The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWK January 15, 2003 CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CLANDOVER.MN,US Special City Council Workshop Wednesday, January 15,2003 1. Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. 2. Public versus Private Infrastructure Development 3. Consider Storm Water Utility 4. Fire Station #3 Land Exchange and Project Update ,--\ 5. Other Business U 6. Adjournment , , U CITY OF ANDOVER , \ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 -J FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW,CLANDOVER.MN,US Special City Council Workshop Wednesday, January 15,2003 1. Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. 2. Public versus Private Infrastructure Development 3. Consider Storm Water Utility 4. Fire Station #3 Land Exchange and Project Update 5, Other Business "- \ ,_..-J 6. Adjournment 'oJ @ CITY OF ANDOVER . " . ) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N, W, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 -__.J FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW,CI.ANDOVER,MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: John Erar, City Administratorf& FROM: Bill Otlensmann, City Engineer SUBJECT: City Required Public Facility Development Improvements - Engineering DATE: January 15,2003 INTRODUCTION One of the Council's 2002 goals is to review the present City of Andover policy of requiring all public facility improvements in new urban developments be contracted for and installed under City contract. Some Council members have had requests from developers to be allowed to design, contract for, and install public facilities including utilities and streets. Staff has been requested to provide a discussion of the pros and cons of changing the present policy. \ , ) DISCUSSION Under present Andover policy, design and construction of public facilities including sewer, storm drain and streets, in new urban developments is done under City contract. Procedures followed by other communities vary: . Many Cities allow the developer to hire his own engineer and let his own contract . Some Cities hire the engineer and allow the developer to hire his own contractor . Some have the same policy as Andover where the City hires the engineer and contractor Generally, City inspection is required whether the developer or the City hires the contractor. The present City policy has been in place for many years. The following are some of the pros and cons of these alternatives. DEVELOPER HIRED ENGINEER The advantage to the developer is: . He can shop for the lowest price for his engineering. . He has closer control of the design and in some cases he may save design time. The advantage to the City is: . The City would not have to finance the cost of the Engineering. While the City does require a security it still must finance the Engineering. '-- -) The disadvantage to the developer is: . The developer would have to pay the engineer up front. Mayor and Council Members January 15, 2003 Page 2 of 4 " \ '- / . It may take longer to prepare Plans and Specifications as the developer's engineer may not be familiar with City Standards and policies. . The City review could be more extensive because the City staff may not be familiar with the work of the developer's engineer. If the developer's engineer is not familiar with City standards, specifications, there may also be more conflicts and problems during construction. The disadvantage to the City is: . Lack of control. . The City could not insure the qualifications or experience of the engineer. . It would be more difficult to insure the Engineer looks at the future needs and not just the immediate development. . More City engineering time would be necessary to oversee the engineer. . There would be more chance of mistakes and extra costs. . There would be more conflict over doing what is required and appropriate versus what is the most financially expedient. . There could also be more potential disagreements during construction many of which might have to be resolved by the Council , CITY RETAINED ENGINEER I The advantage to the developer is: " / . Fewer conflicts with the City. · The developer does not have to be concerned that the Plans and Specifications will be prepared in accordance with City standards and policies and consistent quality in Plans and Specifications can be ensured, . Less coordination will be necessary between the developer and engineer. The advantage to the City is: . The City can hire an engineer who has worked for the City in the past and is familiar with City Standards, Specifications, and Policies. Less training time will be needed. Fewer errors will occur. . The City can ensure the engineer looks at the overall picture, not just the proposed development but also future extensions considerations. . Higher quality Plans and Specifications will result, as the engineer is not constrained by bid price. . The City can insure the Plans and Specifications are adequate not the bare minimum. . Less staff review time will be needed. The process can be expedited by working with Engineering personnel that have worked for the City of Andover in the past. . Change orders and conflicts can be reduced. . The consulting engineer is responsible to the City who will