Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WK - February 28, 2012
AX66W 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, February 28, 2012 Conference Rooms A & B 1. Call to Order — 6:00 p.m. 2. Joint Meeting with Open Space Commission - Planning 3. Municipal Water System Update/Rate Structure — Engineering 4. Discuss Proposed Assessment /11- 47/174`' Ave. NW/Heather St. NW /173rd Ln. NW — Engineering 5. Discuss South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction/l 1 -10 /- Engineering 6. Discuss Potential Trails Along County Roads - Engineering 7. Discuss Redistricting and City Precincts - Administration 8. Discuss 2013 Budget Development Guidelines — Administration 9. Pre -Audit Year End 2011 General Fund Budget Report - Administration 10. January 2012 General Fund Budget Progress Report - Administration 11. January 2012 Investments Report - Administration 12. Other Topics 13. Adjournment 9 X66W y (0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Municipal Water System Update/Rate Structure - Engineering DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss the current Municipal Water Rate Structure. DISCUSSION The current rate structure is a 7 tier system. As part of the Capital Improvement Planning process staff is recommending evaluating a 4 tier system. Benefits to this would include simplifying the billing process which would reduce billing costs and have high end users pay a rate that is more in line with their use. The City is required through the DNR to educate and enforce water conservation measures. The DNR recommends a 4 tier rate structure to promote water conservation. ACTION REQUIRED This item is to introduce the item and bring back to Council for more discussion during the Capital Improvement Planning process. Respectfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz Attach: Current Rate Structure's N Water Hydrant Meter Deposit & Rental Rates: DDe osit Rental Rate 5/8" hydrant meter setup $250.00 $4.00 per day for the first 7 days $2.00 per day thereafter for full rental period 3" hydrant meter setup $600.00 $5.00 per day for the first 30 days $3.00 per day thereafter for full rental period 3" hydrant meter w/backflow preventer $1,000.00 $6.00 per day for the first 30 days $4.00 per day thereafter for full rental period Hydrant Use: Deposit (as stated above) plus standard water rates Laterals: $43.00 per front foot Service Charges: Labor Billable hourly rate times project recovery rate factor Testing 0 to 6" Meters Cost plus administrative fee Violation Penalties: May 1" throueh Aueust 31" Is' Penalty Warning 2nd Penalty $100.00 P Penalty $200.00 4" Penalty $200.00 & Turned over to the City Attorney for criminal prosecution. Unit Connection Charges: Residential $3,972.00 per unit Non - residential and Institutional (Land owned $11,916.00 per acre or operated by municipal, school district, county, state or other governmental agencies) Water Area Charges: Residential and Commercial $3,640.00 per acre Water Meter Charges: 3 /4" Meter (sheF4 lay $133.73 #2 Horn (for 3/4" meter) $48.18 '/4" Meter with #2 Horn $181.91 Special Sizes Cost plus administrative fee Water Permit Fees: Service /Connection $50.00 (State Surcharge Add $5.00) Tapping Main $30.00 Disconnection/Reconnection Requests $50.00 HVAC $15.00 Re- Inspection (all) $50.00 per hour Water Usage Rates: Monthly Rate Structure $5.13 Base Rate $1.82 per 1,000 for I"3,000 Gallons $1.89 per 1,000 for 3,001 - 7,000 $1.96 per 1,000 for 7,001 - 12,000 $2.07 per 1,000 for 12,001 - 20,000 $2.23 per 1,000 for 20,001 - 33,000 $2.47 per 1,000 for 33,001 - 67,000 $2.95 per 1,000 for 67,001 and above Monthly Minimum $7.08 Penalty/Late Payment 18% Annually Water Usage Rates (Cont): Ouarterly Rate Structure $11.89 Base Rate $1.82 per 1,000 for 151 9,000 Gallons GdSTAMMHARTNERNICO2012 Fee Schedule.doc Page 16 $1.89 per 1,000 for 9,001 - 21,000 $1.96 per 1,000 for 21,001 - 36,000 $2.07 per 1,000 for 36,001 - 60,000 $2.23 per 1,000 for 60,001 - 99,000 $2.47 per 1,000 for 99,001 - 201,000 $2.95 per 1,000 for 201,001 and above Minimum per quarter $14.08 Penal /Late Payment 18% Annually Street Lightin Quarterly Charges: Urban Residential Areas $8.00 per quarter Rural Residential Areas $13.60 per quarter Commercial Property $8.00 per quarter Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 20`h day of December 2011. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: Michael R. Gamache — Mayor Michelle Harmer — Deputy City Clerk GASTAFRMHARTNERWICKh2012 Fee Schedule.doc Page 17 9 X,56W LG 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator-, -- FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss Proposed Assessment/11- 47/174 "' Ave. NW/Heather St. NW /173rd Ln. NW - Engineering DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss the proposed assessment rate for the potential reconstruction of 174`h Avenue NW /Heather Street NW /173`d Lane NW. DISCUSSION The City Council has received and approved a petition from the property owners along 174"' Avenue NW/Heather Street NW /173rd Lane NW just east of Round Lake Boulevard to pave the existing gravel roads in their neighborhood. Staff has been working on a preliminary feasibility report to provide information to the residents before the report is received by the City Council. A neighborhood informational meeting will be scheduled for late March or early April. In evaluating the project and estimated assessment for this project there is a potential to use reclaimed material (recycled Class 5) from 2012 street reconstruction projects. This would lower the cost of each assessment by $400 -$600 per lot and lower the City's portion of the cost the same amount. With the reduction the estimated assessment rate per lot would be $8,700. Current Assessment Policy states: Improvements to existing gravel roads may be initiated by the City Council or upon petition of all property owners abutting the existing gravel road. If the City Council proposes to improve the existing gravel road, all properties benefitting from said improvement shall be assessed for 50% of the project costs under Methods of Assessment. 2. If improvements are initiated by neighborhood petition, the City Council will determine whether the City will participate in a 50% cost share of the project with the neighborhood. Said determination shall be based upon consideration of the following: • Role street serves to the surrounding area/community. • Budget impact to the Road & Bridge Fund. • No more than one mile of improvement for any given year. • Other similar projects are planned in the general vicinity of such project for that construction season. Mayor and Council Members February 28, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Questions to be discussed: The petition did not include all the property owners. Does the City want to participate in a 50% cost share? Should the reclaimed material be utilized to lower the assessment rate per lot? ACTION REQUIRED Review project information and direct staff on how to proceed. Respectfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz Attach: Petition%& Location Map David Berkowitz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover MN 55304 November 8, 2011 Dear Dave: RECEIVED CITY OF ANDOVER 11 -141 RECEIVED NOV ' 0 2011 CITY OF ANDOVER Enclosed, please find the signatures of our fellow neighbors. We attempted to obtain signatures from every home on our road, unfortunately, there were a few that either did not answer the door or were unable to sign as they were rental properties and not the home owner. We are seeking approval to have our gravel road paved. As you can see, we were able to obtain eleven approval signatures. We are hoping this is sufficient enough to continue to the next step in this process. We were unsure of how to answer the first two questions on the form. If needed, we can certainly stop by the offices to complete the form so that it may be presented to the City Council Members. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact us. Thank you, rn ?G v Brian & Amy Wgorelec 3054174 1h Avenue NW Andover MN 55304 763 - 753 -7999 amPogo @comcast.net brian @brenkbrothers.com ANLI Y 6 O F 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV Date: No. Andover City Council Members: We, the undersigned, owners of real property in the following described area: � w 11113 Do hereby petition that said portion of said of" Ray; r )CI 0 CL Y 6 ral by construction and that the cost of said improvement be assessed against the benefiting property, as authorized by Chapter 429, Laws of Minnesota. SIGNATURE OF OWNER ADDRESS o LEGAL DESCRIPTION YES NO This petition was circulated by: 2 G Address: = G. CATAZTAFFIRHONDAATORMSneighborhoW petbion.aoc 410 (� 3�26 /W X ud k.F ct., This petition was circulated by: 2 G Address: = G. CATAZTAFFIRHONDAATORMSneighborhoW petbion.aoc 174th Ave. NW, Heather St. NW & 173rd Ln. NW - Gravel Road Paving ls,. ,- . 3157 _ _ - 3095 17510 ' p 3207 17519 s � n 3156 2968 17425 3155 3129 3103 3210 117280 3123 17303 3054 3026 _ 3104 M , F 3056 �: x 17235 17247 3045 3009 Legend Neighborhood Parcels 0 125 250 500 Feet C 5) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction/11 -10 - Engineering DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss the proposed reconstruction of South Coon Creek Drive and questions that have been raised by property owners. DISCUSSION The Public Hearing for the proposed South Coon Creek Drive project is scheduled for March 61h Questions have been raised by property owners regarding assessments, road widening and construction. Attached are comments and emails that have been received from residents since the open house that was held in September of 2011. ACTION REQUIRED This is for discussion and no action is required at this time. Respectfully submitted, (D,...