HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - February 22, 20111685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Conference Rooms A & B
1. Call to Order — 6:00 p.m.
2. Gravel Road Discussion - Engineering
3. Discuss Resident Air Quality Concerns - Administration
4. 2010 Budget Interim Year -End Progress Report -Administration
5. 2011 Budget Implementation Progress & January 2011 Investment Report - Administration
6. Discuss 2012 Budget Development Guidelines - Administration
7. 2011 -2012 Council Goal Discussion/Setting — Administration/Council
8. Other Discussion
9. Adjournment
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW. CLAN DOVE R.MN.US
TO: Mayor & Council Members
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer
SUBJECT: Gravel Road Discussion - Engineering
DATE: February 22. 2011
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is requested to discuss gravel roads within the City of Andover and what
possible options there may be to get these roads paved.
DISCUSSION
The City has approximately 7.5 miles of gravel roads within the City. The current policy requires
a neighborhood to petition the City for a gravel road to be paved with all the project cost assessed
back to the benefitting properties. Over the past several years gravel road paving projects have
been proposed and have not moved forward due to cost concerns from the property owners.
Attached is a cost estimate to pave Butternut Street/173`d Avenue/Flintwood Street gravel road
which is located near the proposed 2011 Street Reconstruction project (Genthon Ponds). The
chart shows what an approximate assessment would be based on 25, 50, 75 and 100% assessed.
Also attached for your information is a map showing the gravel road segments throughout the
City.
This information was discussed with the Public Works Committee on February 16t`. The
recommendation from the committee is to assess 50% of the total project costs and limit the
project size per year to less than 1 mile. Other considerations the City Council would look at in
determining if a project is eligible for the 50150 split would be budget impact to the Road &
Bridge Fund as that is the funding source for reconstruction projects, seal coating and crack
sealing projects and if other projects are planned in the same vicinity for that construction season.
ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is requested to review the information provided on gravel roads and make a
recommendation to the City Council on how to proceed with gravel road projects.
Respectfully submitted,
David D. Berkowitz
Attach: Assessment Percentage Analysis & Gravel Road Location Map
ti
W�
O
z �
o
U
W �
M
r �
rl �
H .a
W C
HC4
z'
a •�
W
Cd
H �
p a
o
N �
Eb �'
O O O
O O O
m
Ef3 4 EL?
dl O
0 0
N N �
O
u
0 0
00
°
�a
� o
°0 0
�: C7
o
O
U
biO
U
H
N
T
• r^y
JOG
U
O
U
W,
0
U
0
0
U
o_
0
b
U
0
0
PH
C)
o° o°
d
o
o vi
o
M
O
M
O
~
eAl
0
O
O
N
b
N
I� l0
O
M V'1
)o
o
m o
rn
�
°o
°O °
O
vi
vi t�
a�
� o
�10 o
conO
Lr)
ba3
69
0
0
0
�
O
O
O
M
O V)
M
d>
M
N o
M
Lf)
M
O M
Ln
N
O
N
N
a
GIs
sv
ss
Vl
N
o
++ 0
o
a
U
U
�D
o
U
PL
V
O
N
Q�
Y
CIS
ID
b
rOn
to
cc�d+
N
cj
UJ
•�
W
03
A
�
�
F"
z
W
w
W
O O O
O O O
m
Ef3 4 EL?
dl O
0 0
N N �
O
u
0 0
00
°
�a
� o
°0 0
�: C7
o
O
U
biO
U
H
N
T
• r^y
JOG
U
O
U
W,
0
U
0
0
U
o_
0
b
U
0
0
PH
ANDOVEA
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Discuss Resident Air Quality Concerns
DATE: ' February 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
At the February 15th City Council meeting, staff was directed to review a resident's concern
related to air quality and wood burning.
DISCUSSION
The following attachments are provided to assist discussion; other documents may be distributed
at the meeting:
1. Resident's emails and pictures (pgs. 2 -9)
2. Staff report analyzing fireplaces and wood burning stoves (pgs. 10 -14)
3. Ringelmann Smoke Chart Publication
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff on whether or
not further research is needed.
James Dickinson
From: Mike Gamache
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 20114:49 PM
To: James Dickinson V T �� urns
Subject: Fw: wood burning health risk proximity
Attachments: 12977857676653 .jpg;12977857625041.jpg; 12977861808322 .jpg;12977861801861.jpg;
12977861794520.jpg
Jim,
Could you take a look at these pictures and print them off for tonightjs meeting. has been in touch with me for
about a year regarding this issue, but these are the first pictures I have received.
I would like the Coumcil to see them and discuss.
Thanks
Mike
From: - t>
To: Mike Gamache
Sent: Tue Feb 15 08:30:512011
Subject: wood burning health risk proximity
Dear Mr. Mayor:
How
close is a health danger? If this is what is ok in Andover...... everybody can have one.
Regards,
Andover, Mn.
IL
40MAM -
I
41.jl
APPI,
4W,,
y. AM
6
h 41h
a
d ti i
d
�I
t
i •i
s'
4 ww ''4 r 4
iR1 %
50 ` '�yyrik
J �
+', a
�J
• � ' yyy i
�I H
4 /J
1
' 9F
� r
r ~J j J+ h • .i{i
RL
op
jr
�.. An 4 ..
1
+
Ar _
Wr
WK
_ �y.� P •o �p t
�• F
Y JAL. L 4
ii1c,
-4.
if
4
a
l
p
F'
r
V
r
a rw f ,t
tilfJ '
IJ F Il t
f
y
y � a
h
alo IN
1
L •`
1
in
0 Ir
r-72
q
41
1,
Ad
sf
r
A ro
i'
! i
L( Jr
pr 1�
o l
I
� 1
i•
x - f
PF 5
k a
a`
i
4 ` ,yam 4
paw
^exit±, y_' 1 #� q tali i •..
c
ifib. I
1
Uk
ITIF
t n.
N. "o-oko
- z46
V
rise
ir
07
t
410 112�
ke--
pp
Jwwr
James Dickinson
From: Mike Gamache
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:02 AM
To: James Dickinson; Donald Olson
Subject: FW: Unhealthy air quality for sensitive groups
What if any regulations would the MPCA have regarding wood burning stoves in urban areas. It seems there maybe little
we can do, but I want to look into this form 1.
Thanks,
Mike Gamache
763.757.6060
From: '
Sent: Sat Z /Z012010 12:/1 rri
To: Mike Gamache
Subject: Unhealthy air quality for sensitive groups
Dear Mr. Mayor:
Yes, this involves seniors living in Andover however under certain circumstances: That is the
approval of wood burning stoves in close quartered neighborhoods.
My wife and I are retired and homeowners in Andover since 1993 having relocated to our current
smaller home when I retired in 1998. The great neighbors that built to our west on a similar 80 foot lot
have completed a wood burning stove and chimney project located in the east side some 30 feet from
our house.
On Friday afternoon, February 12 the smoke was very heavy and entered our house when we would
let the dog out. I contacted them about it and the response was that I should get on the green
program and should keep my windows and doors shut if it was a problem.
I visited the Andover Building Department on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 16, the day after
President's Day, and was brought up to speed by a very helpful staff. That morning my neighbor had
applied for a permit to build a wood stove and stack .... the inspection was scheduled for the following
morning.
My issue: I complained about the smoke and was told neither the smoke or the close proximity to my
home was a building permit issue as you followed the state building code. Today, another"Unhealthy
for Sensitive Groups" according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is born out by the stink
from the neighbors stack.
My request: When inspecting and approving such an installation are the owners given any guidelines
or material relating to MPCA Air Pollution Health Advisories? Today the reading is "Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups" which by definition states when ... "people should also postpone burning wood."
I receive the daily readings by E -mail from the MPCA being my wife and I are in a sensitive group.
My wife by the way says I should just suck it up! I think wood burning stoves should be. if approved
AM
at all. should be confined to residential lots of at least one acre. What are your thoughts
and recommendations?
Thank You.
14
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Will Neumeister, Community Development Director
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planneq?
SUBJECT: Fireplaces and Wood Burning Stoves
DATE: February 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
This item is a summary of city regulates fireplaces and wood burning stoves.
DISCUSSION
The International Mechanical Code provides standards for the installation of these items, including
certification of testing using methods established by Underwriter Laboratories (UL), an independent
international testing organization. Certification of compliance with EPA emission standards is also
required. When a homeowner wishes to install a fireplace or wood burning stove a building permit is
required by the city. As a part of this process, compliance with these requirements is verified.
The city also has nuisance criteria as shown in City Code 12 -13 -18 (attached). In this section odors,
smoke and air pollution may be applicable.
• The standards for odors are designed for industrial chemical emissions in parts per million.
Unless foreign materials or chemicals are being burned it is unlikely that these standards would
be violated.
• The applicable Ringelmann chart regarding smoke is attached. Smoke would need to be as
dark as the dark boxes for four out of thirty minutes.
• The air pollution standards provides a testing method and more easily identifiable examples
such as soiling or emission of particles.
Wood Burning Stoves
The Council discussed wood burning stoves in 2005. At that time it was determined that operating
these items as they are manufactured and designed to be operated would comply with the city's
requirements. The attached best burn practices handout was added to the materials provided during the
building permit process. Since that time a more comprehensive document has been prepared by the
Minnesota Department of Commerce, which is also provided by the city.
ACTION REQUESTED
This is an informational item for the Council
Attachments
Chapter 9 Excerpt International Mechanical Code
City Code 12 -13 -18 Other Nuisance Characteristics
Ringelmann Hart (No. 1 Smoke)
Best Burn Practices Handout
Re t Vea d,
yrz
tO
CHAPTER
SPECIFIC APPLIANCES, FIREPLACES AND
SOLID FUEL - BURNING EQUIPMENT
SECTION 901
GENERAL
901.1 Scope. This chapter shall govern the approval, design,
installation, construction, maintenance, alteration and repair of
the appliances and equipment specifically identified herein and
factory -built fireplaces. The approval, design, installation, con-
struction, maintenance, alteration and repair of gas -fired appli-
ances shall be regulated by the International Fuel Gas Code.