be the ultimate owner and "- will have to maintain the facilities. '\ ) Mayor and Council Members January 15, 2003 Page 3 of 4 , J DEVELOPER HIRED CONTRACTORS The advantage to the developer is: . The developer may be able to obtain a lower cost for the work than under City Contract. The City would have to place the work to public bid and award to the lowest qualified contractor, The developer could shop and bargain and work one contractor against the other to obtain the lowest price. . The total time may be less, as the developer does not have to follow the bidding time frame the City must follow. . Developer initiated field changes could be made more quickly. . The developer would have more control over the contractor as he holds the money. The advantage to the City is: . The City would not have to finance the cost of the construction. The disadvantage to the developer is . The developer would have to pay the contractor up front. . More conflicts would probably occur between the contractor and engineer with the developer in the middle. . Inspection costs would be higher as the City would probably insist upon full time , inspection. , / The disadvantage to the City would be one of control. . It would be more difficult to insure quality construction, as the contractor would be pressured by the developer to keep costs down with no incentive to do more than minimally acceptable work. . More disagreements are likely with the Council ending up being the arbitrator, . Additional staff may be needed to provide full time inspection. CITY HIRED CONTRACTOR The advantage to the developer is: . City hired contractor would require less time in developer supervision. . Less developer up front money would be required, as the City would finance the construction. . Potential problems in separating out what is trunk construction and what are trunk construction costs would occur. The advantage to the City is: .The City would have control of construction making it easier to insure quality construction. , '- , -' Mayor and Council Members January 15, 2003 Page 4 of 4 . SUMMARY Either system can work. How well it works depends on the people involved, If everyone is interested in a quality product and willing to cooperate, things will get done with a minimum of Mayor and Council problems. If however a developer in primarily interested in the lowest cost, problems can and will develop. At least one city has incurred significant costs to go back and repair and correct work done under developer contract. With a developer contract the Contractor is likely to shade his work toward the interests of the person paying him, the developer. With the City contractor the City's interests come first. In the end the City will own and have to maintain the improvements. The best way to insure quality construction and engineering is to control the purse strings and that is through City hired Engineers and City contractors. RECOMMENDA nON The City Staff recommends no change in present policy. The staff feels the present policy is the best way to insure quality construction for the City. If the Council wishes to change the policy, staff feels that the City should retain the Engineer even if the developer lets the construction contract. Outside of total City control, preparation of plans and specifications by a qualified engineer retained by the City and familiar with city policies and specifications is the second most important way to insure quality facilities. ./ City payment to developer-hired contractors, through an escrow arrangement, will also help the City to retain control over contractors work. The party who signs the checks is the one the contractor will most likely listen and respond to. If the Council decides to change City policy, staff feels the change should not take place until 2004, as a number of changes in procedures and securities will be necessary. ACTION REOUIRED Unless the Council wishes to change present policy no action is required. Respectfully submitted w.~~~_J\R.{j~ William R. Ottensmann "^""" e' . -- '- j Q) CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.C1.ANDOVER.MN,US TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: John Erar, City Adrninistrato1-" FROM: Bill Ottensmann, City Engineer SUBJECT: Schedule Council Workshop/Storm Water Utility Feel99-16 - Engineering DATE: January 15,2003 INTRODUCTION The Andover City Council has authorized staff to develop information that could lead to the " '\ creation of a Storm Water Utility for the funding of management and maintenance of the City's '-J storm water infrastructure. As a first step toward this goal, attached for your review, is an estimated five-year Storm Water Utility budget and suggested rates to raise the needed revenue to fund the budget. An alternate method which would keep all residential and farmstead rates the same regardless of the size of the residential properties is also included. DISCUSSION At present, funds to defray costs of maintenance and repair of the city's storm water system are raised through property taxes. The amount of taxes paid is based on the property value and has no direct relationship to the amount of storm water runoff from the property contributing to the system. Schools, churches, public property and other tax-exempt