(D . David D. Berkowitz Attach: Open House and Neighborhood Meeting sign in sheets and Comments,'/ Resident emails and response Vol 0 0 14 n � r ILIJ CV =O Jl U � O o > o L Ln Fg O �N ou �, C N E u> zp 44= CV Z L L3. p gz G!:, j - O o 0 .QC O V Gi T G h >O� 3 �S = z V ® a0+ O g i� �N v O is //�� CO L® Ul OHO Zr ��� o� O > O u< 7 u- m a� z O p co O L U M b W V v U � 3 _1 Sa M 14 n � ILIJ CV Jl N v v �^ c m �, C^' Ft 'n to \l \ i? Sa M l '7 f �X-) t r� cy Y • J 14 ILIJ CV Jl v C Ft :' i? tv j rn CO l '7 f �X-) t r� cy Y • J ILIJ CV Jl v C Ft :' ILIJ Jl Ft :' 1 LO m r- I Ce) > u�i C7 Z 0 cn LLI w> z0 Zo z uj > o 0 z < • C) Z t- 0— r) = Lo < ux < LL 0 co z 3: 0 Q) (0) 0 r_ 0 Cl) r_ C) 0 En C%4 cq S E = C'4 op Z r I- 0 a) C, m 0 C) T E > =W 0 0 E 0 cz E 0 a C:) C LO 0 0 0 O Lb C? P" ol "I I -C '47- n Pri 10 J cj 10 J COMMENT SHEET South Coon Creed{ Drive NW Reconstruction Project 91 -10 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Name: 1lCtb '�72 -� Address: b2,(.Gt, i��. { 1 LQ; �.� `O phone' E -Mail: V,-1-0-Ot- 48s, l c, C� VV e �� L b6 i. ir,f `+ li COMM, ENT SHEET South Coon Creak Drive NW Reconstruction Project 11 -10 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. Nams: Address: P. Phone: Ca 5 -J �_q 5r1 3 E -Mail: nn) T )caV\_J (4 mck 1 ,CO +v\ Comments: — w J f C V� O C:..W 1 <���hCi.c'L � t r 1 cam- � t \'N C \ 1 Z� U0, l� c,to k^ 5 - name: Address: South Coon Creek Drive NIJV Reconstruction Project 11 -10 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 0:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. MWAWMMoIW� Phone: 27 - _�23 Lj E -Mail: Comments: ;Y d� 'A SGT /SSUC South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction Project 11 -10 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. Name:�� Address: CnoN ag-tJ U(`We n f f Phone: 763- f E -Mail: n DM o►1�ro 1 ��[�, h Comments: nQ e_!550. y South Coon Creels Drive NW Reconstruction Project 11 -10 Informatiorial Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 ` 5 Name: y �% ji �C 41 q Address: (,eew ` roe. }� I -� V\ I Phone: 763 -6g�`f Lot E- PJlall: o�n� c:,Ck aCA Q,,n r5 Comments: ,J/ ' J 1 GVT oy) c4s�— P, -nA r0 eey 71/ S -rye.. 1���?.� K.iV1G / 01', P .1 r ' t o �r h S ���P, s {_ h � �o n 10 ) �Uf u> > ,)'90 (Al Si�'ta1PlG T0- Y) Da_d.. Lt�F- L/JOU �r1bL �OGP-- U,> ` %l1 1Va,1am%' rS O l t �1 ;, - Borth Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction Project 11 -30 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:0 p.m, ® 7:00 p.m. tty i Name: 4IS zn , Address: Z2 5 5 So 000-20b CU12 -c � AnAowc, N } 53-3t)q Phone: j i - 321 - 237$ E- l<ilail: ke Log �,1Q�q3L. Le' G yu C��c,�,l �, o-t• S s C� '"v -Vero 5 1 t. c--T J U` Narnme: Address: Phone C I T Y O F 6u 10mm- MW AN South Conn Creek Drive ,NW Reconstruction Project 11 -10 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 5 :00 p.m. - 7:90 p.m. 176-S -715-7,7 66 7 E -Mail: A AC, 3 -- \ h - N Rme: I A�n- -4- ,)L)tt-cic( tw <� ',-v- Address: rx-e Phonml: Comments: ly -S I l- Z-; n �j t :516 �S. dL0LDn b? a c S CL-1 \k, L C, cdl Name: Address: Phone: Comments: IANvC I T V 0 LF lf%OW __jR, COMMENT SHEET South Coon Crea.k.Drive NW.Reconstruction Project 11-10 In ormationei Nleeti,ng nursday, September,22, 2011 5:1 m. — 7:00 p A/ll E-Mail: —x—Z4 11 /i n ---/ I -/ , f �, 1� , I t �� U , 4, 1— — 1�01 ck—� I- COMMENTSHEET K South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction Project 19 -90 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22 2011 6:00 p.m, — 7:00 p.m. Name: ,C Address: Z-k!Fk � � ('sc L CA-CAL�. Phone: f >iz --1a2 -SS-2t, E- flail; Comments: (,��P TC;ty� F� l `L'xV� �`lCrl♦ �r't \� 11 �*'�Kx ��1 Sal^ 1 \ C��' �� U L ` —y LAX l>�f�LtS!CL '�1 S ELI A ` Y�� ��$t .1 i e�, Z ,'' ,z South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction Project 11 -10 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2016 5 :00 p.m, - 2:00 p.m. Name: Address: Comments: gI L «--uh �� l f cT ti aR �vT M- gq� U d/O all U c r[Pc_j I,cu 40 I LL—Al - , t:, - COMMENT SHEET South Coon Creek Drive MIN Reconstruction Project 91 -10 Informational Meeting Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: L'A01 C. Prone: 2 `�fn�I (1'ZG 7 E -Mail: Comments:`t !' l� {i I 11! . 1 r,;'L4ii F' f`/ `4 A-4 I nd C 4 an. tt/t �l 1 y� CtL S1 c� f c ins i , _ A _ , n l C ?h0 c tJ . ti /f \/ 0 l--l. Crf�1 0 0 L'l L'l M U' o > "o 0 r g O� U) w w> Z Z gz LLI C� O� o . z < N L7 L7 Z f` o� c� < r ux J �LL o C2 Z O Lo I- U) O C U Ll b [J ( V L Q. O C M O (D U C CD T Ti O z r- N V O 7 () T s O O r+ L .J i O j U c � O C'j O � J O z Li \J 1 O w tiv 1 dc"i t �J V � U Y 4`\ J f r Q] -. >O C_ W >' � O Y L � O O C >, 6 (z C - a) o U O >, O w C C ( V L Q. O C M O (D U C CD T Ti O z r- N V O 7 () T s O O r+ L .J i O j U c � O C'j O � J O z Li \J 1 O w tiv 1 dc"i t �J V � U Y 4`\ J f r U l r \ n 9 � . U l r \ n /.�. C - V I :J �o i � r✓1 N N >' �� > O `- cu (4 N O O a -am ? O > V L C c m U N (7 � Cc: O L N M 0 c p CO W > i z �p G�j N zp z < C � T'- O z®®® on000noo 00. 00000000 r ® O i � r✓1 N N jy��, ,J fir'} ; L Lo n O > V L Q M O N (7 n O Q z r_ M 0 c p CO W > i z �p G�j N zp z < T r � T'- O c z T N T O o � U C O < O r • q 4 L a' tC^%`` L N Z r V O C6 t cy�� — a O cc ux 13 D � U N a) O z F- � 0 O U) U) O L' U N n v z®®® on000noo 00. 00000000 r ® O Cf r Z i � r✓1 � jy��, ,J fir'} ; ir rQ t 1 Cf r Z t �w in ;� � . -.} , ; � COMMENT SHEET South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (C.P.11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. Name:,�� �SitY 1 Address: ,Y %6 r _1 Phone: 2� 4z1,-27Y36i' E -Mail: Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway : yes no (circle one) Comments: Cz� LL c F �-�Y 0 cr i k. " South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. Name: Address: �` `� S �' z C11!L2,i' . Phone: E -Mail: Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway : yes n"o) (circle one) Comments: %lam r ^„-7 .1 J JL Y a "k COMMENT SHEET South Coon Creek Drive NW.Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. ?��e /�_ r�,b�o Name. I Address: a Phone: (5,/P-Wo -S-'�)� E -Mail: '��C�S�'�rnYC,,�cePrs.Cor- Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway : yes rio. (circle one) Comments: �J iC C C, ( jE0 Name: South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. t4 �JSO Address: 2ZF�' o Phone: Gj l X21 2_:�7 R E -Mail: b� oz6�� i�J� 11m�Cos �J Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway : yes no (circle one) Comments: s t 1_U 0, P11t c. r.. f-LA_ "L_ JT Ifn9�l relt r.L�� 1t r +_�J..� � G��� s,: l I,�.� l �Lt�\ +{' (Alv1 � G1i f`.-c. i..N �L!'✓ Cj +1,�� G F1 061 (is<: l� `i -.'J /\ I 1 '�? I I �� �/i'' i 47 r/ 'I c Cx r COMMENT SHEET .South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. Name: b o -A Address: J (o n , Phone: �4 ^�I'-7 5 3. E -Mail: J � ' Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway : yes Ono circle one) Comments: A A tF 'f�[ G �.� . 1� f J I LC) L i (i' �) 'f q I C? /i -'(0 C.+ j r i J tJ L S r. ����•r� , � i✓�, ��I� �;���.: -4:J 3Cst,S- ' �J `f 1C.1 i n.l�il} l.li71G�! 1- �EFT(r10f =�� �Ij2r J - J �, l.'! LL' it ✓ 11 icy? t�l 1, �. �,`� L��:- r•._ L��U.� "_: TJ ILA l�l '�c ?� I• /1 =; � Li ti!I � � i I -r. �r I y � - '"' � - a l i �.' 1� `�� `L! � Y l ;! ` ''t``1 �� rl'v.L'f 4�n � S �C� t7l F !''v!' , � � PI (�! (1. I (} r'•. ' Y J C.? I J Iii ;•� _ I I r li I Name: C TI T Y 0 F 1 ADO j i' E COMMENT SHEET South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. Address:F2 Phone: %�,'i --7c;Q E -Mail: OV'i� �� ,j ��r'tiplLr, � 'r1;�Ci� <,,(�iyj 1 , �, Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway : yes �1no (circle one) Comments: r' 1 1 F * ND G COMMENT SHEET South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. Name: 016 Address: 'a lyres Phone: 6 - ffr •-t)k " % E -Mail: rTVa /o (5 ,1�1 qM-1) t foY� Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway: yes no circle one) Comments: / r1 /fit 05 t —�J i� z,��iQ.- s% z� - ��o� n r,\ South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (CP. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 20.12 6:30 p.m. Name: Address: Phone: 7f ;- u;y— X9"7,- E -Mail: Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway Comments: .0 i cc iliic yes no (circle one) JAN0 F DOVEg! COMMENT SHEET South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) Informational Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:30 p.m. Name: Address: Phone: ^� ��� ��� E -Mail: i41ru.? ,/ J Do you have an irrigation system near the roadway : yes noj (circle one) Comments: (" Mo January 12, 2011 RECEIVED RE: Comments regarding South Coon Creek Drive Reconstruction (C.P. 11 -10) MI z o 2012 CITY OF ANDOVER Mr. Berkowitz and City Council, My wife and I are Andover residents and have been Andover residents for 13 years. We attended your Open House on Ja nuary 10 and also the Open House that you invited us to last November. And so we think that we understand the project and its implications. We agree that South Coon Creek Drive is in need of repair. However, we're concerned about the cost of this project, especially during this time of economic hardship. We respectfully request that you delay this project until the economic situation improves. In the meantime, we would prefer that the city continue with its "band -aid" approach (i.e., filling pot - holes, etc). Although we enjoy walking, jogging and biking along South Coon Creek Drive, we are concerned about the additional cost of providing the bicycle /pedestrian paths. And so, in addition to the plan as it is now, we would like to see a plan that does not include the bicycle /pedestrian paths, anticipating that the alternative plan would be less costly and therefore more palatable. Thank you for reading and considering our comments. Michael and Lily Beaupre 3018 South Coon Creek Drive michaelb@connexusenerg,r.com 1- (.' UIL p.s. Yes %xe DO have an irrigation system near the roadway Dave Berkowitz From: Dave Berkowitz Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 9:14 AM To: Ron Erickson Cc: jlaw @andover.mn.us Subject: RE: South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction Ron, Thank you for the email. Please refer below for the response to your questions. If you have any more questions or would like to discuss this more please send me an email or give me a call. Thank You David D. Berkowitz City of Andover Director of Public Works /City Engineer 763 - 767 -5133 From: Ron Erickson Lailto :rerickson @ihearterickson.com1 Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 10:25 AM To: Dave Berkowitz Cc: ilaw@andover.mn.us Subject: South Coon Creek Drive NW Reconstruction Gentlemen We would like acknowledge your professional handling of the meetings on this construction project. We all have personal feelings and emotions about this project and you have done a good job explaining,the details and the process involved with it. We have several items we would like clarification on. 1. If our neighbor across the street truly were to agree to all of the street widening on their property(3060) is this possible and what is involved to get this into the plan? The plan is to keep the centerline the same. The shift of centerline will most likely impact 3 properties across the street from you. All neighbors interested would need to request this in writing and then we would look at the design to see if the shift of the road would have more adverse impacts such as additional excavation, additional retaining walls, tree removal etc. 2. What type of retaining walls are being proposed and do we have any say into the design? That will be determined in the design phase. Most common retaining wall constructed for similar projects is a block type wall. 3. What would the policy be on driveway aprons? Ours currently is pavers with 12" of class 5 base. The driveway is replaced in -kind. The pavers would be salvaged and reused so that they match. 