HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP April 27, 2004
CI T Y 0 F
NDOVE
:J
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Special City Council Workshop
Miscellaneous Items
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Conference Room A & B
1. Call to Order -7:00 p.m.
2. Community Center Project Update - Administration
3. Acknowledge Community Center Ice Arena Manager Position, Cont. - Administralion
~~
4. Discuss Road Improvement Policy, Cont. - Engineering/Planning/Finance
5. Discuss New Standard Street Section (Continued) - Engineering
6. Discuss Hanson Boulevard County Road Planl242 to North of Bunker Lake Boulevard-
Engineering
7. Approve 2005 City Council Budget Guidelines/Goals - Finance
8. Meeting Minute Budget Status - Clerk
9. Other Business
10. Adjournment
~~
CITY OF
NDOVE
CD
\
) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Community Center Project -Value Engineering Reductionsl
Status and Alternatives
DATE: April 27, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The Construction Manager has prepared a detailed listing of value engineering reductions, which
represents both his earlier estimated savings and confirmed savings to date. In addition, the
summary page identifies four (4) alternatives the Council may wish to give additional direction
on prior to finalizing the total list.
, )
\J
DISCUSSION
Mr. Recker will be in attendance at the Council workshop to discuss these items and receive any
additional direction on the value engineering items.
ACTION REOUlRED
For Council review and discussion.
\
,~
'\
1......119, 2004
Bid Package #3 - AndoverlYMCA Community Center
Proposed Cost Savings List
:,J
\
.J
Cost Savings Summary
Confirmed VE Construction Savings
Savings from General Conditions
Subtotal:
Total Proposed Cost Savings
($1,164,501 )
($90,000)
($1,254,501 )
($1,254,501 )
Project Cost Summary
Project Cost per Received bids March 25, 2004
Proposed Savings from Value Engineering
Contractor Bid Issues
Electrical
Gypsumboard Systems
Architectural Woodwork
Telephone and Data Budget
Proposed Savings from MSA Financing
Total Proposed Project Construction Cost
$19,480,796
($1,254,501 )
$98,000
$56,000
$19,166
$22,000
($57,450)
$18,364,011
Alternates for Project - Not included in current summary
Alternate 1 Retain Wood Seating System in Ice Arena
Alternate 2 Eliminate South Connecting Road and Reduce
Walkway Lighting at Bituminous Path
Alternate 3 Provide heat recovery loop at RTU-2 at YMCA lockers
Alternate 4 Provide heat recover loop at RTU-3 at Ice Arena lockers
$48,000
($22,850)
$15,800
$15,950
RJM Construction
" "ackage #3 - AndoverNMCA Community Center
, /
Confirmed Cost Savings
SC-1 Reduce Project Contingency to 3% of Construction Costs
SC-2 Reduce Owner Testing Budget to $35,000
SC-3 Reduce Architectural and Construction Management Fees to DD estimate levels
GC-1 Eliminate thermally broken door requirement at Certain Non-Pool Doors
GC-3 Substitute ACT for Vent wood at First Level Mainstreet. Upgraded Electrical Fixtures.
GC-4 Eliminate Wall Panels at Interior and Replace with Gypboard - Detail A501.
GC-6 Delete second story screening louvers of RTU#1 above Administration.
~ S~llstiMe Precast fur Brick/Masenry "/all at Nerth !Cle'/atien areas C and D.
GC-7 Eliminate upper level enclosed mechanical room north of Ice Arena and provide screening
around de-humidification unit.
GC-8 Delete Brick Screen Wall for Outdoor Play area, Replace with Ornamental Fencing
M-1 Substitute PVC Piping at Underground for Specified Cast Iron
M-2 Allow Additional Manufacturers for WH-1.
M-3 Substitute exposed fiush valves for concealed flush valves
, )
1._ / Eliminate Stainless Steel Radiation Covers and Substitute Standard Covers
at all areas except at areas where they may occur in common spaces such as
Rooms A100, A101, A103, A107, A118, B100, B101, B102, C105, D105.
M-5 Change (6) Roof Top Units to York ECO-2 or Millennium, all with Cooling
Other 2 units at locker rooms to remain as specified.
Delete gas heating section from (3) rooftop units (RTU 1,7,8) and Add Heat to VAV
Coils
Minimize double wall ductwork in the field house
Minimize DDC control system further than was done in DD Value Engineering
E-1
Reduce lighting package as such:
Allow another lighting manufacturer other than Louis Paulsen for fixtures
R, S, T, T1, T2, and T3.
Eliminate Type FL Fixtures at Courtyard
Allow more Manufacturers for Comparable Parking Lot Light Poles.
E-2
Reduce number of emergency call stations in pool room to three locations in lieu of
five currently shown.
T-1
Delete Second Coat of Sealer from Exposed Concrete Floors
T-2
Delete Poly and Burlap Cure of Slabs and Provide Standard Curing at Areas
of VCT, Carpet and Exposed Slabs
\
'- )
April 19, 2004
IConfirmed I Budget 1 Difference
($177,151)1 ($177,151)1 $0 I
($8,500)1 ($8,500) 1 $0 1
($198,780) 1 ($220,000)1 ($21,220)1
($6,000)1 ($6,000)1 $0 I
($30,000)1 ($30,000) 1 $0 I
($18,420)1 ($18,420)1 $0 1
($20,000)1 ($30,000)1 ($10,000)1
($30,000)1 ($145,000)1 ($115,000)1
($15,000 1$20,000\ ($5,000)
($55,000 ($55,000 $0
($5,000)1 ($1,000)1 $4,000 I
($13,000)1 ($5,000) 1 $8,000 1
($10,500)1 ($10,000)1 $500 1
($150,000)1 ($150,000) 1 $0 I
($25,000)1 ($25,000)1
$0 I
($4,000)1
($8,000) 1 ($12,000) I
($2,000) I ($10,000) 1
$0 I ($4,000)1
($8,000)1
($4,000)1
T-3 Substitute 4MM Composite Metal Wall Panel for Honeycomb Panel Specified ($70,000) I ($70,000)1 $0 I
"-
I
/
T-4 Eliminate 1/2" fiberboard at Roof Areas of Non Fire Rating and add Insulation. ($11,500)1 ($8,000)1 $3,500 1
Maintain Densguard.
T-9 Substitute Peel and Stick Vapor Barrier at Cavity and Use Spray-on Type ($18,000)1 ($10,000)1 $8,000 I
P-1 Reduce Kitchen Equipment Budget ($18,000)1 ($18,000)1 $01
P-2 Eliminate Skylight in its Entirety Replace with wood decking and roofing. ($116,650)1 ($120,000)1 ($3,350)1
P-3 Delete sound systems in Ice Arena and Field house, Provide rough-in only. ($50,000)1 ($50,000)1 $0 1
P-4 Delete Concrete Floor at Ice Rink and Provide Sand Floor ($60,000)1 ($60,000)1 $0 I
P-5 Eliminate Wood Bleachers and Metal Supports at Ice Arena ($48,000) I ($30,000) 1 $18,000 1
Subtotal: ($1,164,501) ($1,293,071) ($128,570)
')
.,1
\
,
/
CITY OF
NDOVE
CD
\
j
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
CC:
Mayor and Councilmembers
John Erar, City Administrato~
TO:
FROM: Dana Peitso, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Ice Arena Manager Position
DATE: April27 ,2004
INTRODUCTION
At the March 31,2004, Special City Council Workshop, some Councilmembers had questions
regarding the Ice Arena Manager Position. Hopefully this will help resolve some of those
questions.
DISCUSSION
/ "'
,
\. /~
One question asked at the Special City Council Workshop was in regards to the Salary Range
presented. In the Performa that Finance Director Jim Dickinson had set-up for the Community
Center regarding an Ice Arena Manager, the salary set was in the middle of the proposed salary
range and therefore meets the Council expectations for this position.
Another question asked was in regards to the organizational set-up of the position, and the
reporting relationship in other Cities. I have data from eight cities regarding their Community
Center and/or Ice Arena. All of these cities currently own the facility and with the exception of
one, the City manages them. The City Administrator or City Manager is the person ultimately
responsible for the supervision of the facility, and even when a private firm has been hired to
manage the facility, the firm reports to the City Administrator.
Somewhat related to this issue, it was mentioned to me that the City Council had discussed the
creation of a citizen oversight board that would oversee facility operations from a policy-setting
perspective, subject to the final approval of the governing body. The City of Maple Grove has a
Community Center and has a Park and Recreation Board that provides oversight for their facility,
similar to the proposed Governance Model the City Council approved on September 24, 2003,
for the Andover Community Center. However, since the Community Center Manager and Ice
Arena Managers are City Employees, they still report to the City Administrator.
The current City of Andover Ordinance 1-6-2, indicate the position of City Administrator is
responsible for supervision either directly or indirectly, of city personnel. If the Community
Center proceeds as a City facility then the personnel hired by the City would ultimately be under
)
the direction of the City Administrator. If the Council did not want to make the Ice Arena
Manager a City employee, the Council should consider the following questions: Who would
} provide the compensation and benefits for the Community Center positions? Does the Council
want to hire an outside firm to manage the Community Center? Are there other legal issues that
may be involved since the Community Center is a City owned facility?
Finally, the last question asked at the Special City Council Workshop was in regards to Job
Duties of the Ice Arena Manager. Since this is a new position, the duties of this position need to
evolve and the job description provided are similar to an Ice Arena Manager in other cities, and
with those duties provided in the proposed Governance Model. As with any Job Description,
there is flexibility in the language to account for duties not specified within and can be modified
as the position grows. However, for recruitment purposes we need to address the duties,
responsibilities and qualifications of this position as we foresee it.
ACTION REQUESTED
None, informational only.
Respectfully Submitted
~1k~
Dana Peitso
\
.J
\
)
Sl\NDbVE~
@
,
) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Acknowledge Ice Arena Manager Position/Start Date
DATE: April 6, 2004
INTRODUCTION
With the anticipated construction of the new Community Center Ice Arena scheduled for
opening in mid October, 2004, the need to recruit and hire an Ice Arena Manager by no later than
July 1, 2004 becomes critical to meeting a number of operational requirements.
DISCUSSION
, '.
Council was recently apprised of the need to hire an Ice Arena Manager with at least 90 days of
operational lead-time. Staff has had several contacts with involved residents and has already
received numerous inquiries regarding scheduling ice time. In preparation for. the mid-October
opening date, the Ice Arena Manager will be very busy with interviewing and hiring part-time
and seasonal staff, preparing operating policies and guidelines, scheduling ice time for team and
public use, meeting with local hockey groups and school district skating/hockey representatives,
overseeing the ice arena opening schedule/facility shakedown, attending to myriad details
affecting ice arena operations and meeting with potential advertisers, as time permits. In staff s
view, the minimum amount of time necessary to ensure the successful opening of this facility is
90 days.
'. ./
With that timetable iri mind, staff would anticipate beginning the recruitment process by April
15,2004, with the Ice Arena Manager beginning no later July 1, 2004. Staff has prepared a job
description for Council acknowledgement and identified an appropriate compensation range for
the position. This position was previously identified in the Community Center Business Plan
recently adopted by Council. Supporting materials have been attached to this staff memorandum.
The Human Resources Manager has prepared additional information based on questions and
comments raised by certain Council members. Her memo is attached, along with a copy of City
ordinances referencing the organizational structure this position falls under and other research
compiled separately by the Human Resources Office.
, .
.'
, /
BUDGET IMP ACT
Funding for this position would be appropriated initially through the lease revenue bond issued
for the facility, and upon commencement of the facility through operating revenues. These initial
staffing costs were anticipated in the bond issue.
ACTION REQUIRED
Council acknowledgement of the attached job description and approval to begin the process
leading to the appointment of the Ice Arena Manager effective July 1, 2004. An appointment
recommendation will be forwarded to Council by the second meeting in June 2004.
; -~.
')
J'
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: John Erar, City Administrat01tt-
FROM: Dana Peitso, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Ice Arena Manager Position
DATE: Apri16,2004
{ ~
INTRODUCTION
At the March 31, 2004, Special City Council Workshop, some Councilmembers had questions
regarding the Ice Arena Manager Position. Hopefully this will help resolve some of those
questions.
DISCUSSION
,
'~ / One question asked at the Special City Council Workshop was in regards to the Salary Range
presented. In the Performa that Finance Director Jim Dickinson had set-up for the Community
Center regarding an Ice Arena Manager, the salary set was in the 'middle of the proposed salary
range and therefore meets theCoullcil expectations for this position. ", ,
Another question asked was in regards to the organizational set-up ofthe position, and the
reporting relationship in other Cities. I have data from eight cities regarding their Community
Center and/or Ice Arena. All of these cities currently own the facility and with the exception of
one, the City manages them. The City Administrator or City Manager is the person ultimately
responsible for the supervision of the facility, and even when a private firm has been hired to
manage the facility, the firm reports to the City Administrator.
Somewhat related to this issue, it was mentioned to me that the City Council had discussed the
creation of a citizen oversight board that would oversee facility operations from a policy-setting
perspective, subject to the final approval of the governing body. The CityofMaple Grove has a
Community Center and has a Park and Recreation Board that provides oversight for their facility,
similar to the proposed Governance Model the City Council approved on September 24, 2003,
for the Andover Community Center, However, since the Community Center Manager and Ice
Arena Managers are City Employees, they still report to the City Administrator.
/;)
The current City of Andover Ordinance 1-6-2, indicate the position of City Administrator is
responsible for supervision either directly or indirectly, of city personnel. If the Community
Center proceeds as a City facility then the personnel hired by the City would ultimately be under
')
/
,
\,
'-~'
. ,
. /'
the direction of the City Administrator. If the Council did not want to make the Ice Arena
Manager a City employee, the Council should consider the following questions: Who would
provide the compensation and benefits for the Community Center positions? Does the Council
want to hire an outside firm to manage the Community Center? Are there other legal issues that
may be involved since the Community Center is a City owned facility?
Finally, the last question asked at the Special City Council Workshop was in regards to Job
Duties of the Ice Arena Manager. Since this is a new position, the duties of this position need to
evolve and the job description provided are similar to an Ice Arena Manager in other cities, and
with those duties provided in the proposed Governance Model. As with any Job Description,
there is flexibility in the language to account for duties not specified within and can be modified
as the position grows. However, for recruitment purposes we need to address the duties,
responsibilities and qualifications of this position as we foresee it.
ACTION REQUESTED
None, informational only.
Respectfully Submitted
~~
pana Peitso
.~ i
CITY OF ANDOVER
POSITION DESCRIPTION
\
)
Position Title:
Department:
Accountable To:
Status: .
.. ..-c-
Ice Arena Manager
Community Center
city Administrator
. Exempt
.
. .
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF POSITION:
Under the general direction of the City Administrator, plans, organizes, implements and
coordinates programs for the Community Center Ice Arena. Promotes full utilization of the
facility to maximize revenue generating potential with the objective of operating the facility on a
sound fmancial basis. Establishes and reviews standards, prepares annual operating budget,
oversees facility maintenance, prepares and enforces policies and procedures for all phases of
operation. Provide effective, efficient and excellent customer services to all city clients and the
public.
