Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-18 CC REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING – AUGUST 18, 2026 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Barthel, August 18, 2026, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Karen Godfrey, Scott Schue, and Jonathan Shafto Councilmember absent: Rick Engelhardt Also present: Director of Public Works/City Engineer, David Berkowitz Community Development Director, Joe Janish Fire Chief, Jason Baumunk City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner Others PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR NEW FIREFIGHTERS Fire Chief Baumunk introduced the three firefighters who have completed their probationary period. Mayor Barthel conducted the swearing-in of the firefighters, and the badge pinning was completed. He expressed thanks not only to the new firefighters but also to the families who support them. RESIDENT FORUM No one came forward to address the Council. AGENDA APPROVAL Motion by Godfrey, Seconded by Schue, to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 28, 2026, Workshop Meeting: Correct as written Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 2 August 3, 2026, Regular Meeting: Correct as written Motion by Shafto, Seconded by Godfrey, to approve the July 28, 2026, Workshop meeting and August 3, 2026, Regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 1. CONSENT ITEMS A. Approve Payment of Claims B. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-02E: 2026 Street Reconstruction (Leeman Lake Estates) (R070-26) rd C. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-11A: 2026 Full Depth Reclamation (173 th Avenue/Navajo Street/175 Avenue) (R071-26) D. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-11C: 2026 Full Depth Reclamation (Birchwood Pond) (R072-26) E. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-11D: 2026 Full Depth Reclamation (Old Constance Boulevard) (R073-26) F. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-12: 2026 Mill and Overlay (Grow Oak View Estates) (R074-26) G. Approve Request to Waive Tournament Fees for You’re Not Alone MN Softball Tournament H. Approve Request to Waive Tournament Fees for MSMS Foundation Softball Tournament th I. Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Anoka County/24-35/Construction of Roundabout at 7 th Avenue & 165 Avenue NW J. Receive July 2026 General Fund Progress Report K. Receive July 2026 City Investment Report Mayor Barthel referenced the assessments for the two projects that exceeded the feasibility costs th at the April 7 meeting, noting that the assessments will not exceed the previously projected amounts presented in April. Motion by Schue, Seconded by Shafto, to approve of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT Commander Brent Erickson provided a monthly report and highlighted items of interest. Councilmember Godfrey noted while calls for service have increased throughout this year, the calls for CSO have decreased from the previous year and asked for more information. Commander Erickson stated the staffing strategy has remained unchanged, but the calls for service will vary from year to year. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 3 Councilmember Schue referenced the issue of concern across the nation related to FLOCK cameras, noting that FLOCK has since revised what they do and how they handle data. He asked for more information. Commander Erickson stated Sheriff Wise is present to provide information on that topic. Anoka County Sheriff Brad Wise noted he is also an Andover resident and provided information on his career in law enforcement and the changes in technology over time. He recognized that there is a range of technology options and they need to find the point that is right for them now and in the future. He stated last winter, when ICE was involved in two critical loss-of-life incidents, those Officers received criticism for not wearing body cameras, and now they will be wearing them. He commented the body cameras have facial recognition technology and will have retinal scanning capabilities. He stated cities will continue to have conversations about data centers, and they have to figure out what they are willing to work with and accept. He stated the drone-assisted response and automated license plate reader (ALPR) pilot program began one year ago. He believed the discussion around FLOCK is more related to AI than the technology itself, as most people have cell phones, which monitor conversations and data. He stated people exchange privacy for convenience every day, and companies monitor data on their customers. He stated TSA no longer needs to see your boarding pass, as they have you stand in a spot and look at a camera. He believed the camera is completing the retina scan. He commented technology is often seen as a convenience, allowing for shorter lines. He stated there is a lot of trust built between his organization and the public, and they do not want to lose that trust over technology. He explained that ALPR captures the information, and software then processes what is seen. He noted that cell phones take videos, and many residents use Ring cameras without considering if they have consent from their neighbors who walk by those cameras. He noted Ring camera footage can also assist in solving crimes if an incident occurs in a neighborhood. He commented technology is an occupational need and law enforcement cannot stay put and needs to utilize technology like everyone else. He referenced software that exists to process videos, using the example of an eight- hour video where you would like to search for clips that show your grandmother, and the software will condense down clips with your grandmother. He also noted while that is the best intended use, there could also be ill intent in using that software. He commented he works for the citizens, so whatever device or software is used by law enforcement is to serve the citizens and ensure they can feel safer in their homes and communities, but he recognized there can also be bad actors. He noted there are other companies that provide similar services, but FLOCK is the one that has become prominent in discussions. He stated one year ago he never thought this would be controversial, as they are 17 years into using ALPR technology and 11 years into using drone technology. He recognized the AI capability linked to those devices is improving and continues to improve. He commented law enforcement uses private data to do their job, providing examples and explaining they need to have good statutes and policy rather than denying technology. He commented Andover has trusted them with private data and they have been good stewards of that data. He commented misuse of ALPR data is a crime in Minnesota and they have the most robust controls for ALPR data in the nation, even above California. He explained how the “hot list” was a paper document years ago for each city, and that information was not easily shareable between departments, whereas now an ALPR can send an alert of vehicles on the “hot list” to departments. He stated ALPR can also be used as an investigative tool in an in-progress crime and provided an Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 4 example. He also spoke about the length of data retention and the regulations that exist related to this type of technology. He stated one year ago they thought there would be no controversy at all about the pilot program, noting that every Police Chief in the Joint Law Enforcement Council supported the decision to use FLOCK and every Fire Chief in Anoka County supported the decision to use drone-assisted response. He provided a quick overview of the drone-assisted response. He commented he will eventually retire from his position, but he will still choose to live in a community that utilizes ALPR. Councilmember Schue commented this is an important issue, and he is heartened by the fact that the Sheriff has looked at this, understands it, and is a strong advocate for safety. He stated technology is something they need to embrace, but it is also important to have safeguards in place. He thanked the Sheriff and his team for the work they do to put the safety of residents at the forefront while walking the delicate balance between providing safety and protecting digital exhaust. He recognized this will be a continued discussion. Sheriff Wise agreed, noting they use Axon for body cams and Axon is moving into the realm of facial recognition and retina scanning. He recognized they need to figure out how to approach new technology and how much private data they would be willing to give away. Councilmember Shafto thanked the Sheriff for being proactive in giving this presentation tonight. He recognized they must look at technology options to help protect the safety of the community but also recognized the importance of community trust. He asked about the frequency of audits. Commander Erickson stated they are required to undergo annual audits through a third party. Councilmember Shafto recognized that facial recognition is not legal in Minnesota and asked if that is the same for retinal scanning. Sheriff Wise replied he is not aware of a Statute in Minnesota or other guardrails in place related to retinal scanning. Councilmember Shafto asked if the decision has been made, or whether that is just being considered, to move to a seven-day retention policy for data. Sheriff Wise replied FLOCK decided that the default setting is seven days, but that can be customized. He stated the goal of the pilot project is for departments to be able to work together. He stated in the end, they will use the consensus of the law enforcement agencies in Anoka County to make that decision. He stated they also intend to have a more robust public portal, as they do not want secrets from the people they serve. Councilmember Shafto asked what type of data is being stored in the 30 days, whether it is videos and/or pictures. Sheriff Wise replied it is a series of snapshots, as the ALPR takes a snapshot of the license plate as it goes by, recognizing that other things are in the background. He stated if the license plate is not anything being searched for, no one would even look at it, although it would still be stored data that could be included in a search. He referenced situations that have been made public where an officer has stalked someone using the FLOCK system. He commented if someone puts that data into the system to search, they would be subject to revocation of their peace officer license and would also be liable to criminal charges. He stated the communities have Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 5 already granted access to public data that is much more invasive than the ALPR, such as their driver's license data and criminal history. Councilmember Shafto asked if there is a defined policy on when and how the drones can be used. Sheriff Wise replied there are criteria identified in State Statute that have not changed for the past 11 years. He stated misuse of a drone would also result in criminal conduct charges. He was not aware of any criminal use of drone technology in Minnesota by law enforcement. Councilmember Shafto asked if the County has full control over all the data and whether FLOCK has access to that data. Sheriff Wise commented FLOCK is a business trying to make money and their product is a law enforcement tool but is also sold to other businesses and entities. He stated if FLOCK was caught in a lie related to the data from ALPR, they would be done. He noted FLOCK is in a fight for its life while the other seven companies that provide the same services are not. Councilmember Godfrey asked about the information that is available on the Sheriff’s Office website. Sheriff Wise stated the Sheriff’s Office website contains a lot of information on this topic. He stated they will continue to add data and information until they gain the confidence of the public. He commented they are not willing to compromise the confidence of the community in return for the use of technology. B. ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT Fire Chief Baumunk provided additional information on drone-assisted response and how that is used by the Fire Department to ensure proper response is provided. He reviewed the monthly report and highlighted other community event participation and items of interest. He noted today is National Paid On-Call Firefighter Day. Councilmember Schue commented last year they had 54 members of the department, and today they have 52. He asked if this is the right number of firefighters for this community and asked how many of the current firefighters are volunteers versus full-time. Fire Chief Baumunk replied that there are four full-time members and the remainder are POC firefighters. He stated they are actively advertising and recruiting for Station 2, which services the rural area. He recognized the time that it takes to train and settle in for new firefighters and the need to plan for future retirements. He commented interested individuals can stop by and fill out an application, as it continues to be a rotating process as people move outside of the community or determine it to be too much of a heavy lift. Councilmember Schue encouraged interested residents to apply. Councilmember Shafto stated he rode with Station 2 on Night to Unite and was able to see how they react to a call for service. He stated when they got to the first party, they received a call, and he was impressed by the quick reaction, response, and professionalism of the firefighters. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 6 C. HEARING: APPEAL OF ZONING INTERPRETATION AND APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN – 16369 GLADIOLA STREET NW – ARRON LINDBERG (PROPERTY OWNER) The City Council is requested to hold a hearing as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Community Development Director Janish reviewed the information with the Council, and the Council shall consider staff’s interpretation of the City Code and the appeal presented by the property owner. City Attorney Baumgartner provided additional information about the information provided in the packet and the reasonable accommodation request that was included. He stated the reasonable accommodation request will not be discussed tonight, but will be discussed in the future. Mayor Barthel noted the appeals will be considered separately. Councilmember Godfrey disclosed the applicant did contact her; she listened to the applicant, but did not discuss the proposal before the Council, the decision of staff, or the appeal. She commented she believes that all Councilmembers should hear all the information at the same time to ensure it is consistent. Councilmember Shafto commented he met the applicant at Night to Unite; he introduced himself, discussed the appeals process, but did not discuss the details of the request. Mayor Barthel began with the appeal related to zoning interpretation. Mr. Janish reviewed the definition of a duplex. He identified the existing home on the site and the addition being proposed, noting there would be a door from the existing garage into the existing home and the proposed addition. He stated that staff views the garage as a break between the two living spaces. He stated the proposed addition would include a bedroom, kitchenette, living space, and bathroom. Greg Erickson, legal counsel for Aaron Lindberg, introduced the other member of his team present, along with Mr. Lindberg, his wife, and mother-in-law. He explained the mother-in-law would be living in the proposed addition to Mr. Lindberg’s home. He commented on the exhaustive details that were provided in their written documents about every aspect of what makes a building a duplex, noting this structure would not qualify as there would not be a separate address and the entire building would be accessible from the inside. He stated there are many homes that have two kitchens, and the proposed addition does not have an oven, so it is not a full kitchen. He explained in order for the mother-in-law to eat a full meal that would use an oven, she would travel through the home to eat in the kitchen of the principal structure. He commented there is no way this could be considered a separate dwelling unit, as there is no oven. He commented the designer also goes into exhaustive detail that the addition was not designed to be a separate dwelling, but an accessory to allow the mother-in-law her own privacy while living in the home. He explained the mother- in-law would be assisting with the care of the Lindbergs’ disabled daughter. He commented no Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 7 access to the home would be forbidden to any of the parties. He commented they have an affidavit from the professional who designed the home stating that this is not a duplex. Councilmember Shafto stated they are proposing to have two garages and asked if there would be two separate driveways connected to the street. Aaron Lindberg, 16369 Gladiola Street NW, commented they would only have one driveway. Mr. Erickson stated the home would clearly not be a duplex and believed it to be a dangerous path to fall on whether the home would appear to be a duplex. He provided the example of the home th at 2981 164 Avenue NW, which could appear to be a duplex. Mayor Barthel stated in the picture it shows a garage and another driveway. Mr. Lindberg replied there is a possibility there would be two entries to the street with one continuous driveway. Councilmember Godfrey stated she is confused about the argument that this is not a duplex based on the fact that it lacks an oven. She noted any new house often does not have appliances within. She asked if there is any other reason this would not be a duplex. Mr. Erickson replied the entire home is accessible and there are no locked doors between the living spaces. He stated the entire home is accessible from the interior, whereas a duplex would have separate entrances and/or locked doors between the different living spaces. He stated the garage cannot be moved to ensure the disabled daughter can have immediate access to her lifts and other equipment. Councilmember Shafto referenced the statement that you can go from one side of the home to the other and stated they could easily put locks on the doors to make them separate units. He stated there is a general appearance from the outside that it would be a duplex and that it could be used, in practice, as a duplex. He commented that is where he struggles, as it looks like a duplex and could act like one. He stated even though the current owner may not intend for it to be a duplex, his concern would be with a future owner of the property. Mr. Erickson stated a good indicator would be when they apply for a separate address, and he did not believe decisions could be made in the future by others. He stated under that thinking, any home in Andover could easily be converted into a duplex in the future. He commented many homes have full bathrooms, kitchens, and bars on multiple levels, and any of those homes could theoretically be used as a duplex under the City’s definition. He stated it would seem that the City would not allow two kitchens in a home in Andover for fear it may be used as a duplex. Mr. Baumgartner clarified that Mr. Erickson indicated that this proposed addition would be an accessory dwelling but stated that it cannot be considered an accessory dwelling, as that would require a separation from the principal structure. Mr. Erickson commented it is an addition to the home. Mr. Baumgartner stated this would then be an addition to the garage and not an addition to the principal structure. Mr. Erickson stated that could make it seem like it is a duplex, but it would not fall under the category of a duplex, as it is not a full home and does not have a full kitchen. He stated that the appraiser said that for purposes of appraisal, when you take an additional structure Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 8 and put it 30 feet away from the principal structure, every dollar that you spent on the accessory structure drops by 30 percent because it is not attached to the principal residence. He stated this remodel and addition is a profound expense to the property owner, and if they were to separate the two structures, that would devalue the structures by $125,000. He stated if the addition is done as proposed, that will raise the value of adjacent homes as well. Councilmember Godfrey asked staff to help the Council better understand the definition of a duplex under the Andover Code versus an addition to an accessory structure. Mr. Janish reviewed the definition of a duplex or quadrominium and duplex dwelling. Councilmember Shafto realized this is a unique request and there may be well-thought-out reasons why they want to construct this in the way it is proposed. He commented this decision could also set a precedent, and a neighborhood could be inundated by requests, which would increase density in areas where it was not planned. He commented the garage separates these two units and referenced the comment that the garage is heated, insulated, air-sealed, and directly connected to living space, so it is no longer considered an accessory structure and is part of the living space. He asked for the interpretation of staff on that argument. Mr. Janish reviewed the definition of a garage, noting that as long as the garage doors remain, he would assume it is used for the storage of passenger vehicles or trailers. Councilmember Schue commented on his own experience with his in-laws, noting that they did something similar in California and converted the garage to living space, moving the garage to the other side. He stated in looking at the aerial imagery, there does not appear to be many options for design that would make it easily passable from one side to the other, making this a unique situation. He asked if the applicant made the statement that it would be an economic hardship to convert the garage to living space and move the garage to the end. Mr. Erickson replied that if you took the addition and moved it 15 feet, separating it from the existing structure, it would be the same square footage and cost to build, but the net effect of that would have a negative impact on the property value by 30 percent because it is not attached to the principal dwelling structure. He stated the kitchen electrical for the addition is not full kitchen capable. He stated a permit would need to be pulled to complete the electrical upgrade necessary to convert the space to a duplex. Councilmember Schue stated based on those comments, he would surmise that the entire home would have only one electric meter. He stated although he understands the concept of a circular driveway, having two entrances to the street would seem to set this up for conversion to a duplex, recognizing that there would be permits that would need to be pulled. Councilmember Godfrey stated she understands the desire not to detach the addition, but commented that most of the time in Andover when they have seen significant additions such as a mother-in-law apartment, the garage area has been converted to living space and the new garage built onto that. She commented they have also seen the addition wrap around the back and side of the home to add additional living space. Mr. Erickson stated the lifts in the garage need to be in proximity to the daughter’s living quarters. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 9 Councilmember Godfrey commented she does not see a circular driveway, and if that becomes part of the plan, it would need to be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Mayor Barthel stated just because there are not two addresses, that does not mean it cannot be a duplex. He stated the City Council makes decisions every day based on what may happen in the future, which is why they ensure proper planning decisions are made. He stated an expansion of a home is an expansion of the primary living space; an expansion onto a garage is an expansion of an accessory structure. He stated before he joined the Council, he wanted to build a 20x20 shed, but he had to subtract the square footage of his garage to ensure that his accessory structures remained under the threshold. He stated the applicant would be building an addition based on the accessory structure, not the home. He stated if they built off the home, it would be a different story. He stated if the two garage doors were removed, then the garage would become a principal structure, and the addition would not be an issue. He stated if the addition comes off the home and not the accessory structure, he would have a different opinion on this. Mr. Baumgartner stated he struggles with the statement related to the lack of an oven in the structure. He asked the Building Official whether he would issue a certificate of occupancy if the proposed structure were standing alone on a lot without the range/stove. Building Official Heidelberg replied that he would. Motion by Godfrey, Seconded by Schue, approving the Appeal of Zoning Interpretation – 16369 Gladiola Street NW – Aaron Lindberg, based on the materials in the packet, the testimony provided today, and the findings of fact. Further discussion: Councilmember Shafto asked for and received clarification that the motion on the table would approve the applicant’s plan. He stated one area he finds in favor of the appeal is the single electric meter, single gas meter, and single address. He emphasized one driveway rather than two driveways going to each garage, as a second driveway would give more of the appearance of a duplex. He stated the garage is also heated and air-sealed. Councilmember Schue concurred with the list provided by Councilmember Shafto. He stated they would also receive signals if someone wanted to convert this to a duplex through the request for permits. He stated if the garage doors were replaced with a wall, the applicant would not even need to be here. He stated he is seeing this as unique, and agreed they need to better define a duplex in the future. He recognized they may see more requests in the future but noted the city will have limited space for development and will continue to be faced with other requests in the future. He stated it is one family that will be living in the space, with one utility system. He stated the discussion related to the kitchen did not sway him. He recognized this is not clear-cut one way or another. He commented if the resident were able to put the wall up, that would make it easier, but also understood there are other needs in this case as well related to the lifts. Councilmember Godfrey stated she also struggles with this consideration and unique situation. She commented she does still see this as an addition to an accessory structure and wondered if a variance would have been the better path for this request. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 10 Mr. Baumgartner stated the Council has discussed their concerns about the future. He commented he understands Mr. Lindberg’s plans and that this is a unique situation and the reason for the uniqueness. He recognized that people are supposed to pull permits for work in the future, but they do not always do that. He asked if Mr. Lindberg would be willing to put a restriction on the deed for this property preventing it from becoming a duplex in order to be transparent to future owners. Mr. Erickson confirmed that the Lindbergs would be amenable to a deed restriction. Mayor Barthel asked for clarification. Mr. Erickson explained the Lindbergs would quitclaim their property back to themselves to include that legal description to prevent the property from ever being used as a duplex in the future. Mayor Barthel asked if the Council would continue with the motion or whether that is unnecessary. Mr. Baumgartner commented the motion would still be needed and conditions can be placed upon that. He commented the deed restriction would provide a tool for the future if the property were to change hands. He noted there are other clarifications needed as well related to the driveway and explained that a yes vote tonight does not mean that Mr. Lindberg can pick up his permit tomorrow. He explained the approval would be conditioned upon meeting the requirements that would need to be met regardless. He stated the motion could be amended to approve the appeal, allowing the project to move forward, contingent upon the deed restriction and completion of the review process. Councilmember Shafto asked if they could add a condition about the driveway or whether that would be a part of the review process. Mr. Baumgartner was confident that the driveway issue would fall under typical review. Motion by Godfrey, Seconded by Schue, to amend the motion Approving the Appeal of Zoning Interpretation – 16369 Gladiola Street NW – Aaron Lindberg, based on the materials in the packet, the testimony provided today, and the findings of fact conditioned upon deed restriction that the property would not be used as a duplex and completion of the City of Andover building plan review process. Further discussion: Mayor Barthel stated he was in opposition to the request but now, with the condition of the deed restriction, supports the request. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Barthel asked if they would still need to move to the second appeal. Mr. Baumgartner stated the Council has had the opportunity to review all the materials provided in the packet, which included information about the discussion of ARC related to the architectural review of the structure. He asked if the Council would like to have a discussion on that, which may lead to a denial of the appeal based on the architectural design of the exterior. He stated if there is a consensus of the Council that a discussion would not lead to a denial, then it might be a moot point. Mr. Baumgartner asked if Mr. Erickson would have an objection to him asking the Council what Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 11 their opinion is. Mr. Erickson did not object, noting that he believes the issue is moot. Mr. Baumgartner stated if everyone is okay with the external design, there is no need to hold a hearing. Councilmember Shafto replied he has no concern. Councilmember Schue stated he also has no concerns. Councilmember Godfrey agreed she is ready to vote. Mayor Barthel stated he will also support this appeal because of the deed restriction that will be in place. Mr. Baumgartner asked if, based on those statements, Mr. Lindberg would be willing to withdraw his appeal related to ARC to allow this to come full circle. Mr. Erickson replied they would withdraw the appeal. 3. STAFF ITEMS A. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT City Staff updated the Council on the administration and city department activities, legislative updates, updates on development/CIP projects, and meeting reminders/community events. (Community Development Department Report) Mr. Janish stated notification was sent out for th the rural reserve related to the Artemis proposal. He stated on August 25, they will review Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which would allow for MUSA expansion, and will also review potential Code amendments and rezoning in September. (Public Works/Engineering Department Report) Mr. Berkowitz reported the Coon Creek Corridor Trail is now open. He also provided updates on roundabout projects in Andover. He provided information on the number of new home permits that have been issued and stated at the next Council meeting they will begin the assessment hearings for the road projects, with more to follow in September and November. He stated staff continues with construction inspection services, noting that staff will work Saturdays in order to keep up with the demand. MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT Councilmember Godfrey commented she also participated in a ride-along for Night to Unite with Station 1 of the Fire Department. She stated during that time, the department received five calls for service, which were all handled very professionally and with a calm demeanor. She also thanked all the residents who hosted parties. She commented residents are looking forward to many upcoming events, including the puzzle exchange. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – August 18, 2026 Page 12 Mayor Barthel commented he rode with the Fire Chief and it was a fun experience to see the number of residents who participated. He also thanked all the residents who hosted parties. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Schue, Seconded by Shafto, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amanda Staple, Recording Secretary 1 REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – AUGUST 18, 2026 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 4 5 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 6 SWEARING-IN CEREMONY/NEW FIREFIGHTERS ..........................................................1 7 RESIDENT FORUM ..............................................................................................................1 8 AGENDA APPROVAL ..........................................................................................................1 9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ...................................................................................................1 10 1. CONSENT ITEMS ..........................................................................................................2 11 A. Approve Payment of Claims ........................................................................................2 12 B. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-02E: 2026 Street Reconstruction (Leeman 13 Lake Estates) (R070-26) .........................................................................................................2 rd 14 C. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-11A: 2026 Full Depth Reclamation (173 th 15 Avenue/Navajo Street/175 Avenue) (R071-26) .....................................................................2 16 D. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-11C: 2026 Full Depth Reclamation 17 (Birchwood Pond) (R072-26) ..................................................................................................2 18 E. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-11D: 2026 Full Depth Reclamation (Old 19 Constance Boulevard) (R073-26) ............................................................................................2 20 F. Declare Cost/Order Assessment Roll/26-12: 2026 Mill and Overlay (Grow Oak View 21 Estates) (R074-26) ..................................................................................................................2 22 G. Approve Request to Waive Tournament Fees for You’re Not Alone MN Softball 23 Tournament ............................................................................................................................2 24 H. Approve Request to Waive Tournament Fees for MSMS Foundation Softball 25 Tournament ............................................................................................................................2 26 I. Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Anoka County/24-35/Construction of Roundabout at thth 27 7 Avenue & 165 Avenue NW .............................................................................................2 28 J. Receive July 2026 General Fund Progress Report ............................................................2 29 K. Receive July 2026 City Investment Report ...................................................................2 30 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS .....................................................................................................2 31 A. ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT ...................................2 32 B. ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT .............................................5 33 C. HEARING: APPEAL OF ZONING INTERPRETATION AND APPEAL OF 34 DETERMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN – 16369 GLADIOLA STREET 35 NW – ARRON LINDBERG (PROPERTY OWNER)......................................................6 36 3. STAFF ITEMS .............................................................................................................. 11 37 A. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT ................................................................................... 11 38 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT ................................................................................................. 11 39 ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................................................. 12 40