property, while contributing runoff to the storm water system, pay no taxes and thus do not pay to maintain the system to which they contribute. Thus the Andover taxpayer is effectively subsidizing the tax exempt property share of the costs to maintain the storm water system. A storm water utility, with fees based on actual runoff, is a fairer way to distribute the costs of operation and maintenance of the storm water system. While Andover is a relatively young community, it has acquired miles of storm sewer and ditches, hundreds of catch basins, acres of storm water detention and retention facilities, and miles of street that must be swept. As the system ages increased maintenance will be required. Under the required federally mandated NPDES, new storm water related activities will be required, monitoring will be required, and higher levels of maintenance will be required. The .--.J NPDES required activities will result in additional costs to the City. .~~ Mayor and Council Members January 15,2003 Page 2 of3 Ten-year data from the rainfall gauging station located at the Mosquito Control District on Bunker Lake Boulevard was used to determine the average amount of rainfall that could be expected in the City of Andover. Soil Conservation Service charts were used to determine the amount of runoff for typical Andover type soils for both impervious and turfed surfaces. Aerial photos were then used to determine the typical amount of pervious and turfed areas for each acre of land in each zoning classification and compared to a typical Residential parcel to arrive at a residential equivalency factor. A rate was then determined for the base residential parcel and multiplied by the Residential Equivalent Factor to arrive at the rate for each classification. A proposed 5-year budget was determined based upon past expenditures for various maintenance activities related to storm system maintenance and for estimated expenditures for new activities mandated by the Federal government under the NPDES program. Costs of present activities were increased to reflect increased levels of maintenance required by NPDES. It is anticipated that the Storm Water Utility will fund a number of present activities presently funded by the general fund. How much of the 2003 activities will be funded by the Utility will depend on when the Utility is actually created. It is anticipated the Utility will, at a minimum fund required NPDES activities for 2003. Future years budget will have to be adjusted to reflect '\ inflation and level of activities needed and required by the NPDES MS4 permit to the Minnesota '--../ Pollution Control Agency. The proposed 5-year budget is attached. Two potential rate structures are attached. The first uses the actual runoff data calculated as indicated above. It results in higher rates for large residential lots based on runoff calculations. It proposes the same rate for farmsteads as rural residential lots. Strictly using calculated runoffs for farmsteads would result in potentially much higher cost for farmsteads. Because of their variable sizes each farmstead would have to be individually calculated. As it is felt that farmsteads would have approximately the same house, driveway, and impervious area as a rural residential lot, using the same rate is suggested. It is proposed to charge the City for park land and other City properties. Charges for undeveloped land are not proposed. The Alternative proposes a uniform rate for single-family residential properties and farmsteads. It is reasoned that, while the actual area may vary, they all have essentially the same impervious area i.e. house, walkways, driveways and maintained grass area. In addition, rural residential areas generally do not have the same level of storm water facilities to be maintained as the urban area. It is also proposed to charge improved parks the same rate as residential properties. Proposed rates are generally in line with other communities that have storm water utilities. A comparison to other communities is attached. RECOMMENDA nON Assuming the Council wishes to proceed toward creation of a Storm Water Utility, it is '\ recommended the Council direct staff to hold public meetings with the Chamber of Commerce 'J and the public to explain the Utility and proposed rates. Mayor and Council Members '\ January157,2003 '..J Page 3 of3 Respectfully Submitted ~JiL~ Bill Ottensmann ~ Interim City Engineer '\ , \.J \ I \.J Exhibit F \ City of Andover ,---" PROPOSED 5 YEAR STORM WATER UTILITY BUDGET BUDGET ITEM YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION * $20,000 NPDES ANNUAL PERMIT REPORT* $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 STORM SYSTEM INVENTORY: OFTWARE* $5,000 STORM WATER MONITORING* $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 STREET SWEEPING ** $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 STREET SWEEPING DISPOSAL COST** $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 INLET AND MANHOLE MAINTENANCE** $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 STORM SEWER REPAIR** $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 DITCH CLEANING** $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 STORM WATER POND $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 CLEANING AND