SUPERVISION EXERCISED:
Exercises supervision over maintenance personnel and seasonal staff.
.
\ .
, )
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
'- j
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (Other Duties as assigned)
Manages and schedules ice time to assure availability to various skating interests in a fair,.
impartial and equitable manner.
Develops innovative use of slack ice time to generate broad community interest in the
facility
Directs ongoing promotional and public relations programs with the goal of securing
advertising revenue streams for the facility.
Develops publicity and information through brochures, news releases and flyers with the
goals of promoting and attracting interestin the use of the facility
Ensures timely response to customer concerns in a professional and empathetic manner
Develops good relationships with youth atWetic association boards, and local high school
teams.
Develops "learn" to skate and figure skating programs during normal ice season and
explores and implements alternate uses of facility during the off season.
Plans, directs and oversees the complete maintenance operation and functioning of the Ice
Arena.
Prepares, directs and implements a maintenance program to assure that the ice and the
facility which houses it are in optimum condition, assuring safety and enjoyment to users.
Manages purchases of materials to conform to budgetary constraints.
Performs maintenance and operations functions as needed.
Schedules activities and supervises personnel for the Ice Arena to provide adequate staff
coverage at all times.
Trains and supervises the clerical, maintenance and program staff.
. Develops and maintains a schedule for personnel which maximizes service but assures
efficient use of resources.
)
, '\
<J
- \
'.
WORK ENVIRONMENT:
The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee
encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations.
may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
SELECTION GUIDELINES:
Formal application, rating of education and experience; oral interview and reference check; job
related tests may be required.
The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be
performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the
position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the position.
The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and
employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and
requirements of the job change.
Date:
Approval: .
City Administrator
8/03
3
'\
/
>
<
<ll
..
III
10
<ll
III
o
~
(l)
en
.....
N
N
N
"-
i
J
"-
\ )1
<cn"Us:s:r-3':cm(')(')O]O]~
CS,.....:<-.Ol Ol < 0 Ol O:,-C: 0-'
0(')35'0 itim'Oco 0 Ol 3 0
0.- mro<""2r.0l:J311l3
tTog- =G):J:J;o'O:5.-'
c:c:_oG)m",,1Il Ol=-:J
.:<o.:,-:J"" 0 'O:Jroco
"0 < -. 0
Ol< m a. :J
m:c III
m
cO'
:,-
-
III
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ih 0 ih 0 ih I~
~01~01~~0>~01~./>.01~
0>00)~./>.NOOo)""'010N
--.. Co -J\J -...... .......1. -01 Co 0 .0 ~ 0 Co -c.n
CO....00)NOOCO./>../>.01.....0
~?'>?'>?'>999!'>P~!'>?'>9
00000000000)00
0000000000000
o
~ih~ih~ihihihih0ih0ih~
en
....
in
o
en
N
en
0>0>0>0>0101.....010>.....010>01
OOO>OO1Wo>./>.O)NO>01W
-.......W~ ~-......"'O -...... -....I. ~~(,.)-O 0
.....NO)O./>.000>.....NN010
O)./>.wmCOOOO)OO1O>NO
OOOOOOOOOOj,.OO
0000000000000
ihihihihihihihihih~~~ihl
./>.01./>.01./>.010>./>.01./>../>.01./>.1lI
0>00)./>.~WOOo)""'010N:J
--.. Co N -...... -....I. 0 Co 0 '0 ~ '"0 (0 c" 1>>
~cng~~gg1S~O)R3~gC1l
I I I I I 0 I I I I Co I I ...
~~~ih~E;~ih~~O~ih
_ O>O>O>01"".....01O>N' 0>01
.....0_ 0_ mo>./>.O)- ~01w
.......- l\.)- ....I.::::s-...... 1\J<.n---
OJW())f\.)~_-"....I.I\J""mOO
~wgCO.:<g~<301wR3g
N
0>
j,.
o
ih ih ih
ww......
CO~CO
-.....-.". W
.....NO
Cf'Cf'1
O1ih~
......WN
mco?'>
m - 01
-"8~
m
NNN......N
"TI"T1"T1"T1"T1
--1-1 -I -I -I
....
"U
-I
0S:-
mOl}>
}> :J oS:
""Olo
mlC
:Jm'O
Q):'CD
s:-IDl
~~S
-:,-:J
"TI III
~ (fl
a. c:
:c '0
o
c:
III
m
s:
10
-""
}>
ih
w
......
ih~:J
./>.WO
O)W:J
:...a..-"'w CD
00
00
~l
o>~
O./>.
- ./>.
0_
OCO
00
./>.
N
0)
.....
I
ih
W
_co
o
01
m
NO]......
"TI0"TI
-15'-1
"TI
-I
(')
(')
o
'0
m
!!l
o'
:J
III
(fl
c:
'0
m
:<
in'
o
-""
......
(')
o
3
3
c:
:J
~
(')
m
:J
-
m
""
(')
<'
,1'
}>
""
m
:J
Ol
s:
Ol
:J
Ol
10
m
""
s:
Ol
:J
Ol
co
m
-""
}>
CD
:J
(')
o
~
...... N\"
"TI"T1::!
-1-1"11
-I
;0......0
moo
Q m 3
ffi,G)3
_. Ol C1l
o a. ~
::J(DU1
"TI:J
Ws:
:;Ol
~:J
m Ol
III co
s:~
10-
"" ......
~
N
o
o
./>.
o
m
n}>
~CD
:J
00l
:ES:
:J Ol
m :J
o.Ol
"TI1C
Ol m
goo
;:::::t:Q)
a;'-
.e~
;:0
Ol
:J
co
m
III
o
m
G)
Ol
""
o
\
J
,_ _J
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
John Erar
FROM:
Jon Sevald
DATE:
August 11, 2003
SUBJECT:
Corrununity Center Survey
Thirteen cities were surveyed via email on Friday, August 1,2003 regarding the management of
their corrununity centers. Of those thirteen, eight responded to the following questions:
* Blaine responded that their Corrununity Center referendum was voted down in November
1998.
1. Is your community center owned by the City, by a private institution, or is there a joint'
ownership agreement?
\ j
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
New Ulm
Plymouth
Stillwater
Owned by the City.
Owned by the City.
Owned by the City.
Owned by the City. MN National Guard contributed funds, has 4,000 sq ft within
78,000 sq ft facility.
Owned by the City.
Owned by the City.
Owned by the City.
2. Is the community center managed by the City or through a private contract?
If managed through a private contract, what has been your experience (good or bad, why)?
Who does the management company report to?
Is the contract performance based?
Does the management company have the authority to set rates, or do the rates have to be
approved by Council?
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
New Ulm
Plymouth
Stillwater
Managed by the City.
Managed by the City.
Managed by the City. Rates are set and approved by the Parks and Recreation Board.
Managed by the City.
Managed by the City.
Managed by the City.
Managed by a private contract. Management company (Doug Brady 651-430-2601)
reports to the City Administrator.
3. Does the city subsidize the facility operations?
If yes, how much per year? Is this a conscious policy decision by Council?
))
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
,
Maple Grove
/
Monticello
New Ulm
Plymouth
Stillwater
City subsidizes facility as a conscious policy by Council.
City subsidizes $831,300 (including debt service). It is a conscious policy by the
Council, "although the Council would like to reduce the amount of support."
The City subsidizes facility an average of $300,000 per year. City subsidized $300,000
- $480,000 in the early years. The City Council and Park & Rec Board have the goal
that the Community Center will be self-sufficient. In recent years, it has been agreed
that the city would subsidize it and set limits to the amount of the subsidy.
City subsidizes $525,000 for operations and $550,000 for debt service. "Council really
has no choice in the matter, if the facility is to stay open."
City subsidizes 100% of the costs.
City subsidizes facility $250,000 per year as a conscious policy by Council.
City subsidizes facility if needed. It is a conscious policy by Council.
4. Is there a citizen board overseeing the facility?
Is there a director?
Is the facility a part of the Parks Department?
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
New Ulm
Plymouth
Stillwater
,
" j
There is no citizen board. Facility is managed by the Community Center Manager
within the Recreation Dept.
"There is a Park & Recreation Advisory Board as well as a Community Center
Advisory Board." There is a "Community Center Manager." Facility is a part of the
Park & Rec Dept.
Parks & Rec Board oversees the facility. There is a Community Center Director.
There is a citizen board overseeing the facility. There is a director. The facility is not a
part of the Parks Department.
Overseen by the Park & Recreation Director. Facility is a part of the Parks Dept.
There is no citizen board. Facility Manager oversees community center. Community
center is within the Parks & Rec Dept.
No, no, no.
5. Does the facility have a concessions stand?
If yes, who operates it? If contracted out, who gets the profits?
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
New Ulm
Plymouth
Stillwater
Concessions stand is operated Oct-Feb by the youth hockey association. City receives
25% of the profits (approximately $7,000 per year).
Concessions are operated by community center staff.
Community center staff coordinate the pool concessions. Hockey boosters operate ice
arena concessions.
Concessions are operated by community center staff.
Hockey organization operates concessions stand. Unless rented by another
organization, they can run the stand, use any equipment available even if the Hockey
Assn. purchased it.
Facility does not have a concessions stand.
Concessions stand is operated by the management company. City receives profits.
6. Who does the community center Director report to (i.e. City Administrator)?
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
New VIm
Plymouth
Stillwater
\
)1
Director of Recreation
Park & Rec Director.
Parks & Rec Director.
Deputy City Administrator.
City Manager.
Recreation Superintendent.
City Administrator.
7. Does the facility have an Ice Arena?
If yes, with all costs considered, including depreciation and capital replacement: is it turning a
profit, or losing money?
,
,
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
NewUlm
'- ../ .
Plymouth
Stillwater
Facility has two ice arenas. Facility is losing money.
Facility has an ice arena. Facility is losing money.
Facility has an ice arena. Facility is losing money.
Facility does not have an ice arena.
Facility has two sheets of ice. "[First] year of operations, heavily in the red. It will
never make a profit based on current and expected uses."
Ice Arena is in a separate facility.
Facility has an ice arena. "The facility currently pays it's operating costs and provides
some debt service payments."
8. Does the facility have an Aquatics Center?
If yes, with all costs considered, including depreciation and capital replacement: is it turning a
profit, or losing money?
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
New Ulm
\
\ /1
Plymouth
Stillwater
Facility does not have an aquatics center.
Facility has an aquatics center. Facility is losing money.
Facility has an aquatics center. Facility is losing money. "The pool, ice arena costs are
not broken out in our overall operational budget since electric, water, gas utilities are in
one account. Only the estimated cost for each large area like the ice arena or pool can
. be done. With this in mind the building is losing money overall."
Facility has an aquatics center. "Since this is one of the main attractions of our center,
it's hard to really say what is the real reason for memberships. We also have a gym,
with a running/walking track, fitness equip. area, a small day care arena along with the
aquatics."
Community center does not have an aquatics center. Aquatics center is located within
a separate facility along with the old ice arena, which was retrofitted into a field house.
Overall, the community center is losing money.
Facility does not have an aquatics center. Aquatics are offered through Parks and Rec,
at school district pools, or Lifetime Fitness.
Facility does not have an aquatics center.
9. Does the facility have a Field House?
If yes, with all costs considered, including depreciation and capital replacement: is it turning a
profit, or losing money?
Brooklyn Park
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Monticello
New VIm
Plymouth
Stillwater
Facility does not have a field house.
Facility does not have a field house.
Facility does not have a field house.
Facility does not have a field house.
"Other non-civic center building has field house. It might break even, but I doubt it.
Still has a lot of energy costs during the winter that will likely keep it in the red."
Facility has a field house. "We net about $90,000 in income minus expenses. We
escrow most of that for eventual replacement of the turf and inflatable roof. It operates
6 months ofthe year Oct-Apr).
"[Field House] is run as a part of the overall center."
10. Does charitable gaming support the facility?
If yes, how much is contributed each year?
Brooklyn Park No, but hockey association (through charitable gaming) contributes $50,000 per year to
the facility to offset operating loses.
Inver Grove Heights No.
))
Maple Grove
Monticello
-~ -
New Ulm
Plymouth
Stillwater
,
/'
'I
~I.,
No.
No, but gambling organizations have contributed to items like pool tables for the Teen
Center, which is part of the facility.
No.
No.
No.
1-6-2: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/MN/ Andover/0200600000000200...
1-6-2: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
A. Position Established: The position of city administrator is hereby established providing for
the administrator to be the chief administrative officer of the city. The administrator shall
be chosen by the city council solely on the basis of training, experience and
administrative qualifications.
B. Position Summary:
1. Directs and manages all city operations as delegated by the city council within the
parameters of state statute and city policy to ensure the effective and efficient operation
of all city departments through a subordinate department head structure.
-
--7
2. Serves as primary liaison with the city council to inform them of relevant projects and
issues.
3. Recommends policy changes and communicates council decisions to appropriate city
staff.
4. Guides the development and implementation of departmental manager;nent, human
resource and labor relations policies and practices.
5. Serves as the city's key representative in cooperative efforts with other governmental
or private entities.
,- '\
'. j 6. Responds to citizen questions and complaints either directly or through appropriate
personnel.
7. Reports to and serves at the discretion of the elected mayor and council.
8. Exercises supervisory authority over all city employees, through a departmental
--7 structure.
9. Oversees all hiring, promotion, and termination recommendations as well as rewards,
discipline, grievances, training, performance appraisal and other employment conditions.
~
10. Directs and oversees the development of the annual city budget and periodically
monitors revenues and expenditures against approved budgets to ensure the soundness
of city finances.
C. Major Areas Of Accountability:
1. Supervise directly or indirectly all personnel of the city, making recommendations to
the city council regarding employment and dismissal; budgeted temporary personnel
may be hired and discharged by the city administrator.
----7' 2. Administer personnel matters for the city consistent with city personnel policy; develop
and issue administrative rules, policies and procedures necessary to ensure the proper
\
".1
Iof3
3/5/2004 I I :04 AM
1-6-2: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/MN/ Andover/0200600000000200...
-' ''\
,)
'\
" )
functioning of all departments.
3. Negotiate or delegate the negotiation of terms and conditions of employee labor
contracts for presentation to the city council.
4. Inform the city council on matters dealing with administration of the city and prepare
and submit to the city council for adoption an administrative code encompassing the
details of administrative procedure (personnel policy). (Ord. 216, 3-17-1998)
5. Attend and participate in all meetings of the city council; coordinate the preparation of
the city council, planning and zoning commission and park and recreation commission
agendas; recommend to the city council such measures as deemed necessary for the
welfare of the citizens and the efficient administration of the city; may attend at own
discretion or at the direction of the council, other committee and commission meetings.
6. Represent the city at functions as directed by the council; maintain good public
relations with the citizens of the community.
7. Consult with officials of both public and private agencies as may be required, while
maintaining knowledge of federal, state and county programs which affect the city.
