HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC April 4, 1989
....
c:> March 24, 1989
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Dear Sirs & Madame;
It has come to my attention that the City of Andover may soon
be facing some difficult decisions with regard to the Bruce
Hay property located to the southwest of Round Lake in
Sections 29 and 30.
Over the past several years a number of us who have been
active in opposing high density housing on this parcel have
been sitting back trusting that the city would negotiate an
acceptable compromise with Mr. Hay, It now appears that
those efforts have been unsuccessful.
Before I make some recommendations on what options the city
has at this point, I need to provide some prospective on how
things got to where they are. I would like to indulge your
patience to read the following chronology of events as seen
from the eyes of an adjoining property owner:
Sometime in the late '60s Bruce Hay purchased from Rosella
Sonsteby the property in question,
Bruce Hay purchased the property for a price that was based
on allowed uses of agricultural or low density single family
housing. The total purchase price paid for this property was
probably between $15,000 and $30,000,
On or about April 17, 1970 Mr. Hay applied for a special use
permit to develop a mobile home park on this 'property. In
August of 1970 approval was given to another mobile home park
development in Grow Township (Andover), In December of that
year the Planning and Zoning Board denied Mr, Hay's
application for a special use permit for a mobile home park,
In June of 1971 Mr. Hay sued the Township of Grow, arguing
that since one mobile home park permit had been issued he
should be entitled to one also, The City appealed the
decision. twice and lost both times, I have attached some of
the judgments to this letter along with the Grow Township
defense argument in District Court. The Township issued a
special use permit to Bruce Hay on August 19, 1974,
It did not however change the Township zoning maps to reflect
this new approved use.
o
....
o
o
The adjoining parcels of land that became Lund's Round Lake
Estates and Johnson-Oakmount Terrace were at this time
undeveloped.
When I began looking for a homesite in 1977 I, like many
others, was attracted to the Lund development. I, like
several others, went to the Andover City Offices and asked to
see the zoning map for the city so that I would be aware of
what development could take place in the surrounding area.
The Hay parcel was zoned R-l. Based on this information I
purchased our lot from Lund.
It was only after our home was built that I learned that
possibly I would be looking at a mobile home park in my
backyard. I was outraged and called the city to try and
understand how they could act so irresponsiblY as to not
put people on notice of that possible use. I was informed
that the issue had been discussed when Lund's plot came up
for approval (presumably in a City Council Meeting) and that
the sense was that to change the zoning map may have a
adverse effect on Lund's ability to market the property and
consequentlY open the city to damages from the developer.
Damages for making an honest disclosure of allowed uses!
This is one reason why I was particularlY disturbed to read
in Judge Leslie's recent decision that "all property owners
were on notice that Hay's land was subject to a special use
permi t for a mobile home park," (page 15). As far as
property owners in Lund's goes this was definitely not the
fact and should have been pointed by the City's legal council
when the case was argued. That information may have had an
influence on the decision.
There is evidence that misrepresentations were made to
homeowners who purchased properties in Johnson's Oakmount
Terrace. While Bruce Hay claims that he told everyone that
purchased a lot from him that there could be a mobile home
park on the adjacent property, the fact of the matter is
that Hay sold very few if any of the lots to homeowners
himself. Most of the lots were sold by Ms. Johnson or
Wicklund Construction. I have been told that in certain
cases quite different representations were made. Ask
yourself; if you were selling homes or lots next to a
potential mobile home park what would you Say?
I for one am frustrated and disappointed by the City's
failure to deal with this situation with aggressive legal
action. The City's legal representation apparentlY has been
more focused on limiting the potential liability threatened
by Mr. Hay than representing the interest of all of Andover's
residents, Who represented the homeowners interests?
~
o
Many of us are supportive of the City Council and want to
help in whatever way we can to work toward a compromise use
of this property that is fair to everyone.
Where do we go from here?
Recommendations:
1. The City Council should continue to negotiate with Mr,
Hay for other uses of the property that would provide him an
adequate return on his investment, This could include some
high density housing (even multiple housing) if sewer is
going to be brought to the property. A planned unit
development that keeps the borders with Lund's and Oakmount
at a R-2 density (single family homes on one acre lots) would
probably be acceptable to the neighborhood and minimize the
risk to the city of neighborhood legal action,
2, The City Council should make it clear to Mr. Hay that if
a mobile home park is constructed that it must include all
reasonablY required services at his expense. This would
include a severe weather safety structure. Park dedications
should be taken so as to minimize the detrimental impact to
the property values of the adjoining property owners, A
buffer area with attractive visual barriers should be
required and approved by the neighborhood.
3, As I have said several times in the past an appeal or
retrial of the initial suit should be started, At the time
of the original decision there was no development on
adjoining properties and this fact was an important
consideration in the original decision (see Article XIV in
attached District Court Decision 8/11/1971).
Bruce Hay himself took actions or allowed actions to be taken
that changed the facts that were the basis for the original
decision.
The City must give serious consideration to this option.
o
And finally, there is a moral and ethical issue here, Mr.
Hay argues that the City of Andover has an obligation to
provide low cost house to lower income families, and Mr. Hay
is the one who can provide it if only the city would stop
fighting his mobile home park, However, Mr, Hay's attorneys
argued in his most recent suit against the city that he has
suffered over $1,328,000 in lost income from the potential
mobile home park due to the city's refusal to grant him
access to sewer in 1981, I ask the city council members;
Where would this $1,328,000 come from? Clearly this money
would come from the rent paid by low income families for a
,
o
o
piece of land to place their mobile home on. If the city
truly wants to provide responsible low cost housing options
how can it tolerate such profits being made off of those in
the most difficult of financial positions. Would not the
interest of low income housing be better served by having the
city develop a mobile home park and offer the sites at cost?
The last time I checked, the owner of record of the property
in question is the JBH Round Lake Development Corporation.
Their address is 4550 Central Ave, N.E" Columbia Heights,
MN, (about 6-10 blocks south of 694), I would encourage
each one of the city council members to take a few minutes
and drive by 4550 Central. You will find the trip well worth
your time!
If any of you would like to discuss any issues raised here
please call me, I would also be happy to host a meeting
where city council members could meet with area property
owners.
'Best Regards,
-4M /2~
Peter Rauen
4110 147th Ln. N,W.
427-5754
t
;,,0
TERSON & KALINA
:.: An I :JliI'-Jt:Y~;) Ar lJ\W :,-,
Clldl 'l.(~I't,d
nUI.Jg1, IS -.I. P,-,Lu.'sun
Runi1!tj S, Kalina
Wlllid. n C3, Mool '8
April 18, 19l:l0
~'3l."p"nn M, li,jlsey
II<Hlora1> Ie Hdyor and
Hembers of the C.lty CUllncil
Andover Ci,ty lIall
1685 Crosstuwn Boulevard
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Gentlemen:
Mr. Lee Warneka, 14791 Blackfoot Street N.W" Andover, Minnesota 5530] has retained
me regarding the possible rezoning of a large parcel of land in Andover to an R-4
zone. The particular piece of property tllat most affects Mr. Harneka is the proper-
ty located to the southwest of Round Lake in Sections 29 and 30, which i.s presently
zoned R-l.
1 t is my understand i ng that t here \~as a mobile lIome park spec i a 1 use permit issued
to the owners of Sections 29 and 30 in August of 1974 as a result of a Minnesota
Supreme Court decision of March 26, 1973.
Hr, and Mrs. \~arneka and many oth<lr families l,ave, \dthin the last tllree years, pllr-
,dHlsed expensive single family hlJlIlC:s adjacent to aud near the <11""3 Ikcd~lIdt ",d by the
special use permit.
Although Sections 29 and 30 are, and have been since October 21, lY70, designated as
being zoned R-l, the special use permit apparently allows the construction of a mo-
bile home park. I realize the City had no choice but to issue the permit pursuant to
the decision of the Supreme Court. However, because the Andover zoning ordinance
adopted October 21, 1970 does not include a mobile home park as a permitted use in an
R-l zone, neither my client nor any other individual purchasing a lot for a single
family home in the area had anJ'.. notice that they were purchao;ing property next to a
potential trailer park.
The zoning ordinance made it clear to these people that ~le property they purchased
was not zoned to allow a trailer park; a trailer park was lIot a permitted use within
the zone, and Hr. and Hrs. Warneka and other families had no reason whatsoever to be
on notice that a trailer park could be constructed on Sections 29 and 30, The City
took no action. whatever to put Hr" and Hrs. \.Jarneka and other famil ies on notice of
a potential trailer'park located virtually in their hBckya~d,
o
It is my understanding that the rezoning, because of the reduction in'the m1n1mum
lot sizes, very well may result in the economic f(>ilsibility of bringing public sani-
tary sewer and water lines into Sections 29 ...nd 30, thel"l,by allowing con:;truction of
the trailer park.
'.,~)G dOtl, ^VE,NUE NLJHTlll;ASr CUllJMI'31A i il~IC;I';l~3
rVlFJL.~3,
MIN!'"JI' ~',(] r A
~":l~'J4~.~1
.. :t)1.)
'; '. ~ l 1
.. ,.
f'
Hon. }layor and Counc i 1
April 18, 1~80
Page 2
Unless rezuning is accomplished in a milliner \vhich positively precludes the construc-
tion of a trailer park in Sections 29 and 30, Mr. Warneka is very Dwch opposed to
the rezoning. If a trailer park is constructed in the area, Hr. \~arneka would very
seriously consider legal action for damages against any party involved in failing to
put him on notice regarding the special use permit,
Therefore, I urge you to not take any action which lIQuId result in the construction
of a trailer park on Sections 29 and 30.
Very truly yours,
Douglas j, Peterson
llJP/ jm
cc: William Hawkins,
Andover City Attorney
o
/'
D:: S';':-{IC': CC!J;:'~':'
O 0- "-"""S"'~'
....:.r"I'::" .. ::~~".,_ v...~
.........- ..
COUl\TY 0: hl\O};A
'l':S~':H J"';:JIC:U..'!.. !i:$':'~:C'!'
3:uce s. Hay, e~ al,
Plo.in~iifs,
vEFE:,DI-..:i,? I 5 ;~;::.:0?"'':::>i.::'~
0: LJ..\\ hi-;:) ~,RG;;;':=::;':
-vs-
~ow~ship or Grow, at al,
Defencants.
"
"
"
"
"
'i<
"
cay of June, 1971, before ~he Honorable Leonard J. ~eyes, J~dge of
The above en~i~lea matter c~~e en for trial en t~e 21s~
Dist=ict Court.
ane. :Kichard A. Beens of Babcock, Locher, j,eilson [, :-:<.:onella, 118
Wy~an A. S~i~h a?peared as attorney for ?lain~iffs
:Sas~ J,;ain s~reet, Anoka, Minnesota, appeared as at~orney for
De=enc.ants.
All relevan~ facts were stipulated by and between the
?u:=suant 'toO
attorneys for the part~es and read into the record.
the instruc~ions ef Judge Ke~es, Defendant here~~th s~~~its the
::ollov.'ing: ~.~emorandurn of :'av.~..
:;:N~~ODUCTIO~
~o~ns:.~? of Grow's denial of their applica~~on for a s?ec~a: use
:~ ~~a ~r.stant case,
plaintiffs ,~ave a::eged
.....l.e....
-..ne
?er::-,:,.. -..0 opa::a:;a a ;:.oz:'.lE: ho::-.e parit was "ar,,:.-..r<.ry ane. ca?::~C~o~s"
as a ~~~~a= 0= :~~ ~~d a ce~ial 0= e~~~~ ?~C~~c~~
- '
_:"'. 5'':'??C=~
1
I
'j
'I
,
C:':'". -::.e~'::.~c:-~,
?:ai:-.t.i=~5 ::'.a.~e
, "
~;:=a.e ~e.~:..'::
.:._..:"':':7.a:".~s :
?:::..:.:-.....::..=::s i:.::-~g~ ~:~a;,: -::'~oi: :.c~...
., . -.'
--..-.......-
:,e:=~:"'.c:.~:1 ':.
..c.....
~~ ~==~c~ a~ ~~~ ~i~e ~~e ~??:~~L~~~~ ~~s c=~~~~~=ee
=c~~~~~=c ~c s~~~c~=~s
0= ?~ocec~=es :o~
.......1.::
:-5o.;.'.:.:..:.::e.
of
s?ec;..;;;.;.
-';5<= ?=::'::L:''ts.
2.
?:~i~~i==s allege ~ha't De=enca~~s
. .. .
=a.:......e::.
iss'_:'
~~y 11~~~di~;SII 0= =~~sc~s ~v~ ce~:..al.
o
?laintiffs allege th~t Dcf~nd~nts sole ro~son ~or
their a?plicat!on was the fact that a previouS s~e~~l U$e
3,
,.... . ~g
:Wt-...
:,per;r,it for the purpose of operating a mob:'- "o...e !'Jr'''' i',~d :::'e:en
.~i,ss\:~C. to anoth~r applicant.
r.~'intain thair denial of Plaintiff' s <:.?plication WilS a r",,"sor.,,::.le
~efandants deny each of these allegations and, furt~er,
exercise of the ~o~nship's police powers.
~=5U~en~g, . short review of the role played :::'y speci<:.l use ?~~_.~$
Before directing our attention to plaintiff's individual
:';i;r.n 152, 167 N\\2d ~5 (196'91, the :-:innesota suprerr,Q Court st,,"-"';'
~, zoning control is in order.
J,.U l..V;"/~c;. V~. .....J.7.V ~ ~.3~a-l" 223
"?he\' (s<>ecial use <>..r",i:~:>) are d<=sigr,eC to IT.eet
the ;ro~iern which arises where certain uses,
altnouch canerallv co~<>atiDle with tha ~asic use
Classific~tion of-a <>articular zone, should not
~a located as a matter of right (underlining mine1
in everY area includad within the zone ~ecause
of hazards inherent in the use itself or special
Droble~s which its <>ro<>osed location maY Dresent.
By this device, cer~ain uses (e.g., gasoline service
stations, electric substations, hospitals, schools,
cnurches, country clu~s, and the like) ~~ich may
be considered essentially desirable to the
co....~nitv should not ~e authorized cenerallv in
a Dartic;lar zone because of consid~rations-such
as' current or anticipated traffic congestion,
DODulation density, noise, effect on acjoininc
ianc values, or other considerations involving
public healt~1 safety or general welfare, ~ay be
permitted upon a proposed site depe~di~9 ~pon
the facts and circu:l'ostances of tr.e partic-.:.iar casa."
.
od~inistering a zoning ordinance huS broud discretion~ry power
It is obvious from the foregoing, that the bOcy
to gr~~t or deny an application for a special use ?<=r~it.
J\;.$~
,,$ c;,,!';c,usly, the ac:;mir.istering body cannot deny <:on applica'tOiOn
. . ..
:;..::..; ',. ..~.:.L'j.
!;UVIC:Vcr, t!lC: !Jurucn of s!',cMir.\j ;:r::.i ~::,"ir:c';'; r,'..::s
z"n:a vs. citv ~ crvstal. s"pra., p. 5:'.
~~~~ ~~e ?l~~n~i=f.
~~at constitutes an arbitrary denial?
o
". c.er,ial ",ould be arbitrary, for e~:z.:7,ple, --
~as established that all of the standards specified
~y t~e ?rdi~~nce as a condition to granting the
per~~t nave ~een ~et. ~nen the ordinance does
;-.c,t $:;.ecify standards, 'as is us-.:.allv tZ'.c case
:t~l;:~~::~;:'l;~'~~:'~:.t~~;~:~~~:~~~~~:!;';;:~:
o
when tha eV1Q~~CC prcscntBC at ~ne hcn::ing before
the 1-:unicipal govc::ning body and th~ r(:vic"li~g
Court establishes thD.t the requested use.: iz
co~oati~le with the basic use ~ut~ori~(:a within
the-particulnr zone and does not cnG~ngcr the
oublic health or safety or the general welfare
0:: 'the area affected or the community DoS a \o,hole. II
l-_RGU:t.ENT
?ROVI~~ A PROCEDURE A~D STA~~hRD FOR THE ISSU.~\CE OF S?ECIhL USE
1. ?EE APPLICABLE ?O~\SHIP OF GROW ZO~I~G ORDI~A~CE DOES
?Ero~:~S .
The 'l'ownship of Grow ZONING PLAN ]:'.ND t;l\!FOR.~ 3U!:S::iI~~G
CODE, ADO?T~D JU~E 20, 1950, w~th su~sequent a~enc~ents, was
ir.troc.uced as a joint exhibit at t::ial. It has ;,een sti?ulc..ec.
tnct said ordinance was in effect at the ti~e of Plaintiff's
application and until January 1, 1971, h'r.en De::encant ado?ted a
new co~?=ehensive zoning code,
Sec. 2-44 (e) of the ?ownshi? of
Grow's Zoning Plan and Unifor~ Building Code sets out ?rocedures
anc stancarcs for the issuance or a special us~ perwit.
I't provic.es
as :follov:s:
1l2-~4 (a) I:.pplication for 'the issuance: of a s?ecial use
permit shall be ffiace to the Tow~ ?lan~ing anc Zo~i~g
Co~issioni provided that the proceedings to classify
certain uscs as conforming uses as proviced i~ t~is
scc~ion may be initiated either by a??lican~ O~ by
the Town Boa=c or by said co~ission. S~ie cc~~issio~
~aV hold such hcarir.cs on t~e nro~osal to iss~e a
spacial use permit a; it ~ay consiaer necessary;
bet at least one public hearing shall be ~elc O~ .
~ny a?plication for the use permit ior the esta~lis~~ent
0= a~y use for which snecial use pe~mits are recu~=ec.
Following t~e aforesaid hearing, t~e said co~~i~sio~
s~'all r:.ake a re'Oort to tne To\o:n 3oa:-c U'OC:l a nrc'Oosal
a~c. s~all reco~enQ to the Town Bcare wha~eve= ac~icn
it dee~s advisable; but it s~all not ~eco~~enc ~~e
sranting of a permit unless it fincs that t~e
esta~lishilien~, ~ainte~ance, or conduct~~g c= ~~a ~se
::0= \.;hich the special use ?~~~it is souS~-:. \;,:..:'::' ::0-:'
~~ter any circc~stances of the ~ar~icula= cas~ be
cc~ri~~ntal ~o the pu~lic welfare 0= i~ju=io~s ~o
?ro?er~y O~ ~ffi?=ove~ents in the neighborhood. ~~
~~y cesig~a~e co~citio~s a~c requi=e guara~teas i~
~~e ~ra~t~ng of special ~se per~its. upon =eca~~t
c= t~e ~eport of said co~~issior., th~ Town 3carc-
.shall ho~c whatever p~blic hearincs ~~ cee~s acv~sable
a:;c .s~all. r.l.a}.:e a decisio:"l UDO~ the 'D::"o'Oosals-=o -
sra~~ a special use ?e::"~~~.- If i~ ~~~ds t~at t~e
o
o
conditions exist which are necessary under this
section before said commission may rcce~~cnd the
oranting of a special use permit, the Town Board
;'\:lY grant tl;e special u~e ,permit and it ~<lY atta~h
to the perm:l.t such condl.tl.ons and guaran~ccS as l.t
deems neccssary to substantially secure the objects
of this resolution,"
It should be noted that the standard set out in Sec.
2-44 (a) is substantially similar to the judicial standard stated
in zvlka, supra., p. 49,
Beth are gene,ric in nature and speak
in broad terms of "public welfare", Both are constructed
so as to allow the governing body the right to consider any
relevant factors concerning applicant'S case which may have any
ultimate bearing on public welfare,
As can be seen from the' foregoing, Plaintiff's contention
\
that 'the Township of Grow
Zoning Ordinance contains no
standard for the issuance of special use permits is totally without
merit, The ordinance does contain a standard. Even if it did not
have a standard, that fact would be of no legal effect. The Court
'.
in zylka recognizes the fact that many zoning ordinances do not
contain sufficient standards, and as a consequence, imposes a
judicial standard to be ap?lied in such cases.
2, AT TilE 'rUlE DEFENDANT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S APPLICA'rION
FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, "FINDINGS" AND REASONS SUFFICIENT AS
A V~TTER OF LhWh~RE PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF,
Based upon the holding in ~ VS. ~ of, Crvstal, sup=a.,
Plai~tiff ~as st~enuously argued that the Grow 70wn Board's denial
0: his requested permit on January 11, 1971, was mace without
:indings of fact. Plaintiff's argument seems to presume that t~e
~ case requires the Town Board to accompany a denial of an
application for a special use pe~rnit with formal, w~itten,
syllogistic Pincings 0: Fact, Conclusions 0= Law and O~ae= for
Juc.g::1ent so ::am"iliar to lawyers and judges. A review of the
::inal paragraph in ~ clearly incicates that the Co~~t did not
i~tend so na~~oW a construction.
o
..
o
.A~cor~ingly, we hold that ~ha tri&l Court correctly
~nvalidated ~he denial oi ~he ~crnit ~CC~U3C t~C ~ctivn
of the council \o:as SO arbitrary as a l'7.attEor "of l~\-I.
It was not &ccornpanied by written Find~r.gs of Fact
specifying the reason or reasons for the.denial. nor
\.:'::5 ar:.v oral statcfi'.ent of such rcc.scn J..ace by t:le
mayor or any rneDber of the counci~,c~nten?o:~~eouslY
wi~h the denial nor was there suf:~c~Eont ev~~ence presented
at trial to co~pel a finding by the Courc that the
iSSUance of tha oe~~it wo~ld aav~~saly af=cct t~e
public t.ealth or" safety or general welfare of the
co~.uni ty. ..
':'he zvlka requirement of t1fincin<;s" can a.ppa.rently 1:-e
fuliilled in anyone of three different ways; iirst, by writtEon
Findings of Fact, or second, by oral stata~ent of the governing
body made contern?oraneously with the denial or, lastly, by evidence
p~esa~~ec at t=ial.
It is De=encantts co~tentio:'l that Plaint~=f
,~as prov~dee. \oli th legally sufficient reasons or . ::indings. which were
?~esented O~ all t~ree occasions.
1970, wh~ch were introduced into evidence at trial, contain a copy
~he Planning and Zoning Boare minutes of Dece~~er 29,
oi the board's written report to the 70wn Boare., This states as
a ":rit~er. reason or .find~ng. for denial that... ",)e :.ave approved
of one nob~le home park and are not certain if township can handle
resultant rapid ~ncrease of population ii two mobile home parks are
allowee. at this time,. ':Chis written finding was transmitted to
t~e ~own Eoard and adopted by refere~ce at the time 0= cen~al 0=
The Town Board minutes of that aa~e re:lect
Ja~~ary 11, 1971.
..' -
-:.:::.s =ac~.
Fu=the=, the Decerr~er 29, 1970,winutes of t~e Pla~~i~g
ane. zo~ing Eoard state that Plainti=f Hay speci::ically asked tr-e
~oa=d secre~ary, Ro~ert Ritner, to state his reaso~S for ~oving
~o =eco=~~~~ a ce~~al.
The ~inutes =u=t~e= =eflect tha~ Plai~~if=
~~n~~as cf ~a~ua~y 11, 1971, s~ate the Plainti== Eay waS ?=ese~t
Eay =ecs~vec a verbal ex?~ana~icn at the ~eeting.
~::.e ~'O\'::1 ;.oa=a
a~ sa~~ ~eeti~g.
~~e ~inutes further re:lect that ~~e To~~ 3oa=~
cizcUSS~~ a wice'-range 0= facto=s whic~ =elate to public ~elfa=e
~~= ~~ic~ ~e=e obviously cc~side=ed i~ the board's final cecisic~
,:c ::'i:::"'.Y
0,-..--
?:a~~~i==.s a??lica~io~.
;0...'"':'.0:':.<;' o~:-.a::s I
-:.::.e'!
.. .
c.:i.SC-"::'!:.5C:::'
w.. =u~~ci?e~ se=v~ccs, ?op~~a~~o~ d~~Ei~y, ~axes ;c~e~~":.cd
9
by mobile ho~e parks vs. hand-crafted homes, methods of ~ssess~er.t,
C::>epreciation of ~obile ho~es vs, depreciation of hand-crafted
homcS, and the collection and disbursement of taxes, Following
this, the Town Board voted to adopt the Planning and zon~ng
Board' s recor.ll~cndation that plaintiff' s application be denied,
services and population density was presented at trial. "~
was shown that Grow Township has a present population of approximately
Further evidence, particularly with reference to municipal
3,800 people, The special use permit for a planned Unit ~evelopment
issued to Carlyle Co, 'on October 13, 1970, will allow tr.e
construction of 290 mobile home park units and 207 multiple
dwelling units.
per unit, granting of the Carlyle permit will result in a final
If we assume an average density of th~ee persons
population increase of 1,500.
Plaintiffs had requested a special
use permit which would allow them to build 450 mobile home units
and 300 apartment units.
three persons per unit, that granting of Plain~~ff's application
Again assuming an ultimate censity of
would result in a population increase of over 2,200 people,
It was further stipulated that Grow Township presentlY
It must rely upon the Anoka County
does not have a police force,
Further, it has no fire department; this particular municipal
Sheriff's Department for whatevcr police protection it can get,
service is presently provided by contract with the City of Anoka
Fire Department and funded by a yearly mill levy.
l,u:r,;,er 6 regulating mobile home parks, requires the availability
section 5, subdivision X, 0= Grow 70"nshi? O~ci~ance
of municipal sewer service before a permit will be issue~.
- -
....~
the time the Carlyle permit was granted, it waS anticipated that
service could be obtained through the City of r:.oka trunk sewer
system, (See Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan for Grow Township
p. 3) However, the City of Anoka has thus far denied any extension
of sa~itary sewe~ service into Grow To~nshi?
(See ~=f~cavi~ 0=
os=.ue: Gesko, A:-.o):a City !':a:-,ager)
It is uncis?~~ed t~a~ ~u~~ci?~l
water and storm sewer service is not presently availa~le to
C::>applicant's property,
Township, rapid population increase cannot help but be a pajor
concern, The township is only now on the verge of cC~70encing
Given the present lack of municipal services in GroW
extension of these services to the present resiccnts.
population will inevitably increase demand for municipal services,
Incre<lsed
Extension of services will place a considerable financial burden
on the residents,
the township at this point can only compound this burden and the
Injection of an additional 2,200 people into
consequent governmental problems,
Plaintiff with legally sufficient reasons having a direct bearing
In su~~ary, it is apparent that Defendant provided
upon public health, safety and welfare at all three stages alluded
to in Zvlka,
~
3, DEFENDANT'S DENIAL OF APPLICA~T'~ SPECIAL USE PE~IT
WAS NOT EASED ON AN INTENT TO LIMIT COMPETITION,
1\\.;2d 659, and ~ vs, Citv ~ Minneaoolis, 263 Xinn 1, 115 1\W20
Citing Pearce vs, village of Edina, 263 Xinn 553, 118
73~, Plaintiff contends that Defendant" s denial of their special
use permit was based solely on an intent to limit mobile ho~e park
coppetition within Grow Township and, therefore, exceeded the
discretionary power of the Town Board.
plaintiff'S ccnte~~ion
would seem to assume that he had obtained a vested right to use his
property as a pobile home park,
This is not t~e case.
?laintiff's
land was zoned for residential uses under the ordinance applicable
at the tipe he requested the special use permit and under the new
~he properties
?ownship of Grow Copprehensive zoning Ordinance,
i~~eciately adjacent to Plaintiff's are also
. - ,-,' 1
zo~ea =or res~ce~~~a
purposes. Under the zoning in effect at the time of Plaintiff's
applic~ticn, mobile home par)~s were allowed anywhere in the township
?~ovicins a s?ecial use permit ~as obtained.
1:1 ~, ? ~8,
o
the ~innesota supreme Court clearly indicates that the availa~ility
c::>= s;ecial use permit procedu~e does not, as a ~attc= ef richt,
allo~ Plaintiff a particular use, A special use prevision per7.,its
property, wi thin the discre,tion of the governing body, to be used
City of Crystal, supra, \,estling vs, City of 2.!:.. ~ ~, 170
~-
in the matter expressly authorized by the' ordinance.
~vs.
KW2d, 218, p. 221, Clearly, zoning laws cannot be used to destroy
vested property rights.
Plaintiff has a vest right to nothing more than residential uses.
It would be illogical to grant vested rights for special uses and
Pearce vs. village 2f~' supra.
Hov:evE:r,
then say, as the ~ and Westling court said, that issuance of
special use permits is discretionary with the governing body,
We agree that a denial based on'an underlying intent
However, the record clearly
to limit co~?etition would be improper.
demonstrates that the board's basic concern was with public health,
safety, and welfare, h~enever agover~~ental body enacts or
administers a zoning ordinance, there is an ine~itable limitation
of co~?etition in various areas.
However, so long as the legislative
or administrative decision is based primarily on considerations of
public health, safety, and welfare, the acts represent a valid
exercise of the police powcr.
The obvious concern of thc Grow Town
Board was with a too rapid population increase and the consequent
burden on mu~icipal facilities.
CONCLUSION
use permit was based on announced and valid consideration of public
?he decision of Defendant to deny Plaintiff's special
health, safety, and welfare, and, therefore, was ~ithin the De~~ndant's
discretionary powers, As a result, judgment should be entered for
Defen.c.ant.
BABCOCK, LOCHER, NEILSON & ~~~NELLA
Attorneys for Defe~cants
118 East Mai~ Street
;~oka, xi~nesota 55303
o
3~' :
Ric:-..a:c. Eee::s
---
. .:-..-..~ ..'
-
",.....---"'"
-,
Bruce B. Hay, William A. Goldberg,
Herbert R. Goldenberg, Sidney H.
Levinsohn and Joseph Gitis,
PI aintiffs,
,
/'
/ :Jl STRICT COURT
\. TENTIl JUDICIAL ~
....... -
~-------
o
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
--------------------
Township of Grow, AnDka County,
Minnesota and Louis Appleby,
, Supervisor of Town Board, LeRoy
Willner, Supervisor of Town Board
and Ri chard Schneider, Supervisor of
Town Board,
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUS IO:~S Or LhW
AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
vs.