REPAIR** STORM WATER LIFT $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 STATION MAINTENANCE** STORM SEWER TELEVISION*** $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS* $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 PUBLIC INFORMATIN* $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT** $55,000 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 ADMINISTRATION** $37,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 TRUNK STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS** $15,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 "- CONTINGENCY*** $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 'J TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES $465,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 (Depending on when Utility is created Budget would be adjusted) *. NPDES Requirement. Costs are estimates and could increase upon completion of permit. ** Part of the present Budget. Increased level of maintenance will be required in these activities, Approximately $224,000 is included in the 2003 Budget for these items, *** New Budget item ., ./ '\ , -' ~ ~ ~ ~ e: e: e: e: ::::> ::::> ::::> ::::> Q) Q) ~ v";;; iii iii iii iii ~ ~ .>0:: ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 o~ Q) Q) Q) Q) <( <( ro 0 0 <( o ro c:: c:: c:: c:: 0- <( <( N e: ~ ~ ~ ~ "C ~ '- '- '- '- Q) Q) '- '- '- Q) Q)2 Q) Q) Q) Q) 0- 0- Q) Q) Q) 0- gj<c 0- 0- 0- 0- CD CD 0- 0- 0- CD ro 0 .r: 0 0 0 0 Ll) ~ 0 0 Ll) u Q.Q) CO CO CO CO 0 0 CO ~ CD 0 o~ ..t ..t ..t ..t ..t cri 0 '- ro ~ N CJ) ~ o-C:: <17. <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 Z ~ e: ~ ~ ~ ::::> e: e: e: en iii ::::> ::::> ::::> Q) W v iii iii iii ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) Q) 0 Q) 0 '- '- I- 0 c:: Q) Q) Q) 0 <( 0 0 0 0 ~ N '- c:: c:: c:: <( '- <( <( <( <( ~ "C Q) '- '- '- '- Q) '- '- '- '- 0- Q) Q) Q) Q) 0- Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- ro f/) CJ) N .r: ~ 0 ~ Ll) 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 (j Q.Q) N ~ ~ 0 r--: ~ CO CO N O~ ~ ..t ..t 0 '- ro ~ Ll) V CJ) ~ CO CO CJ) ..J o-c:: <17. ~ <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 Z i= ~ ~ ~ ~ :J e: 'c e: e: ~ ::::> ::::> ::::> ::::> Q) Q) ~ 0:::0::: M Q) iii iii iii iii ~ ~ .>0:: Q) Q) O~ 0 0 '- '- ~ 0 WW o ro Q) Q) Q) Q) <( <( ro 0 <( >~ N e: c:: c:: c:: c:: '- '- 0- <( '- IE ro "C ~ '- '- '- '- Q) Q) '- ~ '- Q) Q)2 Q) Q) Q) Q) 0- 0- Q) Q) Q) 0- ~ 83: gj<c 0- 0- 0- 0- M Ll) 0- 0- 0- M ro E .r: .c 0 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 (j Q.Q) ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 CJ) ..... V ~ 0 ::l Z~ O~ ..t ..t ..t ..t ..t cri 0 f/) \ '- ro ~ ~ CJ) ~ <CO::: o-c:: <17. ~ <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 Z e: 'oJ ro 15.. LLO Cl Ol- e: ~ 'iij >-en 'c - ~ ~ ::l !::O ::::> e: e: e: 0 '- ::::> ::::> ::::> :I: M Q) f/) Q) OW iii iii iii Q) ~ Q) Q) Q) Q) "C ot:: Q) '- 0 '- '- '- '- Q) en o ro c:: Q) Q) Q) 0 <( 0 0 0 0 '- N ::l '- c:: c:: c:: <( '- <( <( <( <( ::l 0 "CO Q) '- '- '- '- Q) '- '- '- '- IE ~ 0 a. Q) '- 0- Q) Q) Q) Q) 0- Q) Q) Q) Q) .l!l gj ~ 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- ro 0 0 0 .r: ::l ~ N 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 U e: Q.Q) ~ 0 0 CO cO 0 0 0 CO ro 0::: o~ ~ '- ro ~ ll'i ..t ..t <Xi ~ ..t <Xi <Xi <Xi 0 ~ a. o-c:: <17. <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 Z ... 0 Q) "'C E Q) .2 :;:; - f/) :c ~ E III Ig ::l f/) '- Ig 0- "0 "C III Q) LL 'iij e: o/S 0 Q) ~ ro .r: 0 o/S ::l Q) .c Qj .... 0 III ::l 0 '- e: :;: f/) en Q. 0 ~ ~ ::l :I: ro .c ro 0 ::l ..!!1 en ro ~ .c "C ::l "'C f/) ::l '- Q) e: "C e: 0 c:: Q) UJ en ::::> I~ Q) ~ '- 15.. f/) :Q .c E ::l E E E E III .>0:: ~ 0 0 U (9 '- 0 Cl ro .l!l ro ro ro ::l ro o/S l- LL LL LL LL ~ 0- "'C Q) I~ "0 ~ . ~ ::l U "C ro Ql e: Ql Ql ..!!1 N en 0 u I~ ro ~ g Cl ~ I~ .r: 0 ~ f/) Qj ~ ,~ e: 0 Cl ,~ .~ ,~ III 0 Q) en .r: > ,~ en en en en o/S z Qj 0 Q) <( E .r: ~ e: ~ ~ N M "i ~ IIi > Q) ~ ::l "C 0 I I I I ~ Ql .r: e: N c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: ....I 0 [jJ :I: U ::::> " ) , 'i '-J STORM SEWER UTILITY RESIDENTIAL CHARGES 2002 CITY RESIDENTIAUQUARTER BURNSVILLE $12.60 GOLDEN VALLEY $12.00 HOPKINS $12.00 APPLE VALLEY $11.94 BROOKLYN CENTER $11.50 NEW HOPE $10.95 BLOOMINGTON $10.43 PLYMOUTH $9.75 SHOREVIEW $9.16 WOODBURY $9.00 RICHFIELD $8.80 EAGAN $6.57 ROBBINSDALE $6.06 ,r '1 CRYSTAL $6.03 <j ST. LOUIS PARK $6.00 HUTCHINSON $5.25 COTTAGE GROOVE $5.00 EDINA $5.00 NEW BRIGHTON $4.85 LAKEVILLE $4.75 ANDOVER ALTERNATE $4.70 ROSEVI LLE $4.38 ANDOVER (PROPOSED) $4.00 MOUNDS VIEW $3.99 EDEN PRAIRIE $3.00 FRIDLEY $2.91 -.'-") @ " CITY OF ANDOVER , , -' i 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 Administrato~L- FROM: Dan Winkel, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fire Station #3 Land Exchange and Project Update DATE: January 15,2003 INTRODUCTION As outlined in the 2002-2003 Goals and Objectives, staff has been compiling information regarding a proposed new fire station in the appropriate location. As part of the process, staff has identified the need to update the 1989 Fire Station Location and Equipment Study, authored by Bob Aldrich. " '-----, DISCUSSION Since the City Council has approved the study update, staff has advertised for bids on the requests for proposals and have interviewed two firms who have submitted an appropriate proposal. A staff recommendation to enter into an agreement to update the study in the next sixty days will be presented to the City Council at the January 21,2003 council meeting. In addition to the study update, the city staff has started a review of the site purchased in 1990 as a potential location for a new fire station. The 1989 study suggested three fire stations in Andover, in the appropriate locations, are needed to properly serve the entire city. Due to a change in the Anoka County policy for the location of controlled intersections, it was necessary for staff to start negotiations with the current owner of the property adjacent to the site to exchange properties so that the fire station could be moved to the south 300 feet. As negotiations moved on, staff was notified last week that the property had been sold and that we will now need to deal with a new owner. Staff will bring much more information to the January 15th work session to help clarify all of the issues regarding the new proposed Station #3. \ , . ) -- /- -', BUDGET IMP ACT . , . ) Costs for the Fire Station Location Study Update are included in the 2003 C.LP RECOMMENDATION This is an informational item for the city council work session. A staffrecommendation to hire a consultant for the update of the Fire Station Location and Equipment Study will be forwarded for the January 21,2003 City Council Meeting. R":UllY'Uh71J:J/ Dan Wi~ . ! ,j / -" , , ) -- CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CLANDOVERMN.US Special City Council Workshop Wednesday, January 15,2003 1. Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. 2. Public versus Private Infrastructure Development 3. Consider Storm Water Utility 4. Fire Station #3 Land Exchange and Project Update 5. Other Business a. Round Lake Boulevard Reconstruction 6. Adjournment @~ CITY OF ANDOVER 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 Erar, City Administrator 9!'-::- David Berkowitz, City Engineer .:ID;p, FROM: Todd Haas, Asst. City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss Issues/99-14IRound Lake Boulevard Reconstruction - Engineering DATE: January 15,2003 INTRODUCTION This item is in regard to issues that has been forwarded by the Anoka County Highway Department regarding the reconstruction of Round Lake Boulevard NW north of 139th Avenue NW that will require City Council input before the plans can be completed and submitted back to the City for final review and approval. DISCUSSION The issues that need Council input are as follows: A. A sidewalk is proposed along the west side of Round Lake Boulevard NW south of South Coon Creek Drive NW. Is the City Council interested in extending the sidewalk north of South Coon Creek Drive NW to provide a safer situation for the 5 or so residential homes that exist along this section? Note: If the Council would like to extend the sidewalk, this is a State Aid eligible item. B. As the Council may not know, the County has performed traffic studies at the intersection of Round Lake Boulevard NW and South Coon Creek Drive NW and has determined based on the studies that it does not meet warrants for a traffic signal at this time. The County has indicated that underground conduits will be installed so that at some point if the intersection meets warrants, it will be pretty much ready to go at that time. Note: If the City Council is interested in installing a signal as part of the construction, the funding would need to be identified. State Aid funding would not be allowed as the signal does not meet warrants. Mayor and Council Members January 15, 2003 Page 2 of2 C. The next issue is the need or consideration of a westbound right turn lane for South Coon Creek Drive NW at Round Lake Boulevard NW. By constructing this right turn (which is recommended by the Andover Review Committee) additional right-of-way would be necessary from the property owner which results in purchasing the home based on County policy since the purchase of the easement is very near the 25% ofthe value of the lot and home. The City would be responsible to reimburse the County if it were to be purchased. Note: When South Coon Creek Drive NW was built, the street for whatever reason was not centered within the existing easement. Currently the street is north of centerline ofthe easement. Otherwise, to avoid purchasing an easement the existing street could be shifted and reconstructed further south. This scenario is being recommended by the Andover Review Committee. The relocation of the street is eligible for State Aid funding. Note: Just as a note, the existing house on South Coon Creek Drive NW is very close to the existing property line. So, if the street were shifted to the south it would be closer to the home and may become a concern to the owner. In discussing the setback of the home, Dave Almgren, Building Official, indicated that when the home was built years ago there were no setback requirements and the owner was able to place the home wherever they wanted. ACTION REOUIRED The City Council is requested to review the issues and recommend direction to City staff so results may be forwarded to the Anoka County Highway Department. Respectfully submitted ~~