901.2 General. The requirements of this chapter shall apply to
the mechanical equipment and appliances regulated by this
chapter, in addition to the other requirements of this code.
901.3 Hazardous locations. Fireplaces and solid fuel- burning
appliances shall not be installed in hazardous locations.
901.4 Fireplace accessories. Listed fireplace accessories shall
be installed in accordance with the conditions of the listing and
the manufacturer's installation instructions.
SECTION 902
MASONRY FIREPLACES
902.1 General. Masonry fireplaces shall be constructed in
accordance with the International Building Code.
SECTION 903
FACTORY -BUILT FIREPLACES
903.1 General. Factory -built fireplaces shall be listed and
labeled and shall be installed in accordance with the conditions
of the listing. Factory-built fireplaces shall be tested in accor-
dance with UL 127.
903.2 Hearth extensions. Hearth extensions of approved fac-
tory-built fireplaces and fireplace stoves shall be installed in
accordance with the listing of the fireplace. The hearth exten-
sion shall be readily distinguishable from the surrounding floor
area.
903.3 Unvented gas log heaters. An unvented gas log heater
shall not be installed in a factory-built fireplace unless the fire-
place system has been specifically tested, listed and labeled for
such use in accordance with UL 127.
SECTION 904
PELLET FUEL - BURNING APPLIANCES
904.1 General. Pellet fuel - burning appliances shall be listed
and labeled in accordance with ASTM E 1509 and shall be
installed in accordance with the terms of the listing.
SECTION 905
FIREPLACE STOVES AND ROOM HEATERS
905.1 General. Fireplace stoves and solid -fuel -type room
heaters shall be listed and labeled and shall be installed in
accordance with the conditions of the listing. Fireplace stoves
shall be tested in accordance with UL 737. Solid -fuel -type
room heaters shall be tested in accordance with UL 1482. Fire-
place inserts intended for installation in fireplaces shall be
listed and labeled in accordance with the requirements of UL
1482 and shall be installed in accordance with the manufac-
turer's installation instructions.
905.2 Connection to fireplace. The connection of solid fuel
appliances to chimney flues serving fireplaces shall comply
with Sections 801.7 and 801.10.
SECTION 906
FACTORY -BUILT BARBECUE APPLIANCES
906.1 General. Factory -built barbecue appliances shall be of
an approved type and shall be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer's installation instructions, this chapter and Chap-
ters 3, 5, 7, 8 and the International Fuel Gas Code.
SECTION 907
INCINERATORS AND CREMATORIES
907.1 General. Incinerators and crematories shall be listed and
labeled in accordance with UL 791 and shall be installed in
accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
SECTION 908
COOLING TOWERS, EVAPORATIVE
CONDENSERS AND FLUID COOLERS
908.1 General. A cooling tower used in conjunction with an
air - conditioning appliance shall be installed in accordance
with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
908.2 Access. Cooling towers, evaporative condensers and
fluid coolers shall be provided with ready access.
908.3 Location. Cooling towers, evaporative condensers and
fluid coolers shall be located to prevent the discharge vapor
plumes from entering occupied spaces. Plume discharges shall
be not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) above or 20 feet (6096 mm)
away from any ventilation inlet to a building. Location on the
property shall be as required for buildings in accordance with
the International Building Code.
2006 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE® 75
12- 13 -18: OTHER NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS
12- 13 -18: OTHER NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS: No odors, vibration,
smoke, air pollution, liquid or solid wastes, heat, glare, dust, or other such
adverse influences shall be permitted in any district that will in any way have an
objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. All wastes in all districts
shall be disposed of in a manner that is not dangerous to the public health and
safety nor will damage public waste transmission or disposal facilities. Minimum
standards shall be as follows:
A. Odors
Table III (Odor Thresholds) in Chapter 5, Air Pollution Manual, a copyright
of 1951 by Manufacturing Chemists Association, Incorporated,
Washington, District of Columbia and subsequent revisions.
B. Vibration
Any vibration discernible (beyond property line) to the human sense of
feeling for three (3) minutes or more duration in any one hour and any
vibration producing an acceleration of more than 0.1 Gs or resulting in any
combination of amplitudes and frequencies beyond the safe range of
Table 7, United States Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 442, Seismic Effects
of Quarry Blasting, on any structure.
C. Smoke
Any emission of visible smoke of a shade darker than no. 1 on the
Ringelmann smoke chart, as published by the United States Bureau of
Mines; except, that visible gray smoke of a shade not darker than no. 3 on
said chart may be emitted for not more than four (4) minutes in any thirty
(30) minutes.
D. Air pollution (fly ash, dust, fumes, vapor, gases, etc.)
Any emission which can cause any damage to health, animals, or
vegetation or other forms of property, or which can cause any excessive
soiling at any point, and in no event any emission of any solid or liquid
particles in concentrations exceeding 0.3 grains per cubic foot of the
conveying gas or air at any point.
For measurement of the amount of particles in gases resulting from
combustion, standard corrections shall be applied to a stack temperature
of five hundred degrees Fahrenheit (500 °F) and fifty percent (50 %) excess
air. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970; amd. Ord. 314 10 -4 -2005)
MEMMEMEMEMMEMM
MEMMEMEMEMEMMM
MEMMEMMEMEMEMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMEMMMMMMMMM
MMMMEMMMMMMMMM
MEMEMEM
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
MEMEMEM
MEMEMEM
MEMEMEM
MEMEMEM
MEMEMEM
MENEM
MEMO
MENOMONEE
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■
MENNEN
MEMEMEM
MEMEMEM
MEMEMMEMEMEMEM
MEEMEMEMEMEMME
MEMMEMMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMMEMEM
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
Best Burn Practices
1. Read and follow all operating instructions supplied by the manufacturer
2. FUEL USED: Only those listed fuels recommended by the manufacturer of
your unit. Never use the following: trash, plastics, gasoline, rubber,
naphtha, household garbage, material treated with petroleum products
(particle board, railroad ties and pressure treated wood), leaves, paper
products, and cardboard.
3. LOADING FUEL: For a more efficient burn, pay careful attention to loading
times and amounts. Follow the manufacturer's written instructions for
recommended loading times and amounts.
4. STARTERS: Do not use lighter fluids, gasoline, or chemicals.
5. LOCATION: It is recommended that the unit be located with due
consideration to the prevailing wind direction.
o If located 50 feet or less to any residence not served by the furnace,
it is recommended that the stack be at least 2 feet higher than the
eave line of that residence..
o If located more than 50 but no more than 100 feet to any residence, it
is recommended that the stack be at least 75% of the height of the
eave line of that residence, plus an additional 2 feet.
o If located more than 100 feet but no more than 150 feet to any
residence, it is recommended that the stack be at least 50% of the
eave line of that residence, plus an additional 2 feet.
o If located more than 150 feet but no more than 200 feet to any
residence, it is recommended that the stack be at least 25% of the
height of the save line of that residence, plus an additional 2 feet.
Stack.
E
MELa
:F
Di fance:ta� sl ' C writ+ � fn tetures
6. Always remember to comply with all applicable state and local codes.
Uri,
ty
I bureau of mines
information circular 8333
RINGELMANN SMOKE CHART
(Revision of IC 7718)
By Staff, Bureau of Mines
i
�n
�1 Vb
�i� "4t wow/
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF MINES
May 1967
. 145 -
RINGELMANN SMOKE CHART
(Revision of IC 7718)
By Staff, Bureau of Mines
information circular 8333
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Stewart L. Udall, Secretary
BUREAU OF MINES
Walter R. Hibbard, Jr., Director
'G
This publication has been cataloged as follows:
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Ringelmann smoke chart. [Washington] U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines [1967]
4 p. (U. S. Bureau of Mines. Information circular 8333)
Revision of I. C. 7718: Kudlich, Rudolf. Ringelmann smoke chart. 1955.
1. Smoke prevention. I. Ringelmann, Maximilian, 1861 -
II. Kudlich, Rudolf. III. Title. (Series)
TN23.U71 no. 8333 622.06173
U. S. Dept. of the Int. Library
0
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract............... ............................... 1
Introduction . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . 1
Description and method of preparing the chart . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . .. . . 2
Use of chart ............. ............................... 2
Ringelmann -chart reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4
v
RINGELMANN SMOKE CHART
(Revision of IC 7718)
by
Staff, Bureau of Mines'
ABSTRACT
The Ringelmann Smoke Chart fulfills an important need in smoke abatement work and in certain
problems in the combustion of fuels. A knowledge of its history and method of preparation is,
therefore, of interest to many. Since instructions on its use are not shown on the recent edition of the
chart, those included in this revision of the previous Bureau of Mines publication now are a necessary
complement to the chart. More detail regarding the use of the chart is included than was given in the
earlier version.
INTRODUCTION
The Ringelmann Smoke Chart, giving shades of gray by which the density of columns of smoke
rising from stacks may be compared, was developed by Professor Maximilian Ringelmann of Paris.
Ringelmann, born in 1861, was professor of agricultural engineering at l'Institute National
Agronomique and Director de la Station d'Essais de Machines in Paris in 1888, and held those
positions for many years thereafter.
The chart apparently was introduced into the United States by William Kent in an article
published in Engineering News of November 11, 1897, with a comment that he had learned of it in a
private communication from a Bryan Donkin of London. It was said to have come into somewhat
extensive use in Europe by that time. Kent proposed in 1899 that it be accepted as the standard
measure of smoke density in the standard code for power -plant testing that was being formulated by
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
The Ringelmann Chart was used by the engineers of the Technologic Branch of the
U.S. Geological Survey (which later formed the nucleus of the present Bureau of Mines) in their
studies of smokeless combustion beginning at St. Louis in 1904, and by 1910, it had been recognized
officially in the smoke ordinance for Boston passed by the Massachusetts Legislature.