Defendants.
--------------------
The above entitled, matter was regularly placed upen the trial calendar
for trial on the 21st day of June. 1971. before the undersigned, at the
CDurthouse in the City Df Anoka. County of Anoka, State of Minnesota.
Wyman Smith, Esquire. appeared for the plaintiffs. Richard Beens. Esquire,
appeared for the defendants. The parties were present. the facts were
stipulated and the case submitted to the Court. without a jury.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
That the Township of Grow is a Township existing in Anoka County,
Minnesota, The additional defendants ar~ the duly qualified and elected
supervisors of the Township of Grow,
II.
That the plaintiffs are the applicants for a special use permit presented
to the Town of Grow on or about April 17. 1970. requesting a development of a
"obile hor.~ park on property situated in the Township of Grow. County of Anoka.
State of Minnesota. described as follows to-wit:
o
Tne South 4 rods of the North half of the Northeast 1/4.
Section 30. Township 32, Range 24.
Th~ South 84 rods of Government Lot 1. Section 29. Town-
ShlP 32., Range 24.
The Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4. Section 30. Township
32, Range 24.
o
'-,
-'
-
" .
The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 30,
Township 32, Range, 24,
That part of Government Lot 2. Sectio~ 29, Township 32, ,
Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lYlng West7rly of a l,lne
drawn equal distance from the East and West 11nes of sald Govern-
ment Lot Z,
.......
III .
That at the time of said application the zoning ordinance in effect
in said Town of Grow allowed for a mobile home park in all districts with a
special, use penni t.
-:-;- .
IV.
That plaintiff'S application was referred to the Zoning and Planning
Commission and a notice fora public hearing on the Petition was set for the
14th day 'of May, 1970,
V.
That at said meeting of May 14, 1970, the Planning and Zoning Board
.. neither rejected nor approved said plan.
VI.
That on the 11th day of June, 1970, the Planning and Zoning Board
ccnducted a public hearing for an application for a special use permit on
property described as the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32,
Township 32 N, Range 24 W, in the Town of Grow, Anoka County, Minnesota.
That said applicaticn was made in the name of Carlyle.
VII.
That on August 11, 1970, the Carlyle Petition was given preliminary
approval by the defendant supervisors of the Town Board of Grow.
VII1.
That the supervisors of the Town Boal'd of Grow did on August 11, 1970,
adopt Ordinance No.6 which is entitled "A Mobile Home Park Ordinance".
IX.
That the defendant'supervisors of the Town Board,of Grow did on
the 21st day of October, 1970, adopt a new zoning ordinance designated as
o
. .-----
Ordinance No.8. That a zoning map made a part of said zoning ordinance
purports to set up a classification known as R-5 in which manufactured
c::> housing is permitted, including a mobile home park, and that the parcel of
land being developed by the Carlyle applicant was granted R-5 zoning as
well as other zoning.' That the five parcels in plaintiffs' application
'1,
"
were zoned R-l.
X.
That at a ;;,.aeting of the supervisors of the Town Board of Grow held
on the 13th day of October, 1970, a contract for a special use permit with
the Carlyle applicant was approved allowing a permit for a period of two
years from the time sewer and water lines were available to the tract. ,
XI.
That on the 29th day of December, 1970, the Planning and Zoning
Board of the Town of Grow met and considered plaintiff's application and
denied the application chiefly for the reason that one special use permit
, for a mobile home park had been previously issued to the Carlyle appl icant.
XII.
.
. ~:: .
That the report of the Fil anning and Zoning Board of the Town of
Grow was considered by the defendant supervisors or the Town of Grow at,its
meetin9 on January 12, 1971. At that meeting the special use permit as
applied for by the plaintiffs was denied.
. '. ~.~
, .
XIII.
That plaintiffs believed that water and sewer facilities are available
_~~'~~from the City of Anoka. There is some question of such availability, A
pennit or"a"licerise for,:,the;bperation and construction of a mobile home park
must be had frcm the State of MinnesDta, who would requir~ adequate water and
sewer facilities before such a permit or license is issued.
0,
XIV.
That the Township of Grow is in an area that is under urban or suburban
development and its population is likely to increase.in the near future. The
Township presently is sparsely settled and the proposed use by plaintiffS of
the five parcels of property will make no greater demands on the functions of
the municipality than some other development.
..
-.---' ....-.
xv.
o
A mobile home park is a common and perhaps necessary part of the
modern urban scene. Such a park would furnish quality housing for a family
earning under $10,000.00 per year income. '
XVI.
"
The minutes of the Planning Commission and of the Town Board do not re-
flect any valid reasons for the denial of plaintiffs' application. The
growth of the Town of Grow, because of its location in the Metropolitan,
area, is likely to continue at an accelerating rate whether the houses
are mobile homes or hand-crafted homes. The difference in taxable:values,
'if any, is not a valid reason for the denial of a special use permit.
XVII.
Plaintiffs' application calls, for ultimately 450 home units in a mobile
home community. Plaintiffs are agreeable to minimum lot sizes of 5,500
square feet with reads, set backs and other requirements as provided for in
the new Ordinance No.6 entitled "A Mobile Home Park Ordinance".
XV I II.
The facts presented would indicate that plaintiffs' land was entitled
to R~5 zoning under the new Ordin~nce No.8, being the zoning ordinance for
the Town of Grow.
XIX.
The evidence indicates that the Town Board had no basis in fact for
" denying plaintiffs' application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. That the action of the defendants in refusing the special use
permit application of the plaintiffs, submitted on April 17, 1970, was
discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious.
2, That the gra~ting uf a special use permit to the second appli-
cant, Carlyle, was a discriminatory act to the plaint~ffs who were entitled
to equal protection and equal exercise of their property rights.
3. That the defendants, and each of them, shall cause to be issued.
to the plaintiffs the special use permit for the development of a mobile
hDme park on the property'situate~ in Township of Grow, County of Anoka,
o
. .'.
"
-.' -:; ~- -.
~'
o
,,'
State of Minnesota. described as follows to-wit:
The South 4 rods of the North half of the Northeast 1/4.
Section 30. Township 32. Range 24.
The South 84 rods of Government Lot 1. Section 29. Town- '
ship 32. Range 24, ,
The Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 3D, Township
32. Range 24,
The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4. Section 30.
Township 32. Range 24.
That part of Government Lot 2. Section 29, Township 32.
Range 24. Anoka County. Minnesota. lying Westerly of a line
drawn equal distance from the East and West lines of said
Government Lot 2.
, ,',' LET' JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCOROINGL Y .
, '. ., '.
"
BY THE COURT:
" . ,'!:>::,i!,;:C,:;/ !-IM8KP
,,_ , ,~__'., .,"~.~!~._'" ~Ir~r1,ct ~u~ge, .':,
Dated:
" ,
. ; ; '':': ':."~ ~. : ,..-~
.. ".
.''T,. ,
.", ..
tV4 /~'Ir?l
'}fJ::PAr.~t/; r 105fpf jP/lr 7/'
o
/(.E V..E~
. ,
..--"
, ,
#
01
o
minnesota department of health
minneapolis 55440
1; C,C.
3fo/!?J
717 s.e, del aware st.
p.o. box 9441
(612) 623.5000
Andover City Council
c/o Ms. Vicki Volk, Clerk
City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard, N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Dear Council Members:
s:E.
lff81
March 21, 1989
Rr~~:'1~910
CITY OF ANDOVER
We have recently received a copy of the attached bill and are forwarding it to
your community for your information. We do not have any further details on
the bill so you may wish to contact your congressional delegation for more
information and to express any interest you may have in the legislation.
Sincerely yours,
~~ oe~--
Richard D. Clark, P.E., Supervisor
Public Water Supply Unit
Section of Water Supply and Engineering
RDC:ter
Enclosure
an equal opportunity employer
,
.;
',..
II
o
101sT CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
s. 397
To provide assistance to small communities with ground water radium
contamination.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 9 Oegislative day, JANUARY 3), 1989
Mr, DIXON (for himself and Mr, SIMON) introduced the following biIl; which was
read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
A BILL
To prpvide assistance to small communities with ground water
radium contamination,
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 RADIUM REMOVAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
4 SECTION 1. The Administrator of the Environmental
o
5 Protection Agency, in cooperation with State public authori-
6 ties, may assist local governments in demonstrating mitiga-
7 tion of radium contamination in ground water. Upon applica-
8 tion of "any State public authority, the Administrator may
9 make a grant to that authority for such purposes. Assistance
10 provided pursuant to this section shall be used for financing
.,.
~
2
o 1 the acquisition and installation of ground water treatment
2 technologies needed to remove radium from ground water
3 used as a source of public drinking water for residents of
4 small communities under the jurisdiction of such local gov-
5 ernments.
6 LEVEL OF CONTAMINATION
7 SEC. 2. A grant may only be made under section 1 for
8 removal of radium from ground water if the level of contami-
9 nation from such radium exceeds the maximum contaminant
10 level for radium established under title XIV of the Public
11 Health Service Act (relating to safe drinking water).
12 PURPOSES OF GRANTS
13 SEC. 3. Funds made available through grants under sec-
14 tion 1 may only be used by the grant recipient for one or both
15 of the following purposes:
16 (1) Providing insurance or prepaying ,interest for
17 local obligations issued by a local government to fi-
18 nance the acquisition and installation of ,treatment
19 technologies described in section 1.
20 (2) Paying for the costs of administration for estab-
21 lishment and operation by such authority of a program
22 to provide financing for such acquisition and installa-
23 tion.
24 DEFINITIONS
o 25 SEC. 4. For purposes of this Act, the term-
8 39118
J
o
o
'.
c .
3
1
(1) "small community" means a political subdivi-
2 sion of a State the population of which does not exceed
3 twenty thousand individuals; and
4 (2) "State public authority" means an agency or
5 instrumentality of a State which is established for the
6 purposes of assisting local governments in financing
. 7 capital improvements on a statewide or regional basis.
8 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
9 SEC. 5. The following sums are authorized to be appro- I
10 priated to carry out this Act:
Fiscal Year
1990...................,..,....,.................,....................,....,............
1991..................................................................................,
1992........................................................................,..,.......
Amount
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$7,000,000,
o
S 397 IS
o
NOTICE
OF
METROPOLITAN COUN
PUBLIC MEETING
,/
\:
REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER
COMPREHENSIVE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT)
SYSTEM PLAN FOR ANOKA COUNTY
The Metropolitan Council will hold a public meeting (as part of a Systems
Committee meeting) to receive comments as a part of its review of the
Comprehensive LRT System Plan for Anoka r~unty. You are encouraged to
participate in this meeting and provide input.
,
The comprehensive LRT plan has been prepared by the Anoka County Regional
Railroad Authority (ACRRA) in fulfillment of legislative requirements for LRT
planning. The plan considers: LRT design and service standards and policies;
location of service within Anoka county; ridership forecasts; capital and
operating costs; sources of project funding; potential public benefits; and
implementation methodology, including operating agency or entity.
.
The Metropolitan Council is reviewing this plan as required by state law. The
Council, in order to provide the broad regional perspective, is using a variety
of ways to solicit input to its decision. Several existing policy or advisory
boards are being asked to provide input, inclUding: the Regional Transit Board;
the Metropolitan Council LRT Advisory Committee; and the Transportation
Advisory Board.
In addition to these groups, the Council is offering the opportunity to
interested individuals, communities and organizations to provide additional
input to the process by submitting testimony as part of this public meeting.
The Metropolitan council will consider the comments and make its final
recommendations on April 27, 1989.
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
When:
Tuesday, April 4, 1989, 11 a.m.
Where
Metropolitan Council Chambers
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
o
Who will be Metropolitan Area state legislators
notified: Local officials
Interested Citizens and oommunity organizations
(over)
\
'!
.-~
.,~i
.~t
'2.
;
,
You may attend the meeting and offer oral or written
comments. Please call the Community Outreach Division at
?91-6500 if you wish to register to speak.
You may send a letter with comments by April 11, 1989 to:
How to ", 1'.'1 ·
-"', i 1-
Participate:' i.'
Questions:
SW300A
PHTRN3@5
Steve Wilson
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Call th$ Council's Transportation Division and talk to Steve
Wilson (291-6344). Summaries of Anoka County's Comprehensive LRT
System Plan are available from the Metropolitan Council Data
Center at 291-8140.
t~--:,
,
.
"-"",
\...!
J
o
o
"
00'
I
.OVf~V~fW
OVERVIEW
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LRT SYSTEM PLAN FOR ANOKA COUNTY
AND THE
PROCESS FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PLAN
The 1987 Minnesota Legislature placed primary respoqsibility for developing
light rail transit (LRT) with regional railroad authorities formed by
individual counties. The Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority (ACRRA) has
prepared a comprehensive plan for LRT development in Anoka County. The plan
was prepared in conjunction with the Hennepin County Regional Railroad
Authority planning for the Northeast Corridor and in conjunction with the Anoka
County 2010 Transportation Plan.
The ACRRA plan addresses that county's portion of the proposed Northeast
Corridor. The corridor would begin in downtown Minneapolis, connecting to the
alignment currently being studied by Hennepin County. Alignment options for
the Minneapolis portion of the corridor are a Burlington Northern (BN) railroad
right-of-way or Central Av. (TH 65) to approximately 37th St. Av. NE. The
Anoka County portion of the corridor, covered in the ACRRA plan, proposes to
follow either TH 47 or TH 65 north from that point to I-694 and then TH 47
north of I-694 to the Northtown Shopping Center. Future extensions of the
corridor would be considered north from that point along U.S. Highway 10 or TH
65.
Due to the complexity of issues for the alignment options, both options
would be carried forward to the preliminary design phase of study.
The BN/University Av. option would be 6.4 miles long, have a capital cost in
Anoka County of about $90 million, and is forecast to have a year 2010
ridership of between 18,500 and 19,700 daily riders for the entire corridor.
The Central/University Av. option would be 6.8 miles long, cost about $103
million (Anoka County portion) and have a total corridor ridership of 26,000-
27,000.
It is recommended that several funding sources be used to fund construction of
the corridor in Anoka County, including property tax revenues, a motor
vehicle registration surtax, a portion of the state motor vehicle excise tax,
and a drivers license fee dedication.
c
The plan identifies several benefits of LRT, including enhanced transit service
in LRT corridors, increased transit ridership, economic use of transit
resources, increased crosstown transit services, fewer automobile trips,
improved air quality and increased development potential near stations.
~ .;;:;;;;;;;:;;, ~ C~UN"" . ""'" "'. Ow_ . ,.~ _ "" >_ ... """ w..,_ "w . 'n ,...'m
'-"/
'-
'-
'.
,
Four alternative implementation strategies are being considered, ranging from 0
traditional, public sector-controlled implementation to a "super turnkey"
approach that makes a private contractor responsible for financial and land
development arrangements. The plan recommends that the Metropolitan Transit
Commission be the operator of the system and proposes these implementation
decisions be made in coordination with other regional railroad authorities.
LRT REVIEW PROCESS
The Minnesota Legislature has placed specific responsibilities on the
Metropolitan Council to review the light rail transit plans prepared by
regional railroad authorities. Minn. Stat. 1988, Chapter 473, section 10
states that:
"The council and the regional transit board shall review and comment on
comprehensive light rail transit plans and preliminary design plans of
regional railroad authorities. The council and the board shall conduct
their review and comment before the regional railroad authority prepares
final design plans."
The Metropolitan Council will be reviewing the plan for consistency with the
Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan and other chapters of its
Metropolitan Development Guide. In order to ensure that the regional
perspective is represented, the Council is using a variety of methods to gather
input for its review:
The Council's LRT Advisory Committee, composed of representatives from'
regional railroad authorities and other affected agencies in the
Metropolitan Area, will be meeting on April 14.
The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), an advisory body to the Council
composed of appointed and elected local and regional decisionmakers and
citizens, will review the plan through its LRT Task Force and Technical
Advisory Committee and adopt any comments on April 19.
The Council's Metropolitan Systems Committee, which has primary
responsibility for the Council's review, and the Re8iona1 Transit Board,
will hold a joint public meeting on Tuesday, April 4~ to solicit testimony
from interested individuals, communities and organizations.
Written testimony will be accepted from interested individuals, communities
and organizations until April 11.
The Regional Transit Board will be conducting its own review, to be
completed on April 17. The Council will consider the comments of the RTB
in taking its action.
The Metropolitan Systems Committee will take action on the plan review on April
18. The Metropolitan Council will act at its meeting on April 27. The
Council's comments will then be submitted to the Minnesota Legislature.
o
.
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
Special City Council Meeting - March 30, 1989
7:30 P.M. Call to Order
1. Interviews/Finance Director
7:30 P.M. Roger Larson
7:50 P.M. Alan Folie
8:10 P.M. Jessie Hart
8:30 P.M. Howard Koolick
8:50 P.M. Wayne Henneke
2. Sewer & Water Budget
3. Fire Marshal Discussion
4. Adjournment
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
March 30, 1989
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO.
.L .
Interviews/Finance
Director
Engineering
APPRqVED FOR
AGEN'j; f
I~
Bf/
BY: James E. Schrantz
The schedule for interviews for the Finance Director position is
as follows:
7:30 P.M. Roger Larson
7:50 P.M. Alan Folie
8:10 P.M. Jessie Hart
8:30 P.M. Howard Koolick
8:50 P.M. Wayne Henneke
Copies of the applicant's resumes have been given to you already.
c
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
The attached are the questions asked by the Staff Interview
Committee of the applicants for the Finance Director position.
!'..: ~..
o
o
....
/
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100
QUESTIONS FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS
1. What were your reasons for applying for this position?
2. What type of work do you hope to be doing five years from now?
3. Explain how you believe your education and experience can help
Andove r .
4. Explain your computer related experience.
5. Please describe your present job.
6. Which aspects of your current position do you enjoy the most?
The least?
\
7. Why are seeking to leave your present job?
8. Have you had much contact with City Council in previous positions?
Do you enjoy this aspect of the job?
9. Are you able to work under pressure with deadlines to meet? Have
you done so in previous positions?
10. Have you ever had any problems with your co-workers? Your
supervisor?
11. What types of people have you found it difficult to work with or
for? Why?
c.
, -"
/
j
o
12. Have you ever had to work overtime?
overtime work?
How do you feel about
13. This position may involve attending .two Council meetings per
month. Would this be a problem?
14. May we contact the references you listed on the application form?
Current or former employers?
15. What would you say is your one best qualification for this
position?
16. If hired, when would be available for work?
17. What are your salary expectations and requirements?
18. If asked to take a physical, could you pass it?
19. Is there anything you would like to ask us about the position or
about working for. the City of,Andover?
o
..
1
~~
>
~
CITY OF ANDOVER
POSITION DESCRIPTION
o
POSITION TITLE:
Finance Director
Finance Department
DEPARTMENT:
City Administrator
ACCOUNTABLE TO:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
position is responsible for the organization, planning, management and,
coordination of all financial services utilized by the City. Is
responsible for monies, investments, internal control and Providing
administrative supervision of City Clerk and City Treasurer and
manages insurance, workman's comp and personnel records.
i
MAJOR AREAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Plans and develops sound accounting policies and administrative .
practices so that financial records are maintained in an acceptable
manner, bills are paid on time, and all funds are invested in a manner
which will maximize the return on investments.
Prepares annual City budget for all City funds, annual and monthly
financial reports.
Manages and invests City monies according to legally approved
. 'investment practices.
Personally directs development and implementation of capital
financing programs.
Directs and supervises special assessment project accounting,
reporting and bonding.
Develops and maintains data processing systems which will meet the.
information recordkeeping demands of all City departments.
Prepares an operating budget for Finance Department, as well as
budgets for the insurance, debt services and special funds to insure
that the allocation of monies is sufficient to carry out the
responsibilities of the department.
Provides overall direction to the central services of reproduction,
mailing, office supply stores and purchasing.
;
Supervises the City Clerk and City Treasurer.
E
PAGE 1 OF 2
~
J
,
,
M
o
o
~
-
,
Attends Council meetings and advises Council .and administrative staff
regarding financial procedures.
Supervisory Responsibilities:
- Participates in and recommends the selection of new employees for
Department Employees.
- Defines and clearly delegates work assignments to personnel in terms
of work methods, service required and standards of performance
expected.
,
.
- Reviews the work performance of employees on a continuing basis.
- Establishes and maintains a level of discipline and a working
climate in which employees are motivated to work up to their
full potential.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITIES
- Thorough knowledge of principles and practices of all aspects of
public financing administration.
- Extensive knowledge of city budget process.
- Thorough knowledge of municipal government functions and management
concepts.
- Considerable knowledge of data processing and purchasing principles
and procedures.
- General knowledge of local, state and national laws pertaining to
City operations.
Ability to develop and implement sound accounting systems.
Ability to maintain effective working relationships in high stress
and conflict situations.'
- Ability to communicate ideas, explanations and recommendations
clearly, both orally and in writing.
- Ability to prepare complex financial statements and reports in
accordance with legal requirements.
- Ability to assign, supervise, discipline and motivate staff while
maintaining productive working relationships.
- Ability to prioritize constantly changing activities and resources.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Bachelor's Degree in accounting, business administration, finance,
economics, or public administration.
Two to five years of progressively responsible experience in
governmental finance management work with at least one year of
supervisory experience.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS
Master's Degree in accounting, business or public administration,
public finance or economics.
Three years municipal finance supervisory experience.
PAGE 2 OF 2
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
March 30, 1989
ITEM
NO.
Water & Sewer
Budget
BY:
James E. Schrantz
FOR
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
BY:
The City Council is requested to consider the following proposal
to balance the 1989 Water and Sewer Budgets.
Water Budget
Recommendation
Revenues
Increase water rates by 10% from $.82/1000 gal. to $.90/1000.
This will increase the revenues under General Customer from
$129,000 to about $140,000. Transfer $9000 from the fund balance
to the 1989 revenue budget as previously budgeted for pump and
well repair. The new total water revenues will be $172,030 +
$11,000 + $9,000 = $192,030.
Expenditures
Reduce Item 402 under Source, Storage and Treatment to $9,000.
The new total water expenditure is then $194,806 _ $11,000 =
$184,806.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
o
Page Two
March 21, 1989
Water & Sewer Budget
The excess revenue is now $192,030 - $184,806 = $7,224.
Use this $7,224 to partially fund the Public Works Employees.
Sewer Budget
Recommendation
Revenues
Metro Waste Control underestimated Andover's sewer usage and have
billed the previous year's underpayment this year.
The sewer fund balance hasn't had $54,504 transferred to it from
the Bond fund as deficit payment for Sewer Fund "A" _ transfer
$50,000 of the $54,504 to Sewer Revenues.
The new total Sewer Revenues is then $200,800 + $50,000 =
$250,800.
Expenditures
The expenditures remain the same at $235,313.
The excess sewer revenue is now $250,800 - $235,313 = $15,487.
Use this $15,487 to partially fund the Public Works Employees.
o
o
Page Three
March 21, 1989
Water & Sewer Budget
Public Works Employees Funding
Water excess $7,224 plus sewer excess $15,487 for a total of
$22,711.
To fund a Public Works II for a year is about $30,000 including
20% overhead. From May 1st to the end of 1989 the cost is about
66% of $30,000 or $19,800 needed to fund the employee with $22,711
available.
Sewer Fund "A" Transfer
I also recommend that the Council review the Sewer Fund "A" refund
and discontinue that policy and charge all the sewer users the
same rate. Currently, the customers in District A pay $4.50/month
and in District B pay $8.50/month.
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE March 30. 1 qRq
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
ITEM
NO. Fi re Marshal
Posi tion 3
BY:Jim Schrantz
The City Council is requested to discuss the Fire Marshal position
concerning schedule and hours.
We received two messages from the Council on the Fire Marshal as
to who she reports to.
The understanding that Bob and I have is that Bob will assign her
work and she will be responsible to him and will come to me if
there are some items that concern City policy.
I have tried to find where we discussed the Fire Marshal position
during the budget process but I have only found the short
statement in the November 22, 1988 minutes. I will have someone
listen to the tapes if the Council wishes.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
" .
f
.
C:>CITY OF ANDOVER
~, POSITION TITLE:
POSITION DESCRIPTION
FIRE MARSHAL
FIRE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT:
FIRE CHIEF & CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOUNTABLE TO:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF POSITION
To develop, apply and administer City fire safety standards in the
City of Andover in a manner which will safeguard lives and
property. The Fire Marshal shall participate in the
investigation of all fires of questionable origin in the City of
Andove r .
To coordinate and direct fire prevention efforts as the Fire
Prevention Public Information Officer for the City.
MAJOR AREAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Prepares, implements and administers a fire and safety inspection
program to ensure that facilities and structures conform with
municipal codes and applicable State regulations.
Develops and carries out an effective inspection program covering
commercial, industrial, multiple dwellings, schools, churches,
and public buildings throughout the City for the purpose of fire
prevention.
Examines bUilding plans for conformity with the fire prevention
codes and coordinates inspections with building, electrical,
plumbing and heating inspectors.
participates in the investigation of all fires of questionable
origin with the Sheriff's Department and the State Fire
Marshal's Office to determine the cause of fires. Prepares
comprehensive reports on fires as required by the City and State
Fire Marshal's Office.
Prepares monthly reports summarizing inspections, investigations,
fire and fire prevention activities. '
Submits budget requests for inclusion in the annual budget.
-Q
Department Head
Effective Date
PAGE 1 OF 3
.t
o
c..'
o
,
'''---.
" -
Recommends changes to fire ordinances and codes.
Reports violations of other municipal codes found during
inspections and fire investigation duties to appropriate parties
for corrective action.
Conducts training on the use of fire extinguishers, evacuations,
and fire prevention for industries, nursing homes, schools and
other groups.
Keeps abreast of changes in fire codes, building codes, fire
prevention practices and construction materials.
Reviews all development proposals for fire safety and prepares a
report on fire safety implications.
Assists the Fire Chief in maintaining contact with the Fire
Insurance Rating Bureau to ensure best possible rating.
Assists the Fire Chief in the preparation of the Master Fire Plan
covering all aspects of firefighting and prevention.
Serves as a member and resource person to the Safety Committee.
Cooperates with the Fire Chief and Training Officer in
establishing fire suppression pre-plan for all commercial and
industrial bUildings.
~erforms oth~r duties as delegated.
E~PLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
***Conducts inspections in a businesslike and impartial manner.
***Recognizes potential fire hazards and follows through to see
corrective action is taken.
***Communicates tactfully and effectively with property owners and
contractors.
***Makes periodic inspections in accordance with specified duties.
***Keeps informed of changes in regulatory codes and the
interpretation of same.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK OF OTHERS
None.
-.
PAGE 2 OF 3
f
~
,0
G
o
~-
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
High school graduate. Training in fire service or closely
related fields. A combination of four years in firefighting,
either full-time, part-time, or volunteer, and/or in fire
prevention and inspection activities.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES
Considerable knowledge of principles, practices, methods,
techniques, equipment, tools and sciences applied to fire
prevention and investigation.
Full knowledge of relevant City and State fire codes, and
regulations in the area of fire prevention or investigation.
Ability to do complex fire prevention and investigation work.
Ability to establish and maintain effective working relations
with others.
Ability to express oneself clearly and concisely both orally and
in writing. '
Considerable knowledge of the geography of the City and location
of hydrants, buildings and special areas requiring special pre-
fire control planning, inspection and firefighting techniques.
Considerable:knowledge of first-aid and the uses of first aid
: equipment.
Be physically able to perform the duties outlined.
SALARY
Salary is subject to adjustment after a probationary period based
on performance review and as set forth in Andover Personnel
Policies.
PAGE 3 OF 3
~~
I
o
o
Special City Council Meeting
February 21, 1989 - Minutes
Page One
Mayor Elling: Why in the world do you want the job?
Joyce Noyes: Well, I've been a firefighter for many years and
it's always been interesting.
Councilman Jacobson: Do you see this as something that really
can't be handled the way we're doing it and we really need to do
it this way?
Joyce Noyes: It's not being handled, I don't feel. We don't
have time to get all the buildings checked.
Councilman Jacobson: You know who the other person is who is
applying?
Joyce Noyes: Yes.
Councilman Jacobson: Why do you think, or what qualities, what
do you possess that the other person doesn't that we would pick
you?
Joyce Noyes: I've been a firefighter longer and I feel I have
~he time to do it.
Councilman Knight: I'm not real clear on the role. In terms of
new construction, like commercial construction, does she work
with Dave?
Fire Chief Palmer: You bet.
Councilman Knight: O.K. So they would both have to approve.
Councilman Knight: Does anything you object to in terms of
hours?
Fire Chief Palmer: I don't think a definite wage has been quoted
to anyone. ...the same as the Assistant Building Inspector but
I don't know the dollar amount that was in there so it might be
something that...
Councilman Jacobson: $70,000 a year, I think.
Mayor Elling: That's only the second year, Don, not the first
year. That's after probation period. I
Councilman Knight: It's $12 something.
Councilman Jacobson: $13,200 or $13,400.
Councilman Knight: It's $12.00 something per hour, isn't it?
~
!
o
Special City Council Meeting
February 21, 1989 - Minutes
Page Two
Mayor Elling: It's the same as Don Olson 'cause we figured that
the Fire Marshal would know the same codes that the Building
Inspector would have to.
Fire Chief Palmer: It's not going to be less than $12 but it
probably isn't going to be over $13.
Mayor Ellin1: I see in the requirements that we have for the
Fire Marsha , Joyce, that it requires 10 minutes driving time to
City Hall and must reside. You do that?
Joyce Noyes: I do.
Mayor Elling: I know you. I don't know if I could ask you any
question that would mean anything.
Councilman Knight: You've got an impressive list of...
Councilman Orttel: Have the hours been set when this person will
work?
Mayor Elling; That was the requirement of the job?
Councilman Orttel: ...require working like four hours each
day...
