Specialized Rescue Team (SRT) Rescue Rescue Water/Ice Rescue 1Entries are presented verbatim from the data file. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 67 Calculation of 90th Percentile Values FITCH applies the weighted average method in the calculation of 90th percentile values, also aligning with statistical computing software programs such as SPSS (IBM; Chicago, IL) and Microsoft Excel (e.g., through use of the PERCENTILE.EXC formula), as follows: (n + 1) * p = i + f Where: Values in the sample data set must be sorted in ascending order from lowest value to highest value, and p = desired percentile expressed as a proportion (e.g., 90th percentile = 90/100 = 0.9) i = integer portion of (n + 1) * p f = fractional portion of (n + 1) * p n = sample size or number of observations in the data set Then: Percentile Value = [(1 – f) * xi] + [f * xi+1] Where: xi = observed value at the ith position in the sorted data set xi+1 = observed value at the ith + 1 position in the sorted data set When the sample size is < 10, the value for i + 1 exceeds the number of observations available in the sample, as exemplified in Table 43 on the next page, such that 90th percentile values, specifically, cannot be calculated via this method. Note that Excel will still return a 90th percentile value when n = 9, even though there is no 10th observation in the sample, because the weight apportioned to that non-existent observation would be 0.0. Based on the formula, one can see that Excel simply returns 100% of the 9th observation in the data set as the result—i.e., the maximum value in the data set. SPSS, however, will not return a 90th percentile value when n = 9 due to technical adherence to the weighted average method that there is no 10th observation in the sample when n = 9. DATA ANALYSIS REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 68 Table 43: Example Scenarios for Weighted Average Formula Components When N = 13 to N = 2, p = 0.9 n (n+1)*p i f 1-f i+1 Note 13 12.6 12 0.6 0.4 13 12 11.7 11 0.7 0.3 12 11 10.8 10 0.8 0.2 11 10 9.9 9 0.9 0.1 10 9 9.0 9 0.0 1.0 10 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 10th observation 8 8.1 8 0.1 0.9 9 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 9th observation 7 7.2 7 0.2 0.8 8 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 8th observation 6 6.3 6 0.3 0.7 7 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 7th observation 5 5.4 5 0.4 0.6 6 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 6th observation 4 4.5 4 0.5 0.5 5 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 5th observation 3 3.6 3 0.6 0.4 4 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 4th observation 2 2.7 2 0.7 0.3 3 i+1 value exceeds sample size; there is no 3rd observation Accordingly, FITCH is unable to report 90th percentile values when any sample size is < 10, as they cannot be calculated. Sufficient sample sizes are critical for producing meaningful metrics, such as measures of central tendency (e.g., means) and measures of position (e.g., percentiles), that may be considered to be reasonable estimates of “typical” performance and, thereby, considered as useful metrics in data- driven decision making and action planning. PO Box 170, 2901 Williamsburg Terrace, Suite G, Platte City, Missouri 64079 November 2024 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT (816) 431-2600 (816) 431-2653 www.fitchassoc.com RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE i TABLE of CONTENTS METHODOLOGY _______________________________________________________________________________ 1 Table 1: Risk Scoring Variables by Assessment Category __________________________________________________ 1 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR OVERALL SYSTEM __________________________________________________________ 2 HISTORICAL SERVICE DEMAND _____________________________________________________________________ 2 Table 2: Number of Calls by Reporting Period, Program, and Risk Level – 2019-2023 AFD’s Jurisdiction _____________ 2 Figure 1: Number of Calls by Reporting Period and Risk Level – 2019-2023 AFD’s Jurisdiction _____________________ 4 Figure 2: Percentage of Calls by Reporting Period and Risk Level – 2019-2023 AFD’s Jurisdiction __________________ 5 RISK ASSESSMENT BY FIRST DUE STATION _________________________________________________________ 6 Table 3: Risk Scoring Variables by Assessment Category __________________________________________________ 6 ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT __________________________________________________________ 6 Population Density ________________________________________________________________________ 6 Table 4: Risk Scoring – Population Density (People per Square Mile) ________________________________________ 6 Square Miles _____________________________________________________________________________ 7 Table 5: Risk Scoring – Square Miles __________________________________________________________________ 7 Median Age of Residents ___________________________________________________________________ 8 Table 6: Risk Scoring – Median Age (Years) ____________________________________________________________ 8 Median Household Income __________________________________________________________________ 9 Table 7: Risk Scoring – Median Household Income ______________________________________________________ 9 Unemployment Rate ______________________________________________________________________ 10 Table 8: Risk Scoring – Unemployment Rate __________________________________________________________ 10 Age of Building Stock ______________________________________________________________________ 11 Table 9: Risk Scoring – Percentage of Housing Units ≥ 55 Years Old ________________________________________ 11 OCCUPANCY ASSESSMENT _______________________________________________________________________ 12 Table 10: Occupancy Risk Scoring Matrix _____________________________________________________________ 12 Table 11: Occupancy Risk by Classification and First Due Station __________________________________________ 13 Table 12: Risk Scoring – Number of Moderate-, High-, and Maximum-Risk Structures _________________________ 13 Table 13: Risk Scoring – Average Value for Census and Occupancy Variables ________________________________ 13 HISTORICAL SERVICE ASSESSMENT _________________________________________________________________ 14 Community Demand ______________________________________________________________________ 14 Table 14: Risk Scoring – Average Number of Calls per Reporting Period 2019-2023 ___________________________ 14 Call Concurrency _________________________________________________________________________ 14 Table 15: Risk Scoring – Call Concurrency Rate 2019-2023 _______________________________________________ 14 OVERALL RISK LEVEL SCORING METHOD _____________________________________________________________ 15 Table 16: First Due Station Risk Scoring Matrix ________________________________________________________ 15 RISK LEVEL SCORING BY FIRST DUE STATION __________________________________________________________ 16 Table 17: Risk Scoring by First Due Station – Component and Average Scores for Economic, Demographic, and Occupancy Variables, Community Demand Data and Scores, Call Concurrency Data and Scores, and Final Scores ___ 16 FIRST DUE STATION RISK PROFILES _________________________________________________________________ 17 Figure 3: Risk Profile – First Due Station 1 _____________________________________________________________ 17 Figure 4: Risk Profile – First Due Station 2 _____________________________________________________________ 17 Figure 5: Risk Profile – First Due Station 3 _____________________________________________________________ 18 FIRST DUE STATION 1 __________________________________________________________________________ 19 Table 18: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – First Due Station 1 ____________________ 19 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE ii Table 19: Call Concurrency – First Due Station 1 ________________________________________________________ 20 Table 20: Number of Responses in All Jurisdictions Made by Unit ID and Reporting Period – Units Assigned to Station 1 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 20 FIRST DUE STATION 2 __________________________________________________________________________ 21 Table 21: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – First Due Station 2 ____________________ 21 Table 22: Call Concurrency – First Due Station 2 ________________________________________________________ 22 Table 23: Number of Responses in All Jurisdictions Made by Unit ID and Reporting Period – Units Assigned to Station 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 22 FIRST DUE STATION 3 __________________________________________________________________________ 23 Table 24: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – First Due Station 3 ____________________ 23 Table 25: Call Concurrency – First Due Station 3 ________________________________________________________ 24 Table 26: Number of Responses in All Jurisdictions Made by Unit ID and Reporting Period – Units Assigned to Station 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 24 APPENDIX __________________________________________________________________________________ 25 CLASSIFICATION OF PROGRAM AREA ________________________________________________________________ 25 Table 27: Classification of Incident Descriptions into Program and Call Category ______________________________ 25 CLASSIFICATION OF RISK LEVEL ____________________________________________________________________ 27 Table 28: Classification of Records into Risk Level Based on Number of Dispatched Units and Program ____________ 27 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 METHODOLOGY We obtained data files from Andover Fire Department (AFD) spanning January 1, 2019 through June 29, 2024, with one record appearing for June 30, 2024. Based on the date range of data provided, five full calendar years of data (i.e., 2019 through 2023) were available for risk