8. Oversee the preparation of annual fiscal budget and capital improvement plan;
maintain financial guidelines for the city within the scope of the approved budget and
capital improvement program; ensure reports are submitted to the council on the
financial condition of municipal accounts, and ensure the annual financial statement is
prepared in accordan.ce with Minnesota statutes. (Ord. 216,,3-17-1998; amd. 2003
Code)
9. Supervise the purchasing function of the city by ensuring all purchases are in
accordance with approved municipal budgets; has the authority to sign purchase orders
. for routine services, equipment and supplies for which the cost does not exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00); present to the city council all claims resulting from orders
placed by the city for council audit.
.10. Negotiate or delegate contract negotiation responsibilities for any kind of
merchandise, materials, equipment or construction work for presentation to the city
council.
11. Coordinate municipal programs and activities as directed by the council; monitor all
consultant and contract work performed for the city; coordinate the activities of the city
attorney.
12. Take an oath of office; be bonded at city expense with a position bond to indemnify
the city.
13. Perform such other duties as prescribed by law or required by ordinance or
resolution adopted by the council and as apparent or assigned. (Ord. 216, 3-17-1998)
\
)1 D. Background And Experience:
2of3 3/5/200411:04 AM
1-6-2: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
, )
, )
30f3
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.comIMN/Andover/0200600000000200...
1. Bachelor's degree (master's degree preferred) in public or business administration,
finance, economics or related field and ten (10) years' experience in municipal
government administration with at least five (5) years in a responsible management
position.
2. Considerable knowledge of municipal government operations, procedures, public
. relations, finances, purchasing and all administrative requirements for proper municipal
operation; have knowledge of or access to all laws affecting the city.
3. Have the ability to provide harmonious relations with municipal employees and the
general public; have the ability to plan development, to collect material and analyze for
reporting and to conduct and implement standards of procedure, operation and
organization.
4. Excellent oral and written communication skills. (Ord. 216, 3-17-1998; amd. 2003
Code)
E. Appointment; Term Of Office; Removal: The city administrator shall be appointed for an
indefinite period by a majority of the city council and may be removed from office only by
a majority of the city council in accordance with the rules and procedures set forth in the
city personnel policy. (Ord. 216, 3-17-1998)
,
)
3/5/2004 I I :04 AM
"
,/
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - April 6, 2004
Page 5
wage requirement. He stated all the bidders will have to meet that minimum requirement.
Councilmember Trude stated this was all predicated on the YMCA paying a higher rate annually
because the costs went up and there were some things that were worked out with them over the
phone and she wanted to make sure they all understood how this all ended up because the YMCA
has some other issues to continue forward with the project at this higher rate and she wondered if
there was something in writing from the YMCA. Mr. Erar stated the letter was copied to the Council
on Monday.
Councilmember Orttel explained what was discussed at the City Council workshop.
Motion carried unanimously.
ACKNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY CENTER ICE ARENA MANAGER POSITION, CONT.
City Administrator Erar explained with the anticipated construction of the new Community Center
, Ice Arena scheduled for opening in mid October, 2004, the need to recruit and hire an Ice Arena
j Manager by no later than July 1, 2004 becomes critical to meeting a number of operational
requirements.
Ms. Peitso discussed the information with the City Council.
Councilmember Jacobson made a number of suggested changes that he already discussed with Ms.
Pietso and he suggested they move this to the next work session because he thought they needed to
discuss this further.
Councilmember Trude had a few items that she wanted to discuss and she wanted to make sure there
is enough money left for all of the positions.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to move this item to the April City Council Work
Session, tentatively set for April 27, 2004.
Councilmember Orttel stated they will eventually need to take care of this item and he did not like
postponing this again.
Councilmember Knight stated it was his understanding that the High School will not be utilizing the
facility this year. Councilmember Orttel asked how this affects their proforma Mr. Dickinson stated
the local associations will want to take as much ice as they can get so he did not think that as being a
problem. He encouraged the Council to make a decision on this soon.
)
Councilmember Orttel asked if there was someone on City staff that could handle scheduling ice
time for the time being. Mr. Dickinson stated they are trying to work through this but they are down
one person already. Mr. Erar stated the Ice Arena Manager will be taking on more responsibilities
"-
\J
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - April 6, 2004
Page 6
than just scheduling ice time.
Councilmember Trude stated it was her understanding that if they hire for this position, there will not
be any more money in the budget for additional staff. Mr. Erar stated this was not accurate; the
budget does have other positions identified within the proforma.
Motion carried 4 ayes, 1 nay (Gamache).
CONSIDER REZONING R-4 TO SC (SHOPPING CENTER)/CVS PHARMACY/13UB ROUND
LAKE BOULEVARD
Community Development Director Erar explained the City Council is asked to review the proposed
rezoning of the southern portion of the above single-family residential lot.
Mayor Gamache stated the Council received a letter from the owner of the property next to this
property.
'\
, / Councilmember Jacobson asked what the current zoning of the surrounding property is. Mr.
Neumeister stated this is currently zoned Shopping Center.
Mr. Neumeister stated there is a letter from Mr. Dean and Mrs. Barbara Johnson asking the City
Council not approve the rezoning of this property or the conditional use permit.
Councilmember Knight asked what the status of the easement is and would they be rezoning if the
easement was not there. Councilmember Jacobson called a point of order. Mr. Neumeister stated
the rezoning should stand on its own.. The merits of the change in conditions or that it was wrong in
the first place is what needs to be considered.
Mayor Gamache stated they are rezoning nineteen feet of this property. He asked if they were only
purchasing the nineteen feet. Mr. Neumeister stated they would be purchasing the entire parcel but
only rezoning nineteen feet and then selling the rest of the property as residential.
Councilmember Orttel asked if they could extend the service road to access the property. Mr.
Berkowitz stated they never looked at the connection point and they could not run the road down the
County right-of-way because it would be too close to the access point at the intersection.
"
)
Mayor Gamache asked if the reason for this was to try to get two lanes of traffic behind the building.
Mr. Neumeister stated there were a number of reasons. One was to make sure the front green strip
along Bunker was to meet the minimum of twenty feet and then also behind the building where the
drive thru delivery would be and the access behind the building for fire protection would be
maintained at the minimum width of twenty-five feet and they also wanted to see an adequate buffer
between the residential and the back of the business.
CITY OF
NDOVE
(0
"-
'-)
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
FROM:
Mayor and Council Members
John Erar, City Administrato~
Jim Dickinson, City Finance Direct~
David Berkowitz, City Engineer 'DD~ . j
Will Neumeister, Community Development Director ~
TO:
CC:
SUBJECT: Discuss Road Improvement Policy - Finance/Planning/Engineering
DATE:
April 27, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The need to discuss a road improvement policy for the City is becoming ever more important
as new demands on the city and county road network require upgrades to intersections and
widening of roads. This report will attempt to explain the issues that arise and explain how the
City staff would recommend establishing new policy to allow the City to charge developers for
'\ their pro-rated share.
'- ~)
DISCUSSION
Three departments have collaborated in preparing this report to the Council. Therefore it will
attempt to explain the collective view of these departments. City staff have done a survey of
surrounding communities in Anoka County and that information is attached. The survey found
that no cities in Anoka County currently have a "Trunk Road Fee". Some cities indicated that
when a plat is being reviewed, they determine what improvements are required and either make
the developer construct the improvement, or establish what the cost would be, and let the
developer make a payment in lieu of making the improvement.
The City Attorney's Office was consulted on the legal aspects of establishing a "Trunk Road
Fee" as was talked about at a previous workshop. The City Attorney will be present at the
workshop to provide comment and advice. They have completed research on the establishment
of "impact fees" since some communities have tried that approach (see attached Supreme
Court decision, case of Country Joe v. City of Eagan. The Court concluded that the connection
charge was an unlawful tax. Some of the discussion from the Court case gives us some
direction on how to properly establish a "Trunk Road Fee".
The funding of needed roadway improvements was seen by the Court as something that cities
can assess. The assessment process is one of three ways (absent State and Federal funding)
\ that the City can try to pay for the needed improvements. The three ways would be to levy
)
.' '"
" )
'\
'- J
enough taxes, assess the benefiting property, or possibly create a "Trunk Road Fee". If there is
no support for the latter option then the City is left with the first two to choose from.
We will try to briefly explain what a "Trunk Road Fee" is and how it would be used. First,
staff feels that a detailed study of what improvements are needed (both in the short term and
the ultimate design) should be conducted, similar to the City's park dedication study. Then,
when developments came in for approval that require upgrades to the trunk roads, then the City
could charge a "Trunk Road" fee. That money would be used to fund the both the short term
needed roadway improvements as well as a portion of the long term improvements. To be able
to do this, both the detailed study and then appropriate accounting of the collected money
would be needed. That being said, the "nexus test" would be able to be met, which is
ultimately what the Courts look for to sustain whether this is a fee that a City can charge. It is
important to note that the collected money would not be co-mingled with other money of the
City. Then as these improvements came forward, the "Trunk Road Fee" money would be used
to pay for the specific improvements that were identified as being needed as outlined in the
aforementioned detailed study.
Having new developments pay for all or even a portion of the needed roadway improvements
has been hampered by a lack of a City policy and/or an ordinance that establishes this as a
development requirement. Such an ordinance would need to indicate that roadway
improvements that are directly' attributable to the new traffic from the development must be
paid for by the new development (on a proportionate basis).
Each Development Paysfor Needed Roadway Improvements
If the Council is not comfortable with the concepts outlined above and raising taxes, the
remaining option is to make the new development pay for all needed roadway improvements at
the time of plat recording. A report and resolution would need to indicate that a requirement of
approval would be that either the developer must make the necessary improvements or an
amount equal to the cost of the improvements be paid prior to the release of the plat for
recording. This method is utilized in neighboring cities and seems to work. In this option, the
city again needs to account for money in a fund that will be used only for the specific
improvement project when ultimately built. The improvement may not be done right away as
other new developments will need to come forward before there is enough money collected
and the project is formally authorized by either the City or County. In some cases, the County
may require the improvement be made at the time of construction or a County permit may not
be issued.
1
J
Capual Improvement Plans/GrantApplications
The City plans for their portion of major future roadway improvements in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). The County also uses their CIP to plan for where the dollars will be
spent on the County roadway system. There are a number of improvements that show up in the
County plan as "unfunded" and that makes it rather difficult to determine if or when there will
be any improvement to a road that needs upgrading. The demands are greater than the
available money and they continually work at prioritizing where their money will be spent.
Staff would recommend participation in joint grant applications with the County for Federal
Grant funds (i.e. HES or ISTEA grants). This would be mutually beneficial and help get new
roadway improvements sooner than they would otherwise occur. An example of this would be
the section of Hanson Boulevard between Bunker and Andover Boulevards. There will need to
-2. -
be significant upgrades of this roadway over the next few years and both the City and County
could benefit if grants could be obtained to aid in the funding for the needed improvements.
. "
I
~,'
It is important to identify projects in the County's CIP or any publicly adopted plans to assist in
the federal funding approval. County funds are used to offset portions of projects that are not
covered by federal funds. The next application round is August of 2005. These federal funds
will be available for construction projects in the years of 2009-201 O. Agencies have the option
to advance fund these projects after the federal funds are granted.
ACTION REQUESTED
Council is asked to review the information and discuss whether there is a need to establish
either an ordinance or a policy that would create a "Trunk Road Fee". Also, discuss whether
the City staff should be working with the County on joint grant applications for roadways like
Hanson Boulevard or Crosstown Boulevard.
Respectfully submitted,
kd1"~~~
Will Neumeister
David D. Berkowitz
Attachment
Survey from Surrounding Communities
. \
" j Cc: Byron Westlund, Woodland Development, 13632 Van Buren St.NE, Ham Lake, MN 55304
Mike Quigley, Penta Management Group, 1875 Commercial Blvd., Andover, MN 55304
""
/
-3-
CITY OF
NDOVE
1665 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
This survey is being sent to larger communities within Anoka County. The intent is to acquire a better
understanding of how different communities fund County road improvements associated with new plats and/or
major County development projects. Please answer the following questions and return this form via email to
isevaldralci.andover.mn.us by Wednesday, March 3'd. If you have any questions, please contact Dave
Berkowitz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and interest.
CITY:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
RN-t~"'(
~V'I;r-l ~
1. How does your city fund County road improvements that the Anoka County Highway Department
(ACHD) is requesting or requiring for plats that impact County roads?
We make the developer responsible for the related costs,
2. How does your City fund short-term improvements such as turn lanes and bypass lanes that are required
or requested by the ACHD for new plats? These costs are treated as part of the development costs.
3. If there is an infill devetopment not adjacent to a County road, does your city require improvements such
as turninglbypass lanes to be constructed per ACHD requests? If so, how is this improvement funded
(i.e. developer pays, property assessments, etc.)? We haven't encountered this particular situation
\ 4. How does your City fund long-term projects such as County road full reconstruction projects? We have
, used a Public Improvement Revolving fund which receives its revenues from a number of sources including;
special assessments, interest earnings, and year end surpluses in the general fund.
5. Has your City considered some type of area wide assessment or transportation fee to fund County road
improvements? Not at this point.
6. Does your City have any plans to change your current procedure regarding the new County road
improvement policy? We wilI stilI continue to pass on costs to developer where appropriate.
7. What is your City's cost share percentage when it comes to County road improvements? The last county
road project was the extension of CR 116 in the mid 1990's. At that time the city was responsible for the
right-of way acquisition costs and the cost of a trail that we requested be added to the project.
8. In your opinion, is the County system way behind the needs of your City? Please explain. Certainly the
development pressure in our city is greater than the county's five capital improvement plan allows.
9. How do you get County participation for projects? We keep our county commissioner appraised of our
needs. We have also participated in the development of corridor studies. These studies assist in obtaining
regional and federal funding.
\
-+-
'1
-,-j
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
This survey is being sent to larger communities within Anoka County. The intent is to acquire a better
understanding of how different communities fund County road improvements associated with new plats and/or
major County development projects. Please answer the following questions and return this form via email to
isevald\alci.andover.mn.us by Wednesday, March 3'd. If you have any questions, please contact Dave
Berkowitz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and interest.
CITY:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
AJ-loK.....
Cl'A.\ <=- tYiU>. "(
(7(P,!>) S7LP - 27e\
1. How does your city fund County road improvements that the Anoka County Highway Department
(ACHD) is requesting or requiring for plats that impact County roads?
The developer pays 100%.
2. How does your City fund short-term improvements such as turn lanes and bypass lanes that are required
or requested by the ACHD for new plats?
Same as # I.
3. If there is an infill development not adjacent to a County road, does your city require improvements such
as turninglbypass lanes to be constructed per ACHD requests? If so, how is this improvement funded
(i.e. developer pays, property assessments, etc.)?
Sometimes, developer pays
'- )
4. How does your City fund long-term projects such as County road full reconstruction projects?
As part of the budget process - General Fund or Street Renewal Fund
5. Has your City considered some type of area wide assessment or transportation fee to fund County road
improvements?
No
6. Does your City have any plans to change your current procedure regarding the new County road
improvement policy?