4. Is it possible to have a second driveway cut in the curb on the same property? If you would like a separate apron you would need to submit a written request as stated in the ordinance to the City Engineer and I would evaluate it. If the drive is approved all cost associated with this would be the property owners responsibility. 5. What is the latest time period to accept a water stub out? We would need a letter petition by early March. 6. How far beyond the new curb will the property be affected? Will the excavated soil for the water main be piled on the street? This is all dependent on the steepness of the slope behind the curb. If it is fairly flat the distance behind the new curb line is approximately 3 feet. If slopes are steep it would be what is needed to meet design criteria or for placement of a retaining wall. That will be determined in final design. The excavation for the water main should remain within the existing roadway. In areas where hydrants are placed this could vary. We understand the need for the road reconstruction. We would like to be on record that our desire is to leave the road at the existing width and reduce lane size and stripe the shoulders within this dimension to give the bike /walking area. If what you discussed in one of the meetings is true striping slows vehicles down this should be an acceptable option that would satisfy every ones objection to the road widening. We look forward to the council meeting where these items may be discussed. Thanks Ron and Stacy Erickson 3065 South Coon Creek Drive PA Dave Berkowitz From: Dave Berkowitz Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:43 AM To: Don Brisse Cc: Jason Law; City Council; James Dickinson Subject: RE: south coon creek drive (c.p. 11 -10) Mr. Brisse, The following is a detailed response to your questions. With the complexity of design criteria sometimes it can be difficult to understand the details. I hope that the following will help. 1. Unit (from assessment manual) - a parcel or lot that cannot be further subdivided. For lots outside of the MUSA and for lots determined to be buildable, an R -1 designation is utilized to determine the total assessable units. Based upon the current zoning code, lots designated as R -1 must be at least 2.5 acres (when your lot was recorded, lots in R -1 could be smaller). All lots outside of the MUSA boundary, which are referred to as "rural ", were grouped together, each one counting as a "unit ". We took the total costs for the project in and out of the MUSA and proportioned the costs in each grouping (urban and rural) by the total lineal feet in each grouping. So we essentially had an estimated cost for both the "urban" portion of the project and similarly for the "rural" portion of the project. Those costs were then divided up by the total number of buildable lots in each area, hence a price "per unit ". One parcel in the "urban" area could be further subdivided, so was assessed for 2 units. There were no parcels in the "rural" area that could be further subdivided based upon the current R -1 designation. They MAY be able to be further subdivided in the future if they ever get sewer access and change to an R -4 designation, but at this time without that sewer AND water access, they cannot be considered as R -4 zoning. 2. The decision to include an area for bikes and pedestrians was made by the City Council for current day residents and traffic, and also for use for the next 30+ years until the roadway gets reconstructed again. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies a pedestrian route, whether it be for walkers or bikers, along this corridor. It is one of the few east /west corridors in the City, and this connection links up existing pedestrian /bike routes on Crosstown Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard. There is no guarantee that the land north of the creek will develop anytime soon. There are significant issues with wetlands, floodplain, and poor soils in this area that will hinder development until such a time where it may be cost effective to correct these soils. That will be driven by development. The MnDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual was used as reference for the design. As for why it needs to be on both sides of the road, it actually doesn't need to be. It CAN be on one side of the road, but the impacts would be greater and it would be more expensive. By state law, bicycle traffic must go with the flow of vehicular traffic. A "shared -use path" as defined in the MnDOT Bicycle Manual, must be physically separated from the roadway by a barrier or landscaping. With installation of that "barrier ", a shared use path can be constructed that can accommodate two direction traffic. To achieve this, the path would need to either be off the roadway in the boulevard, or on the roadway with a physical separation (concrete barrier, green landscaped area separated by curbing, etc.). This would require additional width impacts to the entire corridor as there are requirements as to how close traffic can get to this barrier (clear zone), plus the width of the barrier area (which also needs to accommodate snow storage and signs), plus the width of the shared -use path, which would be 8' wide, plus whatever impacts would be outside of the path to physically construct it. The Bikeway Manual states that a minimum of 5' of separation between a shared use path (which could be 2 -way) and the roadway is required for design speeds of 35 -40 mph (this roadway is 35 mph). All of these options were looked at and considered by the Engineering Department and the City Council and the option with the least amount of impacts to the project corridor, which in turn is the most cost effective (and cheapest) to build while providing the pedestrian access was chosen. For example, the current design is for 2 -12' vehicular lanes, 2 -5' shoulders on each side of the road for the bikes /pedestrians (5' minimum required per Bikeway Manual for areas adjacent to curb), and 1'S wide gutters on each side, the total width from face of curb to face of curb is 37'. For a comparison, another option looked at for a shared use -path (which has to be separated from the roadway) would have impacts of 2- 12' lanes plus 2 -2' clear zones to curb (shoulder area considered as clear zone in above scenario) for vehicles plus 5' separation plus 8' path, for a minimum total of 41' wide of impacts, which is at least 4' wider impacts to the project corridor than the currently proposed section. This also does not take into account that this would result in a roadway that would be only 28' wide from face of curb to face of curb, which does not meet the current City standards for this type of roadway which is approximately 32' face to face, so to meet that you'd need to add another 4' of width to get to 45' wide. The City Council chose the option that would have the least amount of impacts and costs associated with the project, while meeting the design criteria and providing a bike /pedestrian area along this corridor. 3. Trees will be removed by a contractor. They may be willing to leave the trees there for your use, they typically are but can't guarantee it. Trees will not be replaced that are removed within the right of way. Maintained areas that are disturbed will be resodded, non - maintained areas will be seeded. Driveways will be replaced in -kind, on average 10' from the roadway. 4. Our state aid funds can be used whether or not the roadway is widened for pedestrian access. 5. The City does not keep pedestrian or bicycle counts, nor do most other Cities or even the County. Bike /pedestrian counts MIGHT be kept by larger park districts, like Three Rivers, that maintains corridors into and out of Minneapolis with very high volumes. The City has a high quality pedestrian network with sidewalks, paths, and trails. This corridor provides a link between these systems. Hopefully this gives you clarification and if not please contact me and we can meet to discuss further. Thank You David D. Berkowitz City of Andover Director of Public 763 - 767 -5133 Works /City Engineer - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Don Brisse [mailto:donbrisse.11 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:51 PM To: Dave Berkowitz Subject: Re: south coon creek drive (c.p. 11 -10) Mr. Berkowitz, Thank you for the reply. I still have concerns and questions. I guess I'm still not clear on how the assessment amount was reached. I heard the figure of $7800.00 plus as being proposed for the "rural" lots and something much, much smaller given for the "urban" lots. You explained it at that meeting as having to also do with the larger lot sizes. You gave the example of 2 -1/2 acre lots or larger. My question is this- how is this assessment being figured? On a per foot basis of frontage or what? It seemed as though the numbers you put out there were the average amounts that each property would be assessed. How can our lot of less than 1 acre be assessed at the same rate as someone with a much larger parcel of 2 acres or more? Maybe I just don't understand how all this works well enough but it sure appears to be unfair if this is how things are done. Define a "unit ". Perhaps that will help. I also asked about how the decision has been made to include the designation of "bike trail" to our road. And why? Based on what? Perhaps, once again, I don't fully understand, but why the need for a "trail" of any sort that will be on both sides of the road? Why wouldn't only one side meet the needs of the "comprehensive" plan? I understand the concept of the master 30yr plan. I also realize, as I'm sure the council does, that the land North of the creek will also be developed in the next 30yrs. Most likely much, much sooner than that. So again, I ask why the trail couldn't go over there instead? I do appreciate the fact that the city has recognized the impact an off -road trail would have on the properties along our road. I also have concerns about widening the road any more than absolutely necessary. To also reduce the impact as well. I asked about the trees that will be lost due to this work. Will the city be replacing the trees and landscaping? Will I have the opportunity to keep the wood from the trees on my land that will be removed? What about regrading of driveways and such? Sod or seeding seems to be pretty much a given with all such work. So it appears that the state will kick in money. Would they also contribute to this project if there were no trails added? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this or being a "nimby ". I just do not see the justification, or need, of this widening of the road . I previously asked for any kind of stats that would indicate that we have any type of safety issue. People have walked and biked this road since.we moved here in and I haven't seen or heard of any problems. Again, my concern goes back to the expense of such a project in the current economy. We all have things that we would like to have. My family weighs all options and settles on the most cost effective solution. Maybe instead of a new Chevy truck, I settle for one that's a couple years old but still under warranty. Bottom line is this- the road needs to be replaced. I get that. I'm just asking that we do this is the best possible way that makes the most sense. Don Brisse On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Dave Berkowitz <D.Berkowitz @andovermn.gov> wrote: > Mr. Brisse, > Thank you for the email. As discussed at the meeting on January 10th any correspondence (comment sheets, emails, etc.) will be copied to the entire City Council and included with the staff item for the public hearing scheduled for March 6, 2012. All property owners with proposed assessments will receive a letter next week regarding the meeting. > Discussed at the meeting was the assessment rate per unit for "urban" and "rural" properties. Proposed assessments for both are based on a per unit charge. The "urban" designation are for lots that are served with City sanitary sewer and water and the "rural" designation are for lots that are not served by City sanitary sewer and water. 0 > The City's Comprehensive plan identifies this route as a regional trail which would connect to other regional trail facilities. The proposed widening would be on average 2.5 feet on each side for a total of 5 feet wider than the existing road. This will vary (ex: 3 feet one side, 2 feet on the other) depending on the final design. To allow for pedestrian traffic on the roadway there must be at least a 5 foot wide section to allow the flow to go in each direction. Bicyclists are required by law to travel with traffic and walkers /joggers are required to travel toward traffic. An 8 -10 foot trail off the roadway is not feasible and would cause a greater impact to trees and yards. The design life expectancy of this road reconstruction is estimated at 30+ years, so the on street pedestrian way is for the needs of today and within the next 30+ years. > The City's funding portion for the project would be from Municipal State Aid funds which Cities over 5000 receive from the State which comes from a portion of the gas tax. South Coon Creek Drive NW is a designated State Aid Route so funding can be used on this road. The City designates 42.6 miles (11.5 miles are future routes) as State Aid out of the 193 miles of City streets. > The City's goal is to limit the impact to trees. Trees that fall within 5 feet behind the proposed curb will need to be removed for safety and provide for snow storage and plowing operations. This became a challenge working around the trees during the 2010 -2011 winter season. > If you would like to discuss this more please call me. > Thank You > David D. Berkowitz > City of Andover > Director of Public Works /City Engineer > 763 - 767 -5133 > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: Don Brisse [mailto:donbrisse.11 @gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:19 PM > To: Dave Berkowitz; Mike Gamache > Cc: dadbrisse @aol.com > Subject: south coon creek drive (c.p. 11 -10) > To all of the city council, > I would like to go on record opposing this project. I have a number of questions and concerns. We moved into our house in October of 91. > The week prior to the "Halloween blizzard ". In all these years we have never seen enough bike or people traffic to justify the current plans to add bike paths on this road. I can not believe that with the economy the way it is these days, that the city would spend our money in such a way! We could not attend the original meeting where this was proposed, but we did go to the on 1/10. To say we were rather shocked is an understatement. And we do not understand the need for this. I raised numerous points with the city engineers, with neighbors in the room agreeing. We were told our only recourse was to fill out the comment sheets. Maybe this will be more effective. 4 > Number one issue is the fact that our property falls within the area you have designated "rural ". We are on a lot size just under 1 acre and apparently will be assessed at the same rate as the folks that all have much larger lots of 2+ acres. While the housing development lots on either end of the road are assessed by the SF. I feel that is absolutely unfair to us! We looked at the map available that night and it is quite evident that we are the only family that will be impacted like this. I would like you to look at this and see if something can be worked out. > I am wondering when/ why the decision was made to add "bike paths" on our road? Based on what? According to David Berkowitz that evening, the city is required to widen the road in both directions by 5' each side to accommodate the bike paths. Why do we need to label them bike paths? If it were called a trail it would not require such road widening. Nor would it require a path on both sides. There was much fanfare regarding the fact that the property owners would not be assessed the additional cost of this widening. But yet when I asked who would pay for it, I was told the city would. Huh? I am the city. > So my tax dollars will pay for it. So we will pay for it after -all. I would like this whole bike trail designation to be reconsidered. I understand that the city would like to have a trail in every neighborhood, all inter - connected. Why this road and why now? Would it not work to widen the road enough for a walking path on one side? I really do not see the need for any trail at all. I specifically asked for biker/ walker counts to justify the expense. I was told there are no reports. I asked for accident stats on this road involving bikes or walkers and told there have been none. I asked who has requested this bike path business and where do they live. Nobody knew. So how can the city justify this project? Because its one of those things that would be "nice" to have? Money is tight people. There are many things we would like to have too. But we don't purchase them unless we "need to ". I understand the need to rebuild the road and agree 100% with that aspect. So just fix the road. Save the nature trails for whenever the day comes that the land on the other side of the creek gets developed. Then put the trail along side the scenic Coon Creek. > What plans are in place to replace the large number of mature trees that will be lost due to this? Will the city replant? Landscaping? > What about lot drainage? > We really left that advisory meeting feeling like the decision has already been made. No further discussion will be allowed. This is what will happen and here is the bill for it. Oh and don't worry that the market value on our property has gone down by at least 45% in the last few years. But our taxes haven't declined by the same percentage. > We would welcome someone from the city to contact us and discuss this. > Lets look at all possible options to the road getting rebuilt. Lets see if something can be worked out that would be more fair to our family.And to our neighborhood. > Respectfully, > Don Brisse and family > 2530 So. Coon Creek Drive > Andover, Mn. 55304 > 763- 754 -3440 home > 763 - 639 -1201 cell > donbrisse.11 @gmail.com 5 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrat *;�_ FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss Potential Trails Along County Roads - Engineering DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION This item is in regards to discussing potential trail segments (North side of 161" Avenue from Crane Street to Wintergreen Street & along the south side of Andover Blvd. from Bluebird Street to Vale Street) that were discussed at the January Workshop. DISCUSSION At the January Workshop the Council suggested looking into the possibility of designing, bidding and constructing the above mentioned trail segments as part of Anoka County's 2012 Overlay program. Refer to the attached location map. Since the January Workshop, I met on site with Anoka County to look at the segments and discuss the process. The County is advertising their project at the beginning of March, which would not allow us enough time to prepare plans and specifications. They also suggested that we may not get good pricing because their project is mostly paving and not dirt work which would be required for the trail construction. Due to workload at this time the project design would be consulted out which typically is done in -house and not charged to the Trail Fund. The Andover Boulevard project has great potential. There are existing power poles along this segment. Reviewing the site it appears that the trail could be placed just south of the power poles which would also meet the clear zone design requirement of 22 feet from the roadway. Refer to Picture #1. The 161" Avenue section is much more challenging. There is a large DNR Wetland that exists between the White Pine Wilderness development and Country Oaks West. The wetland cannot be impacted for the construction of a trail. Refer to Pictures #2 through #4. Staff recommends that these projects be included in the City's 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan and if the project is feasible and can be constructed outside the wetland boundary and still meet design criteria that they move forward in 2013 which will allow for staff to provide proper evaluation and design. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to discuss the above mentioned trail segments and direct staff on how to proceed. Respectfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz / Attach: Location Maps & Pictures I+ ..jkw. - 14 e. To 1!; r t N Nv Oskmt,: AV P,ISTLNNA 160TH LN NW 41 kP$ 46 167TH AVE NW 14%N Ito z U Am 159TH L N h W C) ;,W7 V, ' ,, 6 6 V l 0 E Of 14 i 146THZNNW a. 0 196THIV- 145TH LN NW C1. 0& IL .,,Rocafibn'� tw 4 145TH AVE NW AA ANDOVER BLVD NjIv 4 144TH LN NW 144TH AVr NW z 44 143RD LN NW -47 -Z ri 4 i�4 f A, Proposed Trail 74� Existing Trail I,-. -k) -4- -4 - 4 % 7 Cu CM LLJ U. 0- y. 41 4 I 3 ro. N I. �jpl PAN",? 0 • Ole Ir4. 47 _41 Yw Af, 10 I _a 4 1 . I . I . . . . . . 1A vp w NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discuss Redistricting and City Precincts DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION The State Redistricting Plan was released on February 21, 2012. As you may already be aware, house and senate district boundary changes have impacted the City of Andover. Staff would like to discuss the process that will take place at the City so our voting precincts will match up with the new house and senate district boundaries. DISCUSSION Attached are maps that will be used to facility discussion at the meeting: 1. Senate District 35 2. House District 35A 3. House District 35B 4. Senate District 31 5. House District 31 A 6. House District 3 1 B 7. Andover Redistricting Map ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. i M c � ! 1 01 1 � 1 pi .- ,•..._,.,.,.t...._..._._.. 1 ! 1 N � O 1 � i 1 � / 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 I I ♦ In r. ,-1 i M M M u i T ♦ O a.+ Ln e O ♦ i � i O ♦ i i i i i G; = i i co) i 1 i N ♦ O ♦' N i o._._._,_,_../ M I •�'t District 35A 30A 31A RI 174lLr. N'y 17Nd K* a 4. 'Ieko 35B L NW Aw Ll IA 31B 71 % I A Anoka S? P4 S, lk k St 34A 1% 7's, F4 lar ^9 Cnw Rapid, 36A 1 'sm Are4 Feb 21 2012 L2072 kvww.gis.1ey.mn 10 ` k W Aw 46V vi% 157M A,. NW 159,0414 I" A,. S.V 35A '5W 'NN IK W.' NW "zq'. f 52M A. 'AV Anokx� $ill-w' 0 71 % I A Anoka S? P4 S, lk k St 34A 1% 7's, F4 lar ^9 Cnw Rapid, 36A 1 'sm Are4 Feb 21 2012 L2072 kvww.gis.1ey.mn 10 71 % I A Anoka S? P4 S, lk k St 34A 1% 7's, F4 lar ^9 Cnw Rapid, 36A 1 'sm Are4 Feb 21 2012 L2072 kvww.gis.1ey.mn District 35B 31A 31B 3781 177In A.e N m N 1151n 4vnNY: - Nl: All t`nuB N.Y ' z rp1A A'2 NN : �$ pF g� r41n � 9 3 ,�•_ �b ' p 11 NNW n MLn NVV .n 3.AVr(5a X11 tF 4.p z. ' iD R ' ads l: • 5 .: VY Y .amp � - em I w Po ')IMI Ln NW �lA H W I � $A t `� ss �. a.en: ieeml N4 4roko •� �.5 Napa ills St flue'' w 1¢jl�._1_.� y y£`e 1281, Ln NJ I'/r LVNri I - s f rs- loU 35A bt 05 o u 169 a Ems' o'I'w ' , s imh0W, ; A op Gr „vr._ i 4h ,571L ti.:SRs :.14 -.1, 36B ! r ie -� bg 356 y , Feb 21 2012 L2072 www.gis.1ey.rnn NX 3781 m e t`nuB N.Y ' z rp1A A'2 NN : �$ pF g� 1911'. Ln Nn Z - � 9 3 ,�•_ �b p [;.x Ili!e A, -W, '.fB:': nNN .n 3.AVr(5a X11 tF 4.p z. R ' ads • 5 .: VY Y .amp � - OB $A t `� ss ,Ld 4roko •� �.5 Napa ills St flue'' w 1¢jl�._1_.� y y£`e 1281, Ln NJ I'/r LVNri I - s f rs- 35A bt m u 169 a 36A ' , ; •� i 36B ! , Feb 21 2012 L2072 www.gis.1ey.rnn 3781 District 31 60 609 1 1 65 is 47 — Chisago North 1;,e, Bodni, l'ortl V,th C95 15 lt,rtold : %h.:. ... -I Livonia . /F71 Sherhu me .... .. 31 1069 .... ..... I \�,th,, C47 OA 3 r.:, Y, 139 30 t0 1 ZLI 11,..., 4 1 97 �A V, j"I T- % o R.pd, L, 61 C .4 rv, t Lj 42 ll,"n I lei 036— 37 38 118 010 W 169 33 _,_..40_._,, 47 al, 0 Feb 21 2012 52012 www.gis.leg.mn c v N� � h L - i Q i M i i - i N i i Q e a 7 Cl) U LA cn p w M �.�.�.�.............. ...... ..................... ... ) 1 N t 1 r _ District 31 B 0 32A 32B Aft LINE '56AVe - - 5 HE 266n , ! 2-aO,n Y 2- Ia: Ae 4A 5 y �i• P4y $ S %t4 o.. NE p�a� X - 1Ai ALh.R Sm4,. YF m SO / Tsar. A.o NW 3 UteuJ R / Isanti T; ^ 25t�'.r RE 251m An HE m m a B a+nAa' 2PgN4 1i 2lyYAreNE a [ in i 2.fi 4.e NW YAAm Av. MW V5P, 1tb A_ P'- .x.11._._...- .�.:f►�..�.- ._. _. -.l�rl y.�W�. �. �a.—A• -A_ JSPV !ffi 214A.: - .Ix'.Pr,vn RL•tl1E•1 p,Fw y- = m):. A.e xE ,,yq' 1. aV" 2J1A4re NE i!• A:P'1':: s - 4 AqB. 'a' g- 2:AAA,e NE i 23", h.: c y ^i . Y n1Y LnM X� 2llN Aa HE 2] „o •n e,E Nliv yP / e _ Al F" in”, ..' - q 2!MAv.K 1 22 PwNE'; i M Prt Nn i N <f r �•m P^ �b..N1E C: YI'ICr 225P1.n.E r,AAVa14E 2: i1 NV/ ? �+ _ �' 221N4x NE A. HE / 219N',ro NE 5 ^< p Y 1[NArP 0.f:p 9g. 3Q ��': 111n1f Sin< Ne It20,ASMY N wi is 1iµ i 2'3NA,a b Nf �� G �.' / vr^281 HE 4, ra`a LA.t fi th.l FR `y 4Ppt,c•PP,E :4 _ L %L z n J4•i £ y "..f'+< m 2 Z 41bN ae IO:V. A.e N'. Y IN GOpPPtl9uM a AuMM Jr VE :� S V'^NE 1310 Are NE / —S' MRLer4� c -,I IW -AWNE ^ YY a \Y •,P_._.1. _.r.• i_.y�r ,•�.N' ProEV: NE y g 19>O k,,, HE 15MLn NN 4 R E O z Ne< .N. ^N 4.". Is51n „'e nic NE 1 '«n2 ° I .Y1 11.1 Lr a' A'e M1i. v^ Y 3 a IB t'ArcNM t d N 186.1 AVe Ai 9 A._. .- / 31 B z FLi',1 ':..' t 'tem:c NVr i ^ °elt g z s• .,,qs snA+ k ,tun Lr.hE n2mE. wm ]aIL YW mr % .}^ 4 �. i it d WE.anav Ar.m .3 'In_ I.SEf' A 2 4 39A RI nl /�' 1. P T4 4 l.N1Y v ai J SF' 6 ^ O �P Sµ :641Mnn 1K IlO6eMV HE 5,' Vl `� s5 *cP _ .. :`Pro N•v �,�Y I § ��, 1 n�NE `ay Y4ffnA.n LEA w � y0S .. In.r PVe NE .Columbus tIBMA NE 1 ' 15<t L- NA MY _A 4yl ,G' M 16511'AN (^ ivr?'' tu�v. -:Pan t -t.f Ir .Sv Zs rv.`� WI r L5 s Ir�i. _ 161 e�N A•n i r' y '9A 1,r HamltAP Y F Ixn Are HE ¢ �/ e < N.w a `n!ti' n '�y y Jaf uE 1 Lr Cr NC X - if. �:• .s -4.. vn vE C.no S'AP IsanAw Nn A =` TV 4H, -9� .. YN 'S13[:n•.1: F ; :n z ^] £ f `_n E.+ ; 15.W A, HC' NN.Y.yn 1 u 3 Ap L VC j A9- 1% Y :^ E Sid N uv Pre vE £ N.V idrs <a tl ^A.. NiT Aae Nf .d .. 6G I:ER 0 Art m ., 3 �% 44 . i _ �n P& IdLINIn Aft 'r'� aliE 145, A'O'E / NN •:P.^ 4.P NE Jrµ 1 IIL Ln YA N2'CAPa Af•. P PFNC 111':TK oLTY9 '�',{r „4. ✓ `L Nii IJ4 ^t 111Y:n NYY N f v E S'ClE 011ANNE %f ms jn ^P, AVB i YM Aw AV. BsPe'.f rN:! Uc. r.ULS 35Ba .NNE � i i ey "`.1P_P_r_ ' yid Pi nSY NE a 1 w.HS �� A':rSlr 35A 1 p , A.L. >® 1 A YF I 8B 685 .37B it 38A 36A 1 - ,, .E,,EN R :P 37A x , %.� V, +� \ J. Z 3 2 22 47 118 1 Feb 21 2012 L2072 www"gis.leg"mn C I T Y O F ND OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discuss 2013 Budget Development Guidelines DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION City Administration is starting to focus on the 2013 Annual Operating Budget Development process and is looking to the City Council to establish the Council's guidelines for the preparation of the 2013 Annual Operating Budget. DIVICT IF glnN The following are some suggested 2013 Budget Development guidelines for your consideration and could be impacted by the Councils discussion: 1) A commitment to a City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization and positioning the City for long -term competitiveness through the use of sustainable revenue sources and operational efficiencies. 2) Continue with the current procurement and financial plan to appropriately expend the bond proceeds generated from the successful 2006 Open Space Referendum. 3) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at no less than 45% of planned 2013 General Fund expenditures and the preservation of emergency fund balances (snow emergency, public safety, facility management & information technology) through targeting revenue enhancements or expenditure limitations in the 2012 adopted General Fund budget. 4) A commitment to limit the 2012 debt levy to no more than 20% of the gross tax levy and a commitment to a detailed city debt analysis to take advantage of alternative financing consistent with the City's adopted Debt Policy. 5) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost - effective replacement schedule is followed. Equipment will be replaced on the basis of a cost benefit analysis rather than a year based replacement schedule. 6) A team approach that encourages strategic planning to meet immediate and long -term operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs. 7) A management philosophy that actively supports the funding and implementation of Council policies and goals, and a commitment to being responsive to changing community conditions, concerns, and demands, and to do so in a cost effective manner. ACTION REQUIRED The Council is requested to review the aforementioned proposed Budget Development guidelines, discuss whether or not they are appropriate for developing the 2013 Annual Operating Budget. submitted, %,66W � 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Pre -Audit Year End 2011 General Fund Budget Progress DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION The overall City of Andover 2011 Budget estimated total revenues of $28,910,245 and total expenditures of $30,785,805. The $1,875,560 of expenditures over revenues was largely due to prepaying debt in order to save on interest expenditures. The 2011Budget included a total property tax levy of $10,856,299: $7,500,802 (69.09 %) operational levy, $1,929,112 (17.77 %) debt service levy, and $1,426,385 (13.14 %) capital /watershed levy. This levy reflected a zero percent gross levy increase as compared to the 2010 budget. DISCUSSION The following represents City Administration directives and departmental expectations for 2011: 1. Expenditure budgets while approved, expenses are to meet with the spirit that needs are fulfilled first, expansions of service and special requests are to be reviewed with City Administration before proceeding. 