analyses. In coordination with departmental leadership, “Incident_Type” values from the data files were classified into the program areas of EMS, fire, hazmat, and rescue (see Table 27 in the Appendix). Records were additionally assigned a risk level classification based on a combination of the number of units dispatched to the call, and the program area to which the call was classified (see Table 28 in the Appendix). Each first due station area was assigned a risk level based on a score composed of economic- and demographic-related data (i.e., population density, square miles, median age of residents, median household income, unemployment rate, and percentage of homes ≥ 55 years old), occupancy data, and historical service data (i.e., community demand and call concurrency; Table 1). Data related to economic and demographic assessment variables, with the exception of square mile data, were exported from mySidewalk (https://www.mysidewalk.com), and represent 2018-2022 data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (see for example, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs). Boundaries for each first due station area were defined by GIS shape files, and square mile data were based on these areas. Table 1: Risk Scoring Variables by Assessment Category Assessment Category Variable Economic and Demographic Population Density Square Miles Median Age of Residents Median Household Income Unemployment Rate Percentage of Homes ≥ 55 Years Old Occupancy Number of Moderate-, High-, and Maximum-Risk Structures Historical Service Community Demand Call Concurrency RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR OVERALL SYSTEM Historical Service Demand Table 2: Number of Calls by Reporting Period, Program, and Risk Level – 2019-2023 AFD’s Jurisdiction Number of Calls Percentage of Calls1 Risk Level Risk Level Reporting Period2 Program Low Moderate High Maximum Total Low Moderate High Maximum Total 2019 EMS 958 22 3 0 983 97.5 2.2 0.3 0.0 100.0 Fire 293 11 15 1 320 91.6 3.4 4.7 0.3 100.0 Hazmat 55 2 0 2 59 93.2 3.4 0.0 3.4 100.0 Rescue 0 1 0 0 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 1,306 36 18 3 1,363 95.8 2.6 1.3 0.2 100.0 2020 EMS 743 36 2 2 783 94.9 4.6 0.3 0.3 100.0 Fire 247 19 13 3 282 87.6 6.7 4.6 1.1 100.0 Hazmat 39 5 0 0 44 88.6 11.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 Rescue 0 0 2 0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Total 1,029 60 17 5 1,111 92.6 5.4 1.5 0.5 100.0 2021 EMS 1,366 20 2 0 1,388 98.4 1.4 0.1 0.0 100.0 Fire 274 12 15 0 301 91.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 100.0 Hazmat 47 4 0 1 52 90.4 7.7 0.0 1.9 100.0 Rescue 0 0 0 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Total 1,687 36 17 2 1,742 96.8 2.1 1.0 0.1 100.0 2022 EMS 1,626 36 3 1 1,666 97.6 2.2 0.2 0.1 100.0 Fire 304 12 13 4 333 91.3 3.6 3.9 1.2 100.0 Hazmat 43 4 0 1 48 89.6 8.3 0.0 2.1 100.0 Rescue 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- Total 1,973 52 16 6 2,047 96.4 2.5 0.8 0.3 100.0 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 Number of Calls Percentage of Calls1 Risk Level Risk Level Reporting Period2 Program Low Moderate High Maximum Total Low Moderate High Maximum Total 2023 EMS 1,722 33 3 1 1,759 97.9 1.9 0.2 0.1 100.0 Fire 328 14 12 7 361 90.9 3.9 3.3 1.9 100.0 Hazmat 43 8 0 1 52 82.7 15.4 0.0 1.9 100.0 Rescue 1 0 0 0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 2,094 55 15 9 2,173 96.4 2.5 0.7 0.4 100.0 All EMS 6,415 147 13 4 6,579 97.5 2.2 0.2 0.1 100.0 Fire 1,446 68 68 15 1,597 90.5 4.3 4.3 0.9 100.0 Hazmat 227 23 0 5 255 89.0 9.0 0.0 2.0 100.0 Rescue 1 1 2 1 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Total 8,089 239 83 25 8,436 95.9 2.8 1.0 0.3 100.0 1“Percentage of Calls” values reflect percentages within each program row, using the number of calls per relevant risk level category as the numerator and the total number of calls in the corresponding program row as the denominator. 2Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 4 Figure 1: Number of Calls by Reporting Period and Risk Level – 2019-2023 AFD’s Jurisdiction 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Nu m b e r o f C a l l s Reporting Period Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Maximum Risk RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 5 Figure 2: Percentage of Calls by Reporting Period and Risk Level – 2019-2023 AFD’s Jurisdiction 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 All Pe r c e n t a g e o f C a l l s Reporting Period Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Maximum Risk RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 6 RISK ASSESSMENT BY FIRST DUE STATION As noted previously, data utilized in the calculation of risk scores for each first due station included variables related to economic, demographic, occupancy, and historical service assessment (Table 3). Table 3: Risk Scoring Variables by Assessment Category Assessment Category Variable Economic and Demographic Population Density Square Miles Median Age of Residents Median Household Income Unemployment Rate Percentage of Homes ≥ 55 Years Old Occupancy Number of Moderate-, High-, and Maximum-Risk Structures Historical Service Community Demand Call Concurrency Economic and Demographic Assessment Economic and demographic assessment was based on census variables exported from mySidewalk (https://www.mysidewalk.com), and represent 2018-2022 data from the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates (see, for example, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs). Population Density The population for each first due station was calculated using total population for 2018-2022 from U.S. Census Bureau data, and the area of each first due station in square miles available through GIS mapping from AFD shape files. As such, population density was calculated as the number of people per square mile in each first due station area, and was scored based on the scale presented in Table 4. Table 4: Risk Scoring – Population Density (People per Square Mile) Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0 500 2 > 500 1,000 3 > 1,000 1,500 4 > 1,500 2,000 5 > 2,000 2,500 6 > 2,500 3,000 7 > 3,000 3,500 8 > 3,500 4,000 9 > 4,000 4,500 10 > 4,500 N/A RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 7 Square Miles Given three current first due stations within the jurisdiction, all else considered equal, the average square miles shared by each first due station would be 11.63 (i.e., 34.88/3). The approximately 2.4- square-mile range containing this average value was set at the risk scoring value of 5 (Table 5). Table 5: Risk Scoring – Square Miles Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0 2.4 2 > 2.4 4.8 3 > 4.8 7.2 4 > 7.2 9.6 5 > 9.6 12.0 6 > 12.0 14.4 7 > 14.4 16.8 8 > 16.8 19.2 9 > 19.2 21.6 10 > 21.6 N/A RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 8 Median Age of Residents Research has demonstrated a relationship between age and use of EMS and fire services or the events leading to the need for EMS and fire services, wherein use and need tend to be highest among older adults, as compared to those in younger age groups. For example, older adults (e.g., 65 years and older) or the elderly (e.g., 85 years and older) have been found to experience higher rates of burns,1 falls,2 fires,3,4 and fire-related injury5 or death,6 and have higher rates of ambulance transport7,8 and use of EMS, in general.9,10 The elderly are also one of the most vulnerable groups during and following disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes.11 Median age was scored based on the scale presented in Table 6. Table 6: Risk Scoring – Median Age (Years) Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0 10 2 > 10 20 3 > 20 30 4 > 30 40 5 > 40 50 6 > 50 60 7 > 60 70 8 > 70 80 9 > 80 90 10 > 90 N/A 1 Hendrix L, Charles A, Buchholz V, Jones S, & Cairns B. (2011). Influence of race and neighborhood on the risk for and outcomes of burns in the elderly in North Carolina. Burns, 37(5), 761-768. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.01.015. 2 Quatman CE, Mondor M, Halweg, Switzer JA. (2018). Ten years of EMS fall calls in a community: An opportunity for injury prevention strategies. Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, 9, 1-6. 3 Karter, Jr., MJ. (2013, September). Fire loss in the United States during 2012. National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research Division. Available: http://tkolb.net/FireReports/2014/FireLoss2012.pdf 4 Runyan C, Bangdiwala S, Linzer M, Sacks J, & Butts J. (1992). Risk factors for fatal residential fires. New England Journal of Medicine. 327(12). pp. 859–863. 5 Warda L, Tenenbein M, & Moffat M. (1999). House fire injury prevention update: Part I. A review of risk factors for fatal and non-fatal house fire injury. Injury Prevention, 5(2), pp. 145–150. 6 Ahrens M. (2021, December). Home fire victims by age and gender. National Fire Protection Association. Available: https://www.nfpa.org//-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Building-and-life- safety/oshomevictims.pdf 7 Meisel ZF, Pines JM, Polsky DP, Metlay JP, Neuman MD, & Branas CC. (2011). Variations in ambulance use in the United States: The role of health insurance. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(1), 1036-1044. 8 Platts-Mills TF, Leacock B, Cabañas JG, Shofer FS, & McLean SA. (2010). Emergency medical services use by the elderly: Analysis of a statewide database. Prehospital Emergency Care, 14, 329-333. 9 Shah MN, Bazarian JJ, Lerner B, Fairbanks RJ, Barker WH, Auinher P, & Friedman B. (2007). The epidemiology of emergency medical services use by older adults: An analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Academic Emergency Medicine, 14, 441-448. DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2007.01.019. 10 Duong HV, Herrera LN, Moore JX, Donnelly J, Jacobson KE, Carlson JN, Mann NC, & Wag HE. (2018). National characteristics of emergency medical services responses for older adults in the United States. Prehospital Emergency Care, 22(1), 7-14. DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2017.1347223. 