The chart is now used as a device for determining whether emissions of smoke are within limits
or standards of permissibility (statutes and ordinances) established and expressed with reference to the
chart. It is widely used by law- enforcement or compliance officers in jurisdictions that have adopted
standards based upon the chart.
'Office of the Director of Coal Research, Washington, D.C.
t�
In 1908, copies of the chart were prepared by the Technologic Branch of the Geological Survey
for use by its fuel engineers and for public distribution. Upon its organization in 1910, the Bureau of
Mines assumed this service together with the other fuel- testing activities of the Technologic Branch.
DESCRIPTION AND METHOD OF PREPARING THE CHART
The Ringehnann system is virtually a scheme whereby graduated shades of gray, varying by five
equal steps between white and black, may be accurately reproduced by means of a rectangular grill of
black lines of definite width and spacing on a white background. The rule given by Professor
Ringelmann by which the charts may be reproduced is as follows:
Card 0—All white.
Card 1 —Black lines 1 mm thick, 10 mm apart, leaving white spaces 9 mm square.
Card 2 —Lines 2.3 mm thick, spaces 7.7 mm square.
Card 3 —Lines 3.7 mm thick, spaces 6.3 mm square.
Card 4 —Lines 5.5 mm thick, spaces 4.5 mm square.
Card 5 —All black.
The chart, as distributed by the Bureau of Mines, provides the shades of cards 1, 2, 3, and 4 on a
single sheet, which are known as Ringelmann No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. A copy of the chart is
included in this report.
USE OF CHART
Many municipal, state, and federal regulations prescribe smoke - density limits based on the
Ringehnann Smoke Chart, as published by the Bureau of Mines. Although the chart was not originally
designed for regulatory purposes, it is presently used for this purpose in many jurisdictions where the
results obtained are accepted as legal evidence.
While the chart still serves a useful purpose, it should be remembered that the data obtained by
its use is empirical in nature and has definite limitations. The apparent darkness or opacity of a stack
plume depends upon the concentration of the particulate matter in the effluent, the size of the
particulate, the depth of the smoke column being viewed, natural lighting conditions such as the
direction of the sun relative to the observer, and the color of the particles. Since unburned carbon is a
principal coloring material in a smoke column from a furnace using coal or oil, the relative shade is a
function of the combustion efficiency.
.E
While the Ringelmann Smoke Chart has many limitations, it gives good practical results in the
hands of well - trained operators. However, it is questionable whether results should be expressed in
fractional units because of variations in physical conditions and in the judgement of the observers.
To use the chart, it is supported on a level with the eye, at such a distance from the observer that
the lines on the chart merge into shades of gray, and as nearly as possible in line with the stack. The
observer glances from the smoke, as it issues from the stack, to the chart and notes the number of the
chart most nearly corresponding with the shade of the smoke, then records this number with the time of
observation. A clear stack is recorded as No. 0, and 100 percent black smoke as No. 5.
To determine average smoke emission over a relatively long period of time, such as an hour,
observations are usually repeated at one - fourth or one -half minute intervals. The readings are then
reduced to the total equivalent of No. 1 smoke as a standard. No. 1 smoke being considered as 20
percent dense, the percentage "density" of the smoke for the entire period of observation is obtained by
the formula:
Equivalent units of No. 1 smoke x 0.20 x 100 = percentage smoke density.
Number of observations
A convenient form for recording and computing the percentage of smoke density appears at the
end of this report. This procedure is often used on acceptance tests of fuel - buming equipment.
The timing and extent of observations made for the purpose of determining compliance with a
local smoke abatement ordinance depends upon the wording and smoke limitations of the ordinance.
9�1
4
RINGELMANN -CHART READING
INT. -BU. OF MINES, PGH., PA. 10992
V
Location .....................
Hour...
9:00 - 10:00
a . •
Date
..............
9
0
1/4
1/2
3/4
0
1/4
1/2
Point of observation
0
-
-
-
30
1
1
1
....
1
31
1
1
1
E/4
2
-
32
-
-
-
Distance to stack .................
3
1
1
1
1
33
-
-
4
1
1
1
1 1
1 34
Direction of stack .................
5
1 2
1 2
2
2
35
1
1
1
1
6
2
3
3
3
36
1
1
1
1
Direction of wind .................
7
3
3
3
3
37
1
1
1
1
8
2
2
1
1
38
1
1
-
_
Velocity of wind .................
9
1
1
-
-
39
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
40
Equiv. No. 1 Units
11
41
7 , Units No. 5
. , • . 35
12
-
42
13
43
7, Units No. 4
.... 28
14
44
1
1
2
2
15
-
-
-
-
45
2
2
3
3
27
• • • • Units No. 3
81
................
16
46
3
3
3
3
17
47
3
3
4
3
34• Units No. 2
68
18
48
2
2
2
2
•
.... ..........
19
2
2
2
2
49
2
2
2
2
52 Units No. 1
.....52 .........
20
2
2
2
2
50
2
1
1
1
21
2
2
2
2
51
1
1
1
1
113
Units No. 0
0
............... .
22
3
3
3
1 3
1 52
1
1
1
-
23
3
4
4
4
53
-
240
.... Units
264
......... I......
24
4
5
5
5
54
25
5
5
5
5
55
264
x 20 pct =
26
4
4
3
3
56
-
_
_
240
27
3
3
3
3
57
22 pct
Smoke density
28
2
2
1 1
1 1
58
29
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 59
-
Observer
.......................
Checked by .....................
INT. -BU. OF MINES, PGH., PA. 10992
V
EMEMEMEMEMEMEN
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
EMEMEMEMEMEMEM
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEEMEN
MEMEMENNEEMMEN
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
MEMEMEMEMEMEME
EMEMEMEMEMEMEM
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmommm
mmmmmmmmmmommm
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
MOMMEMOM
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
MOMMENNE
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ . ■ ■ ■
■ ■ . ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ . ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ . ■
■
■ . ■ ■ ■
■ . ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
NONE
NONE
m 0 0 0
NONE
0 m 0 0
NONE
MEN
MEN
0 0
MEN
m 0 0
MEN
MEN
ONE
MEN
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
ONE
MEN
MEN
0 0 m
MEN
0 0 m
MEN
ONE
9 C I T Y O F
kNDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2010 Budget Interim Year -end Progress Report
DATE: February 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The 2010 Budget and Levy was the outcome of a number of budget workshops with the Council,
numerous staff meetings, a December 1, 2009 Public Hearing and adopted on December 15,
2009.
The 2010 Budget included a total property tax levy of $10,856,299: $7,631,494 (70.3 %)
operational levy, $1,900,566 (17.5 %) debt service levy, and $1,324,239 (12.2 %) capital levy.
Administration will provide an update to the Council on how the 2010 General Fund
budget progressed. The numbers provided are unaudited, but deemed reliable.
DISCUSSION
The following attachments are provided to assist discussion; other documents may be distributed
at the meeting:
1. General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary -Budget Year 2010 through December 2010
2. 2010 Budget Carrvfowards into 2011
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff.
'�__ )2e ctfully submitted,
-a. -
CITY OF ANDOVER
General Fund Budget Su�na!jj�rrj
TIod(.
2010
2009
REVENUES
Budget
Dec YTD
%of Bud
Final
Budget
Dec YTD
%of Bud
General Property Tax
$
6,651,795
$
6,588,601
99% $
6,588,601
$ 7,308,495
$ 7,191,603
98%
Licenses and Permits
442,580
291,903
66%
291,903
237,055
329,901
139%
Intergovernmental
828,689
595,002
72%
595,002
567,498
570,097
100%
Charges for Services
620,022
701,289
113%
701,289
543,500
755,184
139%
Fines
95,375
110,779
116%
110,779
100,750
104,780
104%
Investment Income
115,000
76,772
67%
76,772
65,000
70,368
108%
Miscellaneous
83,550
130,523
156%
130,523
83,400
136,684
164%
Transfers In
196,930
196,930
100%
196,930
196,930
196,930
100%
Total Revenaes.
$
9,033,941
"`$"
8,691,799
$'
8,691,799
S .9,102,628
$ - 9,355,547
796
2009
2010
EXPENDITURES
Budget
Dec YTD
% of Bud
Final
Budget
Dec YTD
% of Bud
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Mayor and Council
$
108,375
$
105,319
97% $
105,319
$ 104,251
$ 100,710
97%
Administration
152,701
128,532
84%
128,532
132,967
131,218
99%
Newsletter
25,000
22,405
90%
22,405
23,000
17,094
74%
Human Resources
62,773
54,625
87%
54,625
60,744
54,968
90%
Attorney
178,500
172,900
97%
172,900
178,500
172,774
97%
City Clerk
101,121
96,621
96%
96,621
96,828
95,166
98%
Elections
6,372
6,139
%%
6,139
49,126
37,927
77%
Finance
221,760
210,204
95%
210,204
202,011
194,865
96%
Assessing
152,500
120,113
790/.
120,113
152,500
144,760
95%
Information Services
140,417
122,614
87%
122,614
150,812
136,931
91%
Planning & Zoning
360,470
323,681
90%
323,681
328,449
327,298
100%
Engineering
435,405
388,285
89%
388,285
390,087
388,944
100%
Facility Management
484,328
409,929
85%
409,929
571,716
420,187
73%
Total General Gov
2,429,722
2,161,367'
89%
2,161,367`
2,440,991
2,222,842
`' 91 %'
PUBLICSAFETY
Police Protection
2,545,642
2,545,642
100%
2,545,642
2,599,246
2,599,246
1000/6
Fire Protection
1,105,102
998,351
90%
998,351
1,070,385
967,199
90°h
Protective Inspection
452,938
435,102
96%
435,102
346,282
330,055
95%
Civil Defense
16,909
14,935
88%
14,935
15,909
15,450
97%
Animal Control
10,750
11,376
106%
11,376
9,970
6,952
70%
Total Public Safety
"4,131,341
4,005,406
'97% 4,005,406
.4,041,792
3,91 8,902
97 %!