2. Departments are committed to search for the best possible prices when purchasing goods and services. 3. Departments are committed to continually searching out new efficiencies and to challenge the status quo of how the City provides services. 4. Departments are committed to searching out collaborative opportunities with our neighboring government agencies to facilitate efficient and cost - effective utilization of governmental assets and personnel. 5. Departments are committed to developing effective consistent and ongoing communications with City residents, businesses and other stakeholders. Attached is the Pre -Audit Year End 2011 General Fund Budget Progress report; other documents may be distributed at the meeting. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. submitted, REVENUES General Property Tax Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines Investment Income Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenues EXPENDITURES CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Budget Summary Totals Budget Year 2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 2010 2011 Budget Final % of Bud Budget Dee YTD % of Bud $ 101,372 $ 7,308,495 $ 7,191,602 98% $ 7,217,219 $ 7,115,936 99 %. 138,157 237,055 329,901 139% 250,080 387,206 155 %. 74% 567,498 570,097 100% 558,215 566,707 102% 54,968 543,500 755,184 139% 580,200 866,584 149°/. 178,500 100,750 104,780 104% 105,750 99,777 94% j..\ 65,000 70,368 108% 65,000 130,368 201% 83,400 136,684 164% 84,900 127,602 150% 95 %. 196,930 196,930 100% 196,930 196,930 100% 207,033 S 9,102,628 $ 9,355546 103% S 9,058,294 $ 9,491,110 105% 152,500 143,693 940% Information Services 150,812 136,931 21111 154,871 142,963 92 %. 2010 Planning & Zoning Budget Final % of Bud Budget Dec 1 1 1) % of Bud GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council $ 104,251 $ 100,710 97% $ 106,956 $ 101,372 95% Administration 132,967 131,218 99 %. 138,157 135,523 98% Newsletter 23,000 17,094 74% 27,500 22,897 83 %. Human Resources 60,744 54,968 90% 36,221 31,854 88% Attorney 178,500 172,775 97% 178,300 171,062 96% City Clerk 96,828 95,166 98% 103,333 100,693 97 %. Elections 49,126 37,927 77% 6,750 6,398 95 %. Finance 202,011 194,865 96% 212,967 207,033 97% Assessing 152,500 144,760 95% 152,500 143,693 940% Information Services 150,812 136,931 91% 154,871 142,963 92 %. Planning & Zoning 328,449 327,566 100% 355,258 324,302 91% Engineering 390,087 389,037 100% 414,408 413,819 100% Facility Management 571,716 421,850 74% 528,739 469,476 890/6 Total General Gov 2,440,991 2,224,867 91% 2,415,960 2,271,085 94•/. PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection 2,599,246 2,599,246 100% 2,615,407 2,615,407 100% Fire Protection 1,070,385 967,716 90% 1,077,084 974,988 91% Protective Inspection 346,282 330,709 96% 363,789 360,277 99% Civil Defense 15,909 15,450 97% 16,463 16,301 99% Animal Control 9,970 6,952 70% 9,970 11,087 111% Total Public Safety 4,041,792 3,920,073 97% 4,082,713 3,978,060 97% PUBLIC WORMS Streets and Highways 556,452 518,989 93% 578,050 594,293 103% Snow and Ice Removal 489,381 537,948 110% 489,315 434,602 89% Street Signs 195,562 166,244 85% 196,712 175,833 89% Traffic Signals 36,000 25,830 72% 36,000 26,569 74% Street Lighting 36,400 30,885 85% 36,400 32,317 89% StreetLights - Billed 200,000 186,320 93% 206,000 189,144 92% Park & Recreation 872,633 827,910 95% 916,832 889,178 97% Recycling 118,838 109,034 92% 122,273 109,911 90% Total Public Works 2,505,266 2,403,160 96% 2,581,582 2,451,847 95% OTHER 170,079 24,953 15% 45,000 30,631 68% Total Other 170,079 24,953 15 %. 45,000 30,631 68% Total Expenditures $ 9,158,128 S 8573,053 94 %. S 9,125,255 $ 8,731,623 96% NETINCREASE(DECREASE) $ (55,500) S 782,493 $ (66,961) $ 759,487 l-� ► 7 1 C I T Y O F @ ND OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2012 Budget Implementation Progress Report — January 2012 DATE: February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION The City of Andover 2012 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $9,263,720 and total expenditures of $9,263,720. Monthly reporting of the City Budget progress to the Governing body is a recommended financial practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies. DISCUSSION Attached is the General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary - Budget Year 2012 through January 2012. The attachment is provided to assist discussion in reviewing 2012 progress; other documents may be distributed at the meeting. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. submitted, Dickinson CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Budget Summary Totals Budget Year 2012 2011 2012 1 REVENUES Budget Jan YTD % of Bud final Budget Jan YTD %of Bud General Property Tax S 7,217,219 $ - 00% S 7,115,936 S 7.398,782 S - 00/. Licenses and Permits 250,080 24,240 100/6 387,206 250,155 17,187 7% Intergovernmental 558,215 - 00/6 566,707 566,103 191,276 34% Charges for Services 580,200 - 38,428 70/6 866,584 601,150 50,262 8% Fines 105,750 300 00/. 99,777 100,750 225 0% Investment Income 65,000 (13,225) -200/. 130,368 65,000 (21,475) -33% Miscellaneous 84,900 50,128 59% 127,602 84,850 50,797 60% Transfers In 196,930 196,930 1000/0 196,930 196,930 196,930 100% Total Revenues S 9,058,294 S 296,801 3% S 9,491,110 $ 9,263,720 $ 485,202 5 °G li,Yj 2012 2011 EXPENDITURES Budget Jan YTD % of Bud Final Budget Jan YTD % of Bud GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council S 106,956 $ 29,948 28% $ 101,372 $ 88,162 $ 27,067 31% Administration 138,157 11,994 90/0 135,523 140,621 9,273 7% Newsletter 27,500 3,300 12% 22,897 25,500 3.412 13% Human Resources 36,221 4,337 12% 31,854 15,429 4,363 28% Attorney 178,300 - 0% 171,062 178,300 - 0% City Clerk 103,333 9,807 9% 100,693 103,937 9,543 9% Elections 6,750 273 4% 6.398 53,922 277 1% Finance 212,967 24,334 11% 207,033 213,522 25,043 12% Assessing 152,500 - 0% 143,693 152,500 - 0% Information Services 154,871 4,812 3% 142,963 153,560 5,233 3% Planning & Zoning 355,258 15,510 4% 324,302 338,696 12,439 4% Engineering 414,408 23,185 6% 413,819 419,688 24,034 6% Facility Management 528,739 13,561 3% 469.476 549,639 20,817 4% Total General Gov 2,415,960 141,061 64/. 2171,085 2,433,476 141,501 6% U PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection 2,615,407 - 0% 2,615,407 2,694.135 - 0% Fire Protection 1,077,084 71,089 7% 974,988 1,081,933 71,531 7% Protective Inspection 363,789 20,894 6% 360.277 363,834 20,235 6% Civil Defense 16,463 3,316 20% 16,301 16,755 3,460 21% Animal Control 9,970 111 1% 11,087 9.950 - 00/6 Total Public Safety 4,082,713 95,410 2% 3,978,060 4,166,607 95,226 2% 3 PUBLIC WORKS Streets and Highways 578,050 33,775 6% 594,293 571.625 40,452 7% Snow and Ice Removal 489,315 66,382 14% 434,602 488,172 49,561 10% Street Signs 196,712 7,666 4% 175,833 196,631 7,566 4% Traffic Signals 36,000 - 0% 26,569 36,000 - 0% Street Lighting 36,400 - 0% 32,317 36,400 - 0% Street Lights - Billed 206,000 - 0% 189,144 206,000 - 0% Park & Recreation 916,832 49,364 5% 889,178 922.599 49,598 5% Recycling 122,273 5,967 5% 109.911 126,210 3,785 3% 11 Total Public Works 2,581,582 163,154 6% 2,451,847 2,583,637 150,962 6% OTHER 45,000 7,500 17% 30.631 80.000 - 00/6 _ Total Other 45,000 7,500 17% 30,631 80,000 - 0% Total Expenditures S 9,125,255 $ 407,125 4 % S 8,731,623 S 9,263,720 S 387,689 4% r� d NET INCREASE (DECREASE) $ (66,961) $ (110,324) $ 759,487 S - 5 97,513 FV N66W 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Councilmembers Jim Dickinson, City Administrator January 2012 Investment Report February 28, 2012 INTRODUCTION Summary reporting of the City Investment portfolio to the Governing body is a recommended financial practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies. DISCUSSION Attached is the Investment Maturities Summary for January 2012. The attachment is intended to assist with discussion in reviewing the January 2012 investments; also attached is the most recent Standard & Poor's Bond rating that references the deemed importance of reviewing investments monthly; other documents may be distributed at the meeting. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation and provide direction to staff. N O N R 7 C R 7 d T+ C d r h d i O rw 1 ti N 'C 7 A FC L N C M D` N O Q d U ❑ a� ¢ Q N O O� v N lF' T c c -- � v, c O M O M QNi T m N 00 F •y F L ��' > � vn � 'G^ y U � L V ¢ 69 69 On O vl W O O oo vi 1� V h 'n V N M M A 69 69 N V D\ N W T ONO .�. OMO N (ON N — W 69 6A In P V01 O o0 � N OO M ' O�, O' ' �D .• � � V' N N W h M N — —_ l.- r N N CPI O V r4 QO OC N q r O O V� 00 V1 00 N l� V1 -It M O .-. O M M N a — O M OCT N q1t r 1 M R 10 P N a0 r O m N r O A O V M m O R - m N. N N 69 69 69 M M < o .5 Q d U a� a� ¢ Q v N T c c -- � v, c ^ m F •y F L ��' > � vn � 'G^ y U � V ¢ Summary: Andover, Minnesota; General Obligation Primary Credit Analyst: Dare Branch, Chicago (1 ) 312 - 233 -7034, dare _branch(Ostandardandpoors.com Secondary Contact: Daniel Zuccarello, New York 1- 212 - 438 -7414; daniel_ zuccarellogstandardandpoors.com Table Of Contents Rationale Outlook Related Criteria And Research www.sta n d a rdandpoors.com /ratingsd ire ct > 93 I',IJ Summary: Andover, Minnesota; General Obligation US$1.605 mil taxable GO cap imp rfdg bnds ser 2012B dtd 03/22/2012 due 02/01/2016 Term AA+ /Stable US$0.63 mil GO equip certs ser 2012A dtd 03/22/2012 due 02101/2017 New Long Term Rating AA+ /Stable New Andover GO Long Term Rating AA+ /Stable Affirmed Andover GO Unenhanced Rating AA+ISPURI /Stable Affirmed Many issues are enhanced by bond insurance. Rationale Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has assigned its 'AA +' long -term rating to Andover, Minn.'s general obligation (GO) equipment certificates series 2012A and taxable GO capital improvement refunding bonds series 20126. At the same time, Standard & Poor's has affirmed its 'AA +' long -term and underlying (SPUR) ratings on the city's existing GO bonds. The outlook is stable. The rating reflects our opinion of the city's: • Participation in the large and diverse Twin Cities economic base; • Economic indicators that compare well with national averages; and • Debt burden we consider low to moderate, with limited additional debt needs. Offsetting these strengths is our view of high annual debt service costs, although other dedicated revenue sources for payment of debt service is available. Debt service on the series 2012A certificates and 2012B bonds is secured with the city's unlimited -tax GO pledge. Andover is located 20 miles north of the Twin Cities and has a population of about 31,542. The city has grown into a large bedroom community, doubling in population since 1990. All of the city's economic indicators are favorable, in our opinion. Median household effective buying income (EBI) and per capita EBI is what we consider very strong at 167% and 124% of the national average, respectively. The city's estimated market value is $2.4 billion, which equates to what we consider a strong $77,388 per capita. Assessed valuation (AV) fluctuated between 2007 and 2010, and decreased by 6.4% in fiscal year 2011. City officials project AV to remain stable over the next few years, and they do not expect any further declines. Andover's unreserved general fund financial position has remained very strong, in our opinion, over the last five years, and management does not anticipate any major changes to that position. At fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2010, the unreserved general fund balance was $4.9 million, or what we consider a very strong 57% of operational expenditures. For 2011, the city expects to post a surplus of about $500,000. The city attributes the 2011 surplus to Standard & Poors ( RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal I February 22, 2012 2 Summary: Andover, Minnesota; General Obligation keeping expenditures at a minimum in every possible area of the budget. For fiscal 2012, city officials expect a balanced budget without the use of reserves. We consider the city's financial management practices "strong" under our financial management assessment (FMA) methodology. An FMA of "strong" indicates that the city's management practices are strong, well embedded, and likely sustainable. Highlights of these policies include the following: • Regular review of budget performance with elected officials; • The existence of formal, multiyear financial and capital planning updated annually; • Comprehensive investment and debt management policies AjaA • The adoption of annual fund balance targets as part of the city's budget document approved by elected officials. The city makes contributions to the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the General Employees Retirement Fund and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund. The city annually makes 100% of its required contribution payments, which totaled $14,937 in fiscal 2010. Overall net debt, excluding debt paid solely from utility revenues, is what we consider low at $1,703 per capita and low at 2.2% of market value. Principal amortization is average, with 54% of debt due to be retired over 10 years and 100% by 2034. Debt service carrying charges represent, in our opinion, a high 38% of expenditures. The city has no future debt plans at this time. Outlook The stable outlook on the bonds reflects our expectation that the city will continue to benefit from its participation in the Twin Cities' regional economy and that reserve levels will remain at levels at or above the city's stated fund balance policy. Related Criteria And Research • USPF Criteria: GO Debt, Oct. 12, 2006 • USPF Criteria: Appropriation- Backed Obligations, June 13, 2007 Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal at www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. www. standardandpoors .com /ratingsdirect 9s,�r.ai �aorz:a?a Copyright © 2012 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved No content (including ratings, credit - related analyses and data, model, software or other application or output therefrom( or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S &P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S &P and any third -party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S &P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S &P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S &P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THATTHE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S &P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit - related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S &P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security S &P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form orformat. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute forthe skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and /or clients when making investment and other business decisions, S &P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S &P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S &P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S &P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S &P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered an accountthereof. S &P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S &P may have information that is not available to other S &P business units. , S &P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S &P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities orfrcm obligors. S &P reserves the rightto disseminate its opinions and analyses. S &P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditpertal,com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S &P publications and third -parry redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www standardandpoors ,com /usratingsfees. Standard & Poors I RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal I February 22, 2012 �L 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator/Finance Director FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: 2G. Discuss Traffic Control Signing of Recreational Trails DATE: November 29, 2011 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss traffic control signing for recreational trails. DISCUSSION Met Council hosted a Workshop on November 4a' to discuss and receive feedback from staff representing City's and regional agencies involved in trail design, operations and safety. This was an excellent workshop that dealt with ways to provide consistency among trail providers in applying wayfinding signage and road crossing treatments. Wayfinding information will be discussed at the meeting and how staff is researching and pursuing options to be discussed during the 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan preparation. Road crossing treatments are the item that staff is looking for direction from the City Council on how to proceed with crossing treatments at intersections. Currently stop signs are placed on trails that approach a controlled intersection which may be a driveway or roadway. It has been found that if a crosswalk is provided the users of the trail feels that they have the right -of -way and the vehicle at the controlled intersection must allow them to proceed. In most cases I have experienced around the City Hall Complex the vehicle waits for the pedestrian to cross so the pedestrian does not stop. This can cause a false sense of security for the pedestrian and if the motorist feels the pedestrian should stop they may proceed causing a conflict. Staff recommends that in these cases that the stop signs be removed from the trail to make it clear that the pedestrian has the right -of -way. I reviewed this with the Chairman of the task force that was created to study these issues and he agreed this would be the best solution for this situation. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to discuss traffic control signing (road crossing treatments) for recreational trails and direct staff on how to proceed. Respectfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz Attach: Pictures 0 �S a s�� � ��� � �5 3 ,�_ '� '� � �. � ^` � '; I, � � '" T c'i %S .. ..� i 'av��__ Tnih uTPs � Page . Commissioner Miskowiec stated the Park Commission is not asking to review all the trail projects. He indicated if the Park Commission had a choice regarding the trail system they would make some different decisions. When leaving the Park Commission out of the trail planning, the Council is taking away one of their tools to properly integrate connecting parks. Chair Butler suggested the policy state the Park and Recreation Commission review and comment on the trails. Commissioner Van Vark asked what the policy stated prior to the current policy. Mr. Haas answered the prior policy indicated the Park Commission had opportunities to make recommendations to the Council about certain trails and what the next trail section should be constructed. Chair Butler stated the Park Commission has no idea of what regional trails the Council is planning. Councilmember Trade stated there are no regional trails being planned at this time due to lack of trail funds coming in. The only trails being done are the ones that are being constructed at the same time as a road project, using road and State Aid funds. Councilmember Trade stated someone should be looking beyond the regional roads and the Park Commission could look at the long term planning. Chair Butler stated that makes sense. Mr. Haas indicated in the transportation plan there is a trail plan and he does not think much more could be done right now on the trails. Councilmember Bukkila suggested expanding amenities within the trails and she thinks that should involve the Park Commission more than the transportation component. Commissioner Van Vark asked if there is an appetite to formalize having the Park Commission have a voice in the regional trail process. Councilmember Trade suggested that regional trails stay with transportation projects. JOINT MEETING WITH PARK COMMISSION —DISCUSS TRAIL CONTROL SIGNING OF RECREATIONAL TRAILS ---- .