11 Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgerd JL, & Lewis B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 3. DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1792. Available: http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol8/iss1/3 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 9 Median Household Income Research has demonstrated a relationship between household income and use of EMS and fire services or the events leading to the need for EMS and fire services, such as major trauma, fire events, or disasters. For example, researchers have found that lower-income communities as compared to higher-income communities experience higher rates of intentional injuries and traumatic deaths,12 unintentional injuries and related deaths (e.g., drowning, exposure to smoke or fire, falls, motor vehicle collisions, and unintentional poisoning),13 fires,14,15 and fire-related injuries.16 Additionally, lower-income families are less likely to have access to private transportation such that their use of transport services is higher, as compared to higher- income families.17,18 Lower-income communities are also less likely to have the financial resources necessary to prepare for, and to recover from, disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes.19 Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2018-2022, adjusted for 2022 dollars, median household income for Andover, MN was $123,054. The approximately $10,000 range containing this value was set at the risk scoring value of 5 (Table 7). Table 7: Risk Scoring – Median Household Income Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 > $155,000 N/A 2 > $145,000 $155,000 3 > $135,000 $145,000 4 > $125,000 $135,000 5 > $115,000 $125,000 6 > $105,000 $115,000 7 > $95,000 $105,000 8 > $85,000 $95,000 9 > $75,000 $85,000 10 $0 $75,000 12 Newgard CD, Schmicker RH, Sopko G, et al. (2011). Trauma in the neighborhood: A geospatial analysis and assessment of social determinants of major injury in North America. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 669-677. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300063. 13 Karb RA, Subramanian SV, Fleegler EW. (2016) County poverty concentration and disparities in unintentional injury deaths: A fourteen-year analysis of 1.6 million U.S. fatalities. PLoS ONE 11 (5): e0153516. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153516. 14 Karter, Jr., MJ. (2013, September). Fire loss in the United States during 2012. National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research Division. Available: http://tkolb.net/FireReports/2014/FireLoss2012.pdf 15 Fahy R, & Maheshwari R. (2021, July). Poverty and the risk of fire. National Fire Protection Association. Available: https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/News%20and%20Research/Fire%20statistics%20and%20reports/US%20Fire%20Problem/ospove rty.pdf 16 Shai D. (2006). Income, housing, and fire injuries: A census tract analysis. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2, (March–April 2006): 149-154, DOI: 10.1177/003335490612100208. 17 Meisel ZF, Pines JM, Polsky DP, Metlay JP, Neuman MD, & Branas CC. (2011). Variations in ambulance use in the United States: The role of health insurance. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(1), 1036-1044. 18 Riney LC, Brokamp C, Beck AF, Pomerantz WJ, Schwartz HP, & Florin TA. (2018). Emergency medical services utilization is associated with community deprivation in children. Prehospital Emergency Care, DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2018.1501124. 19 Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgerd JL, & Lewis B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 3. DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1792. Available: http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol8/iss1/3 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 10 Unemployment Rate Research has demonstrated a relationship between unemployment rates and events leading to the need for EMS and fire services. For example, as compared to communities with lower rates of unemployment, communities with higher rates of unemployment tend to also have higher rates of severe firearm injuries20 and other major injury or trauma events,21,22 and higher rates of overdose and overdose-related deaths.23 Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2018-2022, the unemployment rate for Andover, MN was 2.6%. The approximately 0.6% range containing this value was set at the risk scoring value of 5 (Table 8). Table 8: Risk Scoring – Unemployment Rate Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0% 0.6% 2 > 0.6% 1.2% 3 > 1.2% 1.8% 4 > 1.8% 2.4% 5 > 2.4% 3.0% 6 > 3.0% 3.6% 7 > 3.6% 4.2% 8 > 4.2% 4.8% 9 > 4.8% 5.4% 10 > 5.4% N/A 20 Newgard CD et al. (2016). A geospatial analysis of severe firearm injuries compared to other injury mechanisms: Event characteristics, location, timing, and outcomes. Academic Emergency Medicine, 23(5), 554-565. 21 Newgard CD, et al. (2011). Trauma in the neighborhood: A geospatial analysis and assessment of social determinants of major injury in North America. American Journal of Public Health, 101(4), 669-677. 22 Cook A, Gonzalez JR, & Balasubramanin BA. (2014). Do neighborhood demographics, crime rates, and alcohol outlet density predict incidence, severity, and outcome of hospitalization for traumatic injury? A cross-sectional study of Dallas County, Texas, 2010. Injury Epidemiology, 1:23. 23 Cerdá M, Krawczyk, Hamilton L, Rudolh KE, Friedman SR, & Keyes KM. (2021). A critical review of the social and behavioral contributions to the overdose epidemic. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 95-114. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 11 Age of Building Stock The fire service has long demonstrated a correlation between age of building stock and the incidence of fire due to maintenance and care, dehydration of wood, and other implications such as electrical wiring,24 wherein older structures tend to experience fire events at higher rates when compared to newer structures.25 People living in older homes not only experience higher rates of fire-related injuries and death,26,27,28 but they may also experience relatively higher rates of burns,29 falls,30 carbon monoxide poisoning,31 and lead poisoning.32,33 Older homes were also constructed based on different standards such that they are often more vulnerable during natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes,34 and earthquakes. The percentage of building stock 55 years of age and older was scored in three-percent increments (Table 9). Table 9: Risk Scoring – Percentage of Housing Units ≥ 55 Years Old Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0 3% 2 > 3% 6% 3 > 6% 9% 4 > 9% 12% 5 > 12% 15% 6 > 15% 18% 7 > 18% 21% 8 > 21% 24% 9 > 24% 27% 10 > 27% N/A 24 Rasdall J. (2005). Aging residential wiring issues: Concerns for fatalities, personal injuries, and loss of property. Education Presentation, Annual Household Equipment Technical Conference General Electric Appliance Park, Louisville, KY; Oct. 26-28, 2005. 25 TriData Corporation. (1998, April). An NFIRS analysis: Investigating city characteristics and residential fire rates. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. Available: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=10004 26 Shai D. (2006). Income, housing, and fire injuries: A census tract analysis. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2, (March–April 2006): 149-154, DOI: 10.1177/003335490612100208. 27 Runyan C, Bangdiwala S, Linzer M, Sacks J, and Butts J. (1992). Risk factors for fatal residential fires. New England Journal of Medicine. 327(12). pp. 859–863. 28 Istre GR, McCoy MA, Osborn L, Barnard JJ, & Bolton A. (2001). Deaths and injuries from house fires. New England Journal of Medicine, 344(25), 1911-1916. 29 Hendrix L, Charles A, Buchholz V, Jones S, & Cairns B. (2011). Influence of race and neighborhood on the risk for and outcomes of burns in the elderly in North Carolina. Burns, 37(5), 761-768. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.01.015. 30 Shenassa ED, Stubbendick A, & Brown MJ. (2004). Social disparities in housing and related pediatric injury: A multilevel study. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 633-639. 31 Sircar K, Clower J, Shin MK, Bailey C, King M, & Yip F. (2015). Carbon monoxide poisoning deaths in the United States, 1999 to 2012. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 33(9), 1140-1145. 32 Kim DY, Staley F, Curtis G, & Buchanan S. (2002). Relation between housing age, housing value, and childhood blood lead levels in children in Jefferson County, KY. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 769-770. 33 Farfel MR, Orlova AO, Lees PSJ, Rohde C, Ashley PJ, & Chisolm JJ. (2003). A study of urban housing demolitions as sources of lead in ambient dust: Demolition practices and exterior dust fall. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(9), 1228-1234. 34 Paul BK & Stimers M. (2012). Exploring probable reasons for record fatalities: The case of 2011 Joplin, Missouri, Tornado. Natural Hazards, 64, 1511-1526. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 12 Occupancy Assessment A data file containing 194 occupancies was provided by AFD to measure occupancy risk based on number of stories above grade, total square footage, and needed fire flow (Table 10). Table 10: Occupancy Risk Scoring Matrix Risk Classification Number of Stories Above Grade Total Square Footage Needed Fire Flow Total Risk Score Score Scale Score Scale Score Scale Scale Maximum 7 ≥ 10 7 > 100,000 7 ≥ 4,500 ≥ 17 High 5 ≥ 4 to < 10 5 > 10,000 to 100,000 5 ≥ 3,000 to < 4,500 ≥ 11 to < 17 Moderate 3 > 1 to < 4 3 ≥ 5,000 to 10,000 3 ≥ 1,500 to < 3,000 and Unknown ≥ 5 to < 11 Low 1 ≤ 1 1 < 5,000 1 0 to < 1,500 < 5 This scoring process resulted in 52 occupancies classified as low risk, 131 occupancies classified as moderate risk, 11 occupancies classified as high risk, and no occupancies classified as maximum risk (Table 11). Based on GIS shape files, however, eight of these occupancies were mapped as being outside of AFD’s jurisdiction. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 13 Table 11: Occupancy Risk by Classification and First Due Station Risk Level First Due Station Low Moderate High Maximum Total 1 33 88 6 0 127 2 2 3 0 0 5 3 16 34 4 0 54 Outside of AFD 1 6 1 0 8 Total 52 131 11 0 194 Scoring for occupancy data reflects the number of moderate-, high-, and maximum-risk structures, and was based on the scale presented in Table 12. Table 12: Risk Scoring – Number of Moderate-, High-, and Maximum-Risk Structures Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0 10 2 > 10 20 3 > 20 30 4 > 30 40 5 > 40 50 6 > 50 60 7 > 60 70 8 > 70 80 9 > 80 90 10 > 90 N/A Scoring values for census and occupancy variables were then averaged and assigned a value based on the scale presented in Table 13. Table 13: Risk Scoring – Average Value for Census and Occupancy Variables Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 1 1.33 2 > 1.33 2.66 3 > 2.66 3.99 4 > 3.99 4.99 5 > 4.99 5.99 6 > 5.99 6.99 7 > 6.99 7.99 8 > 7.99 8.99 9 > 8.99 9.99 10 > 9.99 10 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 14 Historical Service Assessment Community Demand Community demand was calculated and used as the first historical demand-related variable in the model for each first due station’s risk profile. Scoring was based on the scale presented in Table 14. Table 14: Risk Scoring – Average Number of Calls per Reporting Period 2019-2023 Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0 449 2 > 449 899 3 > 899 1,349 4 > 1,349 1,799 5 > 1,799 2,249 6 > 2,249 2,699 7 > 2,699 3,149 8 > 3,149 3,599 9 > 3,599 4,049 10 > 4,049 N/A Call Concurrency Call concurrency rate (or percentage of calls that overlapped) was calculated and utilized as the second historical demand-related variable in the model for each first due station’s risk profile. Scoring was based on the scale presented in Table 15. Table 15: Risk Scoring – Call Concurrency Rate 2019-2023 Range Value Minimum Maximum 1 0 2.99% 2 > 2.99% 5.99% 3 > 5.99% 8.99% 4 > 8.99% 11.99% 5 > 11.99% 14.99% 6 > 14.99% 17.99% 7 > 17.99% 20.99% 8 > 20.99% 23.99% 9 > 23.99% 26.99% 10 > 26.99% N/A RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 15 Overall Risk Level Scoring Method Once all first due stations were assigned scores for all three variables—“Community Demand (D)” score, “Call Concurrency (C)” score, and average census and occupancy score or “Homogenized Risk (R)” score—the values were placed into a formula to yield a final risk score, as follows: square root of [((C * D)2 + (C * R)2 + (D * R)2)/2] First due stations were then assigned an overall risk level classification of low, moderate, high, or maximum based on the resulting values of the application of the above formula, in conjunction with the overall scoring scale depicted in the right-hand column in Table 16. Table 16: First Due Station Risk Scoring Matrix Risk Level Community Demand (D) Call Concurrency (C) Homogenized Risk (R) Total Risk Score Value Scale (Average Calls per Period) Value Scale (%) Value Scale (Average Score) √ [(%&)!+(%))!+(&))!] * Maximum 10 > 4,049 10 > 26.99 10 10 ≥ 99.5 High 7 to 9 > 2,699 to 4,049 7 to 9 > 17.99 to 26.99 7 to 9 7 to < 10 44.5 to < 99.5 Moderate 4 to 6 > 1,349 to 2,699 4 to 6 > 8.99 to 17.99 4 to 6 4 to < 7 12 to < 44.5 Low 1 to 3 ≤ 1,349 1 to 3 ≤ 8.99 1 to 3 < 4 < 12 Component and final risk scores by first due station are reported in Table 17 on the next page, sorted in descending order by final risk score. Risk profiles for each first due station subsequently appear in Figure 3 through Figure 5. Finally, call volume, call concurrency, and response volume metrics are then presented by first due station in Table 18 through Table 26. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 16 Risk Level Scoring by First Due Station Table 17: Risk Scoring by First Due Station – Component and Average Scores for Economic, Demographic, and Occupancy Variables, Community Demand Data and Scores, Call Concurrency Data and Scores, and Final Scores Economic, Demographic, and Occupancy Data Historical Service Data Final Scoring Fi r s t D u e S t a t i o n Po p u l a t i o n D e n s i t y Sq u a r e M i l e s Me d i a n A g e o f R e s i d e n t s Me d i a n H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e Un e m p l o y m e n t R a t e Pe r c e n t a g e o f H o m e s ≥ 55 Ye a r s O l d Nu m b e r o f Mo d e r a t e -, H i g h -, a n d Ma x i m u m -Ri s k S t r u c t u r e s Ce n s u s A v e r a g e Va l u e Ce n s u s A v e r a g e V a l u e R i s k S c o r e To t a l N u m b e r o f C a l l s Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f C a l l s p e r P e r i o d De m a n d R i s k S c o r e Ca l l C o n c u r r e n c y R a t e Ca l l Co n c u r r e n c y Ra t e Ri s k S c o r e Fi n a l R i s k S c o r e Fi n a l R i s k L e v e l 1 4 4 4 5 6 3 10 5.14 5 4,229 845.8 2 5.1 2 10.39 Low 3 2 6 4 3 2 2 4 3.29 3 2,622 524.4 2 4.7 2 6.63 Low 2 1 6 5 5 6 4 1 4.00 4 1,585 317.0 1 3.3 2 6.48 Low RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 17 First Due Station Risk Profiles Figure 3: Risk Profile – First Due Station 1 Figure 4: Risk Profile – First Due Station 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Demand CensusCall Concurrency First Due Station 1 Low 0 2 4 6 8 10 Demand CensusCall Concurrency First Due Station 2 Low RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 18 Figure 5: Risk Profile – First Due Station 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 Demand CensusCall Concurrency First Due Station 3 Low RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 19 First Due Station 1 Table 18: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – First Due Station 1 Reporting Period1 Program and Call Type2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 EMS 504 397 720 809 899 Breathing Difficulty 94 99 136 123 126 Cardiac and Stroke 86 70 112 86 102 Fall and Injury 38 39 43 61 69 Illness and Other 201 125 340 454 493 Lift Assist 56 37 42 42 67 Overdose and Psychiatric 0 1 2 1 2 Seizure and Unconsciousness 29 26 45 42 40 Fire 153 123 138 175 168 Fire Alarm 41 32 29 38 48 Fire Investigation 2 4 0 3 7 Fire Other 13 11 30 42 29 Hazardous Condition 72 54 36 64 49 Mutual Aid 2 2 0 1 0 Outside Fire 2 4 15 1 4 Public Assistance 7 8 15 14 17 Structure Fire 8 7 9 8 11 Vehicle Fire 6 1 4 4 3 Hazmat 32 25 30 26 27 Hazmat 32 25 30 26 27 Rescue 0 1 1 0 1 Rescue 0 1 1 0 1 Total 689 546 889 1,010 1,095 Average Calls per Day3 1.9 1.5 2.4 2.8 3.0 YoY Growth N/A -20.8% 62.8% 13.6% 8.4% 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective period. 2Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. 3Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 20 Table 19: Call Concurrency – First Due Station 1 First Due Station Reporting Period1 Number of Overlapped Calls Total Number of Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls 1 2019 32 689 4.6 2020 29 546 5.3 2021 36 889 4.0 2022 59 1,010 5.8 2023 61 1,095 5.6 All 217 4,229 5.1 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. Table 20: Number of Responses in All Jurisdictions Made by Unit ID and Reporting Period – Units Assigned to Station 1 Assigned Station Unit ID Reporting Period1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 1 AA1 36 25 26 23 35 AE1 296 199 325 387 469 AL1 0 0 0 0 2 AR1 716 620 916 1,167 1,130 AT11 0 1 1 0 0 AU1 0 0 0 3 1 AU10 4 11 12 18 27 AU2 0 0 20 16 0 AU24 29 62 69 66 82 AU4 2 1 2 7 1 Total 1,083 919 1,371 1,687 1,747 Average Responses per Day2 3.0 2.5 3.8 4.6 4.8 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. 2Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29; the other reporting periods each contained 365 days. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 21 First Due Station 2 Table 21: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – First Due Station 2 Reporting Period1 Program and Call Type2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 EMS 171 158 244 317 336 Breathing Difficulty 36 42 42 48 59 Cardiac and Stroke 28 31 36 42 45 Fall and Injury 23 16 17 25 23 Illness and Other 60 51 108 166 179 Lift Assist 18 12 31 25 14 Overdose and Psychiatric 0 0 1 0 0 Seizure and Unconsciousness 6 6 9 11 16 Fire 61 62 64 51 77 Fire Alarm 8 13 12 19 25 Fire Investigation 0 1 2 1 2 Fire Other 3 1 9 10 22 Hazardous Condition 36 31 27 13 15 Mutual Aid 0 0 0 0 0 Outside Fire 2 3 3 1 2 Public Assistance 3 3 3 1 6 Structure Fire 8 6 3 3 4 Vehicle Fire 1 4 5 3 1 Hazmat 11 7 10 10 5 Hazmat 11 7 10 10 5 Rescue 1 0 0 0 0 Rescue 1 0 0 0 0 Total 244 227 318 378 418 Average Calls per Day3 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 YoY Growth N/A -7.0% 40.1% 18.9% 10.6% 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective period. 2Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. 3Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 22 Table 22: Call Concurrency – First Due Station 2 First Due Station Reporting Period1 Number of Overlapped Calls Total Number of Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls 2 2019 9 244 3.7 2020 8 227 3.5 2021 11 318 3.5 2022 9 378 2.4 2023 15 418 3.6 All 52 1,585 3.3 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. Table 23: Number of Responses in All Jurisdictions Made by Unit ID and Reporting Period – Units Assigned to Station 2 Assigned Station Unit ID Reporting Period1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2 AE2 53 52 77 79 73 AG2 10 11 10 2 6 AR2 70 87 150 187 159 AT2 11 11 9 14 15 Total 144 161 246 282 253 Average Responses per Day2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. 2Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29; the other reporting periods each contained 365 days. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 23 First Due Station 3 Table 24: Number of Calls by Program, Call Type, and Reporting Period – First Due Station 3 Reporting Period1 Program and Call Type2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 EMS 308 228 424 540 524 Breathing Difficulty 58 51 80 71 68 Cardiac and Stroke 50 42 53 73 74 Fall and Injury 18 23 26 24 26 Illness and Other 129 75 228 315 300 Lift Assist 33 20 18 39 37 Overdose and Psychiatric 0 3 0 0 3 Seizure and Unconsciousness 20 14 19 18 16 Fire 106 97 99 107 116 Fire Alarm 29 28 34 33 34 Fire Investigation 0 1 0 1 3 Fire Other 7 8 18 30 40 Hazardous Condition 60 40 35 28 23 Mutual Aid 0 0 0 0 0 Outside Fire 3 7 6 1 1 Public Assistance 3 5 4 7 13 Structure Fire 2 6 0 3 2 Vehicle Fire 2 2 2 4 0 Hazmat 16 12 12 12 20 Hazmat 16 12 12 12 20 Rescue 0 1 0 0 0 Rescue 0 1 0 0 0 Total 430 338 535 659 660 Average Calls per Day3 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.8 1.8 YoY Growth N/A -21.4% 58.3% 23.2% 0.2% 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective period. 2Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call type category are presented in the Appendix. 3Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29, 2020. All other reporting periods each contained 365 days. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 24 Table 25: Call Concurrency – First Due Station 3 First Due Station Reporting Period1 Number of Overlapped Calls Total Number of Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls 3 2019 18 430 4.2 2020 18 338 5.3 2021 20 535 3.7 2022 31 659 4.7 2023 35 660 5.3 All 122 2,622 4.7 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. Table 26: Number of Responses in All Jurisdictions Made by Unit ID and Reporting Period – Units Assigned to Station 3 Assigned Station Unit ID Reporting Period1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 3 AE3 106 72 73 94 94 AG3 2 13 8 3 5 AG32 2 6 6 1 3 AR3 96 135 205 197 244 AREH 0 0 0 2 3 AT3 13 19 11 10 6 Total 219 245 303 307 355 Average Responses per Day2 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1Reporting periods reflect calendar years spanning January 1 to December 31 of each respective reporting period. 2Reporting period 2020 contained 366 days due to inclusion of leap year date February 29; the other reporting periods each contained 365 days. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 25 APPENDIX Classification of Program Area Table 27: Classification of Incident Descriptions into Program and Call Category Program Call Category “Incident_Type” Values from Data File1 DELETE DELETE Test EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Breathing-Difficult EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Breathing-NOT EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Choking EMS Breathing Difficulty Medical-Drown EMS Cardiac and Stroke Medical-Heart EMS Cardiac and Stroke Medical-Stroke EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Assault EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Electro EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Fall EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Severe Bleed EMS Fall and Injury Medical-Stab-Gunshot EMS Fall and Injury PI Accident EMS Illness and Other CO Alarm - Ill EMS Illness and Other Medical EMS Illness and Other Medical-Alarm EMS Illness and Other Medical-Allergic EMS Illness and Other Medical-ILL EMS Illness and Other Medical-Misc EMS Illness and Other Medical-OB EMS Illness and Other Slumper EMS Lift Assist Lift Assist EMS Overdose and Psychiatric Suicide in Progress EMS Seizure and Unconsciousness Medical-Seizure EMS Seizure and Unconsciousness Medical-Uncon Fire Fire Alarm Fire Alarm - No Smoke Fire Fire Alarm Fire Alarm - With Smoke Fire Fire Alarm Water Flow Alarm Fire Fire Investigation Anoka Co Fire Inv Tm (ACFIT) Fire Fire Other Information Fire Fire Other Misc Fire Fire Fire Other Phone Call Request Fire Fire Other Road closure info Fire Fire Other Station Staffing RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 26 Program Call Category “Incident_Type” Values from Data File1 Fire Hazardous Condition CO Alarm - No Ill Fire Hazardous Condition Electrical smell Fire Hazardous Condition Explosion heard in area Fire Hazardous Condition Flooding Fire Hazardous Condition Illegal Burn Fire Hazardous Condition Powerlines Fire Hazardous Condition Smoke Inside Fire Hazardous Condition Smoke Outside Fire Hazardous Condition System work, flaring, confined Fire Mutual Aid Fire Mutual Aid Fire Outside Fire Dumpster Fire Fire Outside Fire Grass Fire Fire Public Assistance Animal Rescue (BART) Fire Public Assistance Public Assist Fire Structure Fire Oven Fire Fire Structure Fire Structure Fire Fire Vehicle Fire Vehicle Fire Hazmat Hazmat Chem Assessment Team (CAT) Hazmat Hazmat Fluid Spills (Gasoline, etc) Hazmat Hazmat Gas Cut Inside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Cut Outside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Leak/Odor Inside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Leak/Odor Outside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Odor Inside Hazmat Hazmat Gas Odor Outside Hazmat Hazmat Hazmat Rescue Rescue Specialized Rescue Team (SRT) Rescue Rescue Water/Ice Rescue 1Entries are presented verbatim from the data file. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 27 Classification of Risk Level Table 28: Classification of Records into Risk Level Based on Number of Dispatched Units and Program Program Number of Units Dispatched1 Risk Level Classification EMS o Low EMS 1 Low EMS 2 Low EMS 3 Low EMS 4 Moderate EMS 5 Moderate EMS 6 High EMS 7 High EMS 8 Maximum EMS 10 Maximum EMS 12 Maximum Fire 0 Low Fire 1 Low Fire 2 Low Fire 3 Low Fire 4 Moderate Fire 5 Moderate Fire 6 High Fire 7 High Fire 8 High Fire 9 High Fire 10 High Fire 11 High Fire 12 High Fire 13 High Fire 14 High Fire 15 High Fire 17 High Fire 18 High Fire 19 High Fire 20 Maximum Fire 21 Maximum Fire 22 Maximum Fire 24 Maximum Fire 26 Maximum RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 28 Program Number of Units Dispatched1 Risk Level Classification Fire 27 Maximum Fire 28 Maximum Fire 30 Maximum Fire 31 Maximum Fire 33 Maximum Hazmat 0 Low Hazmat 1 Low Hazmat 2 Low Hazmat 3 Moderate Hazmat 4 Moderate Hazmat 5 Maximum Hazmat 7 Maximum Rescue 0 Low Rescue 2 Low Rescue 3 Moderate Rescue 5 High Rescue 6 High Rescue 10 Maximum 1Only observed categories during 2019-2023 are included; e.g., there were no instances during 2019-2023 wherein nine or 11 units were dispatched to an EMS type of call. PO Box 170, 2901 Williamsburg Terrace, Suite G, Platte City, Missouri 64079 March 2025 Andover GIS Report (816) 431-2600 (816) 431-2653 www.fitchassoc.com Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE i TABLE of CONTENTS ESTABLISHING BASELINE PERFORMANCE __________________________________________________________ 2 COMPARISON TO NATIONAL REFERENCES _____________________________________________________________ 3 EVALUATION OF VARIOUS DISTRIBUTION MODELS __________________________________________________ 4 AFD STATION LOCATIONS – ALL CALLS _______________________________________________________________ 5 6-Minute Travel Time ______________________________________________________________________ 5 Table 2: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time – All Calls _______________________________ 5 Figure 1: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time– All Calls _________________________________ 5 8-Minute Travel Time ______________________________________________________________________ 6 Table 3: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Travel Time – All Calls _______________________________ 6 Figure 2: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 8-Minute Travel Time– All Calls _________________________________ 6 10-Minute Travel Time _____________________________________________________________________ 7 Table 4: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Travel Time – All Calls ______________________________ 7 Figure 3: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 10-Minute Travel Time– All Calls ________________________________ 7 12-Minute Travel Time _____________________________________________________________________ 8 Table 5: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls _______________________________ 8 Figure 4: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls ________________________________ 8 OPTIMIZED STATION LOCATIONS – ALL CALLS __________________________________________________________ 9 6-Minute Travel Time ______________________________________________________________________ 9 Table 2: Optimized Posts Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time – All Calls ___________________________________ 9 Figure 1: Optimized Posts Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time– All Calls _____________________________________ 9 8-Minute Travel Time _____________________________________________________________________ 10 Table 3: Optimized Post Contribution for 8-Minute Travel Time – All Calls ___________________________________ 10 Figure 2: Optimized Post Bleed Map for 8-Minute Travel Time– All Calls ____________________________________ 10 10-Minute Travel Time ____________________________________________________________________ 11 Table 4: Optimized Post Contribution for 10-Minute Travel Time – All Calls _________________________________ 11 Figure 3: Optimized Post Bleed Map for 10-Minute Travel Time– All Calls ___________________________________ 11 12-Minute Travel Time ____________________________________________________________________ 12 Table 5: Optimized Post Contribution for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls __________________________________ 12 Figure 4: Optimized Post Bleed Map for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls ___________________________________ 12 DISTRIBUTION OF RISK ACROSS THE JURISDICTION _________________________________________________ 13 DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND BY PROGRAM AREAS _______________________________________________________ 13 Figure 6: Heat Map for All Calls ____________________________________________________________________ 13 Figure 7: Heat Map for EMS Calls ___________________________________________________________________ 14 Figure 8: Heat Map for Fire Calls ___________________________________________________________________ 14 Figure 12: Urban and Rural Call Density Map __________________________________________________________ 15 LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE MODELS PRESENTED _________________________________________________ 16 PROJECTED GROWTH __________________________________________________________________________ 17 Figure 20: Observed and Projected Growth in Call Volume 2019-2033 – All Jurisdictions _______________________ 17 PAGE 2 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHING BASELINE PERFORMANCE The first step in completing GIS planning analyses is to establish the desired performance parameters. Measures of total response time can be significantly influenced by both internal and external influences. For example, the dispatch time, defined as the time from call creation at the 911- center to the dispatching of units, contributes to the customer’s overall response time experience. Another element in the total response time continuum is the turnout time, defined as the time from when the units are notified of the incident until they are actually responding. Turnout time can have a significant impact on the overall response time for the customer and is generally considered under management’s control. However, the travel time, defined as the period from when the units are actually responding until arrival at the incident is the efficacy of the posting plan, the ability to travel unimpeded on the road network, the existing road network’s ability to navigate the community, and the availability of the units. Largely, travel time is the most stable variable to utilize in system design regarding response time performance. Therefore, these GIS planning analyses will focus on travel time capability as the unit of measure. Performance for travel time of first arriving Andover Fire Department (AFD) units to emergency calls during the 2023 reporting period (i.e., January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023) is provided below. Overall, travel time in combined demand areas was 8.1 minutes or less for 90% of the incidents with an emergency response. EMS related incidents had a travel time performance of 8.1 minutes or less for 90% of the incidents, and fire related incidents had a travel time performance of 9.3 minutes or less for 90% of the incidents. Table 1: 90th Percentile Performance Times by Program– First Arriving AFD Units in AFD’s Jurisdiction Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) EMS 0.6 8.4 8.1 13.1 1,457 Fire 0.6 9.8 9.3 15.6 189 Hazmat 0.8 10.2 8.5 13.7 48 Rescue -- -- -- -- 0 Total 0.6 8.8 8.1 13.6 1,694 1Sample sizes reflect the number of responses to emergency calls made by first arriving primary front-line units assigned to AFD; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. PAGE 3 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Comparison to National References There are two notable references for travel time available to the fire service in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 17100F 1 and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI)1F 2. NFPA 1710 suggests a 4-minute travel time at the 90th percentile for first due arrival of Basic Life Support (BLS) and fire incidents, and the CFAI recommends a 5 minute and 12 seconds travel time for first due arrival in an urban/suburban population density. The arrival of an Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit is recommended at 8-minutes travel time by NFPA 1710. It is important to note that the latest editions of the CFAI guidelines have de-emphasized response time and only reference the legacy standards with a separately provided companion document2F 3. The peer reviewed evidenced-based research suggests that the response time of 5 minutes or less has the greatest impact of the risk of mortality in a subgroup of calls with a high-risk of mortality. In these studies, it was commonly found that the risk of mortality did not materially change between 6- minutes and 12-minutes. In other words, establishing desired performance is largely a local policy choice because the relative return on investment is non-linear across all performance windows. When referring to the marginal utility analyses provided in the tables on the following pages, ascending rank order is the station’s capability to cover risk (incidents) for all calls in relation to the total historical call volume of the sample period (2023). Station or Post is the identifier for the current AFD post; station/post capture is the number of calls the station would capture within the specified travel time parameter; total capture is the cumulative number of calls captured with the addition of each station/post; and percent capture is the cumulative percentage of risk covered with the addition of each station or post location. The goal would be to achieve at least 90% capture. Figures depict drive-time mapping. 1 National Fire Protection Association. (2010). NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 2 CFAI. (2009). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (8th ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. (page 71) 3 CFAI. (2016). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (9th ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. PAGE 4 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT EVALUATION OF VARIOUS DISTRIBUTION MODELS As previously discussed, these analyses utilized 2023 historical performance as the desired performance for system design. Various configurations of 6- to 12-minute travel times were completed to consider alternatives compared to the current performance of 8.1 minutes travel time at the 90th percentile. Analyses are presented as follows: 1. Andover stations responding to ALL calls at 6-, 8-, 10- and 12-minute travel times. 2. Optimized posting locations responding to ALL calls at 6-, 8-, 10- and 12-minute travel times. Analyses are offered to compare the various potential distribution models. PAGE 5 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT AFD Station Locations – All Calls 6-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that with 3 AFD stations, 95.31% of calls can be responded to within 6 minutes or less travel time. Table 2: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time – All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 S1 6 1359 1359 62.54% 2 S3 6 431 1790 82.37% 3 S2 6 281 2071 95.31% Figure 1: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 6 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT 8-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that with 3 AFD stations, 99.68% of calls can be responded to within 8 minutes or less travel time. However, a two-station configuration can achieve 96.46% coverage within an 8- minute travel time. Table 3: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 8-Minute Travel Time – All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 S1 8 1759 1759 80.95% 2 S2 8 337 2096 96.46% 3 S3 8 70 2166 99.68% Figure 2: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 8-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 7 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT 10-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that with 3 AFD stations, 99.95% of calls can be responded to within 10 minutes or less travel time. However, a one-station configuration can achieve 94.34% coverage within a 10- minute travel time. Table 4: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 10-Minute Travel Time – All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 S3 10 2050 2050 94.34% 2 S2 10 122 2172 99.95% 3 S1 10 0 2172 99.95% Figure 3: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 10-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 8 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT 12-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that with 3 AFD stations, 99.95% of calls can be responded to within 12 minutes or less travel time. However, a one-station configuration can achieve 99.82% coverage within a 12- minute travel time. Table 5: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 S3 12 2169 2169 99.82% 2 S2 12 3 2172 99.95% 3 S1 12 0 2172 99.95% Figure 4: Current AFD Station Bleed Map for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 9 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Optimized Station Locations – All Calls Optimized location analyses utilize a whiteboard approach of allowing the data to suggest optimal placement. It is understood that it would be difficult to relocate stations in a short period as well as there may not be land available or the land may be cost prohibitive. However, these analyses may prove beneficial in long-range planning considerations. 