PUBLIC WORKS
Streets and Highways
623,378
567,090
91%
567,090
556,452
518,724
93%
Snow and Ice Removal
516,036
462,849
90%
462,849
489.381
537,948
110% I\,`,..�)/)
Street Signs
169,913
159,213
94%
159,213
195,562
166,244
85%
Traffic Signals
34,000
26,090
77%
26,090
36,000
25,830
72%
Street Lighting
33,400
32,666
98%
32,666
36,400
30,885
85%
Street Lights - Billed
160,000
180,641
113%
180,641
200,000
183,262
92%
Park & Recreation
887,749
838,033
94%
838,033
872,633
827,710
95%
Recycling
98,607
85,527
85,527
118,838
108,713
Total Public Works
2,523,083
`2,352,109
".93% 3%
2,352,109
2,505,266
2,399,316
9
OTHER
20,000
19,540
98%
19,540
170,079
24,953
15%
Total Other
' 20,000
' 19,540
98%
19,540
^' 170,079
24,953
- 15%
Total Expenditures
8,538,422
94% $
? 8,538,4221
94 %'
S 9,158,128.
$ - 8,566,013
$
:.9,104,146
,:$ .
NET INCREASE (DECREASE):.
S
(70,205)
$ -,
153,377
$
153,377 ;
$ (55,500)'
' ! $ 789,534
-a. -
CITY OF ANDOVER
2010 Budget Carryforwards into 2011
Amended
Budget Actual Carryforward
General Fund
Information Services
$ 155,812
$ 136,931
$ 5,000
Crime mapping services for 2011
Engineering
391,087
388,944
1,000
Additional AutoCAD training in 2011
Facility Management
581,716
420,187
10,000
Roof ice issues at PW and FS #3
Park & Recreation
890,633
827,710
8,000
Tennis court resurfacing
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Equipment Reserve
Enterprise Funds
Water Fund
553,500 404,282 10,000 CH bathroom tiling project
2,487,587 2,074,105 55,000 Well Rehab & WTP backwash issues
$ 89,000
C A I T Y
ND OVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2011 Budget Implementation Progress & January 2011 Investment Report
DATE: February 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The overall City of Andover 2011 Budget contains total revenues of $28,910,245 and total expenditures
of $30,785,805. The $1,875,560 of expenditures over revenues is largely due to prepaying debt in order
to save on interest expenditures.
The 2011Budget includes a total property tax levy of $10,856,299: $7,500,802 (69.09 %) operational
levy, $1,929,112 (17.77 %) debt service levy, and $1,426,385 (13.14 %) capital/watershed levy. This
reflects a zero percent gross levy increase as compared to the 2010 budget.
DISCUSSION
The following represents City Administration directives and departmental expectations for 2011
1. Expenditure budgets while approved, expenses are to meet with the spirit that needs are fulfilled
first, expansions of service and special requests are to be reviewed with City Administration
before proceeding.
2. Departments are committed to search for the best possible prices when purchasing goods and
services.
3. Departments are committed to continually searching out new efficiencies and to challenge the
status quo of how the City provides services. We don't do things (or provide a service) just
because we have always done it that way!
4. Departments are committed to searching out collaborative opportunities with our neighboring
government agencies to facilitate efficient and cost - effective utilization of governmental assets
and personnel.
5. Department are committed to developing effective consistent and ongoing communications with
City residents, businesses and other stakeholders.
The following attachments are provided to assist discussion in reviewing 2011 progress-, other documents
may be distributed at the meeting:
1. General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary -Budget Year 2011 through January 2011
2. Investment Maturities Summary —January 2011 (Investments managed by City Treasurer)
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff.
fully submitted,
4
V kinson
Attachments
CITY OF ANDOVER
General Fund Bud et Summary Totals
2010 2011
REVENUES Budget Jan YTD % of Bud Final Budget Jan YTD % of Bud
General Property Tax
$ 7,308,495
$ -
0% $
7,191,603
Licenses and Permits
237,055
11,590
5%
329,901
Intergovernmental
567,498
-
0%
570,097
Charges for Services
543,500
21,436
4%
755,184
Fines
100,750
525
1%
104,780
Investment Income
65,000
103
0%
70,368
Miscellaneous
83,400
44,480
53%
136,684
Transfers In
196,930
196,930
100%
196,930
27,500
-
0%
36,221
3,784
Total Revenues -
$ 9,102,628
- $ . 275,064
% $,.
9,355,547
9,376
9%
6,750
2010
4%
212,967
EXPENDITURES
Budget
Jan YTD
% of Bud
Final
149,871
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
3%
355,258
15,985
4%
Mayor and Council
$ 104,251
$ 32,992
32% $
100,710
Administration
132,967
9,950
7%
131,218
Newsletter
23,000
1,585
7%
17,094
Human Resources
60,744
3,753
6%
54,968
Attorney
178,500
-
0%
172,774
City Clerk
96,828
9,900
10%
95,166
Elections
49,126
46
0%
37,927
Finance
202,011
24,592
12%
194,865
Assessing
152,500
-
0%
144,760
Information Services
150,812
5,801
4%
136,931
Planning & Zoning
328,449
17,730
5%
327,298
Engineering
390,087
24,700
6%
388,944
Facility Management
571,716
25,648
4%
420,187
Total Public Works
2,505,266
162,993
7%
2,399,316
Total General Gov
2440,991
_ 156,697
( .
21222,842
$ 7,217,219
$ -
0%
250,080
13,715
5%
558,215
-
0%
580,200
18,040
3%
105,750
375
0%
65,000
180
0%
84,900
46,321
55%
196,930
196,930
6%
$ 9,058,294
$ 275,561
27,130
8%
330,055
2011
19,815
Budget
Jan YTD
% of Bud
$ 106,956
$ 29,621
28%
138,157
9,055
7%
27,500
-
0%
36,221
3,784
10%
178,300
-
0%
103,333
9,376
9%
6,750
263
4%
212,967
23,597
11%
152,500
-
0%
149,871
4,888
3%
355,258
15,985
4%
413,408
22,635
5%
543,739 20,218 4%
2,424,960 ` 139,422 6 %''
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection
2,599,246
-
0%
2,599,246
2,615,407
-
0%
Fire Protection
1,070,385
84,260
8%
967,199
1,077,084
69,755
6%
Protective Inspection
346,282
27,130
8%
330,055
363,789
19,815
5%
Civil Defense
15,909
3,192
20%
15,450
16,463
3,176
19%
Animal Control
9,970
99
I%
6,952
9,970
854
9%
Total Public Safety
4,041,792'
114,681
3 °/.
3,918,902
- `4,082,713'
- 93,600
2 %,
PUBLIC WORKS
Streets and Highways
556,452
32,342
6%
518,724
578,050
30,621
5%
Snow and Ice Removal
489,381
75,359
15%
537,948
489,315
63,033
13%
Street Signs
195,562
7,125
4%
166,244
196,712
6,933
4%
Traffic Signals
36,000
(693)
-2%
25,830
36,000
-
0%
Street Lighting
36,400
-
0%
30,885
36,400
-
0%
StreetLights - Billed
200,000
(2,070)
-1%
183,262
206,000
-
0%
Park & Recreation
872,633
47,515
5%
827,710
908,832
44,045
5%
Recycling
118,838
3,415
3%
108,713
122,273
3,368
3%
Total Public Works
2,505,266
162,993
7%
2,399,316
2,573,582
148,000
6 %6
OTHER
170,079
13,500
8%
24,953
45,000
18,500
41%
Total Other
170,079
13,500
8%
24,953
45,000
18,500
41%
Total Expenditures $
5 °/. S -
8,566,013
399,522
$ ` -' 9,126,255 $
9,158,128
$ 447,871
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) - $
'. (55,500)
$ -:.' (172,807)':
$.
789,534
$ (67,961) $
(123,961)
.+r
q
N
U
7
G
rr
ti
0
N
L
7
C
h
d
L
r
C
d
e
e
N �o
M O
O
x NMw
T
-
�
O
7
V 1
O
N
64
64
O
000 0 T
N O
r� M
7 m
O�
O
N O
0�60
O
00
69
69
-
l�
O 7 T
N 00
O1
N [- �D
C, 00
7
V]
l�
1z a 00
V1 W
W
~
0o0
M N O
N
N
N
n
69
69
r
m
0NO
.M-� M a
h
O
N h h
M
It
y
N
N
l�
.-1
69
69
ONO
000
N
N
N
7
h N
N
T
N
--�
N
per,
y
d
C I T Y O F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Councilmembers
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Discuss 2012 Budget Development Guidelines
February 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
(0
City Administration is starting to focus on the 2012 Annual Operating Budget Development
process and is looking to the City Council to establish the Council's guidelines for the
preparation of the 2012 Annual Operating Budget. .
DISCUSSION
The following are some suggested 2012 Budget Development guidelines for your consideration
and could be impacted by the Councils discussion on longer term policies and values and goals
the have been used for the past few years :
1) A commitment to a City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization and
positioning the City for long -term competitiveness through the use of sustainable revenue
sources and operational efficiencies.
Note: Preliminary Anoka County Assessor taxable market value figures for the City of
Andover are reflecting a 6.7% decrease in total taxable market value. (See attached)
2) Continue with the current procurement and financial plan to appropriately expend the bond
proceeds generated from the successfu12006 Open Space Referendum.
Note: Staff has been active pursuing the third open space purchase. It is anticipated a
closed session with the City Council will be held in the near future to discuss progress.
3) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at
no less than 40% of planned 2011 General Fund expenditures and the preservation of
emergency fund balances (snow emergency, public safety, facility management &
information technology) through targeting revenue enhancements or expenditure limitations
in the 2011 adopted General Fund budget.
Note: With property tax revenues making up 80% of the total General Fund revenues (up
from 74%) additional cashflows desienations are appropriate.
4) A commitment to limit the 2012 debt levy to no more than 20% of the gross tax levy and a
commitment to a detailed city debt analysis to take advantage of alternative financing
consistent with the City's adopted Debt Policy.
Note: The 2011 levy was 17.7 %, the margin available to 20% is sufficient to fund a small
equipment bond.
5) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost -
effective replacement schedule is followed. Equipment will be replaced on the basis of a cost
benefit analysis rather than a year based replacement schedule.
6) A team approach that encourages strategic planning to meet immediate and long -term
operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs.
7) A management philosophy that actively supports the funding and implementation of Council
policies and goals, and a commitment to being responsive to changing community conditions,
concerns, and demands, and to do so in a cost effective manner.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Council is requested to review the aforementioned proposed Budget Development
guidelines, discuss whether or not they are appropriate for developing the 2012 Annual Operating
Budget, and ultimately approve 2012 Budget Development Guidelines.
ANOKA COUNTY
ANOKA 2011 Pay 2012
.COUNTY Market Value
PAYABLE 2011/PAYABLE 2012 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 02/15/2011
2011 Pay 2012 % CHG from
2011 Pay 2012 MV w/o New 2010 Pay 2011 2011 to 2012
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
LINWOOD
AG
16,874,900
92,300
16,782,600
16,427,300
2.2%
RESID
388,955,300
4,014,200
384,941,100
409,205,700
-5.9%
APTS
2,034,200
0
2,034,200
2,036,400
-0.1%
CANDI
1,902,500
0
1,902,500
2,079,500
-8.5%
PERSONAL
80,000
0
80,000
4,999,400
-98.4%
TOTALS
409,846,900
4,106,500
405,740,400
434,748,300
-6.7%
Average Residential Value
158,500
161,900
-2.1%
Median Residential Value
164,700
171,000
-3.7%
ANDOVER
AG
25,309,000
18,400
25,290,600
25,730,400
RESID
2,181,723,700
25,231,200
2,156,492,500
2,281,586,800
APTS
14,950,400
0
14,950,400
15,628,300
A4.3%
C AND I
111,760,600
1,030,000
110,730,600
121,574,100
PERSONAL
260,700
0
260,700
25,425,400
TOTALS
2,334,004,400
26,279,600
2,307,724,800
2,469,945,000
Average Residential Value
206,500
209,900
-1.6%
Median Residential Value
199,200
205,400
-3.0%
ANOKA
AG
23,400
0
23,400
21,700
7.8%
RESID
728,771,600
4,177,900
724,593,700
774,413,200
-6.4%
APTS
150,145,400
208,000
149,937,400
155,249,000
-3.4%
C AND I
282,517,700
505,800
282,011,900
290,180,300
-2.8%
PERSONAL
1,649,300
0
1,649,300
4,209,300
-60.8%
TOTALS
1,163,107,400
4,891,700
1,158,215,700
1,224,073,500
-5.4%
Average Residential Value
153,700
158,100
-2.8%
Median Residential Value
150,300
158,200
-5.0%
BETHEL
AG
505,000
0
505,000
389,600
29.6%
RESID
22,072,800
183,400
21,889,400
22,939,600
-4.6%
APTS
67,300
0
67,300
69,700
-3.4%
CANDI
3,725,200
50,400
3,674,800
4,040,200
-9.0%
PERSONAL
0
0
0
1,570,400
- 100.0%
TOTALS
26,370,300
233,800
26,136,500
29,009,500
-9.9%
Average Residential Value
111,500
111,900
-0.4%
Median Residential Value
125,300
128,400
-2.4%
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
r 3
Taxable Market Value Comparison [Ascend_AOTest]
i:�l
ANOKA COUNTY
ANOKA 2011 Pay 2012
COUNTY Market Value
PAYABLE 2011/PAYABLE 2012 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 02/15/2011
2011 Pay 2012 % CHG from
2011 Pay 2012 MV w/o New 2010 Pay 2011 2011 to 2012
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
BLAINE
AG
21,507,400
225,100
21,282,300
21,993,300
-3.2%
RESID
3,788,847,300
70,944,700
3,717,902,600
3,851,659,600
-3.5%
APTS
158,658,100
0
158,658,100
160,733,600
-1.3%
C AND I
984,263,700
10,217,300
974,046,400
1,035,589,700
-5.9%
PERSONAL
34,393,600
196,000
34,197,600
70,531,600
-51.5%
TOTALS
4,987,670,100
81,583,100
4,906,087,000
5,140,507,800
-4.6%
Average Residential Value
186,300`
182,800
1.9%
Median Residential Value
167,700
170,100
-1.4%
CENTERVILLE
AG
740,800
0
740,800
687,600
7.7%
RESID
280,591,700
570,600
280,021,100
295,281,100
-5.2%
APTS
631,900
0
631,900
672,600
-6.1%
CANDI
24,756,200
162,900
24,593,300
25,495,300
-3.5%
PERSONAL
80,000
0
80,000
2,200,500
-96.4%
TOTALS
306,800,600
733,500
306,067,100
324,337,100
-5.6%
Average Residential Value
196,900
202,000
-2.5%
Median Residential Value
177,600
181,900
-2.4%
CIRCLE PINES
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
318,272,000
211,200
318,060,800
337,985,800
-5.9%
APTS
14,664,400
0
14,664,400
15,008,400
-2.3%
C AND I
15,306,800
10,700
15,296,100
15,938,600
-4.0%
PERSONAL
200,200
0
200,200
1,718,700
-88.4%
TOTALS
348,443,400
221,900
348,221,500
370,651,500
-6.1%
Average Residential Value
165,100
171,000
-3.5%
Median Residential Value
149,800
161,400
-7.2%
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
941,356,000
6,810,300
934,545,700
983,063,000
-4.9%
APTS
77,974,600
45,900
77,928,700
80,883,900
-3.7%
C AND I
105,377,300
506,300
104,871,000
112,002,900
-6.4%
PERSONAL
449,000
0
449,000
5,547,300
-91.9%
TOTALS
1,125,156,900
7,362,500
1,117,794,400
1,181,497,100
-5.4%
Average Residential Value
135,500
135,400
0.1%
Median Residential Value
141,900
147,200
-3.6%
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Li
Taxable Market Value Comparison [Ascend_ADTest]
3 -2
A ANOKA COUNTY
"'
1
ANOKA 2011 Pay 2012
COUNTY Market Value
PAYABLE 2011/PAYABLE 2012 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 02/15/2011
2011 Pay 2012 % CHG from
2011 Pay 2012 MV w/o New 2010 Pay 2011 2011 to 2012
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
COLUMBUS
AG
27,954,400
0
27,954,400
30,003,300
-6.8%
RESID
349,791,300
340,500
349,450,800
365,978,100
-4.5%
APTS
0
0
0
0
N/A
C AND 1
90,741,700
27,800
90,713,900
93,156,300
-2.6%
PERSONAL
1,000,000
0
1,000,000
6,152,900
-83.7%
TOTALS
469,487,400
368,300
469,119,100
495,290,600
-5.3%
Average Residential Value
211,400
215,400
-1.9%
Median Residential Value
206,900
212,500
-2.6%
COON RAPIDS
AG
995,000
0
995,000
998,800
-0.4%
RESID
3,219,049,700
9,447,500
3,209,602,200
3,337,646,900
-3.8%
APTS
269,415,700
199,600
269,216,100
278,824,800
-3.4%
C AND I
816,088,900
3,775,100
812,313,800
885,715,900
-8.3%
PERSONAL
2,401,000
0
2,401,000
43,444,300
-94.5%
TOTALS
4,307,950,300
13,422,200
4,294,528,100
4,546,630,700
-5.5%
Average Residential Value
154,700
156,200
-1.0%
Median Residential Value
152,100
155,000
-1.9%
EAST BETHEL
AG
29,767,400
0
29,767,400
30,380,600
-2.0%
RESID
774,646,600
703,600
773,943,000
804,889,900
-3.8%
APTS
5,658,000
0
5,658,000
7,433,200
-23.9%
C AND I
47,997,800
0
47,997,800
49,635,800
-3.3%
PERSONAL
166,600
0
166,600
9,085,400
-98.2%
TOTALS
858,236,400
703,600
857,532,800
901,424,900
-4.9%
Average Residential Value
167,100
169,700
-1.5%
Median Residential Value
169,200
173,300
-2.4%
FRIDLEY
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
1,299,384,100
5,762,800
1,293,621,300
1,333,414,200
-3.0%
APTS
184,973,300
8,000
184,965,300
197,696,700
-6.4%
C AND I
766,576,800
10,753,000
755,823,800
791,361,300
-4.5%
PERSONAL
1,263,900
0
1,263,900
22,902,600
-94.5%
TOTALS
2,252,198,100
16,523,800
2,235,674,300
2,345,374,800
-4.7%
Average Residential Value
150,300
y�
150,500
-0.1%
Median Residential Value
156,800
159,400
-1.6%
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Taxable
Market Value Comparison
[Ascend_AOTest]
3 - 3
ANOKA COUNTY
ANOKA', 2011 Pay 2012
COUNTP Market Value
PAYABLE 2011/PAYABLE 2012 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 02/15/2011
2011 Pay 2012 % CHG from
2011 Pay 2012 MV w/o New 2010 Pay 2011 2011 to 2012
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
HAM LAKE
AG
30,932,300
0
30,932,300
32,375,600
-4.5%
RESID
1,247,689,400
8,358,400
1,239,331,000
1,300,899,400
-4.7%
APTS
13,435,200
0
13,435,200
13,710,100
-2.0%
CANDI
135,307,100
347,300
134,959,800
140,822,400
4.2%
PERSONAL
399,800
60,800
339,000
16,347,000
-97.9%
TOTALS
1,427,763,800
8,766,500
1,418,997,300
1,504,154,500
-5.7%
Average Residential Value
222,000
225,900
-1.7%
Median Residential Value
217,800
223,400
-2.5%
HILLTOP
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
3,111,100
0
3,111,100
3,216,100
-3.3%
APTS
9,801,500
0
9,801,500
9,939,000
-1.4%
CANDI
9,379,500
0
9,379,500
9,724,500
-3.5%
PERSONAL
160,000
0
160,000
374,200
-57.2%
TOTALS
22,452,100
0
22,452,100
23,253,800
-3.4%
Average Residential Value
91,500
94,600
-3.3%
Median Residential Value
72,300
75,400
4.1%
LEXINGTON
AG
0
0
0
0
N/A
RESID
85,616,700
260,700
85,356,000
94,605,100
-9.8%
APTS
10,072,700
0
10,072,700
10,473,900
-3.8%
CANDI
18,534,500
92,400
18,442,100
19,099,700
-3.40/.
PERSONAL
915,300
0
915,300
1,675,100
45.4%
TOTALS
115,139,200
353,100
114,786,100
125,853,800
-8.8%
Average Residential Value
152,900
164,500
-7.1%
Median Residential Value
153,800
171,900
-10.5%
LINO LAKES
AG
37,454,500
63,100
37,391,400
36,953,100
1.2%
RESID
1,516,340,500
7,906,300
1,508,434,200
1,573,220,900
4.1%
APTS
15,323,500
587,000
14,736,500
11,819,500
24.7%
C AND I
155,217,300
0
155,217,300
166,792,300
-6.9%
PERSONAL
400,000
0
400,000
15,335,700
-97.4%
TOTALS
1,724,735,800
8,556,400
1,716,179,400
1,804,121,500
-4.9%
Average Residential Value
224,200
227,700
-1.5%
Median Residential Value
217,300
220,800
-1.6%
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Taxable Market Value Comparison [Ascend_AOTest]
3 -4
i ANOKA COUNTY
KA 2011 Pay 2012
COUNTY Market Value
PAYABLE 2011/PAYABLE 2012 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 02/15/2011
2011 Pay 2012 % CHG from
2011 Pay 2012 MV w/o New 2010 Pay 2011 2011 to 2012
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
NOWTHEN
AG
61,298,500
164,800
61,133,700
60,455,500
1.1%
RESID
354,699,900
3,603,000
351,096,900
358,556,500
-2.1%
0
0
0
0
N/A
APTS
C AND I
16,891,600
0
16,891,600
18,385,600
-8.1%
0
0
0
5,094,000
- 100.0%
PERSONAL
TOTALS
432,890,000
3,767,800
429,122,200
442,491,600
-3.0%
Average Residential Value
219,900
217,200
1.2%
Median Residential Value
227,200
227,100
0.0%
OAK GROVE
AG
33,548,000
0
33,548,000
35,728,100
-6.1%
RESID
626,203,000
7,659,600
618,543,400
672,608,800
-8.0%
0
0
0
0
NIA
APTS
C AND I
21,359,500
0
21,359,500
22,960,300
-7.0%
0
0
0
8,353,100
- 100.0%
PERSONAL
TOTALS
681,110,500
7,659,600
673,450,900
739,650,300
-9.0%
Average Residential Value
194,000
202,300
4.1%
Median Residential Value
190,400
201,100
-5.3%
RAMSEY
AG
16,952,200
7,800
16,944,400
17,627,900
-3.9%
RESID
1,594,674,100
19,211,400
1,575,462,700
1,643,659,800
-4.1%
APTS
11,653,500
0
11,653,500
11,929,700
-2.3%
C AND I
285,880,500
1,214,600
284,665,900
300,594,400
-5.3%
PERSONAL
242,600
154,600
88,000
18,253,100
-99.5%
TOTALS
1,909,402,900
20,588,400
1,888,814,500h.1,992,064,900
-5.2%
�2l
178,900
0.1%
Average Residential Value
179,100
176,400
-1.8%
Median Residential Value
173,300
SPRING LAKE PARK
0
0
0
0
N/A
AG
RESID
317,559,400
448,300
317,111,100
323,611,400
-2.0%
APTS
41,199,300
7,700
41,191,600
42,520,200
-3.1%
C AND I
97,502,200
0
97,502,200
101,424,900
-3.9%
PERSONAL
390,000
0
390,000
2,668,600
-85.4%
TOTALS
456,650,900
456,000
456,194,900
470,225,100
-3.0%
Average Residential Value
158,000
157,500
0.3%
Median Residential Value
157,700
159,700
-1.3%
_ � A
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Taxable Market Value Comparison [Ascend_AOTest]
3 - 5
ANOKA COUNTY
ANOKA 2011 Pay 2012
COUNTY Market Value
PAYABLE 2011/PAYABLE 2012 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE
COMPARISON as of 02/15/2011
2011 Pay 2012 % CHG from
2011 Pay 2012 D1V w/o New 2010 Pay 2011 2011 to 2012
New Construction Construction Market Value w/o NC
ST FRANCIS
AG
27,350,300
0
27,350,300
27,514,500
-0.6%
RESID
366,175,400
2,737,800
363,437,600
369,393,300
-1.6%
APTS
19,309,500
0
19,309,500
19,603,000
-1.5%
C AND I
35,566,800
6,800
35,560,000
37,203,900
-4.4%
PERSONAL
320,000
0
320,000
6,502,200
-95.1%
TOTALS
448,722,000
2,744,600
445,977,400
460,216,900
-3.1%
Average Residential Value
144,900
141,000
2.8%
Median Residential Value
156,400
156,000
0.3%
COUNTY OF ANOKA
AG
331,213,100
571,500
330,641,600
337,287,300
-2.0%
RESM
20,405,531,600
178,583,400
20,226,948,200
21,137,835,200
-4.3%
APTS
999,968,500
1,056,200
998,912,300
1,034,232,000
-3.4%
CANDI
4,026,654,200
28,700,400
3,997,953,800
4,243,777,900
-5.8%
PERSONAL
44,772,000
411,400
44,360,600
272,390,800
-83.7%
TOTALS
25,808,139,400
209,322,900
25,598,816,500
27,025,523,200
-5.3%
Average Residential Value
176,500
177,500
-0.6%
Median Residential Value
165,800
170,300
-2.6%
Comments and
Limiting Conditions:
OMM
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Taxable Market Value Comparison [Ascend_AOTest] 3 - 6
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Council Members
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Council Goal Update/Future Direction Discussion
DATE: February 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Over the past few years the City has taken different approaches to establishing goals for the subsequent
year. In 2009 the City decided to hold an off -site strategic planning meeting with the Council,
Administrator and department heads to prioritize and set the tone for establishing a longer term vision
beyond just setting annual goals /tasks.
That strategic planning session was held on April 25, 2009 at Connexus Energy and was facilitated by
Rusty Fifield from Northland Strategies. Attached is the facilitator's recap of that session that was
presented to the Council at the June 23, 2009 Council Workshop. The final outcome of the sessions was a
City slogan "Welcome Home" and the following vision statement: "Andover, a safe, growing
community in which to live and work which enhances the quality of its citizens' lives through
recreational opportunity, quiet neighborhoods, civic involvement, and fiscal and environmental
stewardship': Attached to this report is the recap report of the strategic planning session.
Years prior to 2009, the City Council undertook a more informal process and submitted individual
goals /tasks that were prioritized, ultimately adopted and that staff used as a supplemental work plan for
the subsequent year. The updated results of those processes are attached for your review.
DISCUSSION
Administration would like direction from the Council on how they would like to address goal setting for
2011. It could be as simple as individual council members submitting new goals /tasks they would like
considered for the 2011 -2012 Council goal year, another intensive strategic planning session could be
coordinated, or some other process.
The last discussion at the February 17, 2010 workshop (minutes attached) discussion produce a few new
requests, which for the most part have been accomplished.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review goals progress and either set 2011 -2012 Council goals or determine the process to do so.
submitted,
MEMORANDUM
NORTHLAND
STRATEGIES
Special Projects Group
To: City of Andover
From: Rusty Fifield
Date: May 6, 2009
Re: Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
This memorandum reports the results of the Strategic Planning Workshop held on April a 2009.
The memorandum complies all of the information reported by the workshop participants. It also
contains some of my observations as the workshop facilitator.
V Isrorl
The workshop solicited input on the elements for a vision for the future of Andover. Each workshop
participant was asked to provide up to ten items that describe the vision for Andover. The complete
listing of reported items can be found in Attachment 1.
This information should be used to create a vision statement. There is no single template for a vision
statement. I suggest that you try not to confuse a vision statement with a mission statement. Mission
statements tend to be brief (several sentences) and relatively generic. Vision statements should not
be constrained by a specific length. The purpose of the vision statement is to list the qualities and
characteristics that describe Andover. The vision statement should be viewed as a tool for guiding
decisions and plans.
Elements of a vision statement suggested by your discussion include:
• Andover is recognized as a community of choice through high quality of life and excellence in
governance.
• Andover provides effective services that meet changing community while striving to make
services affordable.
• Andover is a place of well planned and maintained neighborhoods that offer housing for people
of all ages.
• Andover manages growth to protect the natural resources and character of the rural area.
• The effectiveness of city government depends on the ability to attract and retain skilled staff.
Values
The City has an existing statement of values (see Attachment 2). The Workshop included a brief
discussion of these values. No changes in the existing statement were suggested.
Nord, land Securities, hu. 45 South 7th Street, Suite 200Q, Minneapolis, MN 5x102 Toll Free I- 200 4851 -2920 Mam612 -851 -6900
www.northlandsecuritieamm
Member F24RA and S11FC
Q
Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page 2
Challenges
Workshop participant were asked to identify the most important challenges (not more than ten)
facing Andover. The challenges reported by the group are listed in Attachment 3 to be used as a
resource for continued planning. The group discussion of challenges focused on the following.
1. Maintaining a positive image.
2. Maintain the housing stock.
3. Providing quality services with increasing financial constraints. Key services identified - snow
removal, street maintenance, water treatment, trails, parks /recreation, and schools.
4. Preserve lean staffing and promote organizational pride and leadership.
5. Encouraging City Council to be visionary.
6. High use of water resources combined with continued growth
7. Mandates (federal- state - county - regional) and costs to implement.
8. Intergovernmental relationships - County and adjacent cities.
9. Number of unsupervised youth after school. Who is advocate for addressing issues?
10. Lack of Andover post office.
11. Need to master plan rural reserve area.
12. Expiration of existing TfF districts.
13. Need for uniform and consistent policies. Where is the line? Ability to say "no ".
Opportunities
Similarly, participants were asked to identify the key opportunities (not more than ten) for Andover.
The results are listed in Attachment to be used as a resource for continued planning. The group
discussion of opportunities focused on the following.
1. New service delivery approaches - partnerships, consolidation.
2. Work with school district on shared issues.
3. Recession/slow down = opportunity (time) to address issues.
4. Staff planning.
5. Learn from "exit interview" as people move out of Andover.
6. Operate without State funding.
7. Economic asset of expiring TIF districts.
8. Master plan for City Center area.
9. Anticipate /plan for next redevelopment.
Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page 3
10. Encourage community pride through use of volunteers.
11. Community events with multiple benefits.
12. Improve image with business community.
Goals
For the discussion of goals, participants were divided into three groups. Each group was charged
with identifying most important goals for the City of Andover, in light of the vision, values,
challenges and opportunities discussed at the Workshop. The goals reported by the three groups
are:
1. Community market value preservation plan — build and maintain a community with positive
and growing (commercial and residential) market values.
2. Explore p/s opportunities (public and private).
3. Explore and plan for new styles of development and redevelopment (being aware of changing
economy).
4. Look at new areas for commercial/business expansion.
5. Evaluate delivery of park and recreation services for community.
6. Better utilize volunteers to enhance community.
7. Maintain current level of service and quality of service.
8. Manage growth to stay within current infrastructure.
9. Identify the next TIF districts.
10. Develop strategy for business outreach.
11. Fiscal planning (5-10 years).
12. Physical planning — redevelopment priorities (Kottkes, Hughes, Crosstown).
13: Maintain existing housing stock
14. Open space /image/businesses (parks, trails, maintain what's out there, communication).
15. Contractual services (residents expect more from City, succession planning).
The goals recorded during the group discussion were the following:
1. Strategy for business outreach — keeps existing and expands.
2. Financial planning (5-10 year horizon) for City.
3. Maintain current levels of service quality.
4. Explore partnerships.
5. Planning priorities — new growth and redevelopment.
Results of Strategic PIanning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page 4
6. Manage growth to stay within capacity of infrastructure, especially water and roads.
7. Evaluate delivery of park /recreation services (programn-dng).
8. Better use of volunteers.
d
Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page s
Attachment 1- Elements of Vision Reported by Participants
1. An attractive community with positive &
growing market values that is drawing new
residents and businesses
2. Aware of & evaluating trends - housing,
parks, employment, services and
transportation
3. Lead dog community
4. Provide a good quality of life
5. A community that draws new residents for
its quality of life.
6. Do not allow overcrowding of residential
units (density)
7. Keep the mix of rural & suburban living
8. Insure integrity of housing stock
9. Build quality neighborhoods
10. Preserve variety of life rural/urban
11. Guide retail services in appropriate
locations
12. Expand commercial growth
13. A community with a strong & growing
business community that takes pride in their
community & views their city as a partner
14. Preserve open spaces
15. Maintain open space
16. Increase and preserve natural features in
city
17. A community that values & protects the
environment and is aware of & respectful of
its history
18. Upgrade & expand trail system
19. Clean, neat City parks
20. Recreation programs
21. Community events
22. Senior programs
23. Health & fitness
24. Provide facilities & opportunities for the
young
25. After school programs
26. Keep tax rates low
27. Maintain current levels of fiscal
responsibility
28. Funding sources for additional staffing -
maintain current service levels
29. Keep costs low - work with other public
agencies
30. Lean, efficient City services
31. Quality basic services at the most cost
effective price
32. Assure lowest tax rate possible
33. Financial stability
34. Plan the City toward the future - keeping in
mind budget constraints
35. Maintain current levels of service with less
36. Explore new revenue sources for Capital
Equipment needs
37. Maintain physical image of city
38. Improve roadway landscapes throughout
the city
39. City's image in the press
40. Quality city image in view and in service
41. Maintain very positive image of park system
42. A community that has attractive areas of
commercial development that provide high -
paying jobs
43. Effective transportation
44. Improve transportation
45. Improve communications with Sheriff's
office to address quality of life issues
46. Feeling of safety
47. Openness in government
48. Continue to provide good customer service
49. Community involvement
50. Open government
51. Maintain openness with residents and
motivate people to interact with city officials
52. A community that is conscious of &
responsive to its' residents concerns
53. Government that is open to residents with
respectful communication
54. Partnerships
55. Building relationships
56. Pursue energy efficiencies for City facilities
57. On -going oversight of services
58. Provide a service that is uniform and
consistent for all
59. Proactive vs. reactive
N.
Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page 6
60. Keep up with new technology to enhance
customer service
61. Creative at problem solving
62. Family first
63. Continue to maintain infrastructure
0
Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page 7
Attachment z- Existing Values
1. Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services. The City of Andover believes that services to
the public is our reason for being, and strive to deliver quality services in a professional and cost-
effective manner.
2. Fiscal Responsibility. The City of Andover believes that fiscal responsibility and prudent
stewardship of public funds is essential if citizens are to have confidence in government.
3. Ethics and Integrity. The City of Andover believes that ethics and integrity are the foundation
blocks of public trust and confidence and that all relationships are built on these values.
4. Treating the Citizen as our Customer. The City of Andover believes that the citizen is our
customer and, as such, should be treated with courtesy, respect, and integrity.
5. Open and Honest Communication. The City of Andover believes that open and honest
commurucation with each other and the public we serve is the key to having an effective
organization and informed citizens.
1 L'
Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page s
Attachment 3 - Challenges Reported by Participants
1. Hughes Industrial Park
2. Commercial
3. Recruiting quality businesses
4. Support businesses
5. Crosstown Redevelopment Area
6. Attracting & keeping business in the City
7. Rental
8. Lots/Townhome Associations
9. Growth
10. Decline in housing starts
11. Finding anew normal for City not
dependent on growth
12. Master planning of Rural Reserve
13. Rural Reserve Development
14. Lack of growth - tax base
15. Keeping up with quality vs. $
16. Lack of revenue sources State/Local
17. State budget crisis after crisis, ...
18. Holding the line on property taxes
19. Recession
20. Limited Market Value/Revenue options
21. Maintaining property values
22. Fiscal responsibility
23. Economy
24. Finding resources for park & trail
development
25. Government efficiency
26. Provide services within budget constraints
27. Provide needed services in a bad economy
28. Residents wanting more
29. Less dollars for equipment & infrastructure
30. Can & will we be able to keep existing
staffing levels?
31. Cut budgets
32. Implications with demise of TIF Districts
33. Foreclosures
34. Diversity changes in community
35. Younger demographics
36. Large teen population
37. Community getting older
38. Definitive "NO" not apparent
39. Provide a service that is uniform and
consistent for all
40. "Bottom Line' only thinking vs. value -
oriented thinking
41. Staff is small in number
42. Maintaining positive community image
43. Listening
44. Sensitive to public needs
45. Community Obstructionists "Those by
choice & those by impact"
46. Met Council
47. Coordinating with County & schools
48. Fed/State/County government regulations
49. Not being bureaucratic
50. Working with inflexible County Engineer on
road issues impacting our City
51. Get a post office
52. Demands for more parks & trails
53. Parks budget is 1st on budget cuts
54. Providing park services in bad economy
55. Traffic concerns as growth continues
56. Transportation needs - Light Rail
57. Declining infrastructure without
replacement reserves
58. Effects of local /surrounding cities
59. Property crime rise
60. Failure of Bruggeman project
61. Impact and use of water supply resources
62. Socialism
63. Competition
64. Is the City ready for all types of emergency
events?
65. Maintain good communication with Public
11
Results of Strategic Planning Workshop
May 6, 2009
Page 9
Attachment 4 - Opportunities Reported by Participants
1. Redevelop Industrial Park
2. Four -plex Redevelopment
3. Redevelop Kottke Area
4. Kottke's Bus Redevelopment
5. Redevelopment West of City Hall
6. Clocktower Commons Commercial Area
7. New business
8. Attract businesses from other cities that
need sewer & water commercial space
9. Expand commercial tax base
10. Rezone now for future retail needs
11. Joint efforts with other cities
12. Consolidation with another city
13. Joint staff /purchasing with other cities
14. Collaboration with Athletic Assoc. on park
expansions & upkeep
15. Partnerships with other cities and
government agencies to advocate mutual
interests, solve problems, inform
16. Coordinate with school district on energy
issues
17. Can Andover provide contracted services to
other cities?