Mayor Elling: What we agreed to is 20 hours a week maximum and
that it had to be done during normal business hours. It's open _
whatever the need is there, I guess.
Councilman Orttel: What would happen if this expanded to the
full-time position, Joyce, would you have any trouble in picking
up hours, adding hours?
Joyce Noyes: I work part-time now for Target, just part-time _
16 hours one week and 24 the next so, this would fit in real
nice. If it was full-time, then I'd just quit my other job.
Councilman Knight: I assume you're going to set up a schedule
that would be the same all the time so that contractors would
know.
Fire Chief Palmer: Of course, some bugs are going to have to be
ironed out.
o
Mayor Elling: Part of the problem we've got right now is like
daycare centers and stuff that have not been done for a long
time...
Fire Chief Palmer: No, daycares have been getting done.
.'
J
o
Special City Council Meeting
February 21, 1989 - Minutes
Page Three
Mayor Elling: Have they? I heard there were some that were not.
We're getting behind.
Fire Chief Palmer: Yeah, there's some slack there but he's been
following up pretty closely.
Mafor Elling: We talked about last time, in the beginning of
th1s thing, that they'd fully use 20 hours a week and then there
was some concern as to whether we could keep somebody going 52
weeks a year. In the beginning,...
Councilman Jacobson: Ask you one final question, did you...
...have to work a with a lot of contractors and I don't want to
say this as a negative, but you're coming out as a gal and you're
telling them what to do and how to do it - do you think you can
handle some of these guys saying "Why do I have to listen to
(her?". Now this is kind of just...
Mayor Elling: Ask Roger.
Councilman Jacobson: Do you think you can stand up to them and
say "This is it."?
Joyce Noyes: I can just write it on a piece of paper if they
don't do it and then they have to do it.
Councilman Perry: I guess my only question would be, if we were
interviewing the people that you have worked with on the Fire
Department, how do you think they would respond?
Maxor Elling: If you remember right, too, there was a vote
an ...
Mayor Elling: Is there anything you'd like to ask us, Joyce?
Joyce Noyes: Well, I'd like to get the job defined. What would
you expect really?
Mayor Elling: Have you seen the job description and this
function?
Fire Chief Palmer: The one we read to them, there were
modifieations done to it after that, so...
Mayor Elling: Was it changed substantially from what the first
draft came out?
o
Fire Chief Palmer: No, the wording is about all that got
changed.
J
c
o
Special City Council Meeting
February 21, 1989 - Minutes
Page Four
Mayor Elling: It's pretty similar.
Mayor Elling: I guess we'll interview Dave next and then we'll
go to...
Joyce Noyes: O.K.
Mayor Elling: Thank you very much.
f
I
~eClal City
/~.~~ember- 22.
/ ,,'age 2
Counci I Meeting
1988 - Minutes
(Pr-oposed 1989 Budget, Continued)
Civil Defense: Mr-. Almgr-en r-ecommended adding one OL two mOLe
war-ning sir-ens, estimating a cost of $10,000 each. Council agLeed to
incr-ease the budget amount by $10,000 to $36,285.
Fir-e PLotection: Chief Palmer- stated most of the incLease is in
wages. The DNR is pr-edicting another- dr-y year-, so the amount was based
on last yeaL's r-esponses. TheLe have been 244 calls so far this year-
compaLed to 178 total for- 1987. The increase in the Relief Association
is because they have had good r-etention of the firefighters. Al I
other- items wer-e held in line with the pr-evious budget.
Chief Palmer stated ther-e is a pr-oblem with so many medicals occur-ing
dULing the day. They ar-e consider-ing the possibility of having two
people on duty dur-ing the day for- a pay of $50 per- day. It would mean
an additional $24,000 to the budget. No Council action was taken on
this item.
Chief Palmer- also r-epor-ted ther-e is a big need for- a 20-hour- a week
fiLe mar-shal, estimating it would cost $14,000 plus benefits. That
amount is not included in the budget. Later- in the meeting the
Council set aside $17,000 fOL this position.
Protective Inspection - Mr-. Almgr-en explained a por-tion of the
Incr-ease Is for- the pur-chase of another- car-, as the other- Building
Inspector- is now using his own tr-uck. Most of the r-emaining incr-ease
is for- wages, which also r-eflects the addition of one-half of a
secr-etar-y which has been in the depar-tment since last Mar-ch. No
action was taken by the Council.
Str-eets and Hiqhwavs - Mr-. Stone stated the budget allows for- the
pULchase of a one-ton tr-uck, the cost divided between StLeets and
Highways and Snow and Ice Removal. However, $6,000 is still needed to
pur-chase the tr-uck. Council gener-ally agr-eed to the pur-chase of the
tLuck, allocating another- $6,000 towaLd it later in the meeting.
Par-k and Recr-eation - Chair-man McMullen pr-esented the pr-oposed par-k
expendituLes for 1989 with the fol lowing cor-r-ectlons: Delete Items 7
and 8 fr-om the City PaLk Complex (2 new hockey r-inks and lights).
Total Par-k Dedication for- the City Par-k Complex: $984.50; Total
Expenditur-e. $8,950. The cor-r-ected totals on the last page -- Total
Dedication Money, $9,407.50; Total Capital Budget, $55,000; Total
Car-r-y Over- 1988, $18,200; Total Expenditur-es, $82.607.50. Chair-man
McMullen explained the r-eason fOL the corr-ection Is ther-e is not as
much money in the dedication fund as they had thought.
Mr-. Schr-antz stated the budget includes the incr-eased staff for-
O Community School Just appr-oved by the Council. No fur-ther- Council
action was taken on this item.
o
~~
,
~
, ,
::l
d
.
.~
~
~
"
~
,~
A
1
~~
Special City Council Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Minutes
Page 3
(Proposed 1989 Budget, Continued)
Addition of Community Service Officer - Councilman Orttel felt there
is a very serious problem in the City with the lack of nuisance
abatement. In Coon Rapids a Community Service Officer is used for
nuisance abatement and works with the Zoning Administrator, not the
Police Department. He felt such a position would work well for
Andover. It would be a part-time position, 3 to 4 hours a 'day, where a
uniformed officer would ride through the City in a marked car and give
citations for ordinance violations such as illegal storage, junk cars,
etc. There would also be little need for prosecution, as action would
be taken under the ordinance passed to issue a citation granting 20
days to abate the problem or the City comes in to do it.
Council discussed the pros and cons of such a position, generally
agreeing to add $12,000 to the budget for it, plus'$3,000 for
Attorney's fees, thinking the result would be an increase in the
number of prosecutions.
Unallocated - After discussion on the amount proposed, it was
generally agreed the funding needed to correct the Police Protection
fund ($8,000), to add one warning siren ($10,000), to fund a half-time
fire marshal position ($17,000), to adequately fund the Public Works
truck ($6,000), to fund a part-time CSO or prot~ctive investigative
position ($12,000), and to increase funding for prosecutions ($3,000)
could be taken from this fund, leaving a ba'lance of $21,300.
Salaries - Mr. Schrantz explained the proposed budget reflects a 4
percent across-the-board increase for all employees.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the budgeted 4 percent
across-the-board salary increase be approved for 1989. DISCUSSION:
It was noted the Planner will get an increase after his 6-month
probationary period, after which the 4 percent increase would take
effect. Because the Public Works employees will now be represented by
the union, Council did not want to jeopardize those negotiations and
agreed to take no action on those salaries at this time.
,Councilmen Elling and Orttel WITHDREW the Second and the Motion.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we approve a 4 percent
cost of living adjustment increase for all City employees effectIve
January 1, 1989, with the exception of employees currently under
probation, and their 4 percent increase will take effect after their
probationary time has expired, and all those Public Works employees
represented by the union contract because it is the feeling of the
Council that this item is a negotiating item relating to the contract
which has not yet been ratified. Motion carrIed unanimously.
DATE:
April 4, 1989
o
ITEMS GIVEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Memo from City Clerk (4/4/89) regarding Law Enforcement Contract
Letter from Merlyn R. Prochniak (4/4/89)
Letter from Mr. & Mrs. DuWayne Meyers (3/31/89)
Letter from Louis O. strauch (3/31/89)
Minutes - Park and Recreation Commission (3/23/89)
.
Letter from Norm Schiferl (3/27/89)
Resolution to Adopt a River
Letter from Natalie Haas Steffen (3/30/89)
Memo from James Schrantz (4/3/89) regarding Coon Creek watershed
Letter from Doug Gronli (3/30/89)
"What's Happening?" (updated 4/4/89)
Memo from James Schrantz (4/4/89) regarding Minnesota Pipeline
Memo from James Schrantz (4/4/89) regarding personnel forms
PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ITEMS AT THIS MEETING OR PUT THEM ON THE NEXT
AGENDA.
THANK YOU.
o
April 4th, 1989
o
To: The City of Andover
Attn: Andover City Council
From: Andover Athletic Association
Topic: Storage Facilities
A few years ago the City Council authorized the Public Works Director
to allow the Andover Athletic Assoc. to store it's equipment in a
designated area of the Andover Public Works Building. With the growth
of the Association and addditional equipment needed, the storage space
available is all used. We realize the first priority for space in
Public Works is for City use. With the growth of the City, more and
more equipment is required, creating a need for more space in Public
works.
The Athletic Association is inquiring about the possibility of an-
other storage area in the City, or even the possibility of some
area on the premises of the City Hal:/Public Works where a small
storage building could be constructed. We have no details on size
and tYPe of structure at this time.
. .
If the City would allow some structure to be constructed, the
Association would work with the City in conforming to building
requirements. We are also receptive to other alternatives; such
as moving an already built structure onto City property, or
utilizing unused space in some other building the City may have
available.
After your consideration we would appreciate any information re-
garding this topic to be forwarded to Merlyn Prochniak
2941-14lst Ave. NW; Andover ,Mn 55304. The Andover Athletic
Association greatly Appreciates the use of the current storage
area.
We would be glad to attend a City Council Meeting on this subject
if required.
Thank you for your time and co-operation,
The Andover Athletic Association
o~ i.. /.~
.., JOn:
~o..Js // )'11'1
. Iii Ce. '
, f!ilrg9,
:}!~ +-~:~-~~~-_.
.- -". - -,--.. _._--~.._--- -----..........--.--.--..-.--.-...
"Jj.~~i~--~. .____n./
,____' ,. ..:..d_~_.:..Lj.t/().;t.L d..u44_.d;r.c> ,"'Ci
",j8M... ..' ~~~/~~--,..
"j ~ ~ ~ a.- ~_~~_______ '
,'jr~ 1~,-+-~--ty~M-
, ~ I - ------ ----,----
.,J..L.-.~~~~~---
~/O ~~) ~-1~ -
tofl.-t. '~ ~~.
---. -_t)J~d'-D1.-3~~i
_ / ~ t7~ /,' !!~_ . _ .,.. ~_'_n__!
~/~_. --:r~~t:J~'--..i '
i
,
---_.... ---- - -------------------..-----.-! .
R'" EC~EfVEn
. .-;'PI~' 3 1989 - U
CITY OF ANDOVER
'., I, ~" '
,':\"r :"
,. \m 1
I;lti\;~jli
.,'. .,\'{I!.:/:...,..........',',.,"..,.,
.' ,"',t,":"''-'"
i '. ",': ~~,~;'. '; ':. ' '",' .
o
o
10 CC'.
+/1/~9
MARCH 31, 1989
13353 MARIGOLD STREET N.W.
ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55/~r. (0 -roaD \'
U(~ CJL )
ATTENTION: MAYOR, COUNCIL
CITY OF ANDOVEI<
ANDOVEI<, MINNESOTA 55304
THEHE IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION AT NIGHTS, WHEN YOU HAVE
TO TURN OFf"AND ON BUNKER LAKE ROAD UNTO THE SERVICE ROAD ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 116(BUNKER LAKE ROAD), ttAM TALKING
ABOUT THE SECTION OF ROAD FROM WHERE YOU TURN INT OODLAND
TERI<ACE)ALONG THE SERVICE ROAD TOWARDS THE ASSEMBL -S OF GOD
CHURCH. THERE ARE STEET LIGHTS THERE BUT THEY ARE MANY FEET
AWAY FROM THE DRIVEWAYS WHERE WE TURN ON AND OFF THE SERVICE
ROAD. PLEASE PUT UP SOME NEW LIGHTS NEARER THE DRIVEWAYS OR MOVE
THE LIGHTS WHERE WE TURN OFF AND ON. IT IS VERY CONFUSING.
I PAY LOTSOF TAXES PLEASE HAVE THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT LOOK INTO IT
AND INFORl.1 ME.
YOURS TRULY,
/JrfJ-M-"~
6 . ./-.J/vv.
~
LOUIS O. STRAUCH
--~-E"~' ".."'.."" '. . '.':_-. n
~;;, 3'1~9~~IJ
CITY OF ANDOVER
CO U N TY
OF
17i CC-
AN 0 KA fr!~9
Office of the County Board of Commissioners
COURTHOUSE ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 612-421-4760
RF-~flD
CITY OF ANDOVER
March 27, 1989
MEMO TO: Anoka County Cityrrownship Administrators/Managers/Clerks
Anoka County Cityrrownship Recycling Coordinators
FROM: Norm Schiferl, Special Assistant to the County Administrator
SUBJECT: Amendment of Anoka County's Solid Waste Ordinance
to Increase Landfill Surcharge
For your information, at its March 21, 1989 meeting, the Anoka County Board approved an
amendment to the Anoka County Solid Waste Ordinance to increase the landfill surcharge by
$2,37 per cubic yard to $2.62 per cubic yard, effective May 1, 1989.
The increased landfill. surcharge will be a critically important funding source for recycling,
composting, and other waste abatement efforts in the County, while it will also be used to
sustain a contingency action fund.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 421-4760, extension 1173.
, --- '/"
? \, I,
~->'- " . 'r~
Norm Schiferl
NS:nb
cc: Tim Yantos
o
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
.....'
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A RIVER.
WHEREAS, the Andover city Council is cognizant of the need to
clean up our river; and
WHEREAS, the City Council encourages its residents to adopt a
section of the Rum River.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Andover City Council
supports and encourages the Adopt A River program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Andover city Council will do
all it can to encourage the clean up of not only the Rum River
but all our rivers and streams.
Passed by the Andover City Council this 4th day of April, 1989.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
l-
I
1
_ZIir--
Dear Neighbor:
-1
I
1
I
f
I
-r;:; C C-
10 1-/1!f1
ANOKA
CO U N TY
OF
Office of the County Board of Commissio. er~, . E j:a t'i'-V-"-" 0
COURTHOUSE ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 /31 -"dQ. ~ t
March 30, 1989 r:::'::l
I MAR 3 1 1989 I
CITY OF ANDOVER
Anoka County residents are responding to initiatives of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
the Governor's Office and the Celebrate Minnesota 1990 Organization, by participating in the Rum River
'Adopt-A-River" project. The challenge coming from these offices is to become more active in cleaning
up and protecting our local natural resources. Here in Anoka County, we are fortunate that we have
numerous water resources that provide recreation and archaeological wonders. The Rum River is one
of those. The Rum River is also one of those that needs cleaning up. On April 22 and 23, or the
following weekend if weather conditions require, your neighbors and numerous school and community
groups will be coming together, donating a few of their hours to clean up the Rum. We will also be
covering the banks with new plantings to stabilize them with permission from interested landowners.
Many groups will want to 'adopt' a section. This means that after the cleanup in April, the groups will
voluntarily take on the responsibility of checking their section of the river from time to time to see that
it stays clean and beautiful.
Won't you please Join us in this effort?
You would be in good company with the support of the Governor, the DNR, the Pollution Control
Agency, the Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Extension Office, Anoka County,
local elected officials, and community leaders,
Governor Rudy Perpich is particularly enthused about our Rum River 'Adopt-A-River" project. He will
kick off the program on April 20th along the Rum in Anoka at about 4:30 p.m. as part of the 'Capitol
for a Day' program taking place that day in Anoka Representatives from the community groups in the
Adopt-A-River project will be asked to participate in the ceremony with the Governor.
We have had one meeting already, and enthusiasm is high! There wiH be another meetina on Aoril 6th,
7:00 o.m.. at the Bunker Hills ActMtv Center. to finalize the details. At the meeting we will be asking
for commitments from individuals and groups to participate. We will need to know how many people
from each group will volunteer; their age group; whether members can bring canoes; and whether
groups want to 'adopt' a section or only volunteer their time for one or two days that weekend, This
information will be used to assign groups to each section of the Rum that needs work. We will also
talk about training for all volunteers on the morning of the kickoff. We wiH be finalizing plans for a big
picnic following completion of the project to celebrate our accomplishments.
Please consider donating just a few hours of your time to help on this worthy project. Any way you
can assist would be appreciated. If you can't make it to the Aprit 6th meeting, but plan to participate,
please call Pat Morreim, Anoka County MN Extension Office, 755-1280, with the number of people you
plan to bring.
For more information, call your community contact person: Anoka - Chet Tollefson, 421-8146; Andover-
Lyle Bradley, 421-1663; Oak Grove - Sherry Fiskvold, 753-1920; Ramsey - Jim Gromberg, 427-1410;
and St. Francis - Jim Lucas, 753-1238. You may also call Pat Morreim, 755-1280, or Jill Pick at the
Courthouse, 421-4760, ext. 1757.
o
Sincerely,
1br~~~~g~~
Anoka County Commissioner
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
.....'
o
CITY of ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Mavor and City Council
neetiaEj reEjardiaEj Ceca Creek watershed
Coon Rapids called. They are setting up a Mayor's Task Force to
discuss Coon Creek Watershed.
The meeting will be at Denny's in Blaine (Northtown area) at 7:00
A.M. April 7th (breakfast meeting).
They asked that I notify all Council members.
Jim Elling has been called and will be at the meeting.
o
o
0VEJl ACENTURY OF SElMCE
~
o
GAB Business Services Inc
380 Lafayette Freeway Road Suite 118
POBox 7007
SI. Paul Minnesota 55107
Teiephone 612-292-1234
Branch O"lce
March 30, 1989
10: c. <2 .
1/f/?9
/N~N
"ijEl;-E fV ED
l\i APR 31989 I
CITY OF ANDOVER
1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
8!!~o!iQ01__~i!~_8gmioi~!rg!Qr_:_Jgm~~_2~hrgo!~
Dear Mr. Schrantz:
GAB FILE NO: 56542-01405
TRUST MEMBER: CITY OF ANDOVER
CLAIMANTS: HAY, BRUCE ET AL
QLbl__Q~:fQ:~Q__---------------
As you may be aware, the LMC,,1T appointed Mr. George
Hoff of the law firm of Hoff and Allen to defend your
City with respect to the above captioned matter.
A defense of this matter was undertaken purstiant to
the policy number MP823220R and specifically the Public
Officials Personal Liability (POPL) Endorsement. That
Endorsement does have a $1,000.00 deductible. For your
information the LMCIT has expended a total of $63,308.96
in expense,iMthis file.
I would appreciate it if you would promptly forward
to myself a draft in the amount of $1,000 payabLe to
GAB Business Services, Inc.. Please make a notation
of our file number on that draft. I will properly
credit this draft to your loss payments history.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.
~y~
Doug GronLi
Branch Casualty Supervisor
DG:kar
CC: William Hawkins
Burke and Hawkins
Suite 101
299 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
CITY OF ANDOVER
o
o
,..
****************************************************************
~.************************************************************~*
.. **
.. **
.. **
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
:: WHAT'S HAPPENING? ::
.'" '" ','" .._",.. ,. .. **
.. **
.'" **
:: ~ cb ::
.. **
.'" **
.'" **
.'" **
.'" April 4, 1989 **
.'" **
...... Upda te **
...'" **
...... **
",'" **
",'" **
...'" **
:: Ginny Asmussen has resigned as secretary from ::
",. the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Park **
.. Board. **
~ ~
...'" **
:: We are advertising for the Secretary for the ::
:: Planning and Zoning Commission and the Park ::
...'" Board. **
~ ~
",'" **
",'" **
",'" **
",'" **
",'" **
...'" **
...'" **
...* **
...'" **
",'" **
~ ~
.... **
",'" **
",. **
~ ~
.... **
...'" **
~ ~
~ ~
...'" **
~ ~
~ ~
",'" **
",. **
.... **
",'" **
.'" **
...... **
",'" **
.... **
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.'" **
.... **
",'" **
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.'" **
.'" **
",'" **
",'" **
.'" **
~ ~
",'" ' **
'" **
"'",**************************************************************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"
o
CITY of ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
City Council
Minnesota Pipeline Company is proposing another pipeline through
Andover adjacent to the one they built 3 or 4 years ago.
It would start on 181st Avenue near d'Arcy's place through
Hawkridge, Verdin Acres, the Northeast corner of Woodland Ridge
and crosses just off the end of 167th Avenue, crossing Ward Lake
Drive near the south end across Crosstown Boulevard and across
Constance at the bad curve out of Andover near ditch 58.
The report is in the Engineering Office and the Mayor has a copy.
o
o
MINNESOTA PIPE LINE COMPANY
P. O. BOX 67
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
March 30, 1989
Re: Application of Minnesota Pipe Line Company for Pipeline
Routing Permit Pursuant to Partial Exemption From Pipeline
Route Selection Procedures
(MEQB Docket t MPLC-l989 Expansion)
We are proposing to expand our existing dual 16-inch crude oil
petroleum pipeline by adding approximately 163 miles of new l6 inch
diameter steel pipe. We are also proposing to construct the pipeline
wi thin the existing right-of-way. Construction is proposed to take
place in the counties of: Clearwater, Hubbard, Wadena, Todd,
Morrison, Benton, Sherburne, Anoka, Washington, and Dakota.
A more detailed explanation of the proposed project is contained in
the enclosed copy of the Application of Minnesota Pipe Line Company
for a pipeline Routing Permit pursuant to a partial exemption from
pipeline route selection procedures.
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will hold public
information meetings in each county to provide information on the
proposed project and to receive information to assist the EQB in
determining whether to grant or deny the partial exemption
application. The public information meetings are scheduled for the
times and places listed in the enclosed notice.
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4415, regulate pipeline routing in
Minnesota. In deciding whether to grant or deny the partial
exemption, the EQB will consider comments that are filed with the EQB,
the record of the public information meetings, and the information
relevant to the criteria for partial exemption contained in the
application. All comments must be filed with the EQB by 5:00 p.m. on
May 3, 1989. Any person may file comments with the EQB stating
reasons why the EQB should grant or deny the partial exemption. If
the EQB grants the partial exemption application, it must issue a
pipeline routing permit. If the partial exemption is denied, the
applicant may request that the EQB continue processing its application
under full pipeline routing selection procedures.
Additional information may be obtained from and comments should be
submitted to: Larry B. Hartman, Environmental Quality Board, 300
Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.
Tel: (612) 296-5089 or l-800-652-9747, and ask for the EQB.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.
o
Sincerely,
n....---/./..k:g.#.'-
~~;;; R. Kleis
Division Manager
Minnesota Pipe Line Company
Public Information Meeting Schedule
o Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Application of Minnesota Pipe Line Company for a Partial Exemption from
Pipeli~e Route Selection Procedures (Minn. Rules Chapter 4415)
The EQB will hold public information meetings at the locations listed below. The pUIpOse of the meetings is to
assist the EQB in detennining whether to grant or deny the partial exemption application and to provide information on the
proposed pipeline project.
Additional information may be obtained from and comments should be filed by 5:00 PM on May 3. 1989 with: Larry
B. Hartman. Environmental Quality Board. 300 Centennial Building. 658 Cedar St.. St. Paul. MN 55155. Tel: (612) 296-5089
or 1-800-652-9747 and ask for the EQB.
Information Meeting Schedule
Time Place
Date
April 10. 1989
Apri110. 1989
Apri111, 1989
April 11, 1989
April 12, 1989
Apri117, 1989
April 18, 1989
Apri119, 1989
April 19, 1989
Apri120,1989
o
1:00 PM
7:00 PM
1:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00PM
7:00 PM
1:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
Legion Hall
Bagley
Community Room
Municipal Airport
Park Rapids
Government Center
611 Iowa Avenue
Staples
Courthouse Auditorium
415 South Jefferson
Wadena
Upper Level Courtroom
Morrison County Courthouse
, Little Falls
Board Room
Benton County Courthouse
Foley
Lunch Room
Door 1 - 7.immP.t'Olan Elementary School
25959 Fourth St. W.
Zimmerman
Council Chambers
City Hall
810 Barbara Avenue
Inver Grove Heights
Library
Mahtomedi High School
8000 75th Street N.
Mahtomedi
Bunker Hills Activity Center
550 Bunker Lake Blvd.
(2 miles west ofHwy. 65 on
Bunker Lake Blvd.)
o
CITY of ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Cit Council Staff
The Personnel Committee has asked that I distribute the attached
evaluation forms to the City Council.
Also attached are the forms we currently use to evaluate the
staff.
o
'-
/"
~
o
o
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
AND
, DEVELOPMENT PLAN
EMPLOYEE NAME
POSITION
DIVISION
LOCATION
SUPERVISOR
APPRAISAL PERIOD
,
o
o
I.
KEY POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES
Summarize the responsibilities which have beE!n assigned to this position. You may refer to the
position description, but each item listed must represent an understanding between the
supervisor and employee concerning the specific content of the job. (Use additional paper if
required.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
-1-
/
,
o II.
o
Performance Levels
c $ ." en 0
::J D> c: c: c:
en ~ -< "0 Cii
!!!. !Q, CD
() ~ ii)
00' ::J o'
EXAMINE WORK GOALS ACHIEVED DURING APPRAISAL PERIOD 0; !!!. 0 ~ ::J
3 a.
Identify and evaluate employee's achievement of work plans and n "0 ::J
0 CD (0
~ ro
goals. Provide comments to support evaluation. '<
::J
-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
.
9.
,
10.
-2-
Performance Levels
o
III. P
c s: -n en 0
:> III So c:: c::
en .... -< "'0 -
!!!. <0 <t> en
-
Vi" 5' 0 ~. III
III 0 0 :>
ERFORMANCEFACTORS- Qj 3 .... c-
o 5'
Examine the following factors that you have observed that directly - "'0 <0
0 <t>
.... CD
affect work results. '<
a
A. JUDGMENT (Ability to form decisive and sound
conclusions in the absence of establishej rules,
procedures or past practice)
B. INITIATIVE/RESOURCEFULNESS (Ability to anticipate .
problems and creatively select alternative avenues to
achieve results)
C. ADAPTABILITY/FLEXIBILITY (Ability to re-evaluate
changing environment and adjust work plan accordingly)
D. DEPENDABILITY (Extent to which employee adheres to
promised action)
E. COOPERATION (Extent to which employee is able to
work effectively with others)
F. TIME MANAGEMENT (Ability to plan, control and
organize current activities)
G. LONG-RANGE PLANNING ABILITY (Ability to identify .
and develop long-range plans)
H. COMMUNICATION (Ability to effectively communicate
with supervisor, subordinates and/ or coworkers)
I. INTERGROUP EFFECTIVENESS (Ability to achieve
results with other areas 01 organization)
,
Comments:
10
-3-
,
o
o
Performance Levels
c s: "'Tl (j) 0
::J II> S. c: c:
<Jl ~ -< "0 en
~ <Q. CD
~ -
(ii' ::J () 6' II>
- II> 0 ~ ::J
UPERVISORY AND MANAGERIAL FACTORS- II> 3 a.
0 S"
- "0
Examine the following factors that directly affect supervisory 0 CD to
~ <ii
and managerial results. '<
3.
A. SUBORDINATE SUPERVISION (Effectively
participates in decisions related to the selection.
development, promotion, compensation and, if
necessary, the discipline of assigned human resources.)
B. DOWNWARD COMMUNICATION (Effectively orients
assigned human resources
policies and procedures. Clearly communicates work
duties and responsibilities so individuals may proceed
with certainty in the performance of their jobs.)
C. SUBORDINATE TRAINING (Effectively conducts or
oversees training for assigned employees to ensure
established procedures are clearly understood and
followed. Continually monitors results being achieved in
assigned areas.)
D. SUBORDINATE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
(Effectively monitors the work performance of assigned
personnel on a continual basis, conducts effective
performance appraisals and takes appropriate action
whenever necessary.)
E. SUBORDINATE ENVIRONMENT (Creates a working
climate in which assigned human resources are motivated
to develop their skills and abilities allu demonstrates by
personal example the desired standards of conduct and
work performance.)
F. POLICY ADMINISTRATION (Administers ,
policies consistent
and equitable manner.)
IV. S
Comments:
-4-
o
o
V.
WORK GOALS FOR NEXT APPRAISAL PERIOD
Establish work goals and dates which will be used as the standard to measure results achieved
during the next appraisal period. (Use additional paper if required.)
VI. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROFILE
Summarize specific plan for personal and professional development that will contribute to
increased effectiveness in position,
-5-
o
o
~
Employee's Name
VII. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
Condense I-VI to a summary statement of this employee's overall performance skills and abilities
in light of existing conditions,
VI1I. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Specify any training and development needs you have identified for this employee, Refer to the
training and development handbook for in-house programs.
IX. OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING
_ OUTSTANDING: Performance consistently and significantly goes well beyond all work
objectives and requirements for position. Exceptional achievements have been accom-
plished that single out this employee as an exceedingly valuable contributor to the
organization.
_ SUPERIOR: Performance exceeds work objectives in major areas of activity. Superior
results are regularly achieved:'
_ COMPETENT: Performance regularly meets and occasionally exceeds work objectives
and position requirements. All responsibilities are carried out in a fully competent manner.
_ MARGINAL: Performance falls below position requirements, Development plan must be
established and implemented.
_ UNSATISFACTORY: Performance falls well below standards set for position. Immediate
corrective action must be proposed.
Supervisor's Signature
Employee's Comments (Use additional paper if required.)
Date
Employee's Signature
Date
-6-
..
..
o
o
.. ~',;"
...'
6('{ at ANDOVER
'001:) cn065tOwN HLVO. N.W.