6-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that 2 priority posts can respond to 95.12% of calls within 6 minutes or less travel time. Table 6: Optimized Posts Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time – All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 P0040 6 1703 1703 78.37% 2 P0318 6 364 2067 95.12% Figure 5: Optimized Posts Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 10 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT 8-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that 1 priority post can respond to 97.19% of calls within 8 minutes or less travel time. Table 7: Optimized Post Contribution for 8-Minute Travel Time – All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 P0345 8 2112 2112 97.19% Figure 6: Optimized Post Bleed Map for 8-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 11 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT 10-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that 1 priority post can respond to 99.95% of calls within 10 minutes or less travel time. Table 8: Optimized Post Contribution for 10-Minute Travel Time – All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 P0352 10 2172 2172 99.95% Figure 7: Optimized Post Bleed Map for 10-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 12 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT 12-Minute Travel Time Results suggest that 1 priority post can respond to 99.95% of calls within 12 minutes or less travel time. Table 9: Optimized Post Contribution for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls Rank Station Drive Time (Min) Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 P0502 12 2172 2172 99.95% Figure 8: Optimized Post Bleed Map for 12-Minute Travel Time– All Calls PAGE 13 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT DISTRIBUTION OF RISK ACROSS THE JURISDICTION Distribution of Demand by Program Areas Heat maps were created to identify the concentration of the historic demand for services overall and by program area (i.e., EMS, Fire, and other). The blue areas have the lowest concentration of demand, and the dark red areas have the highest concentration of demand. Figure 9: Heat Map for All Calls PAGE 14 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Figure 10: Heat Map for EMS Calls Figure 11: Heat Map for Fire Calls PAGE 15 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Finally, we calculated call density by assessing the relative concentration of incidents within approximately 0.5-mile geographic areas as well as the adjacent 0.5-mile areas. The results demonstrate an urban and rural designation based on call density for services and not based on population. The red areas are designated as urban service areas, and the green areas are designated as rural service areas. Any area that is not colored has less than one call every six months in the 0.5- mile area and the adjacent areas. Figure 12: Urban and Rural Call Density Map PAGE 16 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Long-Term Sustainability of the Models Presented It is important to understand that the distribution models are restricted to the geographic limitations of the jurisdiction and the historical demand for services. Therefore, the number of stations/posts is descriptive of the number of fixed facilities and posting locations required from which to deploy resources. These analyses do not specifically describe the concentration of resources required at each fire station facility or post location to adequately handle the demand for services. For example, some stations/posts may require two or more units in order to handle the demand for services. With respect to the long-term sustainability of the deployment models presented here, the models will remain accurate for as long as the jurisdiction’s overall coverage area has not expanded. In other words, if the city’s square mileage remains, then the deployment strategy will be sustainable indefinitely with respect to the coverage area. As other variables such as population density or socioeconomic status change over time, there may be a need for a higher concentration of resources necessary to meet the growing demand for services, but not additional stations. The most prominent reason that the geographic distribution model would need to be updated is for changes in traffic impedance that significantly limit the historical average travel speed. Monitoring travel time performance, system reliability, and call concurrency will provide timely feedback for changes in the environment that could impact the distribution model. PAGE 17 Andover GIS Report ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Projected Growth The available data set included a five-year reporting period of data, representing calendar years 2019 to 2023. From 2019 to 2023, calls for AFD services increased from 1,368 to 2,180, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.4% per year. The figure below depicts observed call volume during the last five reporting periods and various hypothetical growth scenarios over the next 10 reporting periods. We’ve also included one lower and one higher hypothetical annual growth rate scenario to provide a plausible range around the CAGR. Because the observed range of YoY growth from 2019 to 2023 for AFD was -18.6% to 5.61%, plausible range values of 6.0% and 17.0% were selected instead. These projections should be used with caution due to the variability in growth observed across prior calendar years (i.e., Covid-19 negative growth). In all cases, data should be reviewed annually to ensure timely updates to projections. Figure 13: Observed and Projected Growth in Call Volume 2019-2033 – All Jurisdictions 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Nu m b e r o f C a l l s Year Low 6.0%High 17.0%CAGR 12.4% PO Box 170, 2901 Williamsburg Terrace, Suite G, Platte City, Missouri 64079 March 2025 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER, MN (816) 431-2600 (816) 431-2653 www.fitchassoc.com STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN PAGE i TABLE of CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________________________________ 2 TRAINING _________________________________________________________________________________ 4 I believe that the Andover Fire Department provides a good level of service to our community. ____________ 4 When I began my current job at the fire department, the initial training I received regarding fire functions prepared me adequately for the work. _________________________________________________________ 4 The ongoing fire training I receive continues to enhance my skills. ___________________________________ 5 The ongoing training program keeps me adequately trained to perform my job. _______________________ 5 Training Comment Summary ________________________________________________________________ 5 MORALE AND OPERATIONS ___________________________________________________________________ 6 I believe that morale within the Fire Department is good. __________________________________________ 6 I believe that the overall working relationships between paid-on-call fire personnel and full-time personnel are good. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 6 Paid-on-call fire personnel and full-time personnel work adequately together and are integrated on calls. ___ 7 Personnel have a clear understanding of the command structure when responding to all emergency-related calls. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 7 Personnel have a clear understanding of the command structure when performing to non-emergency duties. 8 Morale and Operations comment summary _____________________________________________________ 8 EQUIPMENT ________________________________________________________________________________ 9 The equipment we use for fire and rescue responses is reliable and appropriate to do the job. ____________ 9 Problems with fire service equipment are handled appropriately, and I get feedback on problems I report. __ 9 I have all of the required equipment that I need to do my job effectively. ____________________________ 10 Equipment comment summary ______________________________________________________________ 10 LEADERSHIP _______________________________________________________________________________ 11 Fire Department management/command understands the daily problems we face with our jobs. _________ 11 Fire Department chief officers deal effectively and transparently with issues of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance that may occur within the Fire Department. ________________________________________ 11 Fire Department line officers (captain/lieutenant) deal effectively and transparently with issues of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance that may occur within the Fire Department. __________________________ 12 City Administration and Fire Department management work collaboratively to fulfill the mission of the fire department. ____________________________________________________________________________ 12 Overall, I am satisfied with the direction and leadership of the fire department. _______________________ 13 Leadership comment summary ______________________________________________________________ 13 STAFFING _________________________________________________________________________________ 14 I believe we have adequate full-time staffing levels. _____________________________________________ 14 I believe we have adequate paid-on-call response requirements. ___________________________________ 14 I believe I have an adequate chain of command structure. ________________________________________ 15 I believe we have an adequate paid-on-call hiring process. ________________________________________ 15 Staffing comment summary ________________________________________________________________ 15 PAID-0N-CALL FIREFIGHTERS _________________________________________________________________ 16 PAGE 2 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The staff survey provides key insights into workplace morale, training, leadership, equipment, staffing, and operational concerns. Below is a summary of the most frequently mentioned themes. 1. Training • Concerns: Training is not well-prepared or delivered, frequently canceled last minute, and lacks standard policies and procedures. Station officers often receive training responsibilities with less than 24 hours’ notice. • Needs: More after-action reviews, structured EMS and equipment training, and consistent competency-based learning. 2. Morale & Operations • Concerns: Morale is divided, with many long-term employees reporting dissatisfaction. Staff feel there is a lack of trust and alignment between leadership. There is a perception that some personnel avoid negativity to maintain personal morale. • Needs: Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for consistency, increased communication from leadership, and improved trust in department direction. 3. Leadership • Concerns: Chiefs are perceived as lacking transparency and not leading by example. Many staff feel unsupported and uninformed about the department’s vision. Concerns exist over relationships with external agencies. • Needs: More communication, alignment, and transparency from chiefs; leadership to set clearer expectations and foster trust. 4. Equipment • Concerns: Communication about equipment issues is inconsistent, maintenance and repairs are not addressed in a timely manner, and station maintenance is uneven. • Needs: Standardized truck equipment, a second set of gear, a new rescue truck and Brush 3, and a structured ticketing system for maintenance requests. 