18. Contract services, positive or negative?
19. Long -term knowledgeable council dedicated
to improving & serving the community
20. Great management team now - take
advantage of it!
21. Young, well- educated, tech -savvy staff that
is creative & can help leaders use hindsight
& oversight to build better developments,
protect wetlands & waterways, and
anticipate trends.
22. Efficiency of Operations
23. Restructure staff - maximize cross training
24. Stream -line
25. Taking advantage of current structure
26. Police/Fire fulltime
27. Expand Fire Dept (medical)
28. Continue to grow programs & facilities
29. Public Works expansion
30. Students' community service hours, service
groups - could produce projects that have
lasting impacts
31. Active community - involved
32. Community involvement
33. Residents who want to volunteer & serve,
many skills & diverse backgrounds
34. Transportation needs - bus to light rail
stations
35. Transportation
36. Rail transit opportunities
37. Work with County on traffic issues
38. Community image
39. Summer Concerts
40. Farmers Market
41. BYRNE JAG
42. Buffalo Wild Wings
43. Time to fine tune projects
44. Alternate fuel & energy sources
45. Technology
46. Recession spurs recovery! Chase an
industry for Andover!
47. Recession "Time to address those
outstanding issues"
48. Life cycle
49. Popular well -read City newsletter
50. Home show expansion
51. Legislative impact at the State level
52. Irrigation of parks
53. Time to plan & review what we've done -
how to improve
54. Expand trail facilities
55. Make website better
56. Well -run successful Community Center
a
:3
ea
� CL
o �
a H
c
a 0
o
v �
0
v
\t
v
0
a�
a
on
a�
abi
U)
a,
O
U
CG
b�,0
O
U U i••I
rn W
�,
iti"
O
ti
O�
Oy..,
Q)
.d
O
U
Y
y�
O
U
�' 4,
U N
•..
ctl
.3
p
0
�L
cy,a
N
U
U
3
N
O
(V
0
�
U
0
o
Fes"
y
N
���
a"
o
cd
U
O
�
o
n
Cd
b N
p
Z
l
f
�
bD
iyy l
w V
i•i
° i-1
Y
CO
V
to
cn
bD
°
en
o
o
a�
cj
t.
U
y"
y
0
Ln
O
U
U
Q Q
W
p
cd
O
U
N
o
a)
'o
¢
rA
..
rA
b
O
o
ti
?
�
O
h
,o
c
a
�
Cd
r�lJ N
41
'0
3
46
c�
to
a)
o
rA
a�
;d
4.
++
U
N
O
c° °
°
v
FA
p
O
cd
9t
r
N
M
V
\t
v
0
a�
a
w
O
`m Q,
O �
'C V)
C
QO
O
V
a
w
O
N
N
N
a
of)
cd
O
c�a
'4
�
A
p
b
(D
b
N
U
a>
o
t4*
o
.°
'
°n
o
ap�i
cd
y�
o
>
G`
°�
E
0
y
n
°
cn
o
�
O
U
vi
,s
N
A
1
d
H
o
o'
3 °'
i>
bn
Q
3
'd
°
�o�n
v.
O
O
p
>
.y
'
O
c'
p
N.
b
cad
O
u
b
m
.2 2
u
m
. tl u
S
m
ti
a�
3
°�'
on
°'
3
0
p
y ed
ao
°
`
°
Cd
w
°
..
°'
v
Cis
w
a
0'
3
G'
d
d
A
m
o
U
0
0
y
O
p
rA
cn
o
p+
Q
y m
N
O
O
p
O
y
a>
a°i
O
N
co
r
O
O
O
O
's:
O
u
a
�
O
O
O
y
O
y
0
O
W
+..'
.O.
y
,?
'd
>
N
'O
In
0
-o
��
a,
v
°
e
.0
Q
CC
P
O
,
>1
c�
W
C.7
o
w
�+
o
O,
W
'y�
o
C
b11
A
O
•�
••O
U
,fl
O
+'
�••
v
W
i�
�
U y
.ti
7.,
p
O
N
a.
ob
ob `�
b
3
°
C
a�i
t
•>
O
o,
p,
O
3
b
��+
-tea
b
d
a�
'1:,
p
04
b
°
vOi
vOi
cn
^O
7:�
d
O
~
O
O
>
s0•i
7N.
W �
W
d.
�.."
x+
S
0
x
p.
rn
04
O O
O
.
4k
If1
l0
A
CO
a
w
O
N
N
N
a
of)
w
R
d 'o
> a
o �
�a m
c
a o
O �
•C
U 3
O
V
v
0
M
N
m
a
°
E
c
CU o�
o
0
0
>-a-d
od
50
Zo
o
Q
rA
o
CA
CZ
Cd
b
4.
aoi
+c3
bn
p'D
Z�
Q)
c�
b
o?
0
0
42
E;
.5
°Pay
'ti
b
•°
'�
a
o
p�.i
aoi
O
d
y p
cc
b4
Fy
(V
U
40,
tU�
O
pq
`�
U
U
cn
o
o
a
o
a
o'
F-�
"
o
w
a,
aci
on
c1
co
�
aoi
�
v�
3
w
a�
o V�
h
2,
E�
�
+�
U
y
Q
U
In
G
id
Cc
0
p
Q
U
•i4
b
O
Q
N
00
U
0
rA
O
o
En
+
o=ff
o
�
CA
�
U
C'n
Ucon
p
cyd
y
C.0
Q
U
c
as
°
�
O
U
In
CA
v�
T
T
T
v
0
M
N
m
a
r
m
a
o �
�o
to
C �
Q O
O �
•C
U c
O
U
v
0
a�
m
a
(9)
cd
=
w
3
C
b
,�,
zi
o
�
U
�
�
�
�
°
�
°
�
U
N
y
a i
p
rA
�'
'a�
'�
C
o
y'
o
3
..
a
a
0
v
b
Q
o
o
c
o
y
U
O
y
O
U
U
�,.?�
������o
O
b
� ;
IN
c�
rel
WEA
Andover City CoOi
Minutes — February
Page 6
Workshop Meeting
Councilmember Jacobson stated ' ht now the hunters needed the landowners permission in order to
hunt. He asked if the existing ordi nee should be changed and if it , then the Planning and
Zoning Commission should look at this d make a recommendati the Council.
4 �E
Councilmember Trade stated the City allowelf6r a resident W4 ply for a code change and have it
go through the Planning and Zoning process.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she understood whr oward was saying, but if someone knew
about illegal hunting, then that person should cali'911 as an inance would not stop a hunter who
was not following the rules.
Mayor Gamache stated there would ed to be clarification in them as to what areas they are
talking about also:
Councilmember Trude as A if the City should expand the bow hunting areas, ayor Gamache
stated if the City is loo ' g to control the deer in the residential areas, there are org dons that
had professional bo unters who could take care of the problem.
Council's co ensus was reached to take this through the Planning and Zoning process wi o
recomme tions from the Council.
recessed at 7:45 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 7:55
COUNCIL GOAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Dickinson asked how the Council wanted their goal process to be done this year. /100 0` to 03
Councilmember Jacobson suggested working at reducing the number of Ordinances by five percent.
Mr. Dickinson responded now that there is technology in -house to research the Ordinances.
Councilmember Bukkila suggested a citywide garage sale. even if it is not sponsored by the City. jN-z
She indicated this would serve the purpose of getting people into the City for a day.
Councilmember Trade stated the City should also look into having a Ci art fair: 3 F DA dts i us,. r4 j
�1 d Biy t rr��5
Councihnember Jacobson recommended staff look into these suggestions further for any
ramifications and bring this back to Council.
could find the
h
website to
on bovic
Mr. Dickinson stated he would like to work with staff on the challenges, opportunities, and goals
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —February 17, 2010
Page 7
Ob pr epared byNorthland Strategies in May, 2009, in nc lar on improvin¢ the Citv'. business community.
Councilmember Knight asked if the City could get a post office. Mr. Dickinson indicated the post
office is actually looking at reducing their current numbers.
Councilmember Knight asked what the item #38 under challenges "definitive no not apparent"
meant. Mr. Dickinson commented that it is likely an observation that the Council does not say no to
residents when the City Code indicates that no is the answer.
Mayor Gamache believed improving the image with the business community was an important goal.
Mr. Dickinson stated if there are certain things the Council wanted targeted, to send him an email,
but he will work to address items raised in the May 2009 Council retreat report.
2010 GENERAL FUND BUDGET PROGRESS
ickmson updated the Council how the budget year 2009 ended and how that would in
2010 dget. He noted the City ended 2009 with a net increase in fund balance of close to $
Council than)d staff for their hard work in keeping the budget in line for 2009.
Mr. Dickinson stag there is available fund balance to help with 2011. ,�'I"fie City maintained
emergency fund balan es for snow, public safety, and facilities, whfc'h total approximately
$260,000.00. He stated thCouncil needed to look at where the C�,I is going with total market
values for next year. After lying to others, he believed ther ould be a total market value
decrease of 10 to 11 percent. He Slmmarized the potential to impacts that were not currently
addressed including police state aid, file aid, and special l exemptions removal. He asked what
Council's target is for the end of the yea,
Mayor Gamache stated he would like to look at,s,ro levy increase. However, this could mean a cut
in services somewhere. /1( .._
•s i.
Councilmember Jacobson stated hem6ould be willing to look at a one percent levy increase to give a
bit of a cushion.
Mr. Dickinson asked if O Council is looking at a significant general*md expenditure or tax levy
decrease. He note e Council had to remember the Sheriff contrac coming up which he
believed would b an increase of approximately 2.5 percent, he also discusse the costs associated
with City stA f salary step increases, COLA, staffing increases or decreases, an rements.
[ consensus was reached to not do a drastic out in service, but to maintain servid as best as
and to not look at furlough reduction until after the 2010 legislative session is co& ded.
o