ANOoviEH. ....INN. a.30.s
INDIVIDUAl. DEVELOPMENT AND PERFO~~CE APPR1\ISAL PROGRAM
Name
Date of Evaluation
Class Title
Time in Current Title
Yrs. Mos.
-,
Department
Period of Report
From
/
Mo./Yr.
To
/
Mo./Yr.
GENERAL INFORMATION
An individual development and performance appraisal program provides
for a systematic evaluation of job performance to achieve predete~ined
objections.
The form itself is a neutral document. The value of the program will
be determined by the amount of effort individuals are willing to devote
to the objective setting and evaluation processes. This performance
appraisal program requires continuous communication between the employee
and the supervisor. '.
The program attempts to make the process of evaluation more rational.
It is perceived that the obj~ctives of the City organization and ,the
objectives of the individual can, and shoul.d be, integrated as closely
as possible. Those employees who see their own obj~ctives being accom-
plished, while at the same time achieving the objectives of the City
organization, are more interested, more motivated, and therefore, more
effective in performing their jobs.
I. APPRAISAL OF OBJECTIVES
(Supervisor is to list and evaluate all objectives for which the
employee was held accountable during the last reporting period.
Mark the appropriate column for each objective.)
a)
OBJ :;CTIV 85
Exceeded Met Not Met
."
"
'b)
c)
..'
:t
o
o
. v
II. PER-fOro-lANCE FACTOR CHECKLIST
1. Attendance
2.' Punctuality
3. Compliance with rules
4. Observance of safety practices
5. Ability to work with others
6. Oral expression
7. Cooperation
8. Ability to organize work
9. Operation and care of equipment
10. Accuracy and neatness of work
ll. Quantity of work
l2. Completion of work on schedule
13. Efficient use of time
14. Written expression
l5. Job interest
16. Following of instructions
17. Performance under pressure
18. Application of effort
19. Performance with minimum supervision
20. Quality of work
>.
~
III III 0
0> o4J o4J o4J o4J
Q) c:: c:: c:: c U
M ...4 Q) Q) Q) III
.a '0 e e e 'l-l
III c:: III Q) Q) Q) III
U III '0 ~ ~ :>'0 -..4
...4 o4J Q)...4 1Il'..4 o CI o4J
M III ~ g ~~ 1-1'0 III
~g; o4J o.Q) III
:3 X Q) el Q) e Q) c
zo:l; 0 ~c:t: ::;:c:t: HZ ::;l
,
'.
~
. ,"
.
J
Employee Who Supervises
:>, -
~
III III 0
tT> ~ ~ ~ ~
~ c c ~ U
'r! GI GI GI III
'0 S S e ,,~
~ III GI GI GI III
III '01-1 1-1 :>'0 'r!
~ GI'r! 1Il.r! o GI ~
III 8~ ~g 1-1'0 III
~ Cl.QJ III
~ X GI QJ QJ e GI c
0 ~~ ::;:~ HZ =>
, .
o
2l. Training and leading staff
22. Planning and assigning work
23. Fairness and impartiality
24. Control of staff
25. Ability to get 'cooperation
III. SUMMARY EVALUATION
.l. Discuss strengths and weaknesses as they relate to the employee's
job performance. Describe the most noticeable strengths and
weaknesses.
2. What action do you recommend for improvement?
.
3. Do you feel this employee should be rated:
Outstanding (9-l0)
Exceeds Requirements (6-8)
Meets Requirements (3-5)
Improvement Needed (0-2)
Unsatisfactory (0)
4. This report was reviewed with employee on
(Date)
by
(Supervisor/Personnel Director)
5.
Employee: I certify that this report has been .discussed with
(Additional comments on back of this page)
(
me.
o
Employee Signature
Date
.
ii
"
::
;:
q
'0'....'...'......"'.'"
I!
i!
..L,_.,."_.._.......,, 1\..'
"
. 1'4"
,7?j~ 4'......-- "".." ..-,..---..
... ..~_..__~_R.. ..____._.~._._ .~,...... . . ..._. ..... ___..._ ,. .... ._H..._ .
;i
iL
___."__ .___._ M___'___" .__~.___.._.._.___......_ -.- ......-..,-....--....
:,
~~____m !\~ El ec, _~_~~___ ._~ _ ..~-~ ~5z~ ~=~__~u~
" ___.u ":'" : l\ ?l#~;~~ - :_':----"""-,on, ..m -" -.--.....-
:' t:7
- - -- jl ;j~;j;; - ..,.-:_-~ 7~-' ~,Ij' .----... ... ..
/? i . .. r~' .-.......
if ",.."""-'.'-",,.---,...-.-........'-...."" .".",..",.......,..'-,
,."_.._._...._~..,u--_"-.._.-..-----__..-,. -,'. -, '" -." ,_...- -,-
_........_...".".""...",../7<57/. ..- ~
..f 0d::~Q~-..~-(~~...:..-..-..
/ '
, ptIJ-d
"'It'... /;' ,,' ,...,..,'.-.-..,....
t;5 ." ".,
i.,
; I r:::-- /
!~! c:: /-<::!c.
.:: &-er'/7
:: tf.ej''/JE *#
d' "
1/" ".... .
-' /~&~
.;y'- .... ~
~~-
>f'4?/CJ ~~
. ~.
;n
--..... --......--..;..- _.. -. -... .... -."."
'1'
t
,.
."-
..-
ro!//~..
(/
. .. '''--' ...-.-- ...-- .
:1'
pj
:;i
::j
In
... ..-- -. iU
lh
PI
- t~l
'i
III
I'
IlL
II:
0'--."--"'1\'
'i
It
"
'I
,',' , II
II
E /-&e;
tf#~~~_.. .
d...,Zj'.. /-r-k#
-..-"..""--. .. 7"-" h' ,
,.._m __.. ..'..-'~~~
,...---.-,.., "..~ Mi.'~
, '--..--.-'. ..,~/'?~ ? ~
,.. ..m_...._..___~.r-, ? ~, . ,
o
To Whom it May Concern:
During 1988 on routine testing by the Minnesota Department
of Health, the City of Andover municipal water system was found
to contain Radium 226 and 228 in amounts over that allowed by
the P.C.A. and E.P.A.
These compounds occur naturally in rock formations where
the city's municipal wells are installed. There are presently
14 other communities who have found themselves in this situation.
The limits allowed (5 parts per pic!ocures/liter) are presently
under discussion by the Minnesota Health Department and will
probably be increased to at least double this amount. The law
,requires that the City of Andover present a plan to eliminate
this problem by January 1990 and implement this plan within a
reasonable time thereafter. The city is presently investigating
the most cost effective method to do this and will proceed in a
timely manner to correct this situation.
If there are any questions, please contact Jim Schrantz at
City Hall (755-5100) or myself (753-l273) for further
information.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ANDOVER
James E. Elling
Mayor
o
o
o
****************************************************************
~~************************************************************.*
~ **
~ ~'
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ ,."WHAT~S ,."HAPPENING ?/'.. tr6. ~~
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ Wayne Henneke has turned down the Finance **
:~ Director job offer for the following reasons: **
~~ **
~~ **
:: *The commuting time. ::
~~ **
:: *Insurance concern as his wife has a ::
~~ medical problem that may not be covered **
~~ **
~~ by a new company. **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ *After he figures his financial situation **
:: out in Farmington, he didn't feel it ::
:= would be worth the change. ::
~~ **
~~ I asked if he would consider a counter offer - **
~~ **
~~ more money. **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ He declined the J"ob. **
~~ **
~~ **
~' ~
~~ **
~~ Adopt a River Resolution should be passed. I am **
~~ **
~~ trying to find a copy. **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~~ **
~ **
~~**************************************************************
................................................................
,
.
o
o
DATE: April 4, 1989
ITEMS GIVEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES TO BE APPROVED
TKDA letter 3-24-89
Andover planning & zoning Minutes - 3-21-89
Andover Fire Department January Report
Letter from City Clerk 3-21-89
Forfeit Land Map Item 10
PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ITEMS AT THIS MEETING OR PUT THEM ON THE NEXT
AGENDA.
THANK YOU.
l~
I
"KDA
T.OLTZ, KING. DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCOAPOAA TED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
2500 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUl. MINNESOTA 55101.1893
612/292-4400
FAX 612/292-0083
March 24, 1989
Honorabl e Mayor and City Council
Andover, Minnesota
Re: Andover, Minnesota
Commission No. 9140-989
Dear Mayor and Counell :
The fol lowing are engineering matters discussed at the regular Andover City
Council Meeting held March 21, 1989:
1. Wood I and Creek Gal f CI ub
A. Access Road
The owner, Larry Carl son et ai, have ra:juested a quit cl aim deed
for access road to the clubhouse site through the City Park
property. The easement Is 60 feet wide with provisions that the
owner shall maintain the road and 50 feet either side of the
centerline of the easement.
('.cunei I Action
The Council author Ized the Mayor and CI erk to grant sa I d deed with
provisions for future utilities and separate description outside
of the defined street for location of a sign.
B. Watermaln Service
TKDA did provide an estimated cost for extension of watermaln
along South Coon Creek Drive to the clubhouse access road. The
estimated assessment to Woodl and woul d be $15,983. The total
estimated Project Cost was $22,600.00.
The Owner Indicated that they have no need for potable water.
Bottled drinking water wll I be provided at the club house. No
food w III be served. The toll et facll It I es w I II be pr Ivate on-
site system with flushing provided fram their private Irrigation
well.
('.cunei I Action
o
The City water system extension was tabled to a date non-specific
or until gol f cI ub use I s expanded.
o
o
. ,
Honorabl e Mayor and City Council
Andover, Minnesota
March 24, 1989
Page Two
2. Test Well - Water Quality Study
Mr. Davidson advised that the test wel I to be constructed at the City
Hall site would r~ulre a drinking water (potable) standard If tied
I nto the Public Works Garage system as was suggested at the February
21, 1989 meetl ng. The resul tant cost woul d Increase fran $10,000 to
$17 ,450.
An alternative was given consideration based upon discussions with
well dr III ers fam II I ar with the well at the newel ementary school
south of the City Hall site. The school well Is an I rrlgatlon well
Into the Ironton/Gal esv II Ie formation and was test pumped to 500 gpm.
The possibility exists that, subject to Board of Health approval, two
shallow wells Into this formation with treaiment for quality may be
less costl y than the HI nckl ey well with radl um removal potent I al.
C.ouncll Action
The Council authorized TKDA to test the elementary school water fran
the Irrigation well for radium and dissolved minerals at a cost not to
exceed $3,000.
The Council authorized TKDA to concurrently take bids for the cased
test well Into the Hinckley formation at a cost not to exceed $10,000.
3. Red Oaks Manor/Crosstown Storm Sewer
Mr. Rodeberg did present a storm sewer system report for the areas
generally tributary to Crosstown Boulevard north of 140th Street NW.
No area assessment has been made for this area. Original feasibility
reports for development In Shady Knol I, The Oaks, and Kensington
Estates dl d prov Ide for an area-wide storm sewer assessment. The
assessment was prey lousl y abated for the area south of 140th Street
along Crosstown Boul evard.
C..ouncll Action
The Council directed City Staff to provide previous Council action
minutes and recommended an assessment policy for consideration at the
next regu I ar Counc II meetl ng, Apr II 4, 1989.
...
o
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Andover, Minnesota
March 24, 1989
Pa ge Th ree
4. Well and Pumphouse No.3 - Change Order #2, Commission No. 8929. City
Project No. 87-10
Mr. Davidson did present Change Order No.2 for Increase In pump size
for higher I evel control with the future new Water Tank No. 2 east of
Coon Creek. The work had been discussed with the Council prior to
actual ordering of the equl pment.
('.cunei I Action
The Council approved Change Order No.2 In the amount of $2,273.00.
L--
Dav I dson, P. E.
JLD:J
o
111-. .,;' J..
ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT
1785 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
JANUARY FlRE REPORT 1989
DATE ADDRESS TYPE OF CALL NO PEOPLE NO HRS.
1/3* 15401 Rose St. ,Chimney tire 12 18
1/3 13608 Heather St. Down dratt in chimney 21 21
1/4* 16357 Valley Dr. Gas smell 10 15
1/7 Jonquil. & R.L.B. Extracation &washdown 23 34.5
1/7 (2422- 136th La. Burning trash(tag issued) 19 19
13 576 Jay St.) COlIDRerical.
1/7 3470- 134th Ave. Propane l.eak in garage 18 18
1/17* So. Cooncreek & Crosstown Heating sand 7 3.5
1/22 .871 - 38th La. Anoka House tire (mutual aid to Anoka) 15 22.5
1/23* 13787 Yellowpine Heating sand 12 6
1/29 2159 - 153rd La. Permit(unauthorized material.) 14 14
Totals
This Month 10
Year To Date 10
171.5
* Day calls
o
..-
ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT
1785 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
FEBRUARY FIRE REPORT 1989
~ Address Type or Call No.' People. No. Hrs.
2/1* 16512 Yakima St. Vehicle tire 9 9
2/2* 14469 Jonquil St. House fire (mutual aid to us. 17 82
from AIloka) 12 36
2/2* 14469 Jonquil st. Extenion trom previous call 17 8.5
2/)* 2820 - 135th La. Chimney" tire 10 10
2/3 18.339 Waco St. House tire(mutual aid to Anoka) 18 63
2/4 4280 - 144th La. Gas smell in area 10 5
2/4 2012 - 161 Ave. Fire alarm( taulty alarm) 14 7
2/7 2050 Bunker Tire dump tire(arson) 31 277
Mutual aid to us from Anoka, Ham lake ,Coon Rapids 27 81
2/8* 2050 Bunker Tire dump 15 38
2/8 Jay St. area Hand out intormation sheets 16 16
2/9* 172 - 146th La. Overheated turnace 15 15
2/9 Hills ot Bunker Lake Hand out intormation sheets 9 18
2/10 Fire Station Special meeting to up date
on tire tire to Firefighters 16 16
2/14 14025 R.L.B. Gas spill(washdown) 12 6
2/18 137th & Lexington Mutual aid drill to Ham Lake 12 39
2/19 2143 Bunker Burning permit 10 5
2/19 2448 -18ist Ave. Chimney tire 23 23
o
ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT
1785 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
FEBRUARY FIRE REPORT 1989 CONTD.
~ Address Type Of Call No. People No. Hrs.
2/19 191st &R.L.B. House fire (mutual aid to O.G.) 16 40
2/20 15830 University Ave. Pole barn Fire 16 32
2/25 2191 - 177th La. illegal burn 13 13
2/26 16n6 7th Ave. Smoke in the areaQfrom stove) 22 11
2/2S* 14924 Hanson Fire alarm at school(false) 14 7
2/28 150th & R.L.B. Vehicle fire 18 18
2/28 21611 Cedar Dr. House Fire(mutual aid to O.C) 17 34
* Day calls
Totals
This Month 2J,. ,
Year To Date 34
909.5
o
. ~ ,--.
o
o
To: Mayor and city Council
From: City Clerk
Date: March 21, 1989
Re: 1989 League of Minnesota Cities Conference
Attached is information regarding the above conference. please
let me know as soon as possible if you plan to attend so that
a check can be prepared for your registration.
V:Attach.
.' .
o Sign up now...
The 1990s
and beyond
the future of Minnesota cities
June 6-9
Minneapolis
Registration forms-preliminary schedule
o
o
Preliminary program schedule
Tuesday, June 6
Spedal Kick-Off Program: Opening Night Evening on the Town:
Dinner and Entertainment
6:30 p.m.
Wednesday, June 7
Welcome/Opening Session: Discovering the Future of Minnesota
9:00 a.m.-IO:15 a.m.
Concurrent Sessions I (choose one)
10:30 a.m.-II :45 a.m.
l1li Roles/communication--council. commissions and staff
Comp worth--how to maintain job evaluation and job
salary programs
.
~
Truth in taxation
Development strategies policy committee
Exhibitors' lunch
11:45 a.m.-I:l5 p.m.
General Session
1:15 p.m.-2:15 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions II (choose one)
2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
. Ethics in city government
Employee benefits part I trends, responses. legal
requirements. cafeteria plans
IIIDI
~
Regional facilities--benefits and problems for host
communities
General legislation policy committee
Concurrent Sessions III (choose one)
3:45 p.m.-4:40 p.m.
. City management--past. present. and future (spon-
sored by Minnesota City Management Association)
Employee benefits part II city case studies
IIIDI Tax increment financing: uses and abuses
~ Election and ethics policy committee
"Wine Down" reception in exhibit area
4:40 p.m.
City night renaissance festival
6:30 p.m.
Thursday, June 8
Concurrent Sessions IV (choose one)
9:00 a.m.-1O:30 a.m.
Strategic or long-range planning
Sexual and racial harassment
Solid waste (including recycling and household
hazardous waste)
~ Revenue sources policy committee
Concurrent Sessions V (choose one)
10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
.
Collaborative planning/partnerships
Changing values and employee motivation
Providing police protection for small cities
~
Legislative update
Mayors Association/Mini Conference Luncheon
12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m.
Terry Goddard. NLC president. mayor, Phoenix. Arizona
Concurrent Sessions VI (choose one)
2:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
Taking leadership to avoid liability (LMClT)
Employee discipline and tennination
Financial health for small cities
~ Land use, energy, environment. and transportation
League Annual Meeting
3:45 p.m.
LMC Reception
and Banquet
6:30 p.m.
Keys
II Leadership for the
future
. Managing the employee
of the future
. c""""'~ roc oh. rum. I
~ LMC Legislative track i
Friday, June 9
Beverages and Rolls
8:30 a.m.
Finale general session
9:30 a.m.
...
1989 Annual Conference Registration
o
I
Please type or print
Name
Nickname for badge
Title
City or organization
Mailing address
City
Telephone (
Sex
F
M
State
Zip
Family members attending (No registration fee BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE
MEAL TICKETS. ORDER BELOW)
Spouse full name
Child
Child
Sex
Age
Age
F
M
Ii
U This is my first League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference.
FULL CONFERENCE'
June 6-9,
Registration includes admission to
! all sessions and tickets for Wednes-
day exhibitor's luncheon, Thursday,
luncheon, Thursday banquet, and>
Friday coffee and rolls.
MINI-CONFERENCE
June 8, 1989 .
Registration includes admission to
all Thursday sessions, Mayor's
luncheon andcoffee. (DOES NOT
include the Thursday banquet.
Order tickets for the banquet below.
Early Registration (Postmarked by' May 15, 1989)
5150 Full Conference 5
565 Mini-Conference $
Advance Registration (Postmarked by May 30, 1989)
$175 Full Conference $
575 Mini-Conference 5
On-Site Registration (at Conference)
5195 Full Conference
585 Mini-Conference
5
$
Extra Meal Tickets
515 Wednesday Exhibitor's Lunch 5
517 Thursday Mayor's Luncheon 5
525 Thursday Banquet $
o
:
City contact
Daytime phone #
a.c.
Feel free to duplicate for multiple registrations.
I. General Information i
Every delegate, guest, speaker; media:
representative, and other attendees !
MUST REGISTER with this form.
Complete the form in full and return it
along with ful1 payment of al1 appro-
priate conference registration fee to
address indicaied. '
,- . '
" -". ":-'-"'- . "-'
. .;.,~.'..,'n.'".,_...., .:. .~".".~"~. ,', ',.
../;::.'';',;.>.i~~. '.
NOTE: No registration will be 'pioe:
essed without payment in ful1, or with- ,
;~~c~a:~~~~~~~t~g city voucheror \
;'" <.. ." .,.'.'<1
II. Conference Registration Dead- I
lines !
\ May 15, 1989: Final postmark dead- I'
line Jor Early Registration.
\ ' \
i I
i I
II
! I
I!
i I
1\
\
\
\
III. Conference Registration
Cancel1ation Policies ,
Your letter of registration cancellation I
must be postmarked no later than May \
30, 1989 to qualify for a refund ofreg- I
istration fees. I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
\
A registration cancellation is subject
to'a$IO cancellation fee.
IV; Special Needs
If you are disabled and require
services, or if you have special dietary
needs., please. attach a written descrip:
tion.,-:" ." " ,
V. Registration Confirmation
Pre-registrants will receive a postcard
acknowledgement to be presented at
the ADVANCE REGISTRA nON desk
for quickregistration.
VI. For more information
For more information contact:Cathy
Dovidio <?12) 227-5600.
, Make check" payable and return with
form to League of Minnesota Cities,
183 University Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101.
o
CITY of ANDOVER
Regular city Council Meeting - April 4, 1989
7:30 P.M. Call to Order
Resident Forum
Agenda Approval
Approval of Minutes
Sheriff Wilkinson
Discussion Items
1. Red Oaks Manor/Crosstown storm Drain, Cont.
2. Sonsteby Sewer Request
3. Award Quotes/Northwoods Tennis Court
4. MSA 5-Year Construction Program
5. Approve Plans & Specs/88-1/Crosstown Bridge
6. Approve Plans & specs/89-4/Red Oaks 6th
staff, Committee, Commission
7. Fire Department
8. Award street Sweeping Quote
9. Approve Amended Assessor's Contract
10. Forfeit Land Sale
11. Appoint Cable Commissioner
12. Accept P&Z Resignation/Bosell
13. Appoint Park Board Member/P&Z Member
14. Bailey Farm Operation
15. City Hall Remodeling
Non-Discussion Items
16. Imre Revocation Resolution
17. Receive Petition/Oak Bluff Street Lights
18. Andover/Anoka Water Agreement
19. Qualified Tax Exempt Bond Obligations
20. Round Lake Boulevard Watermain
21. Ordinance Renaming street
*22. Bunker Lake Boulevard Frontage Road
Approval of Claims
Adjournment
*Not on published agenda.
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE April 4, 1989
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Approval of Minutes
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
ITEM
NO.
Approval of Minutes
BY:
V. Vo1k
APPROVED FOR
AGE
The City Council is requested to approve the following minutes:
March 7, 1989 HRA Meeting
March 7, 1989 Special Closed Meeting
March 16, 1989 Special Meeting
March 21, 1989 Regular Meeting
March 21, 1989 Special Closed Meeting
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE ApT; 1 4 1 qRq
ITEM
NO.
BY: V. Volk
APPROVED FOR
AGENe , ~
BY: /
{;
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Sheriff Wilkinson
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
Sheriff Wilkinson has arranged to appear at the Council
meeting to inform the council on the overall operations
of the Sheriff's Department.
COUNCIL ACTION
c
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
.. ~,.'!.~=-_~:~ ."?--:'f-/r-::.~f~.-~-.r-~~"A-::"-=~:"'-~'-
'!. '" _ .. A ;
Office of
ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
KENNETH G. WILKINSON - SHERIFF
Courthouse . 325 East Main Street - Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-421-4760
March 15, 1989
The Honorable James E. Elling
Mayor of Andover
community Center
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Dear Mayor Elling:
As I had done last year, I have arranged to appear at your council
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. My
purpose for this appearance is to inform you on the overall
operations of the sheriff's Department, services we provide to your
community, and to keep open the lines of communications between the
sheriff's Department and your city. This appearance also provides
your city the opportunity to let me know of your concerns, ideas
_ ,:and any improvements you feel are necessary.
To this extent, I would appreciate knowing in advance any specific
concerns you have so that I can bring with me the necessary
information or an appropriate member of my staff to better address
those concerns,
Our goal is to provide our communities with the best possible
service with the resources we have available. In order to achieve
this goal, your ideas and thoughts are very important.
Sincerely,
K/J.fj~
K. G. Wilkinson
Sheriff
KGWjcal
o
cc: council Members
City Clerk
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
April 4, 1989
DATE
ITEM
NO.
Red Oaks Manor/Crossto n
storm Drain, cont. BY:
James E. Schrantz
OR
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
Discussion Items
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
The city Council is requested to consider the policy on assessing
storm drainage along and near an MSA and/or county road project.
This item was tabled at the March 21st regular meeting to provide
information on the policy of assessing storm drainage along and
near an MSA street or county road.
Background
The drainage basin along Crosstown Boulevard from 140th Avenue to
139th Avenue is quite small and mainly the front part of the lots
drain toward Crosstown Boulevard. The basin from 140th Avenue
north along Crosstown gets quite large and includes parts of
Kensington Estates, Shady Knoll and the Oaks that drain into the
Crosstown Basin. Also, there is the Kensington Estates 4th
Addition along with the landfill and land south of the landfill
that drain to a pond that has proposed overflow that will drain to
the Crosstown storm sewer.
The City'S MSA Policy doesn't address who pays for the storm
drainage that is not eligible for MSA participation.
Note page 5, August 16th Minutes, a consensus statement
establishing the policy.
MSA participation is calculated using twice the area of the right-
of-way and using that area as a proportional part of the entire
area.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
o
page Two
Red Oaks Manor/Crosstown
storm Drain, cont.
Options
1) using twice the right-of-way area formula, translate into 50
ft. on each side of Crosstown would be paid for by City funds.
2) Another reasonable method would be to allow one lot depth on
each side of Crosstown Boulevard, say 150', to be paid for by the
City as a proportional part of the entire basin.
The Council may wish to use the last method to reduce the
assessment for example in "The Oaks" instead of assessing the lots
away from Crosstown for storm drainage and not the lots adjacent
to Crosstown have them all pay equally.
NOTE: This entire issue needs to have a policy established and
not established without being thought of as we proceed
through projects under the pressure of a particular
project.
On the Crosstown project the City has also picked up the cost of
50% of the curb and gutter which is not eligible for participation
by the County.
/
The City's "Road Fund", renamed from the City MSA Fund, has about
$70,000 in it. This will not handle the curb and storm drainage
costs as the fund we have has accumulated from excess from such
items as where we assessed the right-of-way cost on Hanson
Boulevard and the other small excesses. It doesn't have a way to
be re-established unless the City assesses and collects the cost
from state Aid at the same time.
Andover is one of the very few cities that don't at least assess
the cost of 1/2 of the curb and gutter costs.
Coon Rapids assesses developers for MSA streets through a plat and
properties in an existing area for MSA streets. I believe stanton
had to pay $41 per foot even where there wasn't frontage. They
also assess the cost of 1/2 the curb on county roads. This
enables them to build a lot more state aid streets.
Ham Lake assesses about $3000 per lot along state aid streets.
Example: University Avenue - this has given them some problems as
some of the people on university Avenue own property in Andover
and Ham Lake. We just had a call from a Ham Lake resident
wondering if what Ham Lake was doing is legal - yes it is.
Attachments: Excerpt from Feasibility Report
Previous Items
Map
Costs
August 16, page 5
Policy statement - Consensus
.1,
f
/J Regula~ City Council Meeting
Minutes - Ma~ch 21, 1989
Page 7
~
j
o
<Red Oaks Mano~/C~osstown Sto~m D~ain Outlet, Continued)
,Council discussion with the engineers was on the advantages of
out letting any pond and what the best course of action is now.
MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that we table this and make a
formal request for their <EPA's) Intentions In w~itlng In ~ega~d to
the whole area associated with this pondlng. DISCUSSION:
Councilmember Knight cla~lfled this Is ~ega~dlng the easte~ly portion
which abuts the landfill. Mayo~ Elling noted he has al~eady made a
written ~equest. Councllmembe~ Orttel felt if the City Is going to
p~ovide drainage for the landfill, they should have to buy their way
in. Motion ca~~ied unanimously.
Discussion was then on the weste~ly sto~m sewe~ a~ea. M~. Davidson
noted the p~evlous Council took the position of not assessing anything
in the area, from 140th south along Crosstown Boulevard. The question
now Is whether to assess fo~ the City's po~tion of about $70,000 of
the storm sewer on the northern area o~ to defer that as well.
MOTION by O~ttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Council, based on
pdliqy by precedent, not assess the storm water d~ainage system
adjacent to County State Aid Highway 18 project; the basis being the
precedent established from 140th Avenue south in the construction
area. DISCUSSION: M~. Davidson reviewed the county policy
regarding its share of the cost. On the southe~n portion. the County
paid $52,000 and the Clty picked up $28,000. South of Bunker Lake
Boulevard. the county paid a portion, and the City's portion came
from funding f~om the TIF dlst~lct in the Industrial park. There is a
p~ecedent.of no assessments on county o~ State Aid streets. Howeve~.
this is a unique situation.
Councilmembe~ Jacobson felt it would be reasonable that there be no
assessments as long as the City is reimbu~sed from another entity. If
not, then there should be an assessment. M~. Rodebe~g stated the
City's share of the southe~n po~tion is not being reimbursed. Mr.
Schrantz stated there is more than $70,000 in the MSA fund that can be
used in these cases. This is monies that have been derived from State
Aid projects but are not actual State Aid funds, so they can be used
by the City for this'purpose. After further discussion, several
Councilmemb~rs requested a delay to get more background on what took
place.
Counciimembers Knight and Orttel WITHDREW the Second and the Motion.
M~IDN by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, that we table the question of
t e storm wat~easement along Crosstown Boulevard until the next
regularly scheduled meeting to allow Staff to provide Council with the
background on the issue: the county policy on reimbursements, the
Resolution that exempted the area to the south of Crosstown, and any
other pertinent information that may be important to this particular
area in discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
J
o
CROSSTOWN BOULEV ARD REAL IGN~'ENT
CITY PROJECT fifi=1
ANDOVER. MINNESOTA
Loca tl on
The proposed I mprovement I ncl udes the realignment and reconstructl'on of
CrosstOtln Bou I evard NW (CSAH 18) between Bunker Lake Boul evard NW (CR 116)
and 140th Avenue NW, located primarily In the NE 1/4 of Section 33,
Township 32N, Range 24W. This project would complete the construction of
CrosstOtln Boulevard from the Coon Rapids boundary to Coon Creek.
The project Is described In detail In the Crosstown Boulevard (CSAH 18)
Realignment Environmental Assessment Worksheet, City Project 86-22.
Improvements
The proposed Improvements Include storm sewer and street construction In
two phases. Phase I construct I on woul d I ncl ude all construct I on from 139th
Avenue NW to 140th Avenue NW, and Phase II construction would Include the
wetland crossing from 139th Avenue NW to Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CR 116).