5. Staffing • Concerns: Uncertainty about the hiring process, perception of understaffing in the paid-on-call (POC) force, and a hiring focus on specific stations rather than the entire city. PAGE 3 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN • Needs: Higher paid-on-call wages, increased daytime full-time staff, performance management for low performers, and stronger community engagement for recruitment. 5. Paid-On-Call (POC) Firefighters: Training, Staffing, and Retention • Concerns: POC staff feel training is not prioritized, lacks structure, and is not competency-based. They want more EMS, scenario-based, and hands-on training with better scheduling and leadership participation. Recruitment and retention efforts are unclear, with concerns about low pay, lack of transparency, and limited recognition. There is a lack of trust in leadership, and expectations for POC staff are perceived as too high. • Needs: A structured, competency-based training program with clear policies, a published schedule, and leadership involvement. Improved recruitment and retention strategies, including increased pay, a defined onboarding process, better communication, and more community outreach for hiring. Greater leadership engagement and trust-building efforts to support POC staff. CONCLUSION The survey results highlight the need for leadership alignment, improved communication, structured training programs, and a stronger focus on morale and recruitment. Addressing these concerns will be key to improving operational efficiency and staff satisfaction. PAGE 4 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN TRAINING I BELIEVE THAT THE ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES A GOOD LEVEL OF SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. WHEN I BEGAN MY CURRENT JOB AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE INITIAL TRAINING I RECEIVED REGARDING FIRE FUNCTIONS PREPARED ME ADEQUATELY FOR THE WORK. PAGE 5 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN THE ONGOING FIRE TRAINING I RECEIVE CONTINUES TO ENHANCE MY SKILLS. THE ONGOING TRAINING PROGRAM KEEPS ME ADEQUATELY TRAINED TO PERFORM MY JOB. TRAINING COMMENT SUMMARY • Internal training does not feel well prepared or delivered • Reports of training getting canceled last minute • Training does not feel like a priority to staff • No policies or procedures • Would like more after action reviews of incidents to learn • Would like more training (EMS, equipment) • Medical training is good and consistent • Station officers given training responsibility with less than 24 hours’ notice PAGE 6 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN MORALE AND OPERATIONS I BELIEVE THAT MORALE WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS GOOD. I BELIEVE THAT THE OVERALL WORKING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PAID-ON-CALL FIRE PERSONNEL AND FULL-TIME PERSONNEL ARE GOOD. PAGE 7 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN PAID-ON-CALL FIRE PERSONNEL AND FULL-TIME PERSONNEL WORK ADEQUATELY TOGETHER AND ARE INTEGRATED ON CALLS. PERSONNEL HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMAND STRUCTURE WHEN RESPONDING TO ALL EMERGENCY-RELATED CALLS. PAGE 8 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN PERSONNEL HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMAND STRUCTURE WHEN PERFORMING TO NON-EMERGENCY DUTIES. MORALE AND OPERATIONS COMMENT SUMMARY • Lack SOPs and standard expectations (Would create consistency) • Morale is split – many have a feeling of low morale, particular those with years on the department • Staff desire more communication and trust from leadership • Feeling that the two chiefs are not aligned • Staff do not feel supported • Staff feel like they are not bought in to the department and its direction • Others avoid any negativity to keep their own morale up PAGE 9 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN EQUIPMENT THE EQUIPMENT WE USE FOR FIRE AND RESCUE RESPONSES IS RELIABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO DO THE JOB. PROBLEMS WITH FIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT ARE HANDLED APPROPRIATELY, AND I GET FEEDBACK ON PROBLEMS I REPORT. PAGE 10 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN I HAVE ALL OF THE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT THAT I NEED TO DO MY JOB EFFECTIVELY. EQUIPMENT COMMENT SUMMARY • Communication feels intermittent • Lack consistency amongst similar trucks • Would like new rescue truck(s) and brush 3 • Vehicle maintenance personnel are great • Would like a second set of gear • Station maintenance feels inconsistent • Timeliness of issues being addressed is inconsistent and suggested a ticketing system for issues PAGE 11 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN LEADERSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT/COMMAND UNDERSTANDS THE DAILY PROBLEMS WE FACE WITH OUR JOBS. FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OFFICERS DEAL EFFECTIVELY AND TRANSPARENTLY WITH ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT OR UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. PAGE 12 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN FIRE DEPARTMENT LINE OFFICERS (CAPTAIN/LIEUTENANT) DEAL EFFECTIVELY AND TRANSPARENTLY WITH ISSUES OF MISCONDUCT OR UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. CITY ADMINISTRATION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT WORK COLLABORATIVELY TO FULFILL THE MISSION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. PAGE 13 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN OVERALL, I AM SATISFIED WITH THE DIRECTION AND LEADERSHIP OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. LEADERSHIP COMMENT SUMMARY • Desire more buy-in and leading by example from chiefs • Would like to better understand the direction/vision for the department • Feel there is a lack of transparency from chiefs • Line officers are good leaders and trusted • Would like more communication and trust from chiefs • Would like chiefs to set the example • Lack policies/procedures and consistent expectations • Concerned about relationships with external partners PAGE 14 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN STAFFING I BELIEVE WE HAVE ADEQUATE FULL-TIME STAFFING LEVELS. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ADEQUATE PAID-ON-CALL RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS. PAGE 15 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN I BELIEVE I HAVE AN ADEQUATE CHAIN OF COMMAND STRUCTURE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN ADEQUATE PAID-ON-CALL HIRING PROCESS. STAFFING COMMENT SUMMARY • Staff are unsure of the hiring process • Feel that paid-on-call is understaffed • Hiring is reportedly focused on one station and not the entire city • Would like to see more performance management of low performers • Desire for increase paid-on-call wages • Would like to see more robust weekday/daytime full-time staff • Would like to see more public relations and community engagement for recruitment PAGE 16 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN PAID-0N-CALL FIREFIGHTERS POC TRAINING COMMENTS As a paid-on-call employee, list the three top areas where you believe fire training can be improved. • Training and lesson plans feel like they are not a priority • Would like policies and procedures to train to • Would like more training on: • EMS • Station training • Scenario based • Emergency driving • Water rescue • First 5 minutes of an incident • Hands on training • Desire competency-based training • Tied of pumping drills as the go to • Feel like time is not respected and used effectively • Desire leadership to be more selective in external instructors • Desire that officers to participate in training • Desire to have more alignment of training with weather • Desire to have training schedule published and consistent POC RECRUITMENT & RETENTION COMMENTS What could be done to recruit and retain paid-on-call staff that is not currently being done? Please include examples of where your ideas are being done if you have them. • Desire a clearer and defined process • Desire improved communications and transparency • Desire increased pay, benefits, and training • Feel there could be more respect from chiefs • Would like to recruit for all stations, not just one at a time • Would like to advertise and connect with the community in multiple ways PAGE 17 STAFF SURVEY RESPONSES ANDOVER,MN • Desire to make duty crew optional • Desire to have more flexibility in requirements • Measure quarterly not monthly • Online option to make up some training sessions • Desire a formal onboarding process POC ADDITIONAL COMMENTS • Feel there is a lack of trust in the chiefs and from the chiefs • Strong desire for policies and procedures • Concerned collaborative relationship with other agencies have deteriorated • Input feels ignored • Captains and lieutenants are good • Feeling that the two chiefs are not aligned POC COMMENT SUMMARY Comments about being a Paid-On-Call Firefighter • Feel like POC are Part-Time not POC • Desire more communication • POC staff desire to serve the community • Expectations for POC are too much • Call volume for POC has increased too much • Chiefs interests do not seem to be what's best for the department from a POC staff perspective • Desire more positive recognition and appreciation STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #18 1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Sarah Cotton, City Administrator SUBJECT: Administrator’s Report DATE: May 6, 2025 INTRODUCTION Administration & Department Heads present at the meeting will provide a brief verbal update on various items of interest to the City Council and residents at the meeting. BACKGROUND Listed below are a few items of interest: 1. City Department Activities 2. Update on Development/CIP Projects 3. Meeting Reminders ACTION REQUESTED Upon receipt of a meeting packet, if a member of the Council would like an update on a particular item, please notify me so that I can provide an adequate update. Attachment(s): None