No
7. What is your City's cost share percentage when it comes to County road improvements?
8. In your opinion, is the County system way behind the needs of your City? Please explain.
A little
9. How do you get County participation for projects?
We haven't yet.
10. Do you have any County road intersections that!!!u!!!! follow County spacing guidelines? Ifso, please
identify.
.)
No
Please resDond bv Wednesdav. March 3. 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz at
(763) 767-5133. Thank you for your assistance.
-s-
,
"~
)
,.J
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
This survey is being sent to larger communities within Anoka County. The intent is to acquire a better
understanding of how different communities fund County road improvements associated with new plats and/or
major County development projects. Please answer the following questions and return this form via email to
isevald(tV,ci.andover.mn.us by Wednesday, March 3rd. I.fyou have any questions, please contact Dave
Berkowitz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and interest.
CITY: Blaine
CONTACT PERSON: Chuck Lenthe or Jean Keely
PHONE: 785-6188 or 785-6171
1. How does your city fund County road improvements that the Anoka County Highway Department
(ACHD) is requesting or requiring Cor plats that impact County roads? Haven't really gotten to this
issue. In one case, we agreed to act as applicant for Federal Cunds - but if not approved, then how is
project funded. Expectation: Larger segments of roadway need upgrade, not just because of one or two
developments, but due to development all over. Therefore, county road upgrade should be accomplished
colabratively. Currently, Anoka County cost participation requirements are more than reasonable. We
need to start expecting a larger burdon to be asked of Cities.
2. How does your City fund short-term improvements such as turn lanes and bypass lanes that are required
or requested by the ACHD for new plats? Developer obligation - could even extend to signal
improvements.
3. If there is an infilI development not adjacent to a County road, does your city require improvements such
as turninglbypass lanes to be constructed per ACHD requests? If so, how is this improvement funded
(i.e. developer pays, property assessments, etc.)? If the impact can be attributed to the infill development
- the developer should be asked to pay.
4. How does your City fund long-term projects such as County road full reconstruction projects? We
generally use our off system MSA. However, our account is empty and we're going to have to look to
other alternatives. On some occasions, we also assess, but usually is a small amount and since most
access is discouraged except for local/collector roads.
5. Has your City considered some type of area wide assessment or transportation fee to fund County road
improvements? No.
6. Does your City have any plans to change your current procedure regarding the new County road
improvement policy? No
7. What is your City's cost share percentage when it comes to County road improvements? 10% plus or
minus.
8. In your opinion, is the County system way behind the needs of your City? Please explain. No, though I
can't explaine why, the county has accomplished a number of project in Blaine.
-6-
'\
'J
:,)
\
" )
9. How do you get County participation for projects? See above
10. Do you have any County road intersections that do not follow County spacing guidelines? If so, please
identify. Of course. What they have been requiring is a traffic study to show that reduced spacing is stilI
workable. However, we need to look to various factors that suggest amendment is appropriate, i.e. is a
major wetland impacting spacing or existing collector that can't be reasonable relocated.
Please respond bv Wednesdav. March 3. 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz at
(763) 767-5133. Thank you for your assistance.
-'1-
Mar-04-04 08:11am From-CITY OF COON RAPIDS ENG-PLANINSP
+7637676573
T-447 P.02/02 F-331
~
ClJoN RT1~/OS
, ,
'.J
IGaS CROSSTOWN BOUlEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 65304. (763) 7SSQ100
FAX (763) 75s.llll23 -1MI'oW .cI.ANDOVEIUoIN.US
This BUrY\:)' is being sent to larger communities within Anoka County. The intent is to acquire a better
understanding afhow different eommunitioos fund County road improvements lIS80Ciatcd with new pIau anellor
major County d~opmcnt projcds. Please aDSWer die foUowiDg questioDS and rehll'n this form via ernaU to
l.evaJdllilc:i.andQver.mu.us by Wednesday, Merc:h IN. If you have any questions, please contact Dave
Ba-kowilz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and interest.
CITY: C:..1I"'" i."'fIJ S
CONTAcr PERSON: D..~ ":tJ-.,J:.~, c.,+y t!..~I...LUC--
PHONE: -, ""1-10.....10'5"
3.
,
, -.J
4.
5.
L How does your c:ity fund CoIUIty road Improvements rbat the Anoka C01DlIY HIghway Department
(ACH>>) Is requesting or requiring for plats tbat Impac:t CoUllty I'Oftds? ,......... ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ . f ...... ~ -<.1))1\":"''''''' ,","~".01 I~ 10 ~) fr'..4I..J,J..1S100( ..L.... ~ ~~~ IS),.."
e.,~ ...,,\ ._~\.........'~,,~ I ~S&J )o\SA.r..-.I. .. 6SSr.SS441 '-........u.J. s~....~ -t:.. 12.,6""1"'~
2. How does YOID' City fund $borr-tenn improvements such as tlJl1llane. and bypass laDes that are required
or requested by theACHD forntw plats? JoCo:1- ~~f. oMS'" ~s - .e...c-l-Iy ~ -.A"":""st JA".ut-st-
~... ~ I,of..,..;.....( ~~Ic - 4....'i1)/ / _
If theee is an infiD developnent not adjacent to a County road, does YOlD' city require improvements
.uch as turniDf7byplw laDes to be c:oastnX:ted per ACHD requesb? If so, howls this improvemenr
randed(Le.deve1operpays,properry~ents,etc:.)? ~... f,r..WJ.~~: }.aft' '\ W c.o.3:.....LI
""*' J,.&. v~ ~ -... -'-'..,......,. - ,... 'eo. ~~ ,
-
How does your Oty fund long-term projects such as County ro8d full reconstruction projects?
A-~~io~ 'poll...'I ~d-. f.~~ +. d h......; f~..u:J f,C itwf- 1...- J\JUd" ~~io' s...u... sJ..J-. USt,
.t"lc;.A~.
IW your CIty cOllSldered some type of area wide assessment or transportation ree to l'und County road
improvemenb? no
6. Does your City have any plans to c:hange yolD' CUlTent proc:tdure regarding the new ColUlly road
improvement poliey? 110
7. What is yolD' Oty's c:ost share percentage when it comes to County rood Impro"ements?
;sf!4 5/....lh CI..... GcK~ J., I!..:~,~ ,0riC,y Oe. S"1I"" .J~"oo'}.~t..'-""/oo:,-~...tllff;(1)
8. In your opinion, is the ColDlty system way behind the DUds or your City? Please explaJn. ",. f:"1)
."n-~"YJ k/2. ~A l'i'ICJ- ~~" ~I~.ul~. .l- ~ fe...- }".J.J....S .....,I...... .JJt<1t4 .It. >h. c...-
~~~s f>'wJ ,"s" A-JUl.- ~..i. ()~,c..alt ~ $-H... h ~....~l(... "r, ·
" How ao you get COlDlty participaUon for projecb?
__" ..... ~ ~ "00S.-H.J... (+N..;J.. ~r../(I,<o;...J.C. ~.i) c.-Jy fA1.t vOfLy J;HIL +-.. ...hJ ~~)
10. Do you have any County road inlerSeC:tlons that ~ ruDe,.. County spac1Dg guidelines? If so, please
identify. bl"-.. ~~ _c.A.... S ~.~J' I!J.-.l I .",....jIo.J.1.. /'!)J..J, c,...,cc",l /.,t.c./..lv/, ~ ........~
Ilu..c.~ pt...., - t\ol-I~hc.u.+~ ...,.....y 'J.'X;.,~. :I:'l-ls J;lf'...JtI.e-/.......... s+-.....,,~J )... 'IIu.....
..ot....~ ,JI."J.. ;...,.I>I~J ..._~ "....., .~o_
,
./
MAR 04 2004 08:22
-7-
+7637676573
PAGE. 02
03/26/2004
15:37
LRW OFFICE 2140 4TH RVE ~ 7558923
NO. 611
(;102
LAw Omc;s OF
William G. Hawkins and Associates
Wn.LlAM G. HAWXJNS
BAAAY A. Suu.IVAN
Legol A:liJl/l!lfJ
TAMMI J. UVE.G!S
HOlLY G. PROVO
2140 FDtlll11i AVENUE NOIlTll
ANOXA, MINNEsOTA 55303
PHONE (163) 427-8811
FAX (763) 421-4213
E.MAIL HawkLawl@aolcom
~_J
March 26, 2004
Will Neumeister
CItY Planner
Andover City Hall
'685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Trunk Road Fees
Dear Will:
'--)
You have asked for an opinion regarding the legality of a proposed trunlc road fee for
the City of Andover. It Is proposed that this charge would come in the form of an
amendment to our subdivision ordinance and would establish fees to be collected at
the time of platting. The idea is for the City to determine future necessary roadway
improvements and to impose a fee upon new development that is in an amount
proportionate to the impact a new development will have upon the anticipated
roadway improvement costs. These are sometimes called "impact fees. II' The
impetus for this proposed trunk road charge.is the fact necessary monies to fund the
cost of roadway improvements are not available through the county, thrDugh the
levying of special assessments, or from MSA sources.
,
. ;
The following is a summary of impact fees under Minnesota law.
IMPACT FEES.
Minnesota Appellate Courts have not squarely answered the question of whether
impact fees are allowed under Minnesota law. The Minnesota Supreme Court
discussed the issues in the Country Joe case but ultimately decided that the charge
imposed by the City of Eagan in that case was not an impact fee at all but was simply
an unlawful tax. Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 560 N. W.2d 681 (Minn. 1997).
. '\ There arB no Minnesota Appellate Court decisions subsequent to Country Joe.
'-./
-'l-
r-,C.7 ",,'j" A'J1<
cor:c V\?
03/26/2004
15:37
LRW OFFICE 2140 4TH RVE ~ 7558923
NU.bll
"'IO~
Will Neumeister
March 26, 2004
,~ Page 2
What is an impact fee?
The first step in the analysis is to determine whether or not a proposed charge in fact
constitutes an impact fee. In the Country Joe case, the Mlnnesot,a Supreme Court
accepted as the definition of a true impact fee 8S follows: A form of development
exaction that is:
. in the form of a predetermined money payment;
. assessed as a condition to the Issuance of a buUding
permit, an occupancy permit or plat approval;
. pursuant to local government powers to regulate new
growth and development and provide for adequate
public facilitles and services;
. levy to fund large-scale, off-site public facilities and
services necessary to serve new development;
. in an amount which is proportionate to the need for the
public facilities generated by new development.
'\
j
Country Joe, supra, citing, Blaesser & Kentopp, Impact fees: The "Second
Generation," 1991 Zoning and Planning Handbook 255 (Kenneth H. Young ed.,
1991 ).
The Court in Country Joe stressed the importance of proportionality:
"Thus, key to the concept of a true impact fee is that the
amount assessed a developer must reflect the cost of
infrastructure improvements necessitated by the
development itself. Conversely, 'a charge having no
relation to the services rendered, assessed to provide
general revenue rather than compensation, is a tax.' "
(citation omitted)
The lack of proportionality is the factor that was fatal to the City of Eagan's fee in that
case. The Court concluded that the fee was simply a general revenue measure and
not intended to cover the cost of development.
In order for the proposed Andover trunk road fee to qualify as an impact fee, it would
need to comply with the above conditions, The most important condition, and the
,~_) one that is probably the most difficult to establish, is the question of proportionality.
-10-
MAR 26 2004 15:59
763 421 4213
PAGE. 03
03/26/2004
15:37
LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH AVE ~ 7558923
NU.bll
11104
Will Neumeister
March 26. 2004
:_ ) Page 3
Laclc. of proportionality would be fatal as an unauthorized tax. Further, the fee could
not be viewed as a general revenue device as this would also be fatal. Consequently,
the fees could not be used for ongoing city-wide street maintenance, the fees should
not be co-mingled with other funds or accounts, and the fees collected should be
directly traceable to a project or projects which were speciiically designed to
ameliorate the impact caused by the project.
Because an impact fee cannot be used as a general revenue measure and cannot be
used to maintain existing roads, the City would have to carefully delineate between
the traffic burdens caused by past and future development, That is, it is not equitable
or proportionate to place the burden for all future road construction costs upon new
development as clearly some of the traffic burden is attributable to old or existing
development. Consequently, the City must: (1) identify existing transportation
deficiencies; (21 assign a reliable traffic Impact level to all development; (31 identify
transportation needs based on a distinction between new and existing development;
and (4) apportion the fees only to those costs of road construction attributable to new
development.
,
,
, i
'-~
I would also like to discuss another issue which I think lies beneath the surface of the
Country Joe decision. I believe that implicit in the Supreme Court's discussion of
proportionality is the factor of timeliness. While the City may not be required to
instantly undertake roadway improvement projects prompted by new development, I
believe the courts would expect, at a minimum. that cities utilize the fees collected in
a direct, diligent, and prompt manner. I do not think the City would be allowed to
"bank" the funds indefinitely waiting to acquire revenue from other sources before
undertaking a project. Consequently, any proposed ordinance must specify not only
how the funds collected will be used but also when they will either be used or
refunded.
What legal basis exists for impact fees?
This is the question that was partially answered by the Supreme Court in Country Joe.
What authority does the city have to impose impact fees in the first place? The Court
in Country Joe made it clear that impact fees are not special assessments and
consequently, are not authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. Second, the
Court made clear that the authority to levy an impact fee is not a power which could
be implied under the Municipal Planning Act under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462.
Finally, the Court indicated that an impact fee was not a tax that the City was
) authorized to levy under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 412.
MAR 26 2004 15:59
-//-
763 421 4213
PAGE. 04
\
'-)
03/26/2004
15:37
LRW DFFICE 2140 4TH RVE ~ 7558923
NO.611
[;105
Will Neumeister
March 26, 2004
Page 4
The authority to impose impact fees exists, if at all, under the City's general pOlice
power, i.e., the power to provide for the general health, safety and welfare.
Minnesota Statutes ~ 412.221, Subd. 32 (2002). Theoretically, since the fees would
be regulatory in nature, designed to offset the costs of implementing a police power
(road safety) and proportionate to the costs Incurred, an impact fee would not be a
tax. However. as I said, this is a question which the Court did not answer.
CONCLUSION.
There is no expressed and recognized legal authority for municipalities to impose
impact fees. The Supreme Court in County Joe did not declare impact fees to be
unlawful but did indicate that a true impact fee could not be justified as a special
assessment, general revenue measure or a tax. Should a municipality adopt a
thoughtful and artfully crafted ordinance, it would still be subject to court challenge
and an uncertain future.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
\
)
')
/
-/2--
MRR 26 2004 16:00
763 421 4213
PAGE. 05
\
j
r '\
\_j
: )
LAW OFFICES OF
William G. Hawkins and Associates
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
BARRY A. SULLIVAN
ugal Assistant
TAMMI J. UVEGES
HOLLY G. PRovo
2140 FOURlllAvENUE NORTH
ANoKA, MINNESOTA 55303
PHONE (763) 427-8877
FAX (763) 421-4213
E-MAIL HawkLawl@ao1.com
RECEIVED
February 26, 2004
FEB 2 7 2004
Mr. Will Neumeister
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
CITY OF ANDOVER
Re: "Trunk Road Fees"
Dear Will:
I have started my research on the issues which we discussed in the above-referenced
matter. The starting point will be the Supreme Court's decision regarding supposed
impact fees in the Country Joe case. Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 560
N. W.2d 681 (Minn. 1997). A copy of that decision is enclosed herewith for your
consideration. That case dealt with road unit connection charges imposed as a
condition of approving building permits. The Court concluded that the connection
charge was an unlawful tax. The issues are a little different from the ones we
discussed, but as I said, it is a good starting point.
rcerelY,
~ ! t
>/ ~ Y A. Su livan
/
~AS/tju
Enclosure
-fJ-
COUNTRY JOE, INC. v. CITY OF EAGAN
Clle as 560 N.W.2d 681 (Mlon. 1997)
as condition of issuance of building permits
within its borders was proportionate to need
created by development upon which burden
of payment fell to qualify charge as "impact
fee," even if such fees were authorized; city
ignored its own consulting engineers' recom-
mendation that connection charge be periodi-
cally updated to account for changes in costs,
revenue projections, or patterns of develop-
ment.
See publication Words and phrases
for other judicial constrUctions and def-
initions.
lES
COUNTRY JOE, INC., et
al., Respondents,
v.
.,.
cfry OF EAGAN, petitioner, Appellant.
No. CS-95-2289.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
March 6, 1997.
:IS able to pursue "
iii killed Abelseth,-1
sufficient foundatici~'
murder to allow .
11 evidence, exclusioif
error.
court and hold that ~
! that Harris physi.
properly admitted m.
lEd purpose of exp ~
mpletely changed ~
given at Harris's
oclude that the a
secret code written,
Tzzquez while he
CllISe this evidence '.
:rejudicia1, and not'" '
Ience. Finally, weCO
mence tending to P ,
was properly exclud'
sufficient evidence
:rlual crime at issUe'
'I
'Building contractors brought action
.. t city, challenging legality of road unit
'nnection charge imposed by city as condi-
on of issuance of building permits. The
. triet Court, Dakota County, Thomas M.
" urphy, J., granted summary judgment for
"ty, and contractors appealed. The Court of
,- peals, 548 N.W.2d 281, reversed and re-
ded. City appealed. The Supreme
Court, Keith, C.J., held that: (1) connection
,Charge was not valid exercise of city's implied
fI unicipal planning authority under Munici-
... Planning Act; (2) connection charge was
,"ot "impact fee"; and (3) connection charge
_~ unlawful tax.
I"
, ,; Affirmed.
. 'I
1-, /
;.:
tr"
~l Municipal Corporations G=>57, 59
As limited statutory creation, statutory
;;Ity has no inherent powers beyond those
l.expressly conferred by statute or implied as
.necessary in aid of those powers which have
.~_ en expressly conferred. M.S.A. ~ 410.015.
2. Zoning and Planning G=>382.4
Authority to impose road unit connection
'charge as condition of issuance of building
Permits could not be implied from city's mu-
jjjcipal planning authority under Municipal
_ ~g Act; legislature had specifically pro-
'!ided funding mechanism for road improve-
ments, and thus, no funding mechanism had
:io be implied to effectuate legislative grant of
lluthority to undertake road improvements.
.. .A. ~~ 412.221, subd. 6, 429.021, subd.
,1(1), 462.351.
.,
.~l;
:3. Zoning and Planning G=>382.4
There was insufficient evidence that
h'Oad unit connection charge imposed by city
~
Minn. 681
J!,l
'~':',,'_ ,J
" ,
:1 ,;
, I'
, 1t
i~
I,ll
: ~i
,1
,~
'iiJ
.: ?_'.j'
I i~
I
4. Taxation G=> 1
Zoning and Planning G=>382.4
Road unit connection charge imposed by
city as condition of issuance of building per-
mits was unlawful ''tax,'' rather than regula-
tory or license fee authorized under city's
genera! welfare powers; there was already
separate building pennit fee covering regula-
tory costs, plain language of resolution enact-
ing charge indicated that it was expressly
intended to raise revenue, and revenues col-
lected were not eannarked for projects ne-
cessitated by new development, but funded
all major street construction, as well as re-
pairs of existing streets. M.S.A. ~ 412.221,
subd. 32.
See publication Words and Phrases
for other judicial constructions and def-
initions.
,-'
"!
I
,"j
'j
,,'
!
,
:1
'j
!.j
-,
j
5. Zoning and Planning ~382.4
Statute recognizing city's authority to
impose "other special taxes authorized by
law" did not authorize road unit connection
charge imposed as condition of issuance of
building pennits. M.S.A. ~ 412251, subd.
11.
6. Zoning and Planning G=>743
Claim by amicus curiae that building
contractors waived right to challenge road
unit connection charge by failing to challenge
charge at earlier date would not be ad-
dressed on review, as issue was neither
reached by trial court nor raised by party
before appellate court.
i.
,;
I:
!
I
f
I
1
,
i
1
!
I
, ,
\;.\
'"
"!
Sy/J.a.bwl by the Court
A statutory city lacks express or implied
authority to rrnpose a road urcit connection
':'j
,i
i
-1'1--
j
i
i
;j
I
I
682 If.linn.
560 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
,
charge as a condition to issuance of building
pemits within its borders.
, /
Greene & Espel, P.L.L.P., Clifford M.
Greene, John M. Baker, Minneapolis, Shel-
don, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, James
F. Sheldon, Michael G. Dougherty, Apple
Valley, for Appellant.
Thomas H. Goodman, Gerald S. Duffy,
Wood R. Foster, Jr., Anthony J. Gleekel,
Siegel, Brill, Greupner & Duffj', P.A., Minne-
apolis, for Respondents.
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A.,
Roger N. Knutson, Eagan, amicus curiae.
Heard, considered and decided by the
court en banco
OPINION
I
-j
KEITH, Chief Justice.
Trus case requires us to decide whether
the CitJ. of Eagan may. lawfully impose a
road unit connection charge as a condition of
issuance of all building pemits ~ithin its
borders. The city adopted such a charge in
1978 for the purpose of funding major street
improvements. Tne respondents, home
building contractors, challenged the city's au-
thority to impose such a charge and sought a
refund of all charges collected ~ithin the six-
J'ear statute of limitations. They also sought
class certification on behalf of themselves
and all others subjected to the charge. On
cross-motions for summary judgment, the
parties entered into a stipulation calling for
the district court to initially consider onl~' the
question of the cit~"s authority to impose the
charge. After a hea.'":ing, the district court
concluded that the city had the authority
under its police powers to impose a road urut
1. Tht' resolution resolved in part:
3. That tht' following unit connection charges
be required to be paid at the time of acquisition
of future building permiLs in the Cj~.:
a. For single family, double bungalow and
townhouse residential building unit....-$75
oer unit.
b.' For multiple family residential unit!"-BO%
of the no~aJ residential unit connt::tion
charge.
c. Fa; commercial and industrial building
permits-amount determined on an acreage
~I "
~ _./
connection charge. The court of appeals re-
versed, concluding that the charge Wal; unau.
thorized either by statute or case lall"
Country Joe, Inc. 1'. City of Eagan, 518
N.W 2d 281, 284 (Minn.App.1996). We aI.
finn.
'. The original plan r'
. "be reviewed a:
,.. dJal"ge - ears m' r
,~ ;. tised every " Y .
~;sigDificant cl1anges in ,~
-~~. ue proiectlons or c::;
...'en .
~} ent pattern within ti
.111 9h'
;!' l)ecember 197 , t .e Clr;
:'{:: costs of constructi~n '~
.,,,.~. ,ddition of pedestriar. .
.,,- ......... design. As a ,
.~_. :.u......l. .~
"..... . creased the road urn,
~c III ., .
:'r? I single family resld,e:
:; '. Except for :=ual ;!l
;j:;. inflationary md~ :r"
~:.: updated since this m:
It; The inflation-adjustee
L"I..-"v residence had i:
.~ _ p&.lIW.
~., tiaI $75 to $410 at thr,
. . filed in 1994.
On appeal, the city Co:
aition of a road unit ~
-lawful exercise of it> :
Minnesota law. The:
authority to finance rc,
H-.' ..
,,,;:. be implied !rom se\'e:
.,",~ the citv's municipal pIc.
f Minn.Stat. ch. 462; :
-" bnpose an "impact f~"
bnprovements, as Cun'<
IllCroU5 other states; c.
collect regulatory ane
to its g-eneral welfarE
Stat. S 412.221. subd. 3
On February 14. 1978, the Eagan citr
council adopted a resolution imposing a road
unit connection charge payable as a condition
to issuance of all building pemits within the
city.] Tne resolution stated that its purpose
was to provide "an equitable source of fund-
ing for major county and city street construe- .
tion ' , , in order to accommodate ne\1'
development and traffic generated from fu- .
ture anticipated residential, commercial and
industrial construction * , '." -
The charge was prompted by a study con-
ducted b:' the city's consulting engineers in
1977, which projected a shortfall of $Ul
million in funds available to finance major
street construction in the city through the
year 2000. The consulting engineers pro-
posed that the city make up this shortfall b)'
imposing a road unit connection charge, pat-
terned after the water and sewer connection
charges already imposed by the city pursu.
ant to state law. See 1V.linn.Stat. S 444.075,
subd. 3 (1996).
Tne city deposits road unit connection
charges collected into a Major Street Fund
account, along ~ith other sources of road
funds.2 Funds are not earmarked for aI1J'
particular project and the ciLJ' does not at-
tempt to link e},:penditures to any particul2r
funding source. In addition to major street (.0
construction costs, miscellaneous cl1arget ':~,;:..,;~:'..r:.;;.
such as sealcoating and the purchase of sig. _
naJ lights are occasionally paid out of the J:I-'
account ~~~.':~'(
basis or ponion thereof with three resi~'r
tial units per acre and a minImUm of .
residential equivalent unit conn
charge.
1.
ll. 2] The cit~' of !
f. 'Ct).," meaning it is ~
;: that has not adopted "
.:; provided for under .
'''1lrfinn.Stal. S 410.015. :
. .[;.~ creation, the city has
;',beyond those "eA;ressl:
'. implied as necessa.,,:
',en which have been
anpold Midwest Co,
;%74 Minn. 347, 357. :
'U966). We first consi
: that the road uru;
~ exercise of its in
authority under ~
. opal Planning At
t introdUcing the
1. The city's Finance Director testified that
unii con~ection charges collected are co
~lec! with the city's "ad valorem taX Ie'",',
special assessment collections, interest .
and other miscellaneou.c.. revenue sources 10 . '
Major Street Fund.
-/5-
.- ~,
,J
lES
:he court of appeals re-
It the charge was unau_
statute or case law
, City of Eagan, 548
inn_~pp.1996). We af-
1978. the Eagan city
olntion imposing a road
l! payable as a condition
ding permits within the
. stated that its purpose
qaitable source of fund-
:::nd city street construc-
. to :lccommodate new
.fic generated trom fu-
liential. commercial and
:t'" >!' 1jI.~'
"lrnpted by a study con-
;:o~;ulting engineers in
:!i :l shortfall of $1.11
~/o' \ t~ finance major
: , / CIty through the
::';~::"'lg engineers pro-
~= ".lp this shortfall by
~:~_'lection charge, pat-
==- :"'''1ci se'.ver connection
:0;;': ":Jy the city pursu-
'0 :.I:nn.Stat. g 444.075.
~: ~d unit connection
:: : :,Iajor Street Fund
:::';;!' sources of road
=:: ~armarked for any
:: ::.e city does not at-
":..:::"=s to any particular
c: ::.:::on to major street
=:eilaneous charges
~: ::~e purchase of oi:;:-
=::.0:::: paid out of the
..:;:-;:~ with three residen-
.-: :.:.:. a minimum of onC'
unit connection
: :, ::or testified that road
:::~ -;ilected are commin-
~lrem tax levy. sorn~
_...:: ____.~s. interest earnings
=_~ .--:':enue sources in th~
COUNTRY JOE, INC. v. CITY OF EAGAt"l
Cite as 560 N. W.:d 681 (Minn. 1997)
Minn. 683
The original plan recommended that the
charge "be reviewed annually and totally re-
vised evel:: 5 years in order to adjust for any
significant changes in constrUction costS, rev-
enue projections or changes in the develop-
ment pattern within t.he City of Eagan." In
December 1979, the city revised its estimated
costs of constrUction upward to include the
addition oi pedestrian walkways to the city's
street design. As a consequence, the city
increased the road unit connection charge for
a single family !'esidence trom $75 to $185.
Except :'01' annual increases based on an
inflationary index. the plan has not been
updated since this initial revision of 1979.
The inflation-adjusted charge for a single
f:unily !'esidence had increased trom the ini-
tial $75 !O $410 at the time this lawsuit was
filed in 1994.
On appeal, the city contends that the impo-
sition oi a road unit connection charge is a
lawful exercise of its implied powers under
Minnesota law. The city suggests that the
authority to finance road improvements can
be implied from several sources, including
the city's municipal planning authority under
Minn.Stat. en. 462: the implied power to
impose an "impact fee" to fund infrastructure
improvements. as currently !'ecognized in nu-
merous other states; and the city's power to
collect regulatory and license fees pursuant
to its general welfare powers under Minn.
Stat. S 412~21. subd. 32.
1.
[1, 2] The city of Eagan is a "statutory
city," meaning it is a municipal corporation
that has not adopted a home rule charter as
provided for under Minnesota law. See
Minn.Stat. * .nO.015. As a limited statutory
creation. the city has no inherent powers
beyond those "expressly conferred by statute
or implied as necessary in aid of those pow-
ers which have been expressly conferred."
Mangold Midwest Co. v. "Village of Richfield.
274 Minn. ;\47, 357, 143 N.W.2d' 813, 820
(1966). We first consider the city's conten-
tion that the road unit connection charge is a
valid exercise of its implied municipal plan-
ning authority under Minn.Stat. ch. 462, the
Municipal Planning Act. The policy state-
ment introducing the act clearly e.-q>resses
- It ....
the legislature's intent to confer broad plan-
ning authority on cities: "It is the purpose of
sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide munici-
palities, in a single body of law, with the
necessary powers and a uniform procedure
for adequately conducting and implementing
municipal planning." Minn.Stat. ~ 462.351.
The city asserts that the road unit connection
charge is merely an e.'(ll!llple of its lav;fu1
e.'{ercise of the broad planning authority con-
ferred upon it under the act.
The city relies on our decisions in two
municipal planning C:lses in support of its
assertion. In Naegele Outdoor Adver. CO. L'.
Village of Minneionka, we upheld an ordi-
nance adopted by the village requiring adver-
tisers to phase out billboards located in ex-
clusivey residential zones. 281 Minn. 492.
505, 162 N.W.2d 206, 215 (1968). We con-
cluded that while no statute e.-q>ressly autho-
rized such an ordinance, the power to do so
must necessarily be implied to effectuate the
village's e.-q>ress statutory authority to create
e.'{clusively residential districts. I d. at 504.
162 N.W.2d at 215.
In Almquist v. Tcnun. of Marshan, we up-
held the town's adoption of a zoning morato-
rium against a landowner's contention that.
by e.-q>ressly e.'ctending the authority to
adopt such a moratorium to county boards
while remaining silent on the power oi mti-
nicipalities to adopt similar moratoria, the
legislature evinced an intent to withhold the
authority from municipalities. 308 Minn. 52.
64,245 N.W.2d 819, 825 (1976). We rejected
the negative inference urged by the lando\\"Jl-
er, noting that, among other arguments, "an
equally persuasive argument may be made
that the legislature · . · simply assumed
that municipalities had inherent power to
enact such ordinances." I d. Thus, the city
urges that after Almquist, absent an e..-q>licit
e.-q>ression of a cont.ral"'J purpose by the leg-
islature, cities are presumptively endowed
with broad municipal planning powers-in-
cluding the power to finance municipal im-
provements-subject only to the limitations
of good faith and nondiscrimination. I d. at
65, 245 N.W ~d at 826.
Relying on A.lmquist, the city contends
that the court of appeals erred in concluding
that the legislature's failure to e.-q>licitly au-
'\
684 Minn.
560 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
,~,
thorize the road unit connection charge in the
tax statute was an "explicit eJ..llression" of its
intent to withhold such authority. Country
Joe, 548 N.W.2d at 284. To the contrary, the
city asserts that not only is the construction
of roads to meet new development needs
reasonably related to the welfare of its citi-
zens, see Minn.Stat. s 412.221, subd. 32, but
also the implied authority to finance such
construction can be derived from the Munici-
pal Planning Act, see id. s 462.351, as well
as from the city's authority to make public
improvements under Minn.Stat. S 429.021,
subd. 1 and Minn.Stat. S 412.221, subd. 6.
Finally, t.he city cites a Virginia case in
arguing that the "authority to finance public
activity is implicit in [the] authority to under-
take it[.]" In Tidewater Ass'n of Home-
builders, fnc. v. City of 1Tirginia Beach, the
VIrginia Supreme Court rejected the conten-
tion of an association of contractors that stat-
utory authorization for a $200 million water
project alone was insufficient and that "the
financing mechanism or fee chosen by the
City must be authorized separately * * *."
241 Va. 114, 118, 400 S.E.2d 523, 526 (1991).
The court noted,
In order to exercise the duty and au-
thority to provide a water system then, the
corresponding ability to pay for the system
must exist. We agree with the trial court
that the ability to finance the cost of pro-
viding this service is inherent in the au-
thority to provide it, and the specific mech-
anism chosen by the City to finance the
project need not be defined by statute.
fa. at 119, 400 S.E.2d at 526.
We agree that Naegele and Almquist
broadly define a ci;;;l"s abilit.y to plan for the
use of property within its borders. That the
Municipal Planning Act expressly confers
broad municipal planning powers on cities
does not necessarily imply that the legisla-
ture similarly intended to confer broad fi-
nancing powers under the act. In fact, the
legislature's actions support the opposite con-
clusion. Although the legislature eJ..llress]y
provided for the sewer and water charges
after which the city patterned its road unit
L
l'
~
L
.'--)
~
.;~
"
J
.1
1
'\l;
'l'
3. As an initial matter. Tidewater did not involve
road impact fees of the type enacted by the City
of Eagan, which coincidentally wcre specifically
connection charge, see Minn.Stat. S 444-075
subd. 3, it failed to provide such authorizatio~
for a road charge. That this lack of expTesa
statutory authorization was not the result of
legislative oversight is evidenced by statuto. .
ry provisions eJ..llressly establishing sI>ecial
assessments as the mechanism by which cit-
ies are empowered to finance road improve-
ments. See Minn.Stat. ss 429.021, suM
1(1),412.221, subd. 6.
The Virginia court's decision in Tidewater
is thus readily distinguishable.3 In Tidewat.
er, the court noted that the Virginia legisla-
ture provided no funding mechanism at all
for the water project which it had authorized.
241 Va. at 119, 400 S.E.2d at 526. In COD-
trast, the Minnesota legislature has specifi-
cally provided a funding mechanism for road
improvements; therefore, no funding mecha-
nism need be implied to effectuate the legis-
lative grant of authority to undertake road
improvements. Cf. Naegele, 281 Minn. at
503-04, 162 N.W.2d at 215 (holding that the
power to amortize nonconforming uses must
necessarily be implied in face of legislative
silence in order to effectuate the vi1lage's
eJ..llress power to create residential zones);
Almquist, 308 Minn. at 63--65,245 N.W.2d at
825---26 (holding that the power to adopt a
zoning moratorium may be implied to effec-
tuate the town's zoning powers despite the
legislature's silence on whether cities, as well
as counties, possessed such authority). Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the authority to
impose a road unit connection charge cannot
be implied from the city's municipal planning
authority. See Mangold, 274 Minn. at 357,
143 N.W.2d at 820.
II.
[3] The city next contends that the court
of appeals erred in rejecting case law frolD
other jurisdictions approving of similar
charges as "impact fees." Impact fees have
been lauded by local governments in recent p
vears as a welcome means to "shift a portion;.
~f the cost of providing capital facilities tD .):::
serve new growth from the general tax base ;"
to the new development generating the de-:~
provided for under Virginia law. 24] Va. at Jl8. ~*
400 S.E.2d at 526. ~
,
-;1-
. asse~~: :.
a bW;~-' =
or pili: ~-
'p==: -=--.=
regujz:~ :- =-
and p:-:- --== = .::
and s.e.- ~
· le\'iec : = =:-
facilb~' ~ =:---.:
nE%' Q""~
.ina::.c.~:-=.::
the n",,: ~ --=
ed b;.' =-~ ?~
Brian W. ::.-==: _ ~
Impact r!:
1991 ZOlih.. :
264 (K=~.:::' ~ =
Comm~=-= =
differs Iro: , = ~ :
levied a.; "~- ---
dered." j ~ =-.: -=
key to th~ ~= _, :
the amon::: ~ _ .
the cos; c: ---
cessitatec :-- == :-"
versel,". "l. == _--=
service; ~~~~ -2-"'=
al reven:'E :=-.0: =--=
r taL" lei. =- ==
4. See At,,:. =_ _.
. COntn! ',: ;- _.=.- -
880 (197: _
of Coeu- c '_ '.
(1995): c:-_
189 Ka:: :-_ '
sirled F-=.-_ .
Md 4' ~- ,
ford C~;,,~- ,- _ _-:-
ell on o:i~- .-~_ _
(1994); ...._, _.
Alder",,,,: -, _
(1977); j,,-
- Towtlsh:;
, '\
, 1
,,_~J
COUNTRY JOE, INC. v. CITY OF EAGAN
Cite as 560 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. 1997)
Minn. 685
i:m.Stat. ~ 444.075
~ such authorizatio~
:iris lack of e.'qlress
IS not the result of
nenced by statuto-
stablishing special
mrism by which cit-
mce road improve-
~~ 429.021, suM.
maud for the facilities." Martin L. Leitner
& Susan P. Schoettle, A Survey of State
Impact Fee Enabling Legislation, in Exac-
tionS, Impact Fees and Dedications: Shap-
ing Land-Use Development and Funding
Infrastructure in the Dolan Era 60 (Robert
H. Freilich & David W. Bushek eds., 1995).
An impact fee has been defined as a fonn
of development e.'alction that is:
. in the fonn of a predeternlined money
payment;
. assessed as a condition to the issuance of
a building permit, an occupancy permit
or plat approval;
. pursuant to local goverrunent powers to
regulate new growth and development
and provide for adequate public facilities
and services;
· levied to fund large-scale, off-site public
facilities and services necessary to serve
new development;
· in an amount which is proportionate to
the need for the public facilities generat-
ed by new development.
Brian W. Blaesser & Christine M. Kentopp,
Impact Fees: The "Second Generation," in
1991 Zoning and Planning Handhook 255,
264 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 1991).
Commentators suggest that an impact fee
differs from a tax in that an impact fee is
levied as "compensation for the services ren-
dered." Id. at 266 (citation omitted). Thus,
key to the concept of a true impact fee is that
the amount assessed a developer must reflect
the cost of infrastructure improvements ne-
cessitated by the development itself. Con-
versely, "a charge having no relation to the
services rendered, assessed to pro\ide gener-
al revenue rather than compensation, is a
tax." I d. Impact fees have also Deen distin-
~on in Tidewater
rllle.3 In Tidewat-
he Virginia legisla-
, mechanism at all
In it had authorized.
l:i at 526. In con-
;hture has specifi-
nechanism for road
no funding mecha-
ffectuate the legis-
Iro undertake road
'!lle. 281 MinD. at
~, 'ling that the
iu_. --,g uses must
face of legislative
mate the village's
residential zones);
~5, 245 N.W2d at
power to adopt a
Ie implied to effec-
lllWers despite the
ether cities, as well
ch authority). Ac-
E the authority to
l:ion charge cannot
municipal planning
274 Minn. at 357,
mds that the court
ting case law from
roving of similar
Impact fees have
=ments in recent
; to "shift a portion
capital facilities to
Ie general tax base
gp' "'!ting the de-
'. )
h;'..241 Va. at !l8,
4. See Aunt Hack Ridge Estates, Inc. v. Planning
Comm'n of Danbury, 160 Conn. 109. 273 A.2d
880 (1970); Idaho Bldg. Contractors ..usn v. City
of Coeur d'Alene. 126 Idaho 740. 890 p.2d 326
(1995); Coronado Dev. Co. v, City of McPherson.
189 Kan. 174,368 P.2d 51 (1962); Eastern Diver.
sified Properties. Inc. v. MOn/gome,;, County, 319
Md. 45, 570 A.2d 850 (1990); Wieler>ski v. Har,
ford County. 98 Md.App. 721, 635 A.2d 43. vacar-
ed on other grounds. 335 Md. 225, 642 A.2d 1357
(1994); Middlesex & Boston St. Ry. v. Board of
Aldennen, 371 Mass. 849, 359 N-E.2d 1279
(1977); NIM Jersey Builders Assn v. Bernards
Township, 108 N.J. 223, 528 A.2d 555 (1987);
guished from special assessments: "The pri-
mary difference is that special assessments
represent a measure of the benefit of public
improvements on new or e.~ting develop-
ment, whereas impact fees typically measure
the cost of the demand or need for public
facilities as a result of new development
only." Id. at 267 (emphasis added).
The contractors argue that impact fees are
lawful only if such fees are authorized, or
appropriately limited, by state enabling legis-
lation. They cite a number of cases from
other jurisdictions in support of their conten-
tion that it "is well-settled that impact fees,
such as the Road Unit Connection Charge, ~
are illegal \Vithout specific enabling legisla-
tion." 4 They also point to the failure of a bill
proposing an impact fee in a recent session
as evidence that the Minnesota legislature
has not endorsed the concept of impact fees.
See H.F. 988, 79th Leg. (Minn.1995) (a bill to
amend S 462.358 of the Municipal Planning
Act to authorize school impact fees).
The city responds by citing a number of
decisions from other states that allegedly
uphold the imposition of impact fees without
express statutory enabling legislation.5
We conclude, however, that we need not
reach the issue of whether impact fees are
authorized in Minnesota in order to pass on
the validity of the road unit connection
charge imposed by the city. By definition,
an impact fee must be ''in an amount which is
proportionate to the need for the public facil-
ities generated by new development." Blaes-
ser & Kentopp at 264. In this case, however,
the city essentially ignored its own consulting
engineers' recommendation that the road
unit connection charge be periodically updat-
ed to account for changes in costs, revenue
;"!
Hillis Homes. Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97
Wash.2d 804. 650 P.2d 193 (1982).
5. See Associated Home Builders of Greater E. Bay.
Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 CaL3d 633, 94
Cal.Rptr. 630. 484 P.2d 606 (1971); Contractors
& Builders Ass'n v. City of Dunedin. 329 So.2d
314 (Fla. 1976); Holmdel Builders Assn v. Town-
ship of Holmdel. 121 N.l. 550, 583 A.2d 277
(1990); Tidewater Ass'n of Homebuilders, 1m:. v.
City of Virginia Beach. 241 Va 114. 400 S.E.2d
523 (1991).
>,
-IF!-
,~ '\
>J
~l
_;i
iil
.'
~;j
oil
:.\
-:,
~~
~:
. ~tj
s;J
:-~;l
.-.1
.',,,
~:j
~l
hI
:-n
:fif
H~
~,l
~~-J
~-
~~
;..:a
:1'.,.....
~l"
~-~
it
I::
il:.i
i:l
.1
,
i1
i-~
.
"
I:
686 Minn.
560 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
projections, or patterns of development
Thus, for the period in question, there is
insufficient evidence that the charge was pro-
portionate to the need created by the devel-
opment upon which the burden of payment
fell. Accordingly, we reserve the issue of
whether impact fees are authorized under
Minnesota law, but reject the city's conten-
tion that the road unit connection charge
draws its authorization as such a fee.
III.
[4] The city's final argument is that the
court of appeals erred in concluding that the
road unit connection charge is an unlawful
tax.6 The city argues that the charge is not
a tax and suggests that the charge is .autho-
rized as a regulatory or license fee under its
general welfare powers. See Minn.Stat
9 412.221, subd. 32.
We have consistently rejected the argu-
ment that the general police power extends
to permit revenue raising measures by mu-
nicipalities. When it has been apparent that
a city's true motivation was to raise reve-
nue-and not merely to recover the costs of
regulation-we have disregarded the fee la-
bel attached by a municipality and held that
the charge in question was in fact a ta." See
State v. Labo's Direct Serv., 232 Minn. 175,
182,44 N.W.2d 823, 827 (1950) (striking down
a fee on gasoline pumps as "a tax for the
purpose of producing more revenue for the
municipality"); Barron v. City of Minne-
apolis, 212 Minn. 566, 570, 4 N.W.2d 622, 624
(1942) (invalidating a license fee after con-
cluding that "[w]hat the city council sought to
accomplish, and did accomplish, was the en-
actment of a revenue measure").
The contractors assert that the road unit
connection charge cannot find validity "under
the cloak of the city's police power" for two
reasons: first, tilere is already a separate
building permit fee which covers tile purely
regulatory costs of building permit issuance
and enforcement; and second, tile plain lan-
guage of the resolution enacting the charge
6. The court of appeals did not expressly state
that the basis of its opinion was that the cnarge
was an unlawful tax. However. the coun did
state, "A decision of this court upholding a road
unit connection charge would, we believe. direct-
indieates that it was enacted "for the PUl'pose
of funding oversizing of major streets" as .
well as to provide "an equitable source of'
funding" for such development and was, tb1l8, .
expressly intended to raise revenue. We~
agree.
We conclude tilat tile charge is a revenue'"
measure, benefiting the public in general,~
and is not an authorized exercise of the city's....
police powers. In reaching this conclusion,:.
we find it significant that revenues colle~:
from the road unit connection charge are noC
earmarked in any way to fund projects De-;
cessitated by new development, but instead~
fund all major street construction, as well as"
repairs of existing streets. Beeause it is not l'
a purely regulatory or license fee but instead;
a revenue measure, the road unit connection~
charge is a tax which must draw its authori-;~
zation, if at all, from the city's powers or}
taxation. Accord Eastern Diversified, 319::
Md. at 54-{i5, 570 A.2d at 854-55 (determin-).
ing that a road improvement impact fee was '?
a tax because "[n]othing · · . suggests !hat{
. . . [the] fees are charged solely on the'.;
basis of service provided to the property~'
owner, or to defray expenses of the develop-
ment regulatory process"); Hillis Homes, 97t.
Wash. 2d at 808, 650 P.2d at 194-95 {holding:;
that park assessments, "although character-:'
ized by tile Counties as fees' · · are taxes,';:'
ratiler tilan fees" beeause the ordinances.'
were designed to raise revenue); Idaho Bldg.~
Contractors, 126 Idaho at 743, 890 P.2d at'
329 (concluding that development impact t~
not limited geographieally or to improv&:
ments to be used solely by those creating~'
new development was a tax and not a f~~
Wielepsk~ 98 Md.App. at 730, 635 A.2d '_
47-48 (taking judicial notice of tile fact .
"improvements to public roads benefit tIie:
public in general, not only the bord '.
property owners" in concluding that fee ,
an illegal tax). '
-j -
[5, 6] The taxing authority afforded.
nicipalities under state law is delineate!!'
Minn.Stat S 412.251. Although
f 412.251 specifies ~.
thorized to levy ==
purposes as "pr.o\~::'=
JIlent to the public. -::-
"for the support 0: , :
conclude there is nQ=
. gesting the autho_ :"
sinJilar to a road uni: ::
}finn.Stat 9 412.25:
11 of Minn.Stat. ~ ~
catch-all provision. ~~,
. thority to impose .0::''''
: rized by law," we co!::::::
;preceding analysis t;: .
lion charge is no, ;;:
Minn-Stat 9 41225:':":
Conclude that the rm:.: :
cannot find validity =.::
taxation.7
~.
O E[I''''''=;
S. ._-
T
In the Matter of !::
G. (NMKi !-:.
No. a-S
Supreme Co:::"'.
Marci. :.
Juvenile was a::.-.:.:
!he District Court. C.r
eir, J., for con:::-:::
Juvenile appealed. ~: :
Forsberg, Acting : _ ,
ed. Juvenile a~,:~
." Because we com:lu.:.,,: :
. on charge is un.a.=.:
"law, we need not r~
Dlenl that the char., " :
'lng Without just co';'p=
ae raises the additio::>. =
. . conn of appeal.; =<=
ell] of Crystal. the co=
10 challenge the roa: =
. g to challenge:!t: =.
421 N.W.2d 39: .l~
. denied (Minn. lli:
- /er -
MA'ITER OF WELFARE OF G.M.
cu. as S60 N. W.2d 687 (MInn. 1997)
Minn. 687
412.251 specifies that municipalities are au-
. orized to levy taxes for such far-reaching
oses as "provid[ing] musical entertain-
JIIent to the public," "for band purposes," and
~or the support of a municipal forest," we
nclude there is nothing in the statute sug-
ting the authority to impose anything
to a road unit connection charge. See
:Minn.Stat. ~ 412.251. Although paragraph
'-11 of Minn.Stat. ~ 412.251 operates as a
'catch-all provision, recognizing a city's au-
:thority to impose "other special taxes autho-
rized by law," we conclude on the basis of our
,:preceding analysis that the road unit connec-
:Ltion charge is not so "authorized by law."
'.Minn-Stat. ~ 412.251(11). Accordingly, we
i conclude that the road unit: connection charge
cannot find validity under the city's power of
,. taxation.7
AFFIRMED.
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF
G. (NMN) M., alk/a W.M.
No. C9-9i>-812.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
March 13, 1997.
Juvenile was adjudicated delinquent in
the District Court, Clay County, Kathleen A
~ . Weir, J., for controlled substance crimes.
'" ;Juvenile appealed, and the Court of Appeals,
.' . Forsberg, Acting J., 542 N.W.2d 54, af.
. >i .finned. Juvenile appealed. The Supreme
;
7. Because we conclude that the road unit con.
nection charge is unauthorized under Minnesota
law, we need not reach the contractor's argu-
Illent that the charge is an unconstitutional tak.
ing without just compensation. The amicus curi-
ae raises the additional argument that, based on
the court of appeals decision in Crystal Green v.
City of Crystal, the contractors waived their right
to challenge the road unit connection charge by
failing to challenge the charge at an earlier date.
S.. 421 N.W.2d 393 (Minn.App.t988). pet. for
rev. denied (Minn. May 25. t 988). However.
Court, TomIjanovich, J., held that: (1) infor-
mation provided by unknown informant pro-
vided officers with reasonable suspicion to
conduct investigative stop of juvenile; (2)
warrantless seizure and search of pouch from
juvenile was not justified under plain view
doctrine; (3) officers had probable cause to
arrest juvenile for possession of cocaine such
that seizure and search of pouch was valid
seizure and search incident to arrest; and (4)
juvenile's confessions made during custodial
interrogation were voluntary and admissible.
Affirmed.
1. Criminal Law <1:=>1134(3), 1158(4)
When reviewing legality of search or
seizure, appellate court will not reverse trial
court's findings unless clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
2. Criminal Law <1:=>1139
Supreme Court reviews de novo a trial
court's determination of reasonable suspicion
as it relates to TerMJ stops and probable
cause as it relates to warrantless searches.
U .S.C.A Const.Amend. 4.'
3. Arrest <1:=>63.5(4)
Stop is lawful if officer articulates a par-
ticularized and objective basis for suspecting
particular persons stopped of criminal activi-
ty. U.S.C.A Const.Amend. 4.
4. Arrest <1:=>63.5(4)
Information necessary to support inves-
tigative stop need not be based on officer's
personal observations, rather, police can base
investigative stop on informant's tip if it has
sufficient indicia of reliability. U.S.C.A
Const.Amend. 4.
because this issue was neither reached by the
district court nor raised by a party before this
court. we likewise decline to address it on re~
view. See Thayer v. American Fin. Advisers. Inc..
322 N.W.2d 599. 604 (Minn.t982) (declining to
consider an issue not "considered by the trial
court in deciding the matter before it"); Slale v.
Applebaums Mias., Inc.. 259 Minn. 209. 216,106
N.W.2d 896, 90t (1960) (holding that amicus
curiae may not raise the issue of the constitution-
ality of a statute when the issue was not raised by
any party to the action).
-1.0-
r
i
"
'\
)
LOCAL CONTROL
Street Utility Authority
The street utility proposal, an initiative developed by the League in partnership with the
City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the Minnesota Public VJ10rks Association,
would provide cities with a much-needed tool for preserving infrastructure.
)
ews headlines seldom mention local street
maintenance. Unlike highway congestion
and light rail funding, topics like street
reconstruction, seal-coats, and overlays
are not the stuff of riveting conversations
or policy debates. Yet, most Minnesotans
depend on some portion of the more than
19,000 miles of city-owned streets to
access local businesses, schools, and other parts
of the transportation system. For city officials,
pavement management represents a significant
responsibility and a major budget challenge.
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)-in
partnership with the City Engineers Association
of Minnesota (CEAM) and the Minnesota Public
Works Association (MPW A)-is promoting a
legislative initiative that would give cities a fund-
ing tool to meet street maintenance challenges.
The initiative, termed the "street utility," is
modeled after the current storm water utility
statute (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444). The
street utility would allow cities to use trip genera-
tion data to establish a fee program for street
reconstruction, maintenance, and facility upgrades
such as traffic signals and turn lanes.
How would the street utility work?
Currently the state partially funds only 2,818 miles
of city streets, leaving nearly 16,000 miles of
city streets without any state support. The street
utility would enable cities to bill property own-
ers for street maintenance based on usage. Using
widely-accepted trip generation rates published
in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation
Manual, cities could, by ordinance, adopt fee
schedules to fund maintenance and replacement
of non-Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets.
A street utility would provide a voluntary
mechanism that cities could implement to
dedicate funding for a number of projects
(activities such as snowplowing and aesthetic
streetscape amenities would not be eligible).
)
8
By Anne Finn
"The street utifrty would
allow c:ilies to use bip
generation data to estab6sh
a fee program for street
reconsInJction, maintenance,
and facility upgrades such as
lraflic signals and turn lanes."
-2- ~
MINNESOTA CITIES
Eligible projects that would qualify include:
. Seal coats
. Overlays
. Reconstructions
. Pavement, gravel base, and sub-grade
maintenance and reconstruction
. Curb/gutter and drainage improvements
. Sidewalks
. Boulevard restoration
. Striping and signs
The bill draft contains provisions requiring
public hearings, dedication of street utility funds
to projects outlined in a five-year capital improve-
ment plan, and an appeals process for property
owners.
The concept has worked well in other states.
In fact, an Oregon law closely resembles the
Minnesota initiative. According to Oregon city
engineers who have implemented the street utility,
it has proven to be a useful tool and a minimal
expense to property owners.
The St. Paul-based Transportation Policy
Institute, a non-profit research and educational
organization, has developed models of how the
street utility could be implemented in cities of
various sizes and in different regions of Minne-
sota. (See sidebar for a comparison of
cities' monthly fees for selected classes.)
The need for city street utility authority
The street utility concept has been driven
by anecdotal and research-based information.
As League Board members and staff traveled
throughout the state during the fall 2003 Regional
Meetings, we heard consistendy from city officials
that budget challenges had increased the need to
defer maintenance and capital improvements.
Specifically, League members talked about hold-
ing off on scheduled street maintenance projects
such as seal coating and overlays.
What we heard from city officials is not
inconsistent with the findings of the 2003 report
Funding Street Construction and Maintenance in
~:'~s i:,R{E~i;ii.:;:if;1,'lr:li"~:,'f'E'E"5~.'8 Y. t A N'.D": iI-s [- .j'N 's I X, M j"N. N ["s u"t:A.'''C:'{ i-I is ".'.,.:': "~",::" -.-~
" -' .. ~ ~-' ~ ~ . ~~..,. , ,~~' ~'. -' -- -- ,. . - ~ -'~- -- - --
Minnesota's Cities, produced by the Transportation
Policy Institute and funded by the League,
\. ) CEAM, MPW A, and the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (Mn/DOT). The report assessed
the condition of the current MSA and non-MSA
city street system, and outlined existing funding
mechanisms and their limitations. Similar findings
are identified in the League's State of the Cities
Report 2004, released on March 3 and available
on the LMC web site at: www.hnnc.org.
To summarize the findings of the Transporta-
tion Policy Institute study, the majority of
funding for city streets--even among cities eligible
to receive MSA-comes primarily from local
resources: property taxes, special assessments, and
bonding. Each of these local funding sources has
unique limitations. As a result, funding has not
kept up with needs. In fact, most large and small
cities are not spending enough on roadway capital
improvements to maintain a 50-year life cycle.
Current trends are likely to exacerbate the
funding shortage. According the Funding Street
Construction and Maintenance in Minnesota's Cities
Report:
. City road and bridge infrastructure is aging.
. Traffic volumes are increasing.
. Growth in city population and new housing
is steadily increasing, placing greater demands
on city and residential street systems.
) . Truck movement is increasing significantly.
, The consequences of doing nothing
Despite growing needs, the Minnesota Legislature
has been reluctant to make additional funding
mechanisms available to cities. MSA has not
changed dramatically, and cities have not secured
any new authority to raise more dollars locally.
While deferring maintenance may seem like
a logical short-term solution, it creates immense
fiscal challenges for the future. Streets that are
not maintained on-schedule invariably have a
,'- -. "- '. ...-., , .: .", --. ~
. ',')_';_:_:<:'-'_0:':'"
~ . ->-- '.
.:~)
MARCH 2004
"Please take lime to
make JOur legislators aware
of the street funding needs
in JOur city, and to voice
JOII' support for street
utiIily authority by explaining
the positive impact it cuuld
have on your colntmmily."
~Z2--
MINNESOTA CITIES
shorter life-cycle. Worse, the longer maintenance
is deferred, the more expensive the repair>. Minor
problems such as cracking become major structural
issues when ignored.
What can you do?
Your help is critical to this legislative effort. To
learn about the concept and to work towards
securing street utility authority for cities, access
the information and resources included in the
League's Street Utility Action Toolkit, available
online in the Legislative section of the LMC
web site at: www.hnnc.org.
Resources included in the toolkit include:
. A resolution in support of street utility authority
that your city council can consider.
. A list of Minnesota cities that have adopted
the resolution.
. A copy of the bill the League is promoting.
. Three PowerPoint presentations from the
2004 City Engineers Association of Minnesota
Conference held Feb. 5.
. The January 2003, Funding Street Construction
and Maintenance in Minnesota's Cities Study.
Please take time to make your legislators
aware of the street funding needs in your city,
and to voice your support for street utility author-
ity by explaining the positive impact it could
have on your community. Legislative directories
and contact information can be found on the
Minnesota State Legislature web site at: www.
Ieg.state.mn.us. If your council adopts a resolu-
tion supporting the League's efforts, please
forward copies to your legislators and to LMC
Intergovernmental Relations Representative
Anne Finn at the League offices. t'
Anne Finn is intergovernmental relations representative
with the League of Minnesota Cities. E-mail:
afinn@lmnc.org. Phone: (651) 281-1263.
.; ..'_' -.C.,
J"hischartwas prepar~d
usi?g actual.needand land
use data from sixMmnesota
cities. It provides models of
what stre~t utility fees would
.' '()ok like if iniplemep.ted.
SQurce: . "An Assessment 0/ .
the SUee! Utility Fee inSix
Mirin~sota<?ities/' Matt ,_:.'
Shands, . Transportation PoIit}'
Institute" p'resentatio~ .to
City Engineers Assodation
.. of Minnesota, Feb. 5,2004.. .
9
.' '\
'-J
o
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755,5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CJ.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC, John Enrr. Cily Admin;,trntof
FROM: David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Discuss New Standard Street Section (Continued) - Engineering
DATE: Apri127,2004
INTRODUCTION
City staff is requesting that the City Council discuss and approve increasing the standard pavement
section used for streets constructed in new urban and rural developments.
, )
DISCUSSION
This item has been continued from the February 17 and the March 1, 2004 City Council meetings.
The Council requested that staff evaluate the cost differences between various street sections.
Attached is a cost estimate increase per lot along with a schematic of four different street sections
(Pavement Section Analysis). Options 3 and 4 meet the issues that staff presented at previous
meetings. Option 3 reduces the cost per lot increase over the previously recommend section (Option
4). Street sections for the surrounding communities have been reviewed and corrected. This will be
discussed at the meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is requested to approve implementation of Option 3 (3" bituminous and 6 W' class
5 aggregate base) or Option 4 (3" bituminous and 6 W' class 5 aggregate base) for newly
constructed urban and rural developments.
Respectfully submitted,
David D. Berkowitz
~Cj).
Attachments: Pavement Section Analysis"""" /'
Standard street section list from other cities ./
Email from Anoka's Director of Public Works/City Engineer
'. ) cc: Byron Westlund, Woodland Development Corp.
Mike Quigley, 116 LLC
· )i
~ "
~~
~
.~ ~
-_.~..,.
.... 10\
" ~ III
',j ~
'I'- "l-
~
..... ~
"'- --
"'"'-
~ ""
l'\ r-
'to> .,.
it n
~
~
~ In
.!
I::! \I
\tl >
'vl
~ ~
\
\ J
.... ;~ ~
~ \', "::\.
.:<~ \~ ~
~ ~
,~ :~:: :-.:, " '"
"- ~: I. " '" t'
~ '" .. ~
~ ~ "
J . ... .
t ~ .. ,,- ... '" .
~ . ... '"
. 'V\ . M ..,
... .,. '" '" ...
~,
. y~ --t
';! .
'" '::l
~
;.
:2 ~~
JL2
l _1I
......
lillilBB8 ~~ !lIlil8lillil "'_N
"'....
~~~~g N"; :t~~m~ al_.a
"'... -....
1: ~~ "N,"
0 !i'iiMti ~.. lig'":;i'=, e::-.
<J .. .. .. .. .... .. ..
l! ~~8~~ B ~&1B~~ B:
:g~:;::::. ul . . . . d
;l: '" r"I;7;:;;:::
.. .. .. .. ......,. ""....
c
"
oBi.. .
.~ J!l H!BB
c A t!lH ,,,
::> "
i<' ~~IeP1o f ~~t;gm
~
~ __at....
a. a
-II Jl
.
8 8
.., ",
1= ~~ @@ Ii ~~ ~@
~~ .0 ~~ ...rrJ
. .
!(~ ~UIHl ~~ nn~
:8- ~~~~~ ~-
0
t- t-
. .'
~~ N ~~ N
~ [il
~- .,;- l')
~
II 1!
'&~E' .. ~~ l')
.. ..
~ ,0: N .o- N
,&
.0 ..
t ~ t ~
.IE ]j .IE
1- 0 1- !
t-
.
: .. .
,.: . .
~~ ~uu .; ~S" ~nio ..
~ ~~~~~ -e ou) ::
I- j- il ~- .0
. ~ U) g
.. .. II
01 ..
;" .... c .... ..
" c
.. 11:11: .. 11:11: "
III : ,,:> ... :>::> ..
iil <J<J U <J<J
. ...... . ...... 0
~ il 00 N 00 .
. 22 5 2;:; N
~. .. 5
, " .. 00 ! 00
; a> ~~ .. 1:1: !
. 00
J z .. . ",,,, ..
.
0 !:! n . ~~ .
.
l= 0 .
0 ij
0 11 . ~ ~1l1
w .. ~i ~~ .. .
III OJ .. ..
..r
t- o; >! ~2 .;,~ ili
~ '"
iil ;:~~h b ;:~~~:li .
c
:;: ~t:8Illtn - !::t:811)1l) N
w ! .IQ m ~ (/,H4 .. .rQm~U)m c
:< n<J~~ 0 n~~~ f
j ~ j
II. U ~oo 0 0
,
...
H :2:2 ~:2
H 1I ~ loll
...... ......
!lIlilBlillil "''''.. !lIlilBlili5 ~~:l\ !lIi5BBlil :g::;::l
"'....
'N ' . ' gt-ia i~~~a ird~mai ...,;Di",
ifRt;i~s ~...'"
m::! .. .. l::m1Di:l ~~=
.. Oft
rifi~m~ $:;i lili":;i'!:i' 8:- ri~~~1i ..:rf....
.. .. .. .. ""... ...... N f:l"
.. ..
mtit8~5! :B :' lllCl8~~ :P ~n;t8e~ ~:
.oa-'-'-' d tri";"="':'''':' ~l ui"';"':~"':' ~l
l:l ..-- tlt:l~:;:; ~a":;:;;
.. ..
. . .
~ UhB ~ Hh~ ~ Br~u
" :> ::> ' .;U
i<' :llllll!!tltl i<' ~~Sig~ if :3011)010
~ !::t::mfaM Ii ~ ~~IOGI1l
a a __ N a
1 1 -II
8
.. .. ..
~: ~~ @~ -.. ~~ ~@ =-; ~@
U ~ . aj @@
-- .,;N ~t ..N i- -'N ..N
. . ~~
~> ~!,Hl~~ ~S" ~!:l!:l!Hl un~
~e. ~~~~ft) ~e. ....~~~~ ~- ____f:I
....- -- , t- t- ,
. . .
~~ ~ ~~ N ~' N
[il ,~ 0
..
.,;- l') ~-' l') ~- ..,
:a!
l ... 1! 1!
~g =i~ .. :iil" ..
'" '" ,!!: '"
N .o- N N
tl tl tl
~ ~ fa B ~i? ~
~g ~E '"
t 1 ~ 1
. . .
~S" ~S" .
~n~o U!:lU ~S" U!:lU
~e. ~cn ~e.
~- ~ ~ ~.~ ~ mmCJ)mm
...........- -
.. U) U)
"," ..'" 10'"
11:11: ",II: 11:11:
:>" ~ :>::> l :>:>
<J" u" u<J
...... ...... ......
00 t- OO I- 00
. .
;:;2 .. ;:;;:; .. ::!;;:;
00 01 00 .. og
1:1: ,; 1:1: ;,
00 .. 00 .. 1:0
..a> . 10'" . gal
. .
~~ . ~~ . ~~
ij ij
~ . ~ l.
~::: . "'''' ~ ~1l1
01 <'" >!
~~ ~~ ..r ~~ ~.;, m ~z .;.~
z ~.. ili .
;:~!< :li . ;:~~H .. ~~!<~~
c d
!::t::gU)1I) .., t-!::oll)&/') .. !::t:8U)lt)
ma:l::.:::(DfI) I ilim " ~ ~ ! 1:Qa:l~U)m
j n~55 ! n~<J<J i iil~U~~
I-UU 0 0 ~ ~oo
"
'.J
4/9/2004
Minnesota Communities Tvpical Residential Pavement Sections
Current Andover: 2.5" Bituminous (1" wear, 1.5" base)
4" Class 5 Aggregate Base
6.5" Total Section
Crookston: 4" Bituminous (2" wear, 2" base)
6" Class 5 Aggregate Base
10" Total Section (on 30" Granular subgrade correction)
Duluth: 3.5" Bituminous (2" wear, 1.5" base)
8.5" Class 5 Aggregate Base
12" Total Section (on 12" Granular subgrade correction wI fabric)
Eden Prairie: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base)
8" Class 5 Aggregate Base
11.5" Total Section
Farmington:
"
'" '
--
Forest Lake:
Grand Rapids:
Lakeville:
Maplewood:
Plymouth:
.' -....,
.
\._/
3.5" Bituminous (2" wear, 1.5" base)
8" Class 5 Aggregate Base (1 OO%crushed limestone or recycle)
11.5" Total Section (on 12" Granular subgrade correction)
4" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2.5" base)
10" Class 5 Aggregate Base
14" Total Section (on 20" Granular subgrade correction)
4" Bituminous (1" wear, 3" base)
6" Class 5 Aggregate Base
10" Total Section
3" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base)
6" Class 5 Aggregate Base
9" Total Section (on 24"-36" Granular subgrade correction)
3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base)
8" Class 5 Aggregate Base
11.5" Total Section (on 24" Granular subgrade correction)
3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base)
8" Class 5 Aggregate Base
11.5" Total Section (on 12" Granular sub grade correction wI tile)
File: H:/Engineering/Miscellaneous/Pavement Management/Typical Pavement Sections.doc
4/9/2004
,
-,
River Falls:
3." Bituminous (1.5" wear, 1.5" base)
8" Class 5 Aggregate Base
11.5" Total Section (on 12" Granular subgrade correction)
South St. Paul:
3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base)
6" Class 5 Aggregate Base
9.5" Total Section (12" Granular subgrade correction as needed)
Winona:
4" Bituminous
8" Class 5 Aggregate Base
12" Total Section (6" Breaker Run subgrade correction as needed)
\
'\ ../
-'
File: H:/EngineeringlMiscellaneous/Pavement Management/Typical Pavement Sections.doc
~J
;J
\
,
'-/
41912004
Surroundinl! Communities Tvpical Residential Pavement Sections
Current Andover: 2.5" Bituminous (1" wear, 1.5" base)
4" Class 5 Aggregate Base
6.5" Total Section
Anoka: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base)
6" Class 5 Aggregate Base
9.5" Total Section
Blaine: 3" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 1.5" base) (previously listed as 3.5")
4" Class 5 Aggregate Base (previously listed as 5")
7" Total Section
Coon Rapids: 2" Bituminous (2" wear, 1 lift)
4" Class 5 Aggregate Base
6" Total Section
Ham Lake:
3" Bituminous (I" wear, 2" base)
4" Class 5 Aggregate Base
7" Total Section
Oak Grove:
3" Bituminous (1" wear, 2" base)
5" Class 5 Aggregate Base (previously listed as 6")
8" Total Section
Ramsey:
3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base)
4" Class 5 Aggregate Base
7.5" Total Section
St. Francis:
3" Bituminous (I" wear, 2" base)
5" Class 5 Aggregate Base
8" Total Section
All pavement sections have been confirmed with the City Engineer from the
respective communities. The sections for Blaine and Oak Grove have been revised
as shown above.
File: H:/Engineering/Miscellaneous/Pavement Management/Typical Pavement Sections. doc
Dave Berkowitz
From:
Sent:
r ,To:
,____Subject:
Craig Gray [cgray@ci.anoka.mn.us]
Thursday, April 08, 2004 11 :37 AM
Dave Berkowitz
Street Section
Dave,
Here is some information that you might find useful in your decison making process.
The minimum street section in Anoka is 6 inches of Class 5 gravel base and 3.5 inches of
bituminous. When I arrived here 6 years ago I increased the bituminous section by a half
an inch, from 3" to 3.5". This section is for our local residential streets, not our
business routes. Some of the reasons include:
1. Due to a lack of local road funding it is very apparant that we are no longer building
roads for a 25-30 year life. We have about 70 miles of local streets in Anoka. A 30 year
life would require that we reconstruct at least 2 miles of streets each year at a cost of
about $1,000,000 per mile. There is no way this can happen. In Anoka we are actually on
about a 70 year rotation. In my opinion the extra bituminous and base pays for itself
many times over.
2. Maintenance costs will be less. Crack sealing is better with the extra bituminous.
If I could add, that as an Andover resident I would much rather see the developer and
ulitmately the lot buyer paying a little extra now for a road that will last an extra 20
years and thereby require less maintenance and reconstruct dollars.
Craig
....C;raig Gray
\-/birector of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Anoka
763-576-2781
cgray@ci.anoka.mn.us
:.J
1
,F \
'-~
~ )
. ~
,~
@
CITY OF
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: John Erar, City Administratof
FROM: David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Discuss Hanson Boulevard NW County Road Plan/242 to North of Bunker Lake
Boulevard NW - Engineering
DATE: April 27, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The plan will be presented and discussed at the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~0.~
David D. Berkowitz
0)
\j
CITY OF ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.Cl.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: John Erar, City Administrato~
FROM: Jim Dickinson, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Approve 2005 City Council Budget Guidelines/Goals
DATE: April 27, 2004
INTRODUCTION
City Departments have started preparing for the 2005 Annual Operating Budget Development
process and is looking to the City Council to establish guidelines for the preparation of the 2005
Annual Operating Budget.
~_ ) DISCUSSION
The following are suggested 2005 Budget Development guidelines for your consideration:
l) A commitment to maintain the City Tax Rate Capacity in a manner consistent with the needs
of the organization to ensure the long-term competitiveness, efficiency, staffing and capital
requirements. In light of severe budget reductions over the last two budget cycles, the need to
maintain a tax capacity rate that will be cognizant of the rapidly changing nature of the
corrununity for City services and appropriately recapture lost tax base revenues. 1
2) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at
no less than 30% of planned 2005 General Fund expenditures.
3) A commitment to maintain the 2005 debt levy at no more than 25% of the total levy.
4) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost-
effective replacement schedule is followed.
1 This assumption is dependent upon legislative impacts affecting state aids, tax capacity values, unfunded state
mandates, and other factors affecting community need including; but not limited to contracts for City services
provided by outside agencies, inflation, mandated personnel benefits, collective bargaining agreements, energy and
\ fuel costs and other non-discretionary expenditure items.
/
"
, I
'-.J
5) A team approach that encourages strategic planning to meet immediate and long-term
operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs.
6) A management philosophy that actively supports the implementation of Council policies and
goals, and recognizes the need to be responsive to changing community conditions/concerns.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Council is requested to review the aforementioned proposed Budget Development guidelines
and subsequently approve policies that will establish the framework for developing the 2005
Annual Operating Budget
\
J
"
/
@
,
'''_oJ
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
CC:
Mayor and City Council
John Erar, City Administrato~
Vicki V olk, City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Meeting Minute Budget Status
DATE:
April 27, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The City contracts with TimeSaver Secretarial Service to take and transcribe minutes for
the City Council, Planning Commission and Park Commission meetings.
.' '\ DISCUSSION
'- )
Attached is a printout of the adopted budget amounts for each commission and what has
been paid to TimeSaver for the first three months of2004.
With the number of Council meetings remaining and the length of the meetings there is a
possibility that the budget will be depleted before the end of the year.
The Planning Commission budget will also fall short due to the number of meetings they
have remaining this year.
BUDGET IMP ACT
Funds may need to be re-appropriated to make up for the shortfalls should they occur.
ACTION REOUIRED
No action is required at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
tl:.L' ()~
\
Vicki Volk
City Clerk
" /
Cl
c
== <Il
'" iii .&
. L- :J
,.....i ~ .~
(1]::2:
(j) L-
a> 0
Eu-
i=
,
'1
, j
I '0) !o .....
~ '~ ~
- <0 <0 N
0 C') v .....
00 ..- "1-
<Ilv IIi Ll'l ..-
III 0 EI} EI} EI}
CDO
u!::!
1:..-
..!:;r
III
aI
V ..- 0 C')
. 0 ~ 0 ~
CD - ~
..- C') C')
E C') <0 .....
- <0 C') <0
I- M N EI} EI}
'tl J: EI}
'n; Cl
:s
Il. ~I
-
I:
:s I
0 L-
~ CD ,
>
III
en
- 0 0 0
~ 0 ~
I: ci
:s 0 0
0 0 0 0
~ Ll'l Ll'l o.
as IIi N
EI} EI} EI}
'tl
CD
-
CD
Cl
'tl
:s
aI
I:
<l: I: 0
0 'W
- 0 'w .!!!
I: w E
CD ::: <Il
E 'u E E
t: I: E 0
III :s 0 ()
c. 0 Ig
CD () ()
0 >- "" '2
- ..
,.- III I:
'() Il. III
it