The Improvements are described In detaIl as follOtls:
1 . Phase
A. Storm Sewer
A storm sewer system to serve the County Road and adjacent
propertl es I s proposed to, be constructed along Crosstown
Boul evard NW from just south of 140th Avenue NW to a. proposed
siltation pond to be located at the southwest corner of proposed
CrosstClt/n Boulevard and 139th Avenue NW. The siltation pond Is
required to meet DNR requirements. A weir outlet Is proposed
from ~he siltation pond to the west portion of the DNR protected
wetl and.
The outlet from the DNR pond was not completed previously due to
limitations Imposed by the DNR prior to permit approval. The
18" outl et control structure I s proposed to be constructed with
this project. Also, the existing 24" RCP outlet from Red Oaks
Manor to the DNR wetland constructed In 1977 south of 139th
Avenue at Uplander Street that has had maintenance problems Is
proposed to be extended approximately 72 feet to the edge of the
DNR'-wetland. A small siltation pond Is proposed to be
constructed at Its outlet.
I
10
A dike and control outlet from the mItigation area north of the
proposed Red Oaks Manor 5th Addition (Menkveld) Is also proposed
to be constructed I n Phase I.
-3-
9128
"
~::. :
o
~l
~
.
<;;
"
;
;~
~
,
,.
Estimated ProJect Cost
Attached to this report Is a detailed estimate of construction costs for
the Improvements. The costs quoted herein are estimates only based on the
best available Information at the time of the report and are not guaranteed
prices. Final contracts will be awarded on a unit price basis. The
contractor w III be pa I doni y for work compl eted. The costs are estl mated
based on current construction costs.
Estimated Construction Costs:
Phase I: storm Sewer
Street (139th Avenue NW)
Street (CrosstCft/n Bou I evard)
$ 61,510.00
$ 50,920.00
$159.100.00
Subtotal - Phase
$271,530.00
$274.060.00
$545,590.00
$ 43,650.00
$ 92,750.00
$ 5,450.00
$ 5,450.00
$ 16.320.00
Phase II: Street (CrosstCft/n Boulevard)
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Conti ngencles
Engineering
legal
Fiscal
Adm Inl stratlve
Total Estimated Project Cost
$709,200.00
Cost Apportionment
All costs are expected to be paid by Anoka County and the City of Andover.
The cost apportionment for each portion of the project Is calculated along
with the Preliminary Cost Estimates that follow. The final cost
apportionment wll I depend on the final contract cost, and may change If the
County and the City do not agree on the calculations Included herein. The
project cost apportionment Is estimated as follCft/s:
An oka
Phase County Andover Total
Storm Sewer $ 52,100.00 $ 27 ,860~00 $ 79,960.00
Street (139th Avenue NW) $ 0.00 $ 66,130.00 $ 66,130.00
Street (CrosstClt/n Boul avard) $172,460.00 $ 34.370.00 $206.830.00
Subtota I $224,560.00 $128,360.00 $352,920.00
Phase II $310.780.00 $ 45.500.00 $356.280 .00
TOTI'l $535,340.00 $173,860.00 $709,200.00
-6-
9128
PRR IMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Phase I
O Crosstown Boulevard Realignment
139th Avenue to 140th Avenue NW
City Project 88-1
Andover, Minnesota
Commission No. 9128
Item
No. D~scrlptlon
STORM SEWER
*1 12" RCP ci' ass 5 Storm Sewer
2 15" RCP Cl ass 5 Storm Sewer
3 18" RCP Cl ass 5 Storm Sewer
4 21" RCP CI ass 3 Storm Sewer
5 24" RCP CI ass 3 Storm Sewer
6 24" RCP FI ared End Sect I on w/TG
*7 Catch Basi n
8 Random Rip Rap Type III
9 Geotextlle Fabric
10 Outlet Structure (to Coon Creek)
11 S Iltatl on Pond Construction
12 Siltation Pond Structure (Weir)
13 Extend Ex. Red Oaks Manor Storm Sewer
14 Restoration
Ouantlty
190 LF
480 LF
520 LF
190 LF
80 LF
1 EA
10 EA
5.8 CY
9 SY
1 LS
4,500 CY
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
Unit
Price
$ 18.00 $
$ 19.00 $
$ 21 .00 $
$ 23.00 $
$ 25.00 $
$ 550.00 $
$ 1,100.00 $
$ 50.00 $
$ 10.00 $
$ 3,500.00 $
$ 1 .50 $
$ 2,000.00 $
$ 4,500.00 $
$ 3.000.00 $
Total Estl mated Construction Cost - Storm Sewer
Cost Apportionment
Amount
3,420.00
9,120.00
10,920.00
4,370.00
2,000.00
550.00
11 ,000.00
290.00
90.00
3,500.00
6,750.00
2,000.00
4,500.00
3.000.00
$ 61,510.00
Phase I
The County Is proposed to cover the cost of catch basins and leads to serve the
County Road, pi us a portion of the remaining storm sewer based on Its ltBaslc
Area Sharing Ratio", plus 8% of the engineering fees. A 5% contingency Is also
I ncl uded.
Basic Area Sharing Ratio (County)
Estimated Total Acreage of Benefit
Estimated Highway Right-of-way
11.0 Acres
3.7 Acres
Basic Area Sharing Ratio = 2(3.7)/11.0 = 67.3% (County)
* Catch Basin and Lead Construction Cost = $14,420
Remaining Storm Sewer Lateral = $61,510 - $14,420 = $47,090
Total County Share of Storm Sewer
$47,090 (0.673) + $14,420 + 8% Engineering + 5% Conflngencles =
$31,690 + $14,420 + $3,690 + $2,300 =
Total ~ Share of Storm Sewer
$61,510.00 + $30% Project Cost - County Share =
$61,510.00 + $18,450 - $52,100 =
o
Total Estl mated Project Cost
$ 52,100.00
$ ?7 ,860.00
$ 79,960.00
Storm Sewer
ERFJ 1t<\INARY COSI ESIIMAIl;.
Phase II
CrosstCltln Boulevard Realignment
Bunker Lake Boul evard to 139th Avenue NW
CI ty Project 88-1
Andover, Minnesota
Commission No. 9128
Item
tiP. Description
Quanti tv
.sTREET
1 Mobilization
2 20' Span Bridge
3 Common Excavation
4 Granular BorrCltl
5 Subgrade Preparation
6 CI ass 5 Gravel
7 Tack Coat
8 Bituminous Base 2332
9 Bituminous Binder 2332
10 Bituminous Wear
11 Bituminous Material
12 Seedl ng
13 Sodding
14 Topsoil
15 Seed
16 Fertilizer.
17 Mulch Material
18 Silt Fence
19 Geotextlle Fabric
20 18" Culvert,
21" 18" RCP 1'1 ared End Sect I on w/TG
4 EA
1 LS
5,300 CY
14,000 CY
18 RS
4,120 GA
570 GA
1,260 TN
630 TN
470 TN
132 TN
1.9 AC
1 ,200 SY
1 ,200 SY
95 LB
950 LB
3.8 TN
3,500 LF
17,000 SY
1 00 LF
2 EA
Total Estimated Construction Cost - Street
post Apportionment
Unit
Price Amount
$ 5,500.00 $ 22,000.00
$95,000.00 $ 95,000.00
$ 1.50 $ 7,950.00
$ 4.00 $ 56,000.00
$ 100.00 $ 1,800.00
$ 6.50 $ 26,780.00
$ 1.50 $ 860.00
$ 13.00 $ 16,380.00
$ 13.00 $ 8,190.00
$ 14.00 $ 6,580.00
$ 160.00 $21,120.00
$ 300.00 $ 570.00
$ 3.00 $ 3,600.00
$ 7.50 $ 9,000.00
$ 4.40 $ 380 .00
$ 0.40 $ 3,800.00
$ 250.00 $ 950.00
$ 3.80 $ 13,300.00
$ 1.60 $ 2J ,200 .00
$ 21.00 $ 2,100.00
$ 450.00 $ 900.00
$274,060.00
Phase II
The County Is proposed to cover the construction costs plus 8% of the
engineering fees. A 5% contingency Is also Included.
Total Qounty Share of Street
$274,060 Cost + 8% Engineering + 5% Contingency =
$310,780 .00
Total ~ Share of Street
$274,060 Cost + 3rJ1, Project Cost - County Share =
. _.____........ E
$ 45,500.00
'..:.. :j
"-
~rr~.-I
o
Regula~ City Council Meeting
Minutes - August 2, 1988
Page 9
INSTALLATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT
Council ag~eed the hyd~ants should be included in one of the bids of
the up-coming cont~acts, noting the estimated cost of $1,500 each. It
was also noted that a hyd~ant is also needed on the south side of
Bunke~ Lake Bouleva~d In the vIcinity of the Junkya~ds <Tonson's and
Mom's Auto Pa~ts). M~. Stone stated he has asked the FI~e Chief to
~ecommend a location fo~ a hyd~ant in that a~ea.
APPROVE JUNKYARD LICENSE/ATV SALVAGE
MOTION by KnIght, Seconded by Apel, app~oval of the 1988 lIcense fo~
ATV Salvage. DISCUSSION: Councilman O~tteI questioned g~antIng a
license seven months afte~ it is due, not unde~standing why steps
hadn't been taken to ~evoke the license.
Mike ? . owne~ of ATV Salvaqe - stated he has been to the City
Hall five tImes to talk to the Cle~k and called fIve othe~ times In an
attempt to get eve~ythlng cla~IfIed. The CIty Inspected hIs ya~d In
Feb~ua~y and came back one othe~ time whe~e the~e we~e ca~s in the
aisle. It was du~ing the wo~k day and It was on the maIn lane that
they use, but they do keep the fire lanes open at night~ The cylinde~s
have all been secu~ed since the InspectIon. He exp~essed f~ust~ation
that it has taken this long to get eve~ything done, because the CIty
inspects and tells him what to do but neve~ comes back to ~einspect
it. He paid fo~ the license and had his insu~ance and bond befo~e the
fi~st of the yea~, but his ya~d was not inspected until the middle of
Feb~ua~y. He again stated he called nume~ous times and neve~ ~eceived
calls back and stopped in the office many tImes In an attempt to get
thIs clea~ed up.
CouncIl asked that fo~the next meeting the Staff p~epa~e a ~epo~t on
the numbe~ of ya~ds ope~ating without a lIcense and what happened In
this Instance ~ega~ding the lIcensing of ATV Salvage, as It should not
take thIs long to iIcense an ope~ation.
Motion ca~~Ied unanimously.
RESOLUTION CONSOLIDATING PROJECTS
Atto~ney HawkIns advised going th~ough the 429 p~ocedu~e fo~ P~oJect
88-1 to assess some po~tion of the p~oJect so the funds f~om the bond
can be ~eleased.
c:> MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Apel, a ResolutIon ~ecelving a
feasibility ~epo~t and callIng fo~ public hea~Ing of imp~ovements of
st~eets and sto~m d~ainage, P~oJect No. 88-1, that the public hea~ing
be held on August 16. (See Resolution R174-88) Motion ca~~ied
unanimously. '
\.J
~,~- /
~>~:t,_, . .,
I:i" ,
,
o
Special City Council Meeting
Minutes - August 4, 1988
Page 7
<Tonson Tir-e Per-mit, ,Contlnued)
Af~er- a br-ief discussion, the Council agreed to take no action at this
time. Councilman Elling stated he would talk with var-ious County
officials tomor-row'to deter-mine what is taking place.
LETTER/REI ROBERT KEENE/UNDERLIFF
Mayor Windschitl noted the letter with, ~Osignatures r-equestlng
assistance in dealing with a noise problem in their- neIghborhood,
primarilY loud music being placed at the residence of Robert and Marge
Keene, 14269 Undfer-cliff Street.
, It was agreed to table the item to the next meeting, asking that the
Deputy submit a repor-t on the matter.
UNIVERSITY AVENUE EASEMENT ACQUISITION
Mr-. Schr-antz r-epor-ted Ms. Baldr-idge has agr-eed to sign the easement
needed for- the r-oad impr-ovement on University Avenue.
CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD PROJECT
Mayor Windschitl explained the Attorney has suggested the Council go
,through the 429 procedur-e to assess a portion of the Crosstown
Boulevard project so the bond for the project can be r-eleased.
Schr-antz said the Attor-ney has r-ecommended holding the hear-ing
August 16. Council agr-eed, noting for-mal action will be taken
August 9 work session.
Mr.
on
at the
APPROVAL OF CLAIM
MOTION by Knight" Seconded by Apel, to void Check 14850 for- an
amount of $2,400.53; and approve Check 15070 for- an amount of
$4~268.82 to W. B. Miller, Inc. Motion car-r-ied unanimouslY.
PARK BOARD/FOX MEADOWS
Park Board Chairman Marc McMullen reported the Par-k, Board decided not
to do the Fox Meadows par-k this year- because of the many questions
involved with the exit of CoRd 58 onto CoRd 7. The Park Board does
not like the park access off of CoRd 58, and there is a lot of
opposition from the residents to access off of Fox Street. Because so
much hinges on what happens to the inter-section of. CoRds 58 and 7,
they have agreed to table any further action.
o
o
'~ u
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
86 -i
~
DATE AUqust 16, 1988
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APP~a5.
NO. AGE~ '
Engineering
ITEM -
NO. public Hearing/88-1 Bx/
crosstown Blvd. 4. BY:James E. Schrantz
The City council has ordered a public hearing for project 88-1
Crosstown Boulevard to discuss the cost of storm drainage.
Attached is a copy of the notice and letter mailed to the property
owners.
This project needs to be a 429 proj~ct for bonding purposes.
The Council will have to order the project by a 4/5 vote.
COUNCIL ACTION
o
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
{tw
. -
,/
../ "
,...
o
o
-
-.I'
IP88-1/CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD
33 32 24 11 0001
Timothy & Becky Kost~eba
13974 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0015
Louis Rosburg
2407 - 139th Avenue NW
Andove~, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0046
Thomas & M.L. paulson
13993 C~osstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0011
Wilber & Do~is Schultz
13988 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0010
Roman przezdziecki
14006 Crosstown Blvd
Andover, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0008
Thomas & M.L. paulson
13993 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0009
Lee & P.M Valsvik
14018 crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0007
Duwayne & D.M. Meyers
14021 Crosstown Blvd.
Andove~, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0006
Thomas o. May
14034 Crosstown Blvd.
~ndover, ~N 55304
34 32 24 22 0007
Larry Hensrud
14041 C~osstown Blvd.
Andove~, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0003
Daniel Esselman
14052 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
34 32 24 22 0025
Grego~y & Phyllis Anderson
14031 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
33 32 24 11 0016
Louis Rosburg
2407 - 139th Ave. NW
Andove~, MN 55304
34 32 24 22 0024
Kenneth & June Miller
14027 Crosstown Blvd.
Andove~, MN 55304
. ..,........ t.., nO"4. . '.'f""': "...... . ':";" .".....~ -... ......
.,~ ,....,;.
;--
\0:'
>.;:..}
o
Regula~ CIty CouncIl MeetIng
Minutes ~ August 16, 1988
Page 4
.
.
HIDDEN CREEK/RECEIVE PETITION FOR STREET LIGHTS
MOTION by O~ttel, Seconded by KnIght, Int~oducIng a ResolutIon
dec1a~Ing adequacy of petItIon and o~de~Ing p~epa~atIon of a
feasIbIlIty ~epo~t fo~ the Imp~ovements of st~eet lIghtIng, P~oJect
No. 88-27, In the HIdden C~eek a~ea as p~esented. (See ResolutIon
R179-88) DISCUSSION:
Jan Ande~son. 13683 Yukon St~eet NW - explaIned the colo~ codIng on
the map of. thel~ subdIvIsIon, notIng the f~ont pa~t of the development
had an ove~whelmIng maJo~Ity showIng Inte~estlng In the p~oJect. It
has been ~ecommended that the locatIon along 135th Lane wou.ld be a
cut-off poInt. Mayo~ WIndschItl explaIned the CIty has the abIlity of
splIttIng a p~oJect.
Steve Youts. 13691 Yukon - asked how long a feasIbIlIty study wIll
take. Mayo~ Wlndschltl dldn;t think It would take ve~y long, but
noted the p~oblems ~ecently encounte~ed wIth the elect~Ic company
~ega~dIng up-f~ont cha~ges.
Ms. Ande~son - asked If they will be notIfied afte~ the feasibility
study. Mayo~ WlndschItl stated yes.
Geo~ae Osell. 2515 134th - asked If It is possible to put st~eet
lIghts up to 135th. Mayo~ WindschItl stated yes, recommendIng a
petItion also be cl~culated In that a~ea so the Council has an
IndIcatIon of the resIdents; Inte~est.
MotIon carrIed unanImously.
..~... .. ,.~...~.,...., . --,..,- ,
('PUBLIC HEARING/88-1/CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD""
Mayo~ WindschItl called the public hearing to order at 8:09 p.m. Mr.
Rodebe~g reviewed the feasibIlIty ~eport of the reconstruction and
storm sewer lIne along C~osstown Bouleva~d from 140th to 139th. The
total sto~m sewer cost Is estimated at $80,000, but the county wIll
pick up about $52,000. The CIty;s share Is $29,000, a po~tIon of
whIch is to be assessed to the ~esidents. If It were totally
assessed, It would result in app~oximatelY $1,700 per lot. He
understood the notIces went out fo~ an assessment of approxImately
$100 per lot.
Attorney HawkIns noted the City needed to run the 429 p~ocedure and
assess someone because the bonds were sold on the basIs that It would
be a 429 proJect. It Is up to the CouncIl to determine who or how
much wIll be assessed.
o
'..,
.t:/~
::;
I
/
".; Regular:City Council
~ Minutes - August 16,
/ Page 5
,I
,
\
'-,
Meeting
1988
(Public Hearlng/88-1/Crosstown Boulevard, Continued)
Councilman Orttel noted there were no assessments on the other portion
of'the Improvement because the City picked up the cost out of the
State Aid account. He suggested not assessing any of the abutting
property owners but assess only the City property for some portion of
the costs. At some point the Council should determine a specifiC
poliCY on trunk sewer along county roads so the residents are aware of
what will happen.
The other Councilmen agreed not to assess abutting property owners but
only to assess the City property. The State Aid fund would pick up
the shortage.
Mayor Windschitl briefly reviewed the plans for the construction of
the relocated Crosstown Boulevard south of 139th through the lowland
and its continuation through Coon Rapids, and the county long-range
plans for Intersections to County 242, the new Rlverdale shopping
center, and Highway 10. The residents will not lose their drIveway
access onto the ~oad. Mr. Rodeberg explained the conduit for stop
lights Is being Installed at 139th and Crosstown so lights can be
Installed when the,trafflc warrants. For now, there wIll be stop
signs.
Mayor Wlndschltl asked for a motion to close the publiC portion of the
hearing.
MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Apel, to so move. Motion carried
unanimouslY.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, a Resolution ordering the
improvement of streets and storm drainage construction for Project No.
88-1 In the Crosstown Boulevard area from Bunker Lake Boulevard to
140th Avenue as presented. (See Resolution R1BO-88) Motion carried
unanimously.
REQUEST SPEED STUDY/BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD
MOT'ION by Knight, Seconded by Apel, that we request MnDOT to do a
speed study on Bunker Lake Boulevard from Round Lake Boulevard to the
Burlington Northern tracks. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST SPEED STUDY/FOX STREET
o
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, Introducing a motion directing
the CIty Staff to contact the Minnesota Department of Transportation
to conduct a speed study on Fox Street from County Road 20 to Valley
Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
..
".;~.(c
,.", t~~'4"'".~' ""\}"\
~ 1
0.\ ~.-
'~. ,
I.,. .-l
~,!~."..>,
;;::'
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER; MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
August 5, 1988
Re: Project 88-1, Crosstown Boulevard
Dear Resident:
The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing to discuss the
improvements on Crosstown Boulevard.
The estimated cost to construct Crosstown Boulevard from Bunker
Lake Boulevard to 140th Avenue is $709,200. '
Anoka County will pay all cost except for half the cost of the
concrete curb and gu~ter and 33% of the storm drainage. The
City'S Collector Street Fund and City owned property will be
assessed the majority of the remaining costs.
It is proposed to assesS the abutting property owners an amount
not to exceed $100 per lot.
Sincerely,
OF ANDOVER
~
J mes E. Schrantz
ity Engineer
JES:kmt
o
-.-.......... ...............-............... ...........;'..... .
". .u..... ",' '., _....
~
I
t
.) " ~
"
. {;.;. <,
.' '.' '"0 I' t" ~ .
""f. .."".......<0
....",..,..,.....,'. ...."1......
":~
,',
~'. . .
, --'
u
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NO. R174-88
MOTION by Councilman
Ellinq
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING
ON IMPROVEMENTS OF STREETS AND STORM DRAINAGE, PROJECT NO. 88-1, IN
THE CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD AREA.
WHEREAS, a feasibility report has been prepared by TKDA for the
improvement of streets and storm drainage in the Crosstown Boulevard
area~ and
WHEREAS, such report declared the proposed improvement to be
feasible for an estimated cost of $709,200.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Andover that:
1. The City Council hereby accepts the Feasibility Report for
Project No. 88-1, for the improvement of streets and storm
drainage in the Crosstown Boulevard area as prepared by TKDA.
2. The Council will consider the improvements in accordance with
the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or
a portion of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of
$709,200.
3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement
on the l6th day of Auqust , 1988 in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at 8:00 p.m. and the Clerk shall give mailed
and published notice of such hearing and improvement as
required by law.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
Apel
and adopted by the City
Council at a
Reqular
meeting this
2nd
day of Auqust
1988 with Councilmen Windschitl, Orttel, Apel, Kniqht, Ellinq
voting in favor of the resolution, and Councilmen
none
voting against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
:
ATTEST:
~/ /'.1 \ .I? ,,;2/
rr windschitl - Mayor
o
Lt~ ;;t/-
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
:" ~i:.... .:; '<
1!2: 1~I<!?i~1 ~1.ii1!!?1 <91
;.;.-:
,
.::;
,0
'"
\co
'u
Q
(', .',
::;:
34
BLVD.
Co.
~
IQ"B
East
"-
~
\~51b
I"
:1
ctKDA
T,OL TZ. KING. DUVALL. ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES. INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
2500 AMERICAN NA TIDNAL 8ANK 8UILOING
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101-1893
6121292.4400
FAX 6121292-0083
Apr II 26, 1988
Honorabl e Mayor and City Council
Andover, MN 55304
Re: CrosstQo/n Boul evard (County Road 18)
City Project 88-1
Andover, Minnesota
Commission No. 9128
Dear Mayor and Council:
The fol lowing Is a status report of estimated cost for reconstruction and
relocation of County Road 18 from Coon Creek on the north to 133rd Avenue
NW at the south Andover corporate limits. The projects are phased as
follows:
Proj ect 1 - Verdin Street (133rd Avenue to Bunker lake Boulevard)
Project 2 - Crosstown Boul evard (Bunker lake Boul evard to 1 39th
Avenue)
Project 3 - CrosstQo/n Boul evard ( 139th Avenue NW to 140th Avenue NW)
Project 4 - CrosstQo/n Boul evard ( 140th Avenue NW to Coon Creek)
Contractor C.ounty City Total
Project No. 1
Gammon Brothers $ 83,550.00 $ 17,020.00 $ 100,570.00
Anderson Brothers $201.700.00 $ 84.020.00 $ 285.720.00
Total $285,250.00 $101,040.00 $ 386,290.00
Project No. 2
Estimated ( Street) $310,780.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 356,280.00
Proj ect No. 3
Estimated (Street & Storm Sewer) $224,560.00 $ 62,230.00 $ 286,790.00
Project No. 4 $
Barbarossa and Sons $371 .280.00 $260.050.00 631.330.00
Total - All Projects $1,191,870.00 $468,820.00 $1,660,690.00
0
o
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Andover, Minnesota
Apr II 26, 1988
Page Two
The estimates are prepared with the County share of estimated construction
cost to Include 8% engineering fee for the County's proportionate share of
the construction cost.
City share of construction wll I Include 1/2 of the cost of concrete curb
and gutter, al I cost of engineering In excess of 8% of the County's share,
fiscal, legal and administrative costs. The/City wll I also pay for storm
sewer costs for service to the drainage area In excess of twice the area of
the County Road right-of-way as It related to the total area drained.
No costs have been Included for the City's responsibility to secure right-
of-way.
No costs for mitigation for wetlands Is Included.
We recommend that the Joint powers agreement be amended to reflect these
preliminary costs subject to actual final construction costs being shared
on an equivalent basis.
Sincerely yours,
~~~
JLD:j
Attachments
o
o
o
PRB...IMINARY COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO. lA
VERDIN SlREET- 133RD AVENUE TO BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD
CITY PROJECT 87-6
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
(GAMM)N BROTHERS)
Item Unit
No. Description Quantity Price Amount
GRADING
1 Mobilization 1.5 LS $ 6,215.00 $ 9,322.50
2 Clearing 2.5 AC $ 1,020.00 $ 2,550.00
3 Grubbing 2.5 AC $ 646 .60 $ 1,616.50
4 Common Excavation 7,300 CY $ 1.20 $ 8,760.00
5 Muck Excavation 8,000 CY $ 1.50 $ 12,000.00
6 SII t Fence 2,600 LF $ 1.65 $ 4,290.00
7 Geotextlle Fabric 6,575 SY $ 1.25 $ 8,218.75
8 Aggregate Backfll I Mater I al 1 3 .600 CY $ 2.25 $ 30.600.00
Total County Grading Construction Cost
8% Engineering
Total County Share of City Project 87-6 (Project No. 1 A)
$ 77 ,3~ .75
$ 83 ,546 .37
(87-6 Total)
Total ~ Share of City Project 87-6 (Project No. lA):
$77,357.75 + 30% Project Cost - County Share =
$77 ,3~ .75 + $23 ,207 .33 - $83 ,546 .37 =
$ 17 ,018.71
(87-6 Total)
o
PRB- IMINARY COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO.1 B
VERDI N SlREET - 133RD AVENUE TO BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD
CITY PROJECT 87-6B
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
(ANDERSON BROTHERS)
Item
No. Description
Ouantl ty
Unit
Price
Amount
Streets
1 Streets - Proposal 2
2 - 1/2 Curb Cost
Total County Street Construction Cost
$184,382.35
-$ 13.630.00
$170,752.35
Catch Basin and leads
1 15" RCP, Class 5
2 15" RCP Flared End Sect I on w/TG
3 Catch Basins
4 Rip Rap
5 Geotextlle Engineering Fabric
510 LF
2 EA
6 EA
5.8 CY
7 SY
$ 18.90
$ 412.50
$ 890.00
$ 33.00
$ 2.34
$ 9,639.00
$ 825.00
$ 5,340.00
$ 191 .40
$ 16.38
Total County Storm Sewer Construction Cost $ 16,011.78
Total County Construction Cost (87-6B) $186,764.13
8% Engineering $ 14.941.13
Total County Share of City Project 87-6B (Project No.1 B) $201,705.26
(87-6B Total)
TOTAL P:)IJNrv SHARE OF VERDI N SlREET (Project No.1) $285,251.63
Total ~ Share of City Project 87-6B (Project No. lB):
(Based on total Proposal 2 (Verdin Street) estimated cost
of $219,790 for Project 87-6B)
$219,790 + 3CJ!, Project Cost - County Share =
$219,790 + $65,935 - $201,705 =
$ 84,020
(87-6B Total)
Total ~ Share of Verdin Street (Project No.1)
$101,040
o
0 PR8 IMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Proj ect No. 2
CrosstOiin Boul evard eallgnment
Bunker Lake Boulevard to 139th Avenue NW
City Project 88-1
Andover, Minnesota
Item Unit
No. Oeser I ptl on Quanti ty Price Amount
STREET
1 Mob II Izatlon 4 EA $ 5,500.00 $ 22,000.00
2 20' Span Bridge 1 LS $95,000.00 $ 95,000.00
3 Common Excavation 5,300 CY $ 1.50 $ 7,950.00
4 Granu I ar BorrOii 14,000 CY $ 4.00 $ 56,000.00
5 Subgrade Preparation 18 RS $ 100.00 $ 1 ,800.00
6 CI ass 5 Gravel 4 ,1 20 GA $ 6.50 $ 26,780.00
7 Tack Coat 570 GA $ 1.50 $ 860.00
8 Bituminous Base 2332 1,260 TN $ 13.00 $ 16,380.00
9 Bituminous Binder 2332 630 TN $ 13.00 $ 8,190.00
10 Bituminous Wear 470 TN $ 14.00 $ 6,580.00
11 Bituminous Material 132 TN $ 160.00 $ 21,120.00
12 Seed I ng 1.9 AC $ 300.00 $ 570.00
13 Sodding 1 ,200 SY $ 3.00 $ 3,600.00
14 Topsoil 1,200 SY $ 7.50 $ 9,000.00
15 ' Seed 95 LB $ 4.40 $ 380.00
16 Fertilizer 950 LB $ 0.40 $ 3,800.00
17 Mulch Material 3.8 TN $ 250.00 $ 950.00
18 SII t Fence 3,500 LF $ 3.80 $ 13,300.00
19 Geotextlle Fabric 17 ,000 SY $ 1.60 $ 2:1 ,200.00
20 18" Culvert 100 LF $ 21.00 $ 2,100.00
21 18" RCP FI ared End Sect I on w/TG 2 EA $ 450.00 $ 900.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost - Street $2:14,060.00
Cost Apportionment
The County Is proposed to cover the construction costs plus 8% of the
engineering fees. A 5% contingency Is also Included.