�-- --.a -- Mr. Berkowitz stated he attended a Met Council Workshop about wayfmding, which is keeping consistency among trails from city to city to county so all systems fit together. He indicated he and Mr. Haas will be meeting with Anoka County Parks on a joint effort tying the City trail system in with the County system. Mr. Berkowitz indicated there is an issue about the current trail signs. He stated the City signs all of the trail stops with 12 x 12 stop signs and a pedestrian crosswalk, the trail stop signs are not effective; pedestrians do not stop. He stated the recommendation from Met Council is for the City to remove the stop signs on the trails, the crosswalk provides the pedestrian the right -of -way. 1711'hU �e5 Qs,;L Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes — November 29, 2011 P�1 Councilmember Trude indicated there are inconsistent crosswalks within the City. Mr. Berkowitz explained why that is. Councilmember Trude stated she thinks the more stop signs the better. The Council directed staff to keep the stop signs on the trails. Mr. Berkowitz indicated the current stop signs on the trail system do not meet regulations. The signs will be replaced with 18 x 18 signs beginning spring of 2012. JOINT MEETING WITH PARK COMMISSION — DISCUSS PLAYGROUND AND SURVEY Mr. Haas introduced a neighborhood survey that will be used to determine playground replacement. Mr. Butler stated the Park Commission would like to review the radius of each survey before being sent out. The Council agreed with a quarter mile radius. JOINT MEETING WITH PARK COMMISSION — DISCUSS CLEAR WIRELESS LEASE AT ROSE PARK Mr. Butler stated at the time of the lease agreement, the Park Commission's understanding was the water tower at Rose Park was to come down in the near future and the revenue from the Clear Wireless lease would go into the Park Fund at that time. The decision to keep the water tower never went back to the Park Commission. Councilmember Knight asked how much the yearly lease is. Mr. Dickinson answered approximately $12,000 a year. Chair Butler stated Rose Park is one of the parks that the Park Commission would like to re -do in the future. Councilmember Trude suggested splitting the revenue between the Park and Water Fund. The Council agreed to keep the revenue in the Water Fund. Chair Butler stated the water tower is on dedicated park land and the Park Commission would like the revenue to be put in the Park Fund. He indicated he would like a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to where the revenue should go. The Council recessed at 9:36 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:49 p.m. EMi I Part 9. TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES Chapter 9B. Signs 9B.1 Application and Placement of Signs cu>DANCE: Bicycle signs shall be standard in shape, legend, and color. All signs shall be retroreflectorized for use on bikeways, including shared -use paths and bicycle lane facilities. Where signs serve both bicyclists and other road users, vertical mounting height and lateral placement shall be as specified in Part 2. On shared -use paths, lateral sign clearance shall be a minimum of 0.9 m (3 ft) and a maximum of 1.8 in (6 ft) from the near edge of the sign to the near edge of the path (see Figure 9B -1). Mounting height for ground- mounted signs on shared -use paths shall be a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) and a maximum of 1.5 m (5 ft), measured from the bottom edge of the sign to the near edge of the path surface (see Figure 913-1). When overhead signs are used on shared -use paths, the clearance from the bottom edge of the sign to the path surface directly under the sign shall be a minimum of 2.4 m (8 ft). 1.0 m (3 ft) Min. 1.9 m (6 ft) Max c m f� v in E E Ci f0 multb Qs 1 Signs for the exclusive use of bicyclists should be located so that other road users are not confused by them. The clearance for overhead signs on shared -use paths should be adjusted when appropriate to accommodate typical maintenance vehicles. 9B.2 Design of Bicycle Signs STANDARD: If the sign applies to motorists and bicyclists, then the size shall be as shown for conventional roads in Table 2B -1. The minimum sign sizes for shared -use paths shall be those shown beneath each sign drawing and in Appendix C at the back of this Manual, and shall be used only for signs installed specifically for bicycle traffic applications. The minimum sign sizes for bicycle facilities shall not be used for signs that are placed in a location that would have any application to other vehicles. OPTION: Larger size signs may be used on bicycle facilities when appropriate. Width of shared -use path 1.0 m (3 ft) Min. 1.9 m (6 ft) Max c � v �n EE ci co �l� Figure 9B -1 Sign Placement on Shared -Use Paths 9B -1 May, 2005 GUIDANCE: Except for size, the design of signs for bicycle facilities should be identical to that specified in this Manual for vehicular travel. SUPPORT: Uniformity in design includes shape, color, symbols, wording, lettering, and illumination or retroreflectorization. 9B.3 STOP and YIELD Signs (111 -1, R1 -2) UqV V YIELD R1.1 R1 -2 450 x 450 mm 450 x 450 x 450 mm I18 "x18" 18 "x18 "x18" STOP (R1 -1) signs shall be installed on shared -use paths at points where bicyclists are required to stop. YIELD (RI-2) signs shall be installed on shared -use paths at points where bicyclists have an adequate view of conflicting traffic as they approach the sign, and where bicyclists are required to yield the right -of -way to that conflicting traffic. OPTION: A 750 x 750 mm (30 x 30 in) STOP sign or a 900 x 900 x 900 mm (36 x 36 x 36 in) YIELD sign may be used on shared -use paths for added emphasis. GUIDANCE: Where conditions require path users, but not roadway users, to stop or yield, the STOP sign or YIELD sign should be placed or shielded so that it is not readily visible to roadway users. When placement of STOP or YIELD signs is considered, priority at a shared -use path/roadway intersection should be assigned with consideration of the following: A. Relative speeds of shared -use path and roadways users; B. Relative volumes of shared -use path and roadway traffic; and C. Relative importance of shared -use path and roadway. �V TCD Pb� Speed should not be the sole factor used to determine priority, as it is sometimes appropriate to give priority to a high- volume shared -use path crossing a low - volume street, or to a regional shared -use path crossing a minor collector street. When priority is assigned, the least restrictive control that is appropriate should be placed on the lower priority approaches. STOP signs should not be used where YIELD signs would be acceptable. 9BA Bicycle Lane Signs January, 2007 9B -2 (113 -17, 113 -17a, 113 -17b) R3 -17 750 x 600 mm 30" x 24" AHEAD ENDS R3 -17a R3 -17b 750 x 300 mm 750 x 300 mm 30" x 12" 30" x 12" Compliance Date: January 17, 2006 STANDARD: The BIKE LANE (R3 -17) sign shall be used only in conjunction with marked bicycle lanes as described in Section 9C.4, and shall be placed at periodic intervals along the bicycle lanes. GUIDANCE: The BIKE LANE (R3 -17) sign spacing should be determined by engineering judgment based on prevailing speed of bicycle and other traffic, block length,distances from adjacent intersections, and other considerations. The AHEAD (R3 -17a) sign should be mounted directly below a R3 -17 sign in advance of the beginning of a marked bicycle lane. The ENDS (R3 -17b) sign should be mounted directly below a R3 -17 sign at the end of a marked bicycle lane. 0 0 4 Sign Sign Number Picture R1 -1 Le R1 -2 YIELD R1 -2a TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC R1 -3 R1 -4 Ulm R1 -6b STATE uw STOP FOR wnmx cnasswnLn R1 -X1 STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK R1 -X2 CROSS TRAFFIC IDOES NOT STOP R2 -1 SPEED LIMIT 5 Y"TCD 953 Sign Sign Size Use Manual Colors Metric English 24 x 12 Section (millimeters) (inches) 18 x 6 CR 2B.4 Red 36x18 E White on 450 x 450 18 x 18 B 28.4,5,6,7 Red 600 x 600 x M 5B.2 7B.9 750 x 750 30 x 30 CR 8B.8 78.11 900 x 900 36 x 36 E 96. 1200 x 1200 48 x 48 O 7TUA White on 450 18 B 2B.8,9,10 Red 750 30 M 5B.2 2B.56 900 36 CR 8B.8 1200 48 E 9B.3 1500 60 F 1OC.4 Black on 600 x 450 24 x 18 CR White 900 x 750 36 x 30 1200 x 900 48 x 36 White on 300 x 150 12 x 6 CR 2B.4 Red 600 x 300 24 x 12 E White on 450 x 150 18 x 6 CR 2B.4 Red 36x18 E Black on 300 x 900 12 x 36 CR 2B.12 White and 300 x 1120 (post mounted) E 7B.9 Fluorescent 1200 x 1500 12 x 44 F 78.11 Yellow -Green (wlmounting flange) Black on 600 x 750 24 x 30 CR 213.45 White 2B.56 Black on 600 x 450 24 x 18 CR 2B.4.1 White 750 x 600 30 x 12 CR 30 x 24 E 36x18 E Black on 600 x 750 24 x 30 CR 2B.11 White 900 x 1200 36 x 48 E 5B.3 1200 x 1500 48 x 60 F 78.11 C -1 May, 2005 L-1 WAM !( k a Is n I MZ D a. Z < L) fo- L) W < w W EE 2 �e W (o F- w LL1 < F- M (L L D E: C, (n z 0 U) a 0 < < WOL)L) wz=)ZOLLw C<L L) w co 3 U) 2 m o (1) =1 0 z LL LU 0 0 w m W w Z � T Z D =1 � W 0 0 n D W J 02 w 0 0 w 0 0 0 C u Z-) CL (L (L a_ -a w x IL CL 0 (L w w m 0 0 0 0 -i LL 01 ...... ® _���� . ..... . ........... AvJL a . 0 a. m Vill FQ4 MZ D a. Z < L) fo- L) W < w W EE 2 �e W (o F- w LL1 < F- M (L L D E: C, (n z 0 U) a 0 < < WOL)L) wz=)ZOLLw C<L L) w co 3 U) 2 m o (1) =1 0 z LL LU 0 0 w m W w Z � T Z D =1 � W 0 0 n D W J 02 w 0 0 w 0 0 0 C u Z-) CL (L (L a_ -a w x IL CL 0 (L w w m 0 0 0 0 -i LL 01 ...... ® _���� . ..... . ........... AvJL a . 0 a. m (9 00 .......... CL III > 4 r... . ...... CN 01 . . ....... CL ................. q) 04 Zi . . . . . 0 'a (L ul C� C� . .......... . Lrd F: I j co CN U) CL C) 0 c? 0) 0 2 C? > d 0 'o a- a 2 0 ALI- P") LL rl .. ....... . . ......... 0 ............. CCL, /* ... ....... cq T CL C> PAR -0 0 (L Lo 0 1 - ,ReG ............. % (Y) lgp,U 14 C> ....... ..... ............ LO Lc) M Vill (9 00 .......... CL III > 4 r... . ...... CN 01 . . ....... CL ................. q) 04 Zi . . . . . 0 'a (L ul C� C� . .......... . Lrd F: I j co CN U) CL C) 0 c? 0) 0 2 C? > d 0 'o a- a 2 0 ALI- P") LL rl .. ....... . . ......... 0 ............. CCL, /* ... ....... cq T CL C> PAR -0 0 (L Lo 0 1 - ,ReG ............. % (Y) lgp,U 14 C> ....... ..... ............ LO Lc) M 1 W i N N D r ° Of U LLI ? U N Y W K U L) W Im LL O Q O r m a D `L a D Q y w 0 0 0 w CO Z z O w y a 00 m' °w ¢ o o> th W ° w w o v w o o 0 U _ a s n. a m o w= Y a. 0 a 0 w x 0 0 10 ED o ' . � ®* a v o �� i a N < Cljli e�� N ' I: r YY� my'l 5�.� i a 2 �'y j�f is LL 1� I A► W W ' 44x (n N N D ° m co Z U Y w U U U Y J U U S K H w o N o g m �_ � C J 'L LL Q Q S ~ m d 0 O D J } J 0 V% Z U U (� J W 2 3 U W O U U W N J U N J O Q w y U -p m w o o >> H W c=_7 o w z J x z 0 C U U u. _ mw a m a m a O W S Y a U m 0 rwn x N J3 JU J d U) 0, A —03 Y w S N K W d 0 4 } O W y kZ LL !- U U OU (D N