Total County Share of Street (Project No.2)
$2:14,060 Cost + 8% Engineering + 5% Contingency =
$310,780.00
Total ~ Share of Street (Project No.2)
$2:14,060 Cost + 3rJf, Project Cost - County Share =
$ 45,500.00
o
PRE! IMINARY COST ESTIMATE
o
Proj ect No. 3
Crosstown Boulevard Realignment
139th Avenue to 140th Avenue NW
City Project 88-1
Andover, Minnesota
Item
No. Oescr I ptl on
Quanti ty
smEETS
1 LS
2,700 LF
6,000 CY
2,000 CY
13 RS
2,500 TN
800 GA
855 TN
855 TN
640 TN
133 TN
3 EA
2 EA
3 EA
3 EA
0.5 AC
6,250 SY
1 ,1 50 CY
25 LB
250 LB
lTN
1 LS
3,400 SY
1 LS
".__.__~_"__"" ,".. . n_._______
Unit
Price
$ 3,000.00
$ 4.80
$ 2.00
$ 4.50
$ 100.00
$ 6.50
$ 1 .50
$ 13.00
$ 13.00
$ 14.00
$ 160.00
$ 100.00
$ 50.00
$ 250.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 300.00
$ 3.00
$ 7.50
$ 4.00
$ 0.40
$ 250.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 2.00
$10,000.00
Amount
$ 3,000.00
$ 12,950.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 9,000.00
$ 1,300.00
$ 16,250.00
$ 1,200.00
$ 11,115.00
$ 11,115.00
$ 8,960.00
$ 21 ,280.00
$ 300.00
$ 100.00
$ 750.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 150.00
$ 18,750.00
$ 8,630.00
$ 100.00
$ 100.00
$ 250.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 6,800.00
$ 10.000.00
$159,100.00
The County Is proposed to cover al I street construction costs, except for half
of the curb and gutter cost, plus 8% of the engineering fees. A 5% contingency
Is also Included.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mobilization
Concrete Curb & Gutter B-624
Common Excavation
Granular Borrow
Subgrade Preparation
CI ass 5 Gravel
Tack Coat
Bituminous Base 2332
Bituminous Binder 2332
Bituminous Wear 2341
Bituminous MaterIal
Adjusting Existing MH casting
Adjusting Existing Valve Boxes
Adjusting Existing Services
Relocate Existing Hydrants
Seeding
Sodding
Topsoil
Seed
Fertilizer
Mulch Material
Traff Ic Control
Remove/Dispose of Exlst.Bltumlnous
Driveway Restoration
Total Estimated Construction Costs - Streets
Cost Apportionment
Total County Share of Street (Project No.3):
$159,100 - 1/2 Curb Cost + 8% Engineering + 5% contingencies =
$159,10U - $6,480 + $12,210 + $7,630 =
Total ~ Share of Street (Project No.3)
o $159,100 + 30% Project Cost - County Share =
$1 59,1 00 + $47,730 - $172 ,46 0 =
Total Estimated Project Cost (Project No.3)
$172,460.00
$ 34.370.00
$206,830.00
Street
o
o
PRE!... IMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Proj ect No. 3
CrosstCMn Boul evard Realignment
139th Avenue to 140th Avenue NW
City Project 88-1
Andover, Minnesota
Item
No. Description
Unit
Price
Amount
Qua ntl ty
STORM SEWER
*1 12" RCP CI ass 5 Storm Sewer 190 LF $ 18.00 $ 3,420.00
2 15" RCP CI ass 5 Storm Sewer 480 LF $ 19.00 $ 9,120.00
3 18" RCP Class 5 Storm Sewer 520 LF $ 21 .00 $ 10,920.00
4 21" RCP Class 3 Storm Sewer 190 LF $ 23.00 $ 4,370.00
5 24" RCP Class 3 Storm Sewer 80 LF $ 25.00 $ 2,000.00
6 24" RCP Flared End Sect I on w/TG 1 EA $ 550.00 $ 550.00
*7 Catch Basi n 10 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 11,000.00
8 Random Rip Rap Type III 5.8 CY $ 50.00 $ 290.00
9 Geotextlle Fabric 9 SY $ 1 0.00 $ 90.00
10 Outlet Structure (to Coon Creek) 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00
11 Siltation Pond Construction 4,500 CY $ 1.50 $ 6,750.00
12 Siltation Pond Structure (Weir) 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
13 Extend Ex. Red Oaks Manor Storm Sewer 1 LS $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00
14 Restoration 1 LS $ 3.000.00 $ 3,000.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost - Storm Sewer $ 61,510.00
Cost Apportionment
The County Is proposed to cover the cost of catch basins and leads to serve the
County Road, plus a portion of the remaining storm sewer based on Its "Basic
Area Sharing Ratio", plus 8% of the engineering fees. A 5% contingency Is also
I ncl uded.
Basic Area Sharing Ratio (County)
Estimated Total Acreage of Benefit
Estimated Highway Right-of-way
11.0 Acres
3.7 Acres
Basic Area Sharing Ratio = 2(3.7)/11.0 = 67.3% (County)
* Catch Bas I n and Lead Construct Ion Cost = $14,420
Remaining Storm Sewer Lateral = $61,510 - $14,420 = $47,090
Total County Share of Storm Sewer (Project No.3)
$47,090 (0.673) + $14,420 + 8% Engineering + 5% Contingencies =
$31,690 + $14,420 + $3,690 + $2,300 =
$ 52,100.00
Total ~ Share of Storm Sewer (Project No.3)
$61 ,510.00 + $30% Proj ect Cost - County Share =
$61,510.00 + $18,450 - $52,100 =
Total Estimated Project Cost (Project No.3)
$ ?7 ,860.00
$ 79,960.00
storm Sewer
COST ESTIMATE (FROM BARRAROSSA AND SONS)
Proj ect No. 4
CrosstClt/n Boul evard
0 Project 87-3B
Andover, Minnesota
STORM SEWER
Item Unit
No. Description Ouantliy Price Amount
1 1211 RCP CI ass 5 storm Sewer 414 LF $ 23.00 $ 9,522.00
2 15" RCP CI ass 5 storm Sewer 179 LF $ 24.00 $ 4,296 .00
3 18" RCP CI ass 3 Storm Sewer 1 54 LF $ 25.00 $ 3,850.00
4 2111 RCP CI ass 3 Storm Sewer 100 LF $ 27.00 $ 2,700.00
5 27" RCP CI ass 3 Storm Sewer 674 LF $ 31.00 $ 20,894.00
6 3011 RCP CI ass 3 Storm Sewer 83 LF $ 39.00 $ 3,237.00
7 30" RCP CI ass 3 Storm Sewer 602 LF $ 40.00 $ 24,080.00
8 30" RCP Flared End Sect I on 1 EA $ 800.00 $ 800.00
9 4' DI ameter Catch Basi n w/ Sump 20 EA $ 800.00 $ 16,000.00
10 5' Diameter Catch Basin (6-2) 1 EA $1,150.00 $ 1,150.00
11 4' Diameter Manhole 0-10' 3 EA $ 900.00 $ 2,700.00
12 5' Diameter Manhole 0-10' 3 EA $1,150.00 $ 3,450.00
13 Random Rip Rap Class IV 40 CY $ 60.00 $ 2,400.00
14 Granular Filter 15 CY $ 40.00 $ 600.00
$ 95,679.00
COST ESTIMATE (FROM BARBAROSSA AND SONS)
Project No. 4
CrosstClt/n Boulevard Trunk
Project 87-3B
Andover, Minnesota
SlREETS
Item Unit
No. Description Ouantliy Price Amount
1 Bit Pavement Removal/Disposal 9,067 SY $ 0.65 $ 5,893.55
2 86-24 Curb and Gutter 8,075 LF $ 4.95 $ 39,971.25
3 Common Excavation 25,920 CY $ 1.90 $ 49,248.00
4 CI ass 5 Gravel 9,544.8 IN $ 5.45 $ 52,019.16
5 Tack Coat 2,420 GA $ 1.00 $ 2,420.00
6 Bit Binder Course Mixture 2,720 IN $ 10.24 $ 27 ,852.80
7 Bit Base Course Mixture 2,720 IN $ 10.24 $ 27 ,852.80
8 Bit Wear Course Mixture 2,087 TN $ 12.37 $ 25 ,81 6 .1 9
9 AC B It Material for Binder 171 IN $ 152.00 $ 25,992.00
10 AC B It Material for Mix 171 IN $ 152.00 $ 25,992.00
11 AC B It Mater 1 al for Mix 2341 115lN $ 152.00 $ 17 ,480.00
12 Topsol'l BorrClt/ 2,000 CY $ 5.00 $ 10,000.00
13 Seed Mixture No. 5 111 LB $ 3.10 $ 344.10
14 Roadside Seeding 2.2 AC $ 275.00 $ 605.00
15 Mulch Material Type I 3.9 IN $ 175.00 $ 682.50
16 Comm Fertilizer 10-10-10 1,110 LB $ 0.20 $ 222.00
0 17 Traff Ic Control Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
18 Temp. Port. Concrete Barrier 650 LF $ 10.00 $ 6,500.00
19 Concrete Valle~ Gutter 3 EA $2.000.00 $ 6.000.00
$329,891.35
Change Order No. 1 (Work In narrClt/ right-of-way) $ 23,110.00
Change Order No. 2 (Retaining Wall> $ 36.955.00
$389,956.35
o
o
PROJ ECT NO.4
STORM SEWER COST APRlRTIONMENT (REV I SED)
CROSSTOWN BOlILEV ARD TRUNK (87-38>
ANOOVER. MI NNESOTA
STORM SEWER CONSTRIICT ION
County Catch Basin and Lead Benefit
Item
No.
1
2
3
9
10
Description
12" RCP CI 5 Storm Sewer (CB Lead)
15" RCP a.. 5 Storm Sewer (CB lead)
18" RCP a.. 5 Storm Sewer (CB Lead)
Std 4' Diameter Catch Basin
5' Diameter Catch Basin Castlng*
Quanti ty
332 LF
156 IF
91 IF
18 EA
1 EA
Total Estimated County Benefit Construction Cost
* Estimated Cost
Remaining Construction Cost
Total Storm Sewer COnstruction Cost
Total Estimated County Benefit
Total Remaining Construction Cost
Total COntributing Areas
CrosstOtln Boulevard (CSAH 18) R-o-W, 2800' x 100'
South Coon Creek Drive (MSA) 793' x 60'
Total State Aid Project R-o-W
Total COntributing Area, including above R-o-W
Unit
Price
$ 23 .00
$ 24.00
$ 25.00
$800.00
$100.00*
$ 95,679.00
-$ 28.155.00
$ 67,524.00
6.43 Acres
1 .09 Acres
7.52 Acres
47.74 Acres
Amount
$ 7,636.00
$ 3,744.00
$ 2,275.00
$14,400.00
100.00
$28,155.00
Based on the "State Aid Manual", Section 5-892.600, since the adjacent area Is
predominantly residential, the sharing ratio shal I be determined by doubling
the State Aid street area and using the doubled area against the'actual total
area to determine the spl It area.
PROJECT NO.4 (CONTINUED)
ANOKA COUNTY SHARE OF STORM SEWER
o The Basic Area Sharing RaTio for Anoka County IS:
2(6.43 Acres)/47.74 Acres = 26.94%
County CaTch Basin and Lead Benefit
County LaTeral STorm Sewer COnstruction Benefit
0.2694 x $67,524.00 =
$28,155.00
TOTal ESTI mated County Share of STorm Sewer
$18.190.97
$46 ,345 .97
$ 3.707.68
$50,053.65
Total County Storm Sewer COnstruction Benef It
8% Eng I neer I ng
M. S. A. (SClITH roON mEEK DR IV E) SHARE OF STORM SEWER
The Basic Area Sharing RaTio for SouTh Coon Creek Drive Is:
2( 1.09 Acres)/47.74 Acres = 4.57%
MSA LaTeral Storm Sewer COnstruction Benefit:
0.0457 x $56,524.00 =
30% Project Expenses
Total Estimated MSA Share of Storm Sewer
$ 3,085.85
$ 925.75
$ 4,011.60
CITY SHARE OF STORM SEWER (40.22 ESTIMATED AmES OF BENEFIT)
Estl mated Total Storm Sewer Project Cost
Total Estimated ~ Share of Storm Sewer
(= $1,748.321Acre or 4.0 cents/SF)
$124,382.70
-$ 50,053.65
-$ 4.011.6Q
$ 70,317 .45
1.3 x $95,679.00 =
Total County Share
Total' MSA Share
o
o
o
PROJECT NO.4
STREET COST APFURTIONMENT (REV ISED)
CROSSTOWN BOUI EV ARD TRUNK (87-3B)
ANDOVER. MINNESOTA
C I TV SHARE OF STREET CONSTRUCT ION
City Share Is based on replacing the existing roadway and paying for half of
the curb. The existing roadway Is 3,400 lineal feet, 24 feet wide with 3" of
bituminous surface, and 4" of Class 5 gravel.
Bituminous: 3,400 LF x 24' x 3"/12" x CY/27CF x
2 TN/CY x $12.37 =
011 for Bituminous: 1,511 TN x 6.3% x $152.00 =
CI ass 5: 3,400 LF x 29' x 4"/12" x CY/Zl CF x
2 TN/CY x $5.45 =
Estimated Total Roadway Replacement Construction Cost
Curb and Gutter: 8,075 LF x 0.5 x $4.95/LF
Concrete Valley Gutter: 5 EA x 0.5 x $2,000.00/Each
Change Order No. 1 (Work In narrOil right-of-way)
Estimated ~ Share of Street Construction
COUNTY SHARE OF STREET CONSTRUCT ION
Estimated Total Street Construction Cost
Estimated ~ Share of Street Construction
Estimated County Share of Street Construction
TOTAL STREET PROJECT COST DISTRIBUTION
Estimated County Share of Street Construction
8% Engineering
Total C'..ounty Share of Street
Total ~ Share of Street
($389,956.35 x 1.3) - $321,223.90 =
$ 18,692.44
$ 14,470.00
$ 13.268.40
$ 46,431.24
$ 19,985.63
$ 3,000.00
$ 23,110.00
$ 92,526.85
$389,956.35
-$ 92,526.85
$249,429.50
$297,429.50
$ 23.794.40
$321 ,223 .90
$185,719.36
o
o
Anoka County
TOTAl..
. "____._____.__.__.__......0.
PROJ ECT NO.4
STORM SEWER AND STREET mST APfURTIONMENT
CROSSTOWN BOULEY ARD TRUNK (87-3B)
ANDOYER. MINNESOTA
Storm
Sewer
Street
Total
$ 50,053.65 $321,223.90 $371,277.55
MSA (South Coon Creek Drive/City)
$ 4,011.60 $
0.00 $ 4,011.60
City of Andover
Total Project Cost
$ 70.317.45 $189.719.36 $256.036.81
$124,382.70 $506,943.26 $631.325.96
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
Discussion Items
Engineering
APPROtV FOR
AGE D('j\
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO.
Sonsteby Sewer
Request
BY: James E. Schrantz
The city Council is requested to consider Ms. Sonsteby's request
for sanitary sewer service through the interceptor that starts
near her house on 141st Avenue and goes to the Anoka Treatment
plant. This, I believe, is part of the future CAB system.
This may be an appropriate time to make the request of MWCC as
they testified they could serve the Hay property.
Rosella's property, the Hay property and the other west side of
the City properties are planned to be served by the C.A.B.
interceptor.
I am concerned that if the Hay property is served from the Coon
Rapids interceptor this may isolate the Sonsteby property along
Bunker Lake Boulevard (CR116).
Attached is Rosella Sonsteby's letter.
Also, a few months ago, Ms. Sonsteby petitioned for a feasibility
report on serving her property with sanitary sewer. We asked for
an escrow to be paid before we would start the report. She said
she won't pay for the feasibility report so we have just held this
item.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
~ ~ ~ - ,
- ~ .. ....... .. -
o
~ L y.- 8'1,
~ ~,-
, - ~ ~
J- ~~
. L,/~
~
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
April 4, 1989
DATE
Discussion Items
Engineering
^'~~
Haas
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO.
Award Quotes/Northwood
Tennis Court
BY: Todd J.
The city Council is requested to review and approve the attached
quotes (Alternate B) for the Northwoods Tennis Courts as requested
by the Andover park and Recreation Commission to Burt Kraabel
Construction.
The City has received a petition from area residents near the
tennis court and nearly 100% are in favor of keeping the court.
See attached petition.
Approximately $35,000 has been set aside out of park dedication
for the reconstruction of the tennis court.
other options for the City Council to consider are:
1. Move the court either east or west of its current location.
Moving the court to the west would eliminate existing trees
which are in very good condition. Moving the court to the
east, the soils may b just as bad or even worse.
2. Move the court to another park. park options are Hidden
Creek or Green Acres.
3. Do nothing.
COUNCIL ACTION
rytOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
o
TABULATION OF BIDS
PROJECT: Northwoods Tennis Court
BIDS OPEN: 3/20/89
10:00 A.M.
I
CONTRACTOR
P & 5 BID
Ret'd BOND TOTAL BID
Alternate "All Alternate "BIt
$44,590.15 $37,433.35 <D
$39,029.23 $39,029.23 3
$38,855.65 at $38,060.45 @
$48,178.75 $48,172.75
$69,069.13 $69,069.13
BURT KRAABEL CONSTRUCTION
FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING
GAMMON BROTHERS
H & S ASPHAT,T
VEIT AND CO.
Engineer's Estimate
/I~' --
,/'
I '""" 11'1 -\=,qvo... ",-f l.IS;n$' th~ Cllloc.q+ecl \"uV\cl.s}
+0 re.col1'51-rl.I<:..T the.. ;<JC'r-+h"l.i=c:LS TeVlni 5 =<..U-i-:
/JJClm p AddfeS",
. &~tatis \~~:::~:~={
QUI ~, /L/2</Z-~-'/
';1l.tp-hl fJ# jf/,ilPd &w:","cR
~~ ~\~, 3t){.,\ -I?';:; L~~N.i.'.j,
- /. ..1('. - /' /" / / - '
.->CI~---' G--h-L-rC-e-( Jc.Iy....:j--/~.:JA-'..:J~..;,i,W
, ~4~ 6tr'~~ J C;Yv J Y~.JK1 J/f_u:-./Vw
t~"'l<Je..-frQ.j /;fes<J.-, ,-;.0--; 5' J '1~-"-), L,~v.e.~
~~~ 3wC /~4)tIlU.
-/~~Od'_ 3/0?o /V'Z/v/JL/AJLJ
Crf.. ,.'A /!7! ,7/.,/-1/ /,' . IC / /1 /J ' ,/~
4VtdL.L/~--i-l/t'd--~/ ~50/-V - ~ A /Jci,;}ct tU-
j.J.~ j~1.,1 :30//- /<-/.).-=-=' 4.~-
~j .;f;IiJj;,~_3()rJ1 / S/2- Lf1'
U. ~ A-ift ~{, N7- v/' L v~
: " ~uh., 300$- lLf-j [Jv. I.t IV. '
~)i ~,~ ~~tf~ //C/2fi}J kia)
t.~'&LU. /UiiJ..JU'-'i.;?t/ v- /.Cf.J]7 i L,v it tt..
ir~~. ttlvc.. ;;l.C.,.~~~l /~J. ~ i ;U.tJ,
-l.0~ j), .2)37 /V?~ /j?;,y,
~/ .. , ).ot3cr- ILl;) ",.J. LiV. p.w.
1 1JfJ?vrt:(:".~ I :;{138- - (4d- L 41 ;(( Cv
H . ,~.:,~ !)tjP& "/YJ ~^ )1.w,
~l ,M ~/V\'/,., ;)r?-6 - /(#.1 l V1, ;v- ())
. ~ J~h,..-y) 2."1 L '=>- 1<-/"2 '^ d L 1,\ Iv J l.-J ,
~~~ ;l.~d-4 /4;.. ~l>L (U (;vi
-- --"-'7"-yyr---vT---.~"'---- ~ )'-11 I '11 f.JAJ. UF\f;r. ---
Phol1e
1S7- 9..J.S~
)~ - ,-\qq0t
75:> -7(J6~
7 S-S-. <;66 f
1.5"lJl/3'7
7S-7<3o~3
7J-?-d6~J
75'5-0-) I S
? .:5?-o01b
A?OC)L/6
731-rXf.1C
7S7-d7'~O
i55'-lJt6S
75 ~-Io 4 10 Y
75 7-Co)..r7
75-7(/; 2.. "7'7
;?SS-lt37
75""7- 7/ fJ
?S7 -<:In.,;
157- O\?;lS-
7..>-7 /' 3~
75-5--t./fj/~-
"bS" 1115'
I!; ~-I.I"7/S
'l~7 - '7c/73
)')/_ \l,Z..i'(
o
o
P Ir] '(0/,,0 Adcl v' e.. 5 ')
t"e..MS",..- ,'1)J~ /i-lIl.Df ru~d G-~.
/ 1Ltvc- )'t~J ;4/ he J-uj/Voo d ur
~- ;? ~J {~/c, 3 TUt1r~~
t
t
~~'
\
?hOkle_,___ _
7f:/5-7f7~
1S'0~-:'7 t 7.5 '
1 '5'5, 7 g J j
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
April 4, 1989
Discussion Items
Engineering
ITEM
NO.
.
MSA 5-Year
Construction Program
~~
BY: Todd J. Haas
The City Council is requested to review and approve the Five Year
MSA Construction program as this is a requirement per resolution
from MNDOT.
The information submitted to MNDOT is valuable to the Unencumbered
Construction Fund Subcommittee as well as to the City Engineers in
making city councils more aware of state Aid Funding.
The Five Year Program proposal would be as follows:
1989
a. University Avenue between 163rd Avenue NW and 166th Avenue
NW (new construction with the City of Ham Lake).
b. prairie Road between Andover Boulevard and 157th Avenue NW
(overlay) .
c. Ward Lake Drive between Crosstown Boulevard and 172nd
Avenue NW (new construction).
d. Tulip street NW between 169th Avenue NW to 170th Avenue NW
(new construction).
1990
a. university Avenue between 157th Avenue NW to 163rd Avenue
NW (new construction with the City of Ham Lake).
b. 133rd Avenue NW between Jay street NW and Hanson Boulevard
(new construction with the City of Coon Rapids).
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
Page Two
MSA 5-Year Construction program
o
1991
a. university Avenue between 151st Avenue NW to 157th Avenue
NW (new construction with the City of Ham Lake).
b. 151st Avenue NW from Crosstown Boulevard to Round Lake
Boulevard (new construction).
1992
a. 167th Avenue NW between Verdin street NW and Hanson
Boulevard (new construction).
1993
a. 168th Lane NW between Round Lake Boulevard and Verdin
street NW (new construction).
The City Council is requested to discuss the construction of 165th
Avenue from valley Drive to Round Lake Boulevard.
The City Council has authorized the acquisition of right-of-way.
During the past few months, the Fire Department has been
discussing possible locations for the Fire Stations. At this
time, a location has not been decided on. The proposed 165th
Avenue may not warrant construction until fire station locations
are decided on. If the City is serious about building 151st
Avenue between Crosstown Boulevard onto Round Lake Boulevard, the
street would provide a good ~ast-west route through Andover. See
attached. This proposed route will help eliminate the jog of
County Road 20 between CSAH 7 and Round Lake Boulevard.
The estimated 1989 cost for construction of the project (165th
Avenue) from Valley Drive to Round Lake Boulevard is $686,000.
The 5-Year Construction Program as presented is not cast in
concrete.
o
o
.. - --. .-...- .'.
~tl};) "~."'..:_"-' . ~JJr;;,-," :~ -: :.: I*H>.;v-:..:..--r-
~ ~j, .. ..... . _. ...oO 1.. . .
" , _._.::;',r.u _ F..,,~l~,r; ,.~:-.' ..' '- ..' .;~,.
_., 1.1"'''' _ .. ,-- . - . I' /' :" ~ . i
.-..LP;~- F<! ~ 1: ;.,: - '.:- ~~.. ~ 6~'=' - :..:;'
'V.-/.. :.~ \ ~ ..-;. '.;~':,~,.,...., .' - '<~ . ..,
j~ _ .;' ~ . ~\=i':~~~' i'.... ,=:1:':
.,! . '1/1./ . - ~ . , .: "1'
I~ . ", """ _ ~...~ .:. ":'':e .'..,. ':-., , , . ..,~., ~
'~ ':' : i;..~' :......:...~.., ;1;:,':;-; I j ~ .~~~
~ f ~: . ' . _j ~ '!~' :. I '. .~' I ,l't ~ ~ -. . . . ~'/,.......:o.::-
oN ' 1,1, '. -.: . p= - r " '.. ,. . I .J' .. ~-j 4'" .,'
~ I -0; -.,,;;l-~ T ;' -r \l\t -Y": . -. ~.. 't. . ,{
'I~./ . 1-,....-~ -_-:::'"'L '..-, . ~ .... 'I\..~"~ ; ,f--" i7:.~.:,;. ...:~
i~~ . :---r::: "-J5!),~>;-'\ ~.!. LIlA' ,;.It...;! . ,".'\;li(.'I.JT
v;;rJ ::1' i. iiTr:-:: ~ : i .~;r---.:;;;: , ,:--..;. ._\ It-:' IIllEl ~ ; r r;-J. :- \
~Y'i . ]., _ .' ,-.. ..,' ...;- .' . .. ..... .- ffi~I" .
~./ . [J ,.. ...... ,. . . . 'i ... . T.:::l. 1/
ZOIlIKG MIP lV~ ,~;s: ..:>:,!" !'''' ,..... ~- ...... i.i.: '\r. . r:-:-;it:
, 0 '14\} ,~~. " ., : ..~.~ ,:.. r \ t -~:...' I . ~~ I\.l'~~ ~
/.;. .' I . " ~ V. t-".. ..:- r 11;1:>1 :
. _ .' h,. . I ~-~. ~ [ill' '.l. fE ." l..".: .. '...~... )-';-t:-'.
... .J:'.. ~ . 1......_ ... , .. . ! .
~.; . ..,:"...'.~ ..... . ~t: . ;
_ .....' \ ~. ......__, . .. - ~ l't', " r - -.- --
_ f.-: .,f cr':': "?~ 0 M.U.S.A. AR.~A_::\m . ( :,:
_ i>:: ~t~.'....,; \; 12l' . , V -~ t... L.-- :. ~r.r.= ~-.
_ .': i .11.1 ma .' N.
J ;.! , . .~. ~ -;:::J , n:,:.. . . .' ,'... ."
=- ::.-..' -':':': ~'i i;l, _' ~IT~.{:k'~
_ IUJ ~ II ..... ~ -I ~ l?:;t R' ....".1. . .-:*1.. :
~ ' .' 6<' '. ~-!.L ". ..,': ~ I" . H 'Ni pj ijr.i~
__~, " ,.., ""'-- , ---"'-')" -'Si b ~. ':::~it f-
o. ...' -", .-f "'" ,,' ~--: -i ..
.. " ,~~. ~:/ 'r- .
"......
.....
---
....
--
'.....
--
.....
--
....(
-
.....
-
10-1
-
,.
-
..
--
Ie
--
..
--
"
--
.,
--
..
--
. .....---///
.,
.In ...
. .
.. ,:. ~
."....
,.
-=
~:i -' :
. :.,.
1'-'- I i-- --+-.
: .~~L~'~:-
. ~. .
, .
. ::!<oJ'
; ....J~=.. _:
:, '-~....... :
ANDOVER
"
, .
-
-
~~~~~
......... .........,.. ......... '1M ......-.
------ .................
-
.
"
-.----
---
----
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA.
..1
o
. .
.2000 URBAN SERVICE' AREA:....:-.
. . .
-..... ..' ...
,I,
.. .
'I .
JULY 15. 1987
f' ~_...
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE April 4, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Items Engineering
ITEM 5.
NO. Approve plans & Specs/
88-1/Crosstown Bridge BY: James E. Schrantz
The city council is requested to approve the resolution approving
the plans and specifications for project 88-1, Crosstown Boulevard
Bridge.
The plans are in the Engineering Office for review.
The Bridge is located out in the wetland between 139th Avenue and
Bunker Lake Boulevard.
The Bridge is constructed per the DNR so wildlife can cross
Relocated Boulevard without crossing the road.
It is easier for the DNR to get a crossing for wildlife than it is
for most cities to get an overpass or signal for school children
to get across the street to school.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR PROJECT NO. 88-1, CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 180-88, adopted by the City
Council on the 16th day of August, 1988, TKDA has prepared final
plans and specifications for project 88-1 for Bridge construction;
and
WHEREAS, such final plans and specifications were presented to
the City Council for their review on the 4th day of April, 1989.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council 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 at 10:00 A.M.,
Friday, April 28, 1989 at the Andover City Hall.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
by the City Council at a
and adopted
day of
Meeting this
, 19__, with Councilmen
voting favor of the resolution and
voting against same
Councilmen
whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE April 4. 1989
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO.
Discus i n
6.
Approve plans & Specs/
89-4/Red Oaks 6th
Engineering
BY:
BY: James E. Schrantz
The city Council is requested to approve the resolution approving
the plans and specs for Project 89-4, Red Oaks 6th.
The plans are in the Engineering Office for your review.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR PROJECT NO. 89-4, RED OAKS 6TH FOR
WATERMAIN, SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAIN AND STREETS WITH CONCRETE CURB
AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 285-88, adopted by the City
Council on the 20th day of December, 1988, TKDA has prepared final
plans and specifications for Project 89-4 for watermain, Sanitary
Sewer, Storm Drain and Streets with Concrete Curb and Gutter
construction;. and
WHEREAS, such final plans and specifications were presented to
the City Council for their review on the 4th day of April, 1989.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Andover to
hereby approve the Final plans and Specifications .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council
Andover to hereby direct the City Clerk to seek
required by law, with such bids to be opened at
April 28, 1989 at the Andover City Hall.
of the City of
public bids as
9:30 A.M., Friday,
MOTION seconded by Councilman
by the City Council at a
and adopted
day of
Meeting this
,19 ,with Councilmen
voting favor of the resolution and
Councilmen
voting against same
whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
ITEM Fire Department
NO.
7.
BY:
V. Volk
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, committee, comm.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Admin.
This item was discussed at the special meeting on March 30th;
however, nothing was resolved.
The Fire Department will have further information available
either prior to the April 4th meeting or at the meeting.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
Public works
@
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee,
mm i n
ITEM 8.
NO. Award Street
Swee in Quote
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
BY: Frank Stone
We have received quotes for street sweeping which I hope would
begin April 17, 1989 if weather permits.
Again, there are many new streets that will have to be swept. An
additional 30 hours will have to be added to our total to give us
an estimate of 230 hours for 1989.
All city streets with curb have to b. swept. We also sweep some
streets without curbs that have been seal coated the year before to
pick up excess pea rock.
Some of the companies that have quoted are giving a cut in the
hourly cost if we sweep in May and June. By this time, half the
sand, etc. will have been flushed down the storm sewers by rain.
It would cost us more than the hourly cut to clean out these storm
drains and our residents are already calling to see when street
sweeping is scheduled.
Allied Blacktop Company $53.00 per hour
No starting date
Foss Sweeping Service $49.00 per hour
April 17 starting date
Clean Sweep, Inc. $53.25 per hour
5% discount if done
after June 15th
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
o
Page Two
Award street Sweeping Quote
Knutson Klean Sweep, Inc.
After May 15th
$44.50 per hour
Gorecki & Company
No hourly quotes
as yet
I would recommend we use Foss Sweeping Service at $49.00 per hour.
We have never used Foss Sweeping before, but the starting time is
good and they have a fair hourly rate.
SWEEPING COSTS OVER LAST 5 YEARS
Company Year Hours Cost per Hour Total
Allied 1984 86 49.00 4,214
Allied 1985 105 48.00 5,040
Allied 1986 152 48.00 7,296
Allied 1987 180 51. 00 9,180
Knutson
Klean Sweep 1988 162 48.00 7,776
Estimate:
Foss 1989 230 49.00 11,270
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
ITEM Approve Amended
NO. Assessor's Contrac
9
BY:
V. Volk
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee, Comm.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
The Anoka County Assessor has asked that we approve an amendment
to the contract between the county and the city for our
assessing. He felt that it was in the best interest of the
assessment district and the county to spread the increase over
the first three years of the new contract. (See attached letter.)
The changes are as follows:
1991 Assessment Payable in 1991
Improved parcels of residential, seasonal recreational
residential and agricultural type of property:
Contract previously approved:
Amendment to contract:
$8.51 each
6.62 each
Improved parcels of industrial, commercial and public utility
type of property:
Contract previously approved:
Amendment to contract:
$18.16 each
14.08 each
Vacant parcels of property:
Amendment to contract:
$ 2.25 each
1.76 each
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
o
1992 Assessment payable in 1992
Improved parcels of residential, seasonal recreational
residential and agricultural type of property:
Contract previously approved: Same procedure as 1991 except the
rate shall be adjusted according to Anoka County cost of living
and merit adjustments.
Amendment to contract: $ 7.25
Improved parcels of industrial, commercial and public utility
type of property:
Contract previously approved:
Amendment to contract:
Same procedure as above.
$15.44
$ 1.92
Vacant Parcels of property:
1993 Assessment payable in 1993
Improved parcels of residential, seasonal recreational
residential and agricultural type of property:
. Contract previously approved:
Amendment to Contract:
Same procedure as above.
$ 8.51
Improved parcels of industrial, commercial and public utility
type of property:
Contract previously approved:
Amendment to Contract:
Same procedure as above.
$18.16
Vacant parcels of property:
Amendment to Contract:
Same procedure as above.
$ 2.28
1994, 1995 and 1996 will be figured using the same procedure
except the rate shall be adjusted according to Anoka County
cost of living and merit adjustment.
~~.
o
COU NTY OF ANOKA
Office of the COUllty Assessor
COURT HOUSE
ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303
612-421-4760
March 20, 1989
~
\\\
-\-
Andover City Clerk
Vicki Volk
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
NW
Dear Ms. Volk:
On March 14, 1989 Commissioner Bob Burman, Commissioner
Natalie Haas-Steffen, Assistant to the County Administr-
ator Rich Portnoy, County Administrator Jay McLinden,
and myself met to discuss the new 1991 assessment contracts
specificly the increase from the present contract to the
new one.
It was decided that it was in the best interest of the
assessment district and the county to spread the increase
over the first three years of the new contract. For the
assessment districts that have signed their contracts, I
an enclosing an amendment to your new contracts I am en-
closing a new contract.
If you have any questions concerning the new contracts or
amendments please feel free to contact me.
For those districts that have not signed their contracts,
I would appreciate your decision by April 14, 1989.
Yours very truly,
7' '7/
_ .<!!ft~I~~~~~~
.Gayle.,zeone
Anoka County Assessor
GL:prb
* Please sign and return as soon as possible. .
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
o
ADDENDUM TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN LOCAL UNIT AND COUNlY
FOR ASSESSMENT
THIS ADD.ENDUM, is made and entered into this 20 day of March
. 1989, by and between the Ci ty of Andover
. hereinafter referred to as the "Municipality," and the County of Anoka, a political
subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota, 325 East Main Street, Anoka, Minnesota
55303, hereinafter referred to as the "County."
WHEREAS, the Municipality and the County have entered into an agreement dated
to provide for the assessment of the property in said Municipality
by the County Assessor; and,
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the County and the Municipality to amend said Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. It is agreed between the Municipality and the County that Paragraph 3 of the
aforedescribed Joint Powers Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. In consideration for said assessment services, the Municipality hereby
agrees to pay the County an annual payment to be paid to the County Treasurer
on or before January 15 as follows:
A 1. 1991 Assessment, payable in 1991 - $6.62 for each improved
parcel of residential, seasonal recreational residential and
agricultural type of property, plus $14.08 for each improved
parcel of commercial, industrial and public utility type of
property, plus $1.76 for each vacant parcel of property.
2. 1992 Assessment, payable in 1992 - $7.25 for each improved
parcel of residential, seasonal recreational residential and
agricultural type of property, plus $15.44 for each improved
parcel of commercial, industrial and public utility type of
property, plus $1.92 for each vacant parcel of property.
3. 1993 Assessment, payable 1993 - $8.51 for each improved
parcel of residential, seasonal recreational residential and
agricultural type of property, plus $18.16 for each improved
parcel of commercial, industrial and public utility type of
property, plus $2.25 for each vacant parcel of property.
B. The same procedure shall be used as described in section 3, Subd.
A3 for the computation of the assessment payments due in 1994, 1995
and 1996 except the rate shall be adjusted according to the Anoka
County cost of living and merit adjustments from January 1 to
December 31 in the year the assessment is performed.
o
o IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on the dates written
below:
COUNTY OF ANOKA
MUNICIPALITY
Dan Erhart, Chairman
Anoka County Board of Commissioners
By:
(Title):
By:
Dated:
Dated:
ATTEST
By:
(Title):
By:
John "Jay" McLinden
Dated:
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Assistant Anoka County Attorney
The above Addendum is hereby approved by the Commissioner of Revenue this _ day
of . 1989.
Commissioner of Revenue
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4. 1989
ITEM
NO.
F0rfeit Land Sale
10.
BY:
V. Volk
FOR
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
NO. Staff, Committee, Comm Administration
Attached is a list of the forfeit lands in the city of ndover.
The city Council is requested to approve the classification and
sale of these forfeit parcels.
Council is also requested to determine if the city wishes to
purchase any of the parcels. A map is included in your packet
showing where the properties lie.
V:Attach.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
'V
o
STREET IDENTIFICATION OF PARCELS SHOWN ON
CLASSIFICATION LIST 89
EXHIBIT A
City of Andover
1. ". 12 32 24 11 0009 Key 845615
This triangular shaped parcel is approximately 60' x 200' located on the north side of
Butternut Street about four-tenths of a mile north of the intersection of Butternut and
County Highway 18.
Commissioner District 1
2. , ./ 29 32 24 42 0006 Plat 65929 Parcel 8020
This 160' x 400' (approximately 1.4 acres) rectangular lot is landlocked behind the
houses on the south side of South Coon Creek Drive near the corner of Round Lake
Boulevard. Access to it can be gained across forfeit lot 29 32 24 42 0008.
Commissioner District 1
3. 32 32 24 42 0064 Key 974565
A rectangular lot approximately 125' x 200' located on the east side of Poppy Street at
the corner of 136th Avenue N.W. just east of Round Lake Boulevard.
Commissioner District 1
4. 09 3224 31 0020 Key 1067473
This narrow rectangular strip of land is approximately 33' x 300' located on the south
side of 167th Lane about a block west of Crocus Street N.w.
Commissioner District 1
5. 123225340027 Key 106871Tc":-:~""d'''.' ... .
This rectangular lot is approximately 200' x 217' and located on the west side of Zuni
Street at 166th Lane N.w.
Commissioner District 1
6. 18 32 24 11 0008 Plat 68212 Parcel 0600
This large almost rectangular tract of land is approximately 300' x 1160' (approximately
8 acres) located on the west side of Valley Drive (County 58) just north of Genie Drive
Commissioner District 1
7. 18 32 24 21 0009 Plat 68213 Parcel 0260
This is a long tract shaped like the number 7. The vertical axis is approximately 1600'
long and 33' wide. The horizontal axis is approximately 1325' long and 33' wide.
Where the two axis meet there is an area about 400' x 500' which is a partial rectangle.
A large' part of the parcel constitutes the roadbed and right-of-way of County Highway
7 where it turns west at 165th Avenue N.w.
Commissioner District 1
o
- 1 -
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
11.
BY:
V. Volk
FOR
AGENDA SECTION
NO.Staff, Committee, Comm.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
ITEM Appoint Cable Commissio
NO.
r
The City Council asked for more information about James
Lindahl. Attached is his interview for the Park and
Recreation commission. This was done on January 19th.
At that time, Mr. Lindahl was selected as an alternate
for the Park and Recreation Commission. (See Item 13).
Does the Council want Mr. Lindahl on the Park Commission
and the Cable Commission? They both meet on Thursday
evenings.
If Mr. Lindahl will only be on the Park Commission we
will need to readvertise for a Cable Commissioner as
Mr. Lindahl was the only one who applied.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
James Lindahl Interview for park & Recreation Commission
January 19, 1989
Ken Orttel: What kind os personal traits or training do your
have that would be beneficial to the park Commission?
Mr. Lindahl: My education background, I was graduated from
Northern Michigan; my minor studies were in political science
and I focused on small government, local government entity and
this is what I feel will be my stepping stone to local politics.
It's an interest that I have. By getting on the Park Commission
I don't know how much influence it has but I feel I can impact
what they do.
Mike Knight: Are you at all familiar with the Park function?
Mr. Lindahl: No, I haven't been at any of the meetings; I just
moved into the Andover Area recently. I've been here one year
nowthis month and I'm trying to phase into the locality. I
don't know how big this is. It didn't sound like it was a
major function but it has something to do with the local govern~
ment and something that I could be interested in and something
that I could help with.
Marge Perry: Could you tell us something about what kind of park
you would like to see in the city?
Mr. Lindahl: The ~ity should grow in the proper order as far as
the downtown, the residential, industrial and also the
recreational pa~t. There should be a balance between them as far
as where they are set up so they can meet the needs for each of
the residential communities, so that they are spread out. The
facilities at each park, what would be used the best there.
Don Jacobson: Each individual brings a unique tale~t to the
board. What are you best at?
Jim Lindahl: I think I mentioned that I'm part owner of a
company in Coon Rapids. We do work locally. I have the
experience of working with people. I go out and bid the jobs
so I have a one on one relationship with the people. I feel I'm
qualified to relate to certain people and get my point across.
Jim Elling: You have a BA in Earth Science. Do you see that as
a help to us?
Jim Lindahl: Yes.
are best suitable.
are not going to be
would have to water
I can get a visual idea of where the parks
I would not want them on swamp land where to
useable for the spring months or where you
heavily because it's all sand.
Mike Knight: What business are you in?
o
Jim Lindahl: I'm part owner of Northern Roofing Company.
Ken Orttel: Are you involded in any of the athletic
associations?
Jim Lindahl: I play softball in the Fridley Men's League and I
o
o
play broomball in Brooklyn Park.
Don Jacobson: Parks come in all shapes and sizes. Would your
tendency be toward bigger or smaller parks and why?
Jim Lindahl: I would have to look at the useage of the
residential area. If there are multiple dwellings or single
family residential uses. You have to pattern with that. You can
have a few parks that meet everyone's needs.
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
April 4, 1989
DATE
ITEM
NO.
Accept P&Z Resignation
Bosell BY:
James E. Schrantz
BY:
AGENDASSEcnONC 'tt
NO. tOo!:!, omml ee,
Commission
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
The City Council is requested to accept d'Arcy Bosell's
resignation from the Planning Commission.
The City Council has appointed alternates to the Planning and
zoning Commission and the Park Board. The Council may want to
appoint the alternates at this time.
The alternate for the Park Board is the individual that has
applied for the Cable Commission position.
See item =1111.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
d'Arcy Bosell
2942 NW 181st Avenue
Cedar, MN 55011
28 March 1989
Honorable Mayor and city Council
City of Andover
1685 NW Crosstown Boulevard
Andover, MN 55304
In Re:
Planning Commission Appointment
Gentlemen:
It is with a great deal of emotion that I tender to you my
resignation from the Planning Commission for the City of Andover.
I have served on this Commission since February 18, 1977 and have
received much reward from the experience. I have gained much
personal confidence as it pertains to dealing with people and
issues and I have learned much that will be of value to me the
remainder of my life.
The experience I have gained enabled me to run for and be elected
to the School Board of Independent School District *15 and to be
a board member of value and asset to the District. My experience
has further enabled me to be hired by the City of st. Francis in
the capacity of zoning Administrator and the City of Andover in
that same capacity.
I regretfully resign as it is letting go of a "love" that I have
for this Commission and its value to the City. Although I agreed
to resign if hired by the City, I still regret having to do so.
I am excited to be a part of the permanent staff of the City,
however, and look forward to many other adventures.
Thank you for the opportunity to have served on this Commission.
Sincerely,
, /J .:?. ., .. I
,:I ;tT!!07 ~.6 C[~
d'Arcy Bosell
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee, Comm
DATE April 4, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
ITEM
NO.
Appoint Park Board
13.& P&Z Members
BY:
V. Volk
Park Board
The City Council is requested to appoint James Lindahl to the
park and Recreation Commission to fill a vacancy left by
stuart Kinkade who has missed the last five meetings. This
term will expire on December 31, 1989.
Mr. Lindahl was appointed by the council on January 19, 1989 as
an alternate for the Park Board. He is also the only person
who applied for the Cable Commission.
Planning and zoning Commission
The City Council is requested to appoint Ron Ferris to the
Planning Commission to fill a vacancy created by the resignation
of d'Arcy Bosell. He was appointed by the Council as an
alternate on January 19, 1989. His term on the Planning
Commission will expire on December 31, 1991.
With the appointment of Mr. Ferris to the Planning Commission we
will have one vacancy on the Park Board. An advertisement has
been placed in the newspaper and also on our local government
cable channel.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
ITEM
NO.
14.
Bailey Farm Operation
ORIGINATING DEPARTM~
Planning Jj\9r
BV, Jay Blak~;ty Planne,
APPROVl~' FOR
AG iD
AGENDA SECTION
NO. ff .
Sta ,Commlttee,
The Andover City Council is requested to require the farming
operation at 15380 prairie Road to obtain a Special Use Permit as
allowed in Ordinance 8, Section 4.07.
Mr. Bailey, 15380 prairie Road, has been keeping pigs on his
property. A neighbor has complained to me on several occasions
that "something should be done before the smell gets bad this
summer. "
A.
Traditionally, farming operations are grandfathered in and
receive an automatic Special Use Permit. This appears to be a
relatively new operation. Section 4.07 of Ordinance 8 enables
the City to require a Special Use Permit to continue operations
if the following criteria are met:
.
is adjacent to or within 400 feet of any dwelling
may be detrimental to the living conditions by
noise, odor, vibrations, hazards to safety and the
The farm
unit and
emi t ting
like.
B. The farming operations are so intensive as to constitute an
industrial type use consisting of the compounding, processing
and packaging of products for wholesale or retail trade and
further, that such operations may tend to become a permanent
industrial type operation that cannot be terminated as can a
normal farming operation.
I believe that criteria A is met by this operation and if the
odor is as bad as the neighbor contends, the operation is having
a negative effect on the neighboring properties.
If the City Council chooses to require the operation to obtain a
Special Use Permit, I would contact the owner and begin the
process as soon as possible.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
AG
AGENDA Sft:'aCfT~N Commi t tee,
NO. ..
Commlsslon
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
ITEM
NO.
.
Ci ty Hall
Remodeling
BY:
James E. Schrantz
The City Council is requested to consider City Hall remodeling to
provide office space for the new Finance Director and Recycling
Coordinator.
Dave is preparing a plan and costs. At the time of this writing,
Dave hasn't completed the cost estimate.
Attached are two ideas for constructing office space in the
carpeted area next to the Senior Citizen area.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
,
o
, .
~~
~~
h
10'-y"
I
I'
I
m,
KI
;;; ,,\
" I
D. I
FI
i
...
1.:
""
&;
l--
;;;
'"
'"
;.
;;;
,-
...
l
e
I
I
I
(f' -
S 'f.. ~
il J\.It ~
~
,;
;g
'"
'"
E
.--.. ..---...-.-. ~ .
r
..... r
o
'" L
9- 51.. ", '1' ".;f';.'~.," i),Kt~::
" '.....f.(;:;,~.,i.i;
o
I
I
I
I
i
i
(; I
~: II
I,
II
,i
!I
!I
,-
o
,
o
~ '-
j;:,;-::-
;;
..~
;;
'"
!"
;n
<;
..,
,.
.~
~
'"
"
1
..'.,'"
.'"
i~
3
.t-
,-
o.
~~
~.
1
~
~
~
;g
::z:,
~
OJ
o
DATE
ORiGINATING DEPA~RTMENT
Plannlng
Jay Blake City Planner
BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
April 4, 1989
AGENDA SECTION .
NQ Non-Dlscusslon Items
16
ITEM
NO.
The Andover City Council is requested to review and approve the
enclosed resolution regarding the revocation of John Imre's
Special Use Permit.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
MOTION BY
TO
,
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -89
A RESOLUTION REVOKING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANTED TO JOHN IMRE
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING NEW
AND USED AUTO PARTS ON LOT 2, LOT 3 AND LOT 4, BLOCK 1, PANKONIN
ADDITION, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA (RESOLUTION #127-84)
WHEREAS, the City of Andover granted John Imre a Special
Use Permit in 1984 for the construction of a building for
the purpose of selling and storage of new and used auto parts on
Lot 2, Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, pankonin Addition (Resolution
R127-84), and
WHEREAS, the Permit was granted with conditions that must
be met by the property owner including:
All junk shall be removed or placed inside the proposed
structure within five (5) days following the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy on the structure; but in no
event later that March 1, 1985, with such requirement
covering all of Lot 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, of pankonin
Addition.
and
No dismantling or storage of vehicles shall be permitted
on Lot 2, Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, pankonin Addition, nor
within the building on such lots, and
WHEREAS, 'current inspections of the property on December
23, 1988, February 6, 1989 and February 24, 1989 revealed that
many unlicensed or inoperable vehicles are being stored on the
property, and
o
WHEREAS, the property owner was notified in writing on
December 27, 1988, January 9, 1989, January 23, 1989 and February
6, 1989 of the Special Use Permit and City Ordinance violations
that were occurring on the property, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the matter was scheduled,
appropriate notices published and neighbors within 350 feet of the
property were notified, and
WHEREAS, the Andover Planning and zoning Commission held a
Public Hearing on February 28, 1989 to discuss the matter; Mr.
Imre appeared to hear the charges and at that meeting, the
Commission recommended to the City Council that the Special Use
Permit be revoked, and
o
o
Page 2
Resolution
April 4, 1989
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the
City of Andover that the Special Use Permit granted to John Imre
for the construction of a building for the purpose of selling and
storage of new and used auto parts on Lot 2, Lot 3 and Lot 4,
Block 1, pankonin Addition be revoked.
The City Council finds the following facts:
A. The current use of the property is not in compliance
with the conditions set forth in the 1984 Special Use
Permit.
B. The current use no longer meets the criteria set forth
in the zoning Ordinance (#8), Section 5.03.
C. The owner has been given due process through written
notification.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 4th day of
April, 1989.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria volk - City Clerk
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE April 4, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering ~1fr
I
BY: Todd J. Haas
FOR
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ITEM
NO.
Non-Di
17.
Receive Petition/Oak
Bluff street Lights
The City Council is requested to approve this resolution declaring
the adequacy of petition and ordering the preparation of
feasibility report for Oak Bluff 1st Addition for street lights.
See attached petition and diagram.
Total number of lots within Oak Bluff 1st Addition - 25.
Number in favor of street lights - 17.
Number against street lights - 3.
Unavailable - 4.
Not Sure - 1.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
..-."'~...
11\"\
o\tY
CITY of ANDOVER
Gentlemen:
Date:
.JIB/ BC(
No.
We, the undersigned, owners of real property in the following described
area:
Q4k. 6Lu~F'
I.>+-
AJ:l, t 10/1/
do hereby petition that Sjd.. portion of LCl;,id ~rea be i. mproved by
Construction of City f /2 E..9 -r ti ./-s.
and that the cost of said improvement be assessed against the benefiting
property, as authorized by Chapter 429, Laws of Minnesota.
DE-I/f...!o/JGIV N~/;J- I'/-S.)l /'1.
r- N ,),4.- /J/- ~
1) / - 184tJ I;H5-/.#6~
'i-// ~I of' c-~ i ;)-70 /4-"() . '
. l~qS' I~td~ /
~ .
la ;0 ~/ y-l ~
/3;). 5'- jtff,hf ltvtl /
13 Z 5 - ft./,,-!j- Ltt. JtL ) -:..... /~..j...) \ )(
~1C.~~r-.J -c::.(l... /';;9)- 115ft ~e-
/J1oe /;).3-1 It/git ~
if (/.371 11f1LLt4JV
II-
~ / U& /1g ith.()
'13e/'//, ~ J- G...-o ( 'o;-,eJ /51 11t~
o ::rl-v ~ ':L; ~ I)af /tfgilL~ ,
. . I . J/ 17 ;:JY
This petition was circulated by: /.-4 /.5 11. K-0 AM
Address: )~qJ7- ;q-8'c.L lllf(/f/; /f/JOIJt/'C:-$ / 1411/.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
YES
NO
x
x
@
?/".~
.( (}\ )
'~:.;/
CITY of ANDOVER
Date:
3;;/31
No.
Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, owners of real property in the following described
area:
() A- If-- ~Lu #
b f Add "f(ofll
do hereby petition that said portion of said area be improved by
Construction of City
3/J?-€ p.f
~bih
Y
and that the cost of said improvement be assessed against the benefiting
property, as authorized by Chapter 429, Laws of Minnesota.
LEGAL. DESCRIPTION
YES
NO
l\J€bltl,O $.\-. rv,~V'
((~lJr:? )JvJ
. ,
l'.....
o
I'
/7- y~s
3- No's
~ - tV {) an swe,.. 1- c<u.e $-r;vo.~hI~
/
o
.
, I
. I
': I
I -:;u
. t~
~I
I
I
.
~
c
)
o
IL
l~ I
"
.,H
~
~
a ~331:1~S a
~~ OI:lIS3n7S~
.;
~
~
0<
~
~
::
~
r~.::;f:1:~;.t~ :
, '" ~:cfl: I
l~~ /.,'1:
:: - f\ t 8:
:~ ~ ~ !:
, - I
, ,
: '
I.._...!-:!!:!!~<!N __J
j- ---..--------,
I ~o ,., I
, ,
, \ '
I ~ I
:! 8:
:~ ""!:.:n
: ........ ,....:
I ;
L__.!~!~~!.!.~!__J
;-----...---------,
I Dill.' I
, ,
, ,
:.. I
:6 ,.... ~d
:! t\l (t) &:
'-I- 'T "
: - f'
: : ~
~----!:.'.:_!!:!..~___J :
,.
-",,~
q;'<-;'
,
,
,
,
,
la
:!
,
,
l..
,
,
'"
<:.:
:s....
.
t ~-
e!
. ,
"
~
~
a
~
~
!
'"
H
III
ai \
Of
,
1
,
I
I
1
I
I
,
1
--0;,..;"---'-, I
II
. II
_..L I
IS! " 2T I
,.. !I I
: "" "
I " II
L--::~!~!.____J :
r----------:J
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:~
:~
,
,
,
,
,
,
: ....l~
: lli
r/!'O~\o
~------- -----------__________J.~~__
)c
.. '.
~
.'
"
1
,
.,,"'''_01 I
__ ______...J
f......
~
~
~
~
~
.
.
.
~
x.
~-------------..._,
: tun., I
, '
, ,
, ,
!8 c;:~:
,It ..... \It ~I
:' -I- - :
, I
: I
L._..!:~.:.~!~~_.._J
,.------------- ,
: 0("'.' :
,
: I
, ,
, ,
, I
, ,
, ,
: "q I
, '
, ,
t~ " I
,.. 8'
t ~ !j
: ~ :
: C> I
: :
: -#,,0,,:
, '''~r.o# I
: ......,~#'..;..I
l..____!!2!~___~~.:~ I
:~"DOV
1.~f
;...."
..".-
~
~
.
!
~
1
.
{j}
,.....
.~:::;~
~
0;)
"iI"
....
~
CD
<:1"
,. "
~:.
q)
.....
_.
~ TV) 8
)(00'
~
'GA7B
- 6J'Orr1
M..rr.lO.ON
HOSNVH
- I '~./<J
+f-.r-t-f' .
.1--
,
"I
!l
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
'. I
~~ I
'. I
"i~1
,.:'/
oj
.. I) k76';'b
---;:,..., -ri:',
Il~t :) !:t
ot~ ;: ~l'",
~ '~I.b.:,.1
ltt-.
I fF
I l:.
.....~
t
!
~
""'1
~
'0.0' ~
t
'<:
3>0,
..
t
~
~
-
"
\~
I
c=
\')
\\0.
~
~
"'\
t
...
~
..,
....
\)
Ci)
-
-
'..:
I
~
~
i
~
~
~
Qj
-:-0
"
Iro
~
'L
"
<\...
\1'1 ~
.~
II ..,.
X ':l
~
l:'Q "
<:I
......
.......
~ 1-
.'-
\:: -.t
'" .~'"
~ .......
\ij
i-
~ 'I
IU ~
4: ~
. ~
..L
e
...
)>
r-
,...
~
\"
~
t
': .... "I
I\l ~
~ "I ::Oz.
fjJ!!
'.'
.:, ,.
.... ~ \ ~
\J;;,. -..! \ ~
o. j
~
'"
00 ~
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION
OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF STREET LIGHT
CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT NO. 89-11 IN THE OAK BLUFF 1ST ADDITION AREA.
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition, dated
March 8, 1989, requesting the construction of improvements; and
WHEREAS, such petition has been validated to contain the
signatures of more than 35% 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 as adequate.
2. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to Anoka
Electric and they are instructed to provide the City Council
with a feasibility report.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
and adopted by the City
Council at a
Meeting this
day of
,19_
voting in
voting
with Councilmen
favor of the resolution, and Councilmen
against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE April 4. 1989
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
ITEM
NO.
Non Di
18.
Andover/Anoka Water
Agreement
BY: James E. Schrantz
The city Council is requested to approve the updated "use/purchase
Agreement" with the City of Anoka. See attached.
This agreement is for the water interconnect capabilities Andover
has with Anoka. In case of emergency, the City of Andover can
connect Andover's hydrant to Anoka's hydrants that are 40 feet
apart and use Anoka's water. We have done this several times.
I recommend approval.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
CO,JiVLI (--
4/f/Y?
City of ANOI(A
City Hall
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
2015 First Avenue
(612) 421-6630
MARCH 21, 1989
CITY OF ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD. N.W.
ANDOVER, MN 55304
- R ~~~2il~91D
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEN: JIM SCHRANTZ, ADMINISTRATOR
DEAR MR. JIM SCHRANTZ,
TO UPDATE OUR FILES, I N~ ENCLOSING A NEW COPY OF THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON "USE/PURCHASE OF ANOKA WATER"
BETWEEN OUR TWO CITIES. APPARENTLY THIS AGREEMENT WAS TO BE
REVIEWED EVERY FIVE (5) YEARS. I SEE NO NEED FOR CHANGE
OTHER THAN UPDATING THE USER WATER RATE. IF YOU CONCUR THEN
WE S OULD GET THIS ITEM TO OUR CITY COUNCIL.
SCHULTZ
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
ENCLOSURE
RS/dh
o
o
ANOKA - ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ON
USE/PURCHASE OF ANOKA WATER
The City Council of Anoka has approved the City of Andover's
request for use/purchase of water from Anoka by the way of
hydrant located at the corner of 15th Avenue Court in Anoka
and County Road No. 116.
The water will be used for emergency use only, for example:
1. Andover's domestic water system failure of the well,
pump or water main break. Over-taxing the in place Andover
system is not considered a system failure.
2. Andover's significant fire needs.
Andover understands that Anoka must fulfill its needs first;
for example, a fire in Anoka will be a higher priority water
use "than a significant fire and/or domestic water emergency
in Andover.
Andover has provided a hydrant of different style and color
at no cost to Anoka on the South side of County Road No. 116.
Only one way water flow from Anoka to Andover will be
provided.
Andover will
Public Work's
Anoka's water.
contact the Anoka Fire Department and/or the
Directors's designee for permission to use
For fire use, the amount of the water will be estimated. For
domestic use, as defined above, the water will be metered.
Andover will pay for the water used at Anoka's current rate
(1989 rate is 57.5 cents per 1000 gallons or .43 cents per
100 cubic feet).
The hose, couplings, adapter, meter and back
shall be approved by Anoka and purChased by
with couplings shall be stored in Andover.
shall be stored in Anoka with installation
Water Department supervision.
flow preventer
Andover. Hose
Meter assembly
under the Anoka
Any fire protection hydrant
connection and requested by
supervision of the Anoka Water
flow tests requiring the Anoka
Andover shall be under the
Department Superintendent.
The memorandum of understanding will be reviewed every five
(5) years. Any changes must be approved by the City Councils.
Approved by Andover City Council this___day of
19 89 .
1989.
Approved by the Anoka City Council this___day of
Anoka Mayor Steve Halsey
o
Andover Mayor
Anoka City Mgr. Mark Nagel
Andover City Clerk
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
April 4, 1989
ITEM
NO.
Qualified Tax Exempt
Bond Obligations
BY:
James E. Schrantz
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
Non-Discussion Items
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
The city Council is requested to approve the four attached
resolutions electing to designate certain bonds issued in 1986 as
"Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations".
The City's Bond Council recommends that the Council adopt the
resolutions.
See attached letters from Dave Kennedy to the City Bond Council.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
T elecopier (612) 333-0540
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
Steven B. Schmidt
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen
Ronald H. Batty
William P. Jordan
William R. Skallerud
Corrina A. Heine
Oavid D. Beaudoin
Steven M. Tallen
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. Altman
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh
Darcy L. Hitesman
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chamerlik
Paul D. Baertschi
Arden Fritz
Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired
Herbert P. Lefler. Retired
o
LeFevere
Lefler
Kennedy
O'Brien &
Drawz
~D
a Professional
Association
CITY OF ANDOVER
March 15, 1989
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Attn: James E. Schrantz
Administrator
Re: $2,600,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds,
Series 1986B
Ciyt of Andover, Minnesota
Dear Jim:
One of the many features of the Federal 1986 Tax Reform
Act was a provision dealing with the ability of finan-
cial institutions owning municipal bonds to deduct a
percentage of the interest expense connected with such
ownership. The new law limited this deduction to those
bonds of issuing governmental units that issued less
than $10 million in any calendar year and designated
the bonds for that purpose (bank qualified bonds).
When the City issued the above listed Bonds the desig-
nation as bank qualified bonds was made pursuant to
language in the congressional bill under consideration
at the time, H.R. 3838, but when the provision was
actually passed with an effective date of August 8,
1986, the numbering of the relevant section was
changed.
Congress apparently feels that it is necessary for the
issuers of bank qualified bonds to redesignate the
bonds under the new code section and a provision to
that effect was in the Technical and Miscellaneous
Revenue Act of 1988.
Because in the resolution authorizing the sale and
issuance of the Bonds the City promised to do whatever
it could to preserve the tax exempt status of the
interest on the Bonds and the bank qualified desig-
nation, we think it important that the election to
redesignate be made. A form resolution to that effect
is included for your use. We recommend that it be
adopted.
o
o
r.1arch 15, 1989
Page Two
The Treasury Department has offered no guidance as to
what to do about the election resolution. Presumably,
it is to be filed with the IRS at some point. In the
meantime, if you will return a certified copy of the
resolution to us we ,..ill file it with the bond tran-
script, and if a future filing with the IRS is required
we will notify you asking for your direction to us to
make the appropriate filing. We will not make the
filing without the instruction of the City to do so.
There is no charge for this service or for any future
filing if requested.
Yours very truly,
DJK:caw
Enclosure
cc: William Hawkins
0575RESB.F16
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of And.over, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
,1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1.01. The Issuer issued its $2,600,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 1986B, dated October 1, 1986 (the
"Bonds") while the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 was pending
with a retroactive effective date, specifically on or after
January 1, 1986, and on or before August 7, 1986; and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation that it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress. as passed by the House of Representatives; and
1.03. The Issuer covens_nted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation; and
o
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
265(b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of Section 1009 (b) (3) of the
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and section 265(b) (3) of the Code; and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation because they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 501(c) (3) bonds, or refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds); the Issuer
with respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009(b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer
hereby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to qualify the Bonds under Section
802(e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made
an election under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
TAMRA; and
(b)
the Bonds are not "private
defined in Section 141 of the
activity bonds, they are:
activity bonds" as
Code, or, if private
o
(i) qualified 50l(c) (3) bonds as defined in
Section 145 of the Code, or
o
(ii) obligations issued to refund (or which are
part of a series of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in Section 103(b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A)) ;
(c) the Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for pUrposes of
Section 265(b) (3) of the Code;
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 50l(c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,000; and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupon. the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESB.F16
o
.
'0
.0
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
)
) SS.
)
)
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Clerk of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certify that I
have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a
[regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City held
on
, 1989, with the original thereof on file
in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate
seal of the City this ____ day of , 1989.
Vicki Vo1k
City Clerk
(SEAL)
0575RESB.F16
j
o
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333.0543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
Steven B. Schmidt
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen
Ronald H. Batty
William P. Jordan
William R. Skallerud
Corrine A. Heine
David D. Beaudoin
Steven M. Tallen
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. Altman
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh
Darcy L. Hitesman
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chamerlik
Paul D. Baertschi
Arden Fritz
Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired
Herbert P. Lefler, Retired
o
LeFcverc
Lefler
Kennedy
O'Brien &
Drawz
R.. ECllE'I1V"""D
.J t
'F~
-
a Professional
Association
CITY OF ANDOVER
March 15, 1989
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Attn: James E. Schrantz
Administrator
Re: $180,000 GeneralObligation Refunding Improvement
Bonds, Special Series of 1986
City of Andover, Minnesota
Dear Jim:
One of the many features of the Federal 1986 Tax Reform
Act was a provision dealing with the ability of finan-
cial institutions owning municipal bonds to deduct a
percentage of the interest expense connected with such
ownership. The new law limited this deduction to those
bonds of issuing governmental units that issued less
than $10 million in any calendar year and designated
the bonds for that purpose (bank qualified bonds).
When the City issued the above listed Bonds the desig-
nation as bank qualified bonds was made pursuant to
language in the congressional bill under consideration
at the time, H.R. 3838, but when the provision was
actually passed with an effective date of August 8,
1986, the numbering of the relevant section was
changed.
Congress apparently feels that it is necessary for the
~ssuers of bank qualified bonds to redesignate the
bonds under the new code section and a provision to
that effect was in the Technical and Miscellaneous
Revenue Act of 1988.
Because in the resolution authorizing the sale and
issuance of the Bonds the City promised to do whatever
it could to preserve the tax exempt status of the
interest on the Bonds and the bank qualified desig-
nation, we think it important that the election to
redesignate be made. A form resolution to that effect
is included for your use. We recommend that it be
adopted.
o
o
March 15, 1989
Page Two
The Treasury Department has offered no guidance as to
what to do about the election resolution. Presumably,
it is to be filed with the IRS at some point. In the
meantime, if you will return a certified copy of the
resolution to us we will file it with the bond tran-
script, and if a future filing with the IRS is required
we will notify you asking for your direction to us to
make the appropriate filing. We will not make the
filing without the instruction of the City to do so.
There is no charge for this service or for any future
filing if requested.
Yours very truly~
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
a Pro e ional Association
By
DJK:caw
Enclosure
cc: william Hawkins
0575RESA.F16
'0
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
,1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
HESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1.01. The Issuer issued its $180,000 General Obligation
Refunding Improvement Bonds, Special Series of 1986, dated
as of date of delivery (the "Bonds") while the federal Tax Reform
Act of 1986 was pending with a retroactive effective date,
specifically on or after January 1, 1986, and on or before August
7, 1ge6; and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation t1].at it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress as passed by the House of Representatives; and
1.03. The Issuer covenanted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation; and
o
.0
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
265(b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of Section 1009 (b) (3) of t,he
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and Section 265(b) (3) of the Code; and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation because they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds, or refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds); the Issuer
wi th respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer
hereby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and on or before August 7, 1986, and
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to qualify the Bonds under Section
802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made
an election under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
TAMRA; and
(b) the Fonds are not "private activity bonds" as
defined in Section 141 of the Code, or, if private
activity bonds, they are:
.0
(i) qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as defined in
Section 145 of the Code, or
'0
(ii) obligations issued to refund (or which are
part of a s'eries of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in section 103(b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A) );
(c) the Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of
Section 265(b) (3) of the Code1
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,000; and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESA.F16
o
.
'0
o
STATE OF MIl~ESOTA
COUNTY OF ANORA
SS.
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Clerk of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certify that I
have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a
[regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City held
on
, 1989, with the original thereof on file
in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate
seal of the City this ____ day of , 1989.
Vicki Volk
City Clerk
(SEAL)
0575RESA.F16
o
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333.0543
T elecopier (612) 333-0540
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
Steven B. Schmidt
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen
Ronald H. Batty
William P. Jordan
William R. Skallerud
Corrine A. Heine
David D. Beaudoin
Steven M. T alien
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. Altman
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh
Darcy L. Hitesman
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chamerlik
Paul D. Baertschi
Arden Fritz
Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired
Herbert P. Lefler, Retired
o
LeFevere
Lefler
Kennedy
O'Brien &
Drawz
a Professional
Association
March 23, 1989
RI~~-~~;iO
-
Ci ty of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Attn: James E. Schrantz
Administrator
CITY OF ANnO\jE~
Re: $1,795,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds,
Series 1986A
City of Andover, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Schrantz:
One of the many features of the Federal 1986 Tax Reform
Act was a provision dealing with the ability of finan-
cial institutions owning municipal bonds to deduct a
percentage of the interest expense connected with such
ownership. The new law limited this deduction to those
bonds of issuing governmental units that issued less
than $10 million in any calendar year and designated
the bonds for that purpose (bank qualified bonds) .
When the City issued the above listed Bonds the desig-
nation as bank qualified bonds was made pursuant to
language in the congressional bill under consideration
at the time, H.R. 3838, but when the provision was
actually passed \'lith an effective date of August 8,
1986, the numbering of the relevant section was
changed.
Congress apparently feels that it is necessary for the
issuers of bank qualified bonds to redesignate the
bonds under the new code section and a provision to
that effect was in the Technical and Miscellaneous
Revenue Act of 1988.
Because in the resolution authorizing the sale and
issuance of the Bonds the City promised to do whatever
it could to preserve the tax exempt status of the
interest on the Bonds and the bank qualified desig-
nation, we think it important that the election to
redesignate be made. A form resolution to that effect
is included for your use. We recommend that it be
adopted.
March 23, 1989
o Page Two
The Treasury Department has offered no guidance as to
what to do about the election resolution. Presumably,
it is to be filed with the IRS at some point. In the
meantime, if you will return a certified copy of the
resolution to us we will file it with the bond tran-
script, and if a future filing with the IRS is required
we will notify you asking for your direction to us to
make the appropriate filing. We will not make the
filing without the instruction of the City to do so.
There is no charge for this service or for any future
filing if requested.
Yours very truly,
KENNEDY,
By
DJK:caw
Enclosure
cc: Bill Hawkins
0575RESA.F16
o
c,
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
, 1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RRSOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
Section 1. Findings.'
1.01. The Issuer issued its $1,795,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 1986A, dated July 1, 1986 (the "Bonds")
while the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 was pending with a
retroactive effective date, specifically on or after January 1,
1986, and on or before August 7, 1986; and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation that it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress as passed by the House of Representatives~ and
1.03. The I ssuer covenanted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation; and
I"
o
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
26S(b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of Section 1009 (b) (3) of the
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and Section 26S(b) (3) of the Code1 and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation because they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds, or refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds), the Issuer
with respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009(b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of Section 26S(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer
hereby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and on or before August 7, 1986, and
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to qualify the Bonds under Section
802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made
an election under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
TAMRA; and
(b)
the Bonds are not "private
defined in Section 141 of the
activity bonds, they are:
activity bonds" as
Code, or, if private
o
(i) qualified SOl(c) (3) bonds as defined in
Section 145 of the Code, or
o
(ii) obligations issued to refund (or which are
part of a series of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in Section 103(b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal . Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A)) ;
(c) the-Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of
Section 265 (b) (3) of the Code;
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,0001 and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by l-lember
,
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupon. the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESA.F16
o
.0
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
SS.
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Administra tor of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certify
that I have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted
at a [regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City
held on , 1989, with the original thereof on
file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Administrator and the
corporate seal of the City this _ day of
1989.
James E. Schrantz
City Administrator
(SEAL)
c:> 0575RESA.F16
o
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
Steven B. Schmidt
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen
Ronald H. Batty
William P. Jordan
William R. Skallerud
Corrine A. Heine
David D. Beaudoin
Steven M. Tallen
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. Altman
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh
Darcy L. Hitesman
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chamerlik
Paul D. Baertschi
Arden Fritz
Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired
Herbert P. Lefler, Retired
o
LeFeverc
Lcflcr
Kennedy
O'Brien &
Drawz
a Professional
Association
Harch 23, 1989
".R~ rt;"ElV En
. r;;2:~U
Ci ty of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Attn: James E. Schrantz
Administrator
CITY OF 1lI'.!,''\()IIr.:::R
Re: $2,485,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds,
Series 1986C
City of Andover, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Schrantz:
One of the many features of the Federal 1986 Tax Reform
Act was a provision dealing with the ability of finan-
cial institutions owning municipal bonds to deduct a
percentage of the interest expense connected with such
ownership. The new law limited this deduction to those
bonds of issuing governmental units that issued less
than $10 million in any calendar year and designated
the bonds for that purpose (bank qualified bonds).
When the City issued the above listed Bonds the desig-
nation as bank qualified bonds was made pursuant to
language in the congressional bill under consideration
at the time, H.R. 3838, but when the provision was
actually passed with an effective date of August 8,
1986, the numbering of the relevant section was
changed.
~ongress apparently feels that it is necessary for the
1ssuers of bank qualified bonds to redesignate the
bonds under the new code section and a provision to
that effect was in the Technical and ~1iscellaneous
Revenue Act of 1988.
'Because in the resolution authorizing the sale and
issuance of the Bonds the City promised to do whatever
it could to preserve the tax exempt status of the
interest on the Bonds and the bank qualified desig-
nation, we think it important that the election to
redesignate be made. A form resolution to that effect
is included for your use. We recommend that it be
adopted.
\
o
o
March 23, 1989
Page Two
The Treasury Department has offered no guidance as to
what to do about the election resolution. Presumably,
it is to be filed with the IRS at some point. In the
meantime, if you will return a certified copy of the
resolution to us we will file it with the bond tran-
script, ahd if a future filing with the IRS is required
we will notify you asking for your direction to us to
make the appropriate filing. We will not make the
filing without the instruction of the City to do so.
There is no charge for this service or for any future
filing if requested.
Yours very truly,
a
By
DJK:caw
Enclosure
cc: Bill Hawkins
0575RESB.F16
~o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
, 1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOL\~D By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1.01. The Issuer issued its $2,485,000 General Obligation
Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 1986C, dated August 1, 1986
(the "Bonds") while the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 was
pending with a retroactive effective date, specifically on or
after January 1, 1986, and on or before August 7, 1986; and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation that it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress as passed by the House of Representatives; and
1.03. The Issuer covenanted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation~ and
'0
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
265(b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of Section 1009 (b) (3) of the
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and Section 265(b) (3) of the Code; and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation because they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 501(c) (3) bonds, or.refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds); the Issuer
with respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of .bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009(b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer
hereby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to qualify the Bonds under Section
802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made
an election under section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
TAMRA7 and
(b). the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as
defined in Section 141 of the Code, or, if private
activity bonds, they are:
o
(i) qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds as defined in
Section 145 of the Code, or
~ \
o
(ii) obligations ~ssued to refund (or which are
part of a series of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in Section 103 (b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A) ) ;
(c) the Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of
Section 265(b) (3) of the Code1
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,000; and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member
,
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupon. the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESB.F16
o
'0
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
)
) SSe
)
)
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Administrator of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certify
that I have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted
at a [regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City
held on , 1989, with the original thereof on
file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Administrator and the
corporate seal of the City this day of
1989.
James E. Schrantz
City Administrator
(SEAL)
4:) 0575RESB.F16
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
April 4, 1989
ITEM
NO.
.
Round Lake Boulevard
Watermain
BY:
James E. Schrantz
Non-Discussion Items
Engineering
The city Council is requested to consider a watermain extension
for Round Lake Boulevard across from the shopping center as
petitioned for by Boie.
See item #12, February 21, 1989.
See item #10, March 21, 1989.
The City Council requested staff check on the cost of jacking a 1"
line across Round Lake Boulevard to serve the Boie property.
We have received a rough estimate of about $900 - $1200. This
would of course be lost in the future when the lateral would be
constructed up that street as we would connect them to the new
watermain and cut off and remove the copper line across
Round Lake Boulevard.
I recommend that the City order the feasibility report so we can
construct the watermain to 13748 and 13752 Round Lake Boulevard
(that is the existing house just north of SuperAmerica and Boie's
new house). This will cost about $24,000 with the two properties
each paying about $4,000. See item #12, February 21 and item #10,
March 21.
The staff suggests that the feasibility report includes the entire
street from Bunker Lake Boulevard to 139th Avenue. This doesn't
mean that the City can't do only part of the project, i.e. to the
Boie property.
Note on the petition both properties petitioned for the water. If
ended at Boie's that would be 100% petition.
A resolution has been included.
The cost of a feasibility report will not exceed $1,000.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
I .,~, "
\'~~;
~C:-'~'-_'_'__'----Y
(3-1~;r1 f) ,
",OU-7
;t~'t'-D,l.", "
CITY of ANDOVER
.
Date:
No.
Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, owners of real property in the following described
area:
fo(J~ UC BLVD
ro /:3q~ fh/
-. rum
wNl'tGf. 4<< P..D
do hereby petition that said portion of said aFea be improved by
construction of city lA..) h-~ ..,,-;'PrlA. L
and that the cost of said improvement be assessed against the benefiting
property, as authorized by Chapter 429, Laws of Minnesota.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
YES
NO
o
This petition was circulated by:
Address:
,
,
"~_.....
.....P~.'",..kn'#P:c ',.
...~:.~:2t,if!~:~, .":~;i.
',' .
\.:~::.:::~,:.'));'~;~.i~~g~~:.i,~:::.t!~ :':, ..<;". ":':.
\....:~:~:\..<~7i.~~~;.:~.....~,i.;\::;:.t..... ..~. .~
.\,
@~o:"
. ..~~~.::..~;; :.,:;.
,,[:~.~': :."/.:,:.:;" :.;.'~
.. t ";" .~..
. . .....
" . ." ,,';, ,:'l.'
~ ~
(r.) ;;.
'..
(o/,llf4) ! ,
.~.
(p) .
... ~ :
'" (/.1.1'(1) ".,. "(.- 1
~ .' .\
"d
r
'.
I'.'
.....
...~,.: .. .,'
.~.;~{~Il)
, ",~.\.~>r. :.
'. ~.~.
,r.5
"
M)'
V-lJJ4)
. .
(6)
. ..- .~:
~
'\
(~8)
.,
2.'.
~" '"
,. .
. . .. ~
It)
.., ~JIO) "
::. ~~"~ if!!l-~,
.: :...J",
l"~
" . t't.fl. . .
v ...
.,
I"'
"
;.,4 .
\,~ i./
; ....
j. .
;';3'
.. . ~ .
~~. .,.,.
..........,
.' ..:A
~'
(69)
'. . ~
"
. 'r'.
. . ."'
NO:-f4'
. "~~i:~,':~..t:;:~.'~~j::".
,.J ". ...:";"....... ......-.
,
,- j '.. :~. ~'. '"
.,'
OF
...,'
ti.
:"
.... .;.,.....
~.. ~..
..1,
'r
...J..
..;:...
,.~.
.., .j
.. I
."
~. '0
~. .
J"
l' ;
"'.....;~
"i' '
'~_/
l_O
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
IMPROVEMENTS OF WATERMAIN, PROJECT NO. 89-7, IN THE ROUND LAKE
BOULEVARD TO 139TH AVENUE AREA.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Andover is cognizant of
the need for improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to assess the benefitting
property for all or a portion of the costs of the improvement,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover that:
1. The City Council is cognizant of the need for improvements.
2. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to TKDA and they
are instructed to provide the City Council with a feasibility
report.
Meeting this
and adopted by the
day of
MOTION seconded by Councilman
City Council at a
, 19 ,with Councilmen
voting in favor of the
resolution, and Councilmen
voting against,
whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
James E. Elling - Mayor
ATTEST:
victoria Volk ~ City Clerk
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
April 4, 1989
DATE
ITEM
NO.
.
Bunker Lake Blvd./
Frontage Road
BY:
James E. Schrantz
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
Non-Discussion Items
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution ordering a
feasibility report for proposed project 89-12, Bunker Lake
Boulevard Frontage Road, Jay Street to Hanson Boulevard.
This project is ordered by Council motion as it is not a
petitioned project.
Note: The resolution calls for improvement of watermain, Sanitary
Sewer, Storm Drain and Street Construction.
I have used TKDA as they prepared the Commercial Development
District plan.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
o
~b
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
IMPROVEMENTS OF WATERMAIN, SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAlNAGE AND STREET
CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT NO. 89-12.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Andover is cognizant of
the need for improvements, specifically watermain, Sanitary Sewer,
Storm Drainage and Street Construction in the following described
area: Abutting Bunker Lake Boulevard from Jay street to Hanson
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to assess the benefitting
property for all or a portion of the costs of the improvement,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover that:
1. The City Council is cognizant of the need for improvements.
2. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to TKDA
and they are instructed to provide the City Council with a
feasibility report.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
and adopted by the
day of
City Council at a
Meeting this
,19 ,with Councilmen
voting in favor of th~
resolution, and Councilmen
voting against,
whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
April 4. 1989
Non-Discussion
Administration
BY:
ITEM Rename l40th Lane to
NO. S. Coon Creek Dr
21. BY: V. Volk
The City Council is requested to adopt the attached
ordinance renaming l40th Lane in the Hills of Bunker Lake
to South Coon Creek Drive.
This was originally brought to the Council las~ year
and the Council made a motion to have the ordinance
prepared for adoption, which was not done.
V:Attach.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
.0
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
, 1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOL\~D By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
section 1. Findings..
1.01. The Issuer issued its $2,485,000 General Obligation
Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 1986C, dated August 1, 1986
(the "Bonds") while the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 was
pending with a retroactive effective date, specifically on or
after January 1, 1986, and on or before August 7, 1986; and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation that it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress as passed by the House of Representativesi and
1.03. The Issuer covenanted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designationi and
'0
o
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
265(b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of Section 1009 (b) (3) of the
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and Section 265(b) (3) of the Code, and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation because they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 501(c) (3) bonds, or refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds); the Issuer
with respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009(b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of Section 265(b) (3) of the' Code, the Issuer
hereby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to qualify the Bonds under Section
802(e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made
an election under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
TAMRA, and
(b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as
defined in section 141 of the Code, or, if private
activity bonds, they are:
(i) qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as defined in
Section 145 of the Code, or
'0
o
(ii) obligations issued to refund (or which are
part of a series of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in Section 103(b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal' Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A) ) ;
(c) the-Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of
Section 265(b) (3) of the Code;
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,000; and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESB.F16
'0 STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF ANOKA ) SSe
)
CITY OF ANDOVER )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Administrator of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certify
that I have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted
at a [regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City
held on , 1989, with the original thereof on
file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Administrator and the
corporate seal of the City this _ day of
,
1989.
James E. Schrantz
City Administrator
(SEAL)
o
0575RESB.F16
to
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
, 1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1.01. The Issuer issued its $1,795,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 1986A, dated July 1, 1986 (the "Bonds")
while the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 was pending with a
retroactive effective date, specifically on or after January 1,
1986, and on or before August 7, 1986; and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation that it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress as passed by the House of RepresentativesJ and
1.03. The Issuer covenanted to' take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation; and
~o
o
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
265(b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of section 1009 (b) (3) of the
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and Section 265(b) (3) of the Code; and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation because they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 501(c) (3) bonds, or refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds)i the Issuer
with respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009(b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer
he.reby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and on or before August 7, 1986, and
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to quali fy the Bonds under Section
802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made
an election under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
TAMRA; and
(b) the Bonds are. not "private activity bonds" as
defined in Section 141 of the Code, or, if private
activity bonds, they are:
(i) qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as defined in
section 145 of the Code, or
'0
o
(ii) obligations issued to refund (or which are
part of a series of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in Section l03(b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A)) :
(c) the Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of
Section 265 (b) (3) of the Code;
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, .the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,000: and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by l1ember
and upon vote' being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupo~ the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESA.F16
o
o
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
)
) SS.
)
)
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Administrator of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certify
that I have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted
at a [regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City
held on
, 1989, with the original thereof on
file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Administrator and the
corporate seal of the City this _ day of
1989.
James E. Schrantz
City Administrator
(S EAL )
0575RESA.F16
~
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call C}nd notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Andover, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
, 1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following reso1u-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
Section 1. Findings..
1. 01. The Issuer issued its $180,000 General Obligation
Refunding Improvement Bonds, Special Series of 1986, dated
as of date of delivery (the "Bonds") while the federal Tax Reform
Act of 1986 was pending with a retroactive effective date,
specifically on or after January 1, 1986, and on or before August
7, 1ge6; and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation that it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress as passed by the House of Representatives; and
1.03. The Issuer covenanted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation; and
'0
o
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
265(b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of Section 1009 (b) (3) of the
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of sectfon
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and Section 265(b) (3) of the Code~ and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation becau?e they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 50l(c) (3) bonds, or refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds); the Issuer
with respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009(b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of section 265(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer
hereby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and on or before August 7, 1986, and
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to qualify the Bonds under Section
802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and '
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made
an election under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
TAMRA; and
(b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as
defined in Section 141 of the Code, or, if private
activity bonds, they are:
(i) qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as defined in
Section 145 of the Code, or
o
o
(ii) obligations issued to refund (or wnich are
part of a series of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in section 103(b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal. Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A) ) ;
(c) the. Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of
Section 265(b) (3) of the Code;
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,000: and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESA.F16
.-
'0
o
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
)
) SS.
)
)
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Clerk of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certify that I
have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a
[regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City held
on
, 1989, with the original thereof on file
in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate
seal of the City this ____ day of , 1989.
Vicki Volk
City Clerk
(SEAL)
0575RESA.F16
'0
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Amlover, Minnesota,
was held on the ___ day of
, 1989. The following
members were present:
and the following members were absent:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Member
introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1986
AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota (Issuer) as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1.01. The Issuer issued its $2,600,000 General obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 1986B, dated October 1, 1986 (the
"Bonds") while the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 was pending
with a retroactive effective date, specifically on or after
January 1, 1986, and on or before August 7, 1986~ and
1.02. When the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a desig-
nation that it intended or otherwise declared its intent to
qua1ify.the Bonds under Section 802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the
99th Congress as passed by the House of Representatives; and
1.03. The Issuer covene.nted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation~ and
'0
o
1.04. For the Bonds to receive the benefit of being
designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section
265 (b) (3) of the federal Internal revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), it is necessary that the Issuer make an
election under subparagraphs (C) of Section 1009 (b) (3) of the
federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 ("TAMRA")
and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
l009(b) (3) of TAMRA and section 265(b) (3) of the Code; and
1.05. The Bonds qualify for such designation because they
are not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds,
are qualified 50l(c) (3) bonds, or refunded bonds which were not
industrial development bonds or private loan bonds); the Issuer
with respect to bonds issued in 1986 is a "qualified small
issuer" of $10,00.0,000 or less of bonds; and not more than
$10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated:
Section 2. Election: Designation.
2.01. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with
respect to the Bonds under Section 1009(b) (3) (C) of the federal
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2.02. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In
order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
within the meaning of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer
hereby makes the following factual statements and representa-
tions:
(a) the Bones are treated as issued on August 8, 1986,
because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1,
1986, and
" (ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation or otherwise declared that it
intended to qualify the Bonds under Section
802 (e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress
as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer,
an election
TAMRA I and
in paragraph 1 above, has made
under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of
(b)
the Bonds are not "private
defined in Section 141 of the
activity bonds, they are:
activity bonds" as
Code, or, if private
(i) qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as defined in
Section 145 of the Code, or
'0
o
(ii) obligations issued to 'refund (or which are
part of a series of obligations issued to
refund) obligations issued before August 8,
1986, which were not industrial development
bonds (as defined in section 103(b) (2) of the
federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the federal Tax
Reform Act of 1986) or a private loan bond
(as defined in Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in
effect, but without regard to any exemption
from such definition other than Section
103 (0) (2) (A)) ; .
(c) the Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "quali-
fied tax-exempt obligations" for . purposes of
Section 265(b) (3) of the Code;
I
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activ-
ity bonds, treating qualified 50l(c) (3) bonds as
not being private activity bonds) which had been
and were to be issued in 1986 by the Issuer (and
all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof)
during calendar year 1986 was not reasonably
expected to exceed $10,000,000; and
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by
the Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been
designated for purposes of section 265 (b) (3) of
the Code.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
the following voted against or abstained:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0575RESB.F16
'0
o
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
)
) SS.
)
)
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Clerk of the City of Andover, Minnesota, hereby certi fy that I
have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a
[regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City held
on
, 1989, with the original thereof on file
in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete
transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate
seal of the City this ____ day of
, 1989.
vicki Volk
City Clerk
(SEAL)
0575RESB.F16
o
--
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RENAMING 140TH LANE IN THE HILLS OF BUNKER LAKE PLAT
TO SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The street now shown as 140th Lane N.W. in the
Hills of Bunker Lake, Section 35, Township 32,
Range 24, City of Andover, is hereby renamed
South Coon Creek Drive.
SECTION 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City
of Andover in conflict with this provision are
hereby repealed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
d?lY of
, 19
CITY OF ANDOVER
Attest:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk