Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-04-27 CC Packet
CITY OF CENTERVILLE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA teryiC�e 60TXaffiAed1&7 Wednesday, April 27, 2016 6:15 p.m. or shortly thereafter Set Agenda Items = RED CITY OF CENTERVILLE BOARD OF REVIEW & EQUALIZATION (6:15 P.M.) (Mr. Ken Tolzmann) — (Recess to May 11, 2016, 6:15 p.m. meeting) COUNCIL MEETING (Following Board of Review & Equalization) I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATION 1. Certificate of Appreciation & Recognition, Randy Rolstad (Page 1) 2. Mr. Kevin Knopik, ABDO, Eick & Meyers, Presentation of 2015 Audit IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 13, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes **TO BE EMAILED** VI. CONSENT AGENDA 1. City of Centerville April 14, 2016 through April 23, 2016 Claims (Check #30140- 30162) w/Voided Check #30161 (Pages 2-3) 2. Centennial Lakes Police Claims through April 6, 2016 (Check #10829-10862) (Page 4) 3. Centennial Fire District Claims through March 8, 2016 (Check #7416-7432) W/Check #7411-7415 Payroll (Page 5) 4. Staff Recommendation Portable Restrooms for 2016 (Jimmy's Johnnys) (Pages 6- 7) 5. Request for Temporary On -Sale Liquor License, Gambling Permit & Waiving of Fees, Church of St. Genevieve's Annual Picnic, August 21, 2016 — 6995 Centerville Road (Pages 8-9) VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. T -Mobile Fourth Amendment to Site Lease Agreement (Pages 10-31) 2. City of Centerville Water Supply Plan (Pages 32-81) [I. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of the 2015 Audit IX. COUNCIL & ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Administrator Ericson a. Anoka County, Community Development (Pages 82-83) b. CenterPoint Energy, Community Partnership Grant Application — Centennial Fire District (Page 84) c. Met. Council Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study (Pages 85-113) X. ADJOURNMENT *REMINDERS** Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — May 3, 2016, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting — May 4, 2016, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) City Council Meeting — May 11, 6:15 p.m. (Council Chambers) (Local Board of Appeal & Equalization) City Council Meeting — May 25, 2016, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) Music in the Park, Hidden Spring Park, 6:30 p.m. June 7, 2016 — Dirty Shorts Band (? tbd) (New Orleans Style Brass Band) June 14, 2016 — LaValle Jazz Cats Septat (Swing, Jazz) June 21, 2016 — Mike Conlon & Geno (Acoustic Rock/Country) June 28, 2016 — Maple Street Ramblers (Dixieland Band) July 12, 2016 — Mean Gene & the Woodticks (? tbd) (Acoustic Folk, Rock & Blues) July 19, 2016 — Aly Hanzal (? tbd) (Acoustic Pop) July 26, 2016 — Dirt Road Dixie (Country) Music in the Park-ing Lot, 1855 Main Street, August 6, 2016, 6:30 p.m. — Sound Fall Garage Sale Days — June 10 & 11, 2016 City Wide Clean Up Day —, LaMotte Park Parking Lot, June 18, 2016, 8:00 a.m. —12:00 p.m. (Noon) Anoka County Radio Club Field Day Exercise, LaMotte Park Parking Lot — June 24, 25 & 25, 2016 Fete des Lacs — August 5, 6 & &, 2016 Out Run Homelessness 5K, 8K & Kids Run/Walk — October 1, 2016, LaMotte Park, 7:00 a.m. — 9:30 a.m. Kenneth A. Tolzmann Sr. Accredited Minnesota Assessor Centerville City Assessor TO: City of Centerville Attn: Mr. Mike Ericson, Administrator FROM: Kenneth A. Tolzmann, SAMA 41939 Centerville City Assessor DATE: April 19, 2016 RE: 2016 Pay 2017 Assessment Report Introduction I have prepared this 2016 Assessment Report for use by the City Council and Residents. The Assessment Report includes general information about both the appeals and assessment process, as well as specific information regarding this 2016 assessment. Minnesota Statutes establish specific requirements for the assessment of property. The law requires that all real property be valued at market value, which is defined as the usual or most likely selling price as of January 2, 2016. The estimated market values established through the 2016 assessment are based upon qualified sales of Centerville properties taking place from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. From this sales information, our mass appraisal system is used to determine individual property values. Property owners who have questions or concerns regarding the market value set for their property are asked to contact me prior to this meeting. This allows me the opportunity to answer any questions they might have. I have found that a large number of property owner concerns can be resolved by discussion. If I am unable to resolve a property owner's concerns regarding their market value, the appeal can be brought to this local Board of Appeal and Equalization. The 2016 Assessment Summary State Statutes require all real property within the City of Centerville to be valued at market value as of the January 2nd assessment date. The 2016 assessment has met all assessment standards set by the State of Minnesota. Statistically, based upon the 64 qualified sales within the City during this sales period, and after value adjustments made accordingly by zone, the final result was an assessment that qualifies as "excellent" in the eyes of the Minnesota Dept. of Revenue with a median sales ratio of 93%, a coefficient of dispersion of 5.5, and a Price Related Differential of 101. With respect to the effect of these new sales had on the overall market value of the City. For last years assessment, we saw a total taxable market value of $304,090,311. Upon the application of the new sales information gathered this past year, the total market value of the City (tax base) rose by 4.6% to $322,941,237 for this 2016 assessment. Included in this new overall market value is $4,866,400 in new construction. Looking Forward Presently there are 13 qualified sales of record for next year's 2017 assessment. Comparing these 2016 market values to the sales prices observed, a median sales price of 92% is observed. If this present trend continues, we will most likely see continued overall growth in market values for next years' assessment. Closing As your City Assessor, it is my priority to represent your community with utmost dignity and respect, and to make every property owner feel as though they are being heard. Obviously, I'm not able to tell everyone just what they want to hear, but it is my hope that through explanation, and discussion, there can be a better understanding. If there are any questions from members of the City Council or City Staff, or City Residents, please do not hesitate to call me. I am available to City residents always during normal business hours and by appointment on evenings and weekends. In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the City of Centerville for allowing me the privilege of serving as your City Assessor. I can assure you that I take the responsibilities of those duties most seriously. If you or anyone has questions relating to property tax assessment, I would be most pleased to discuss these issues with you. You can reach me at my office at (651) 464- 4862 or my cell at (612) 865-2149. Sincerely, Kenneth A. Tolzmann, SAMA41939 Centerville City Assessor City of Centerville Board of Equalization Meeting Centerville, Minnesota April 27, 2016 icreaa �5 i i ert, ("e�aLr a-� r'I fc, '�F79W" y S(LdrY' Mill) 651-4,293"33irr•fukfiSd 4298629 Keww-OA Tohnmw,, S44M Cbmbrvift Oty.4ssessw City of Centerville Table of Contents AssessmentCalendar......................................................................................................................... 3 The2016 Assessment........................................................................................................................4 QuintileAreas Inspected.....................................................................................................................5 Reassessment..................................................................................................................................... 6 MarketValue....................................................................................................................................... 6 Authority of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization..................................................................7 LocalMarket Values..........................................................................................................................10 2016 Market Value by Property Type..............................................................................................11 Residential Appraisal System...........................................................................................................12 SalesStudies.....................................................................................................................................12 Sales Statistics Defined....................................................................................................................13 Current Sales Study Statistics..........................................................................................................14 Residential Tax Changes Examined................................................................................................15 2016 Real Estate Tax Information....................................................................................................15 AppealsProcedure............................................................................................................................16 SampleMarket Value Notice............................................................................................................18 Sample Property Tax Statement......................................................................................................20 APPENDIX ......... 2015 Residential Annual Housing Market Report (Mpls Board of Realtors) City of Centerville 2016 Assessment Calendar January 2 2016 Market Values for Property Established February 1 Final Day to Deliver Assessment Records to County February 1 Final Day to File for an Exemption from Taxation March 1 Final day to file for 1 b with Commissioner of Revenue March 16 2016 Valuation Notices Mailed April 17 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization April 30 Final Day to File a Tax Court Petition for 2015 Assessment May 15 First Half Payable 2016 Taxes Due May 29 Final Date for Manufactured homes assessed as personal property to establish homestead May 31 State Board of Equalization June 13 County Board of Appeal and Equalization (6:00 PM) July 1 2016 Assessment Finalized July 1 Date by which taxable property becomes exempt August 15 Final Day to File for 2015 Property Tax Refund August 31 Final Day to Pay the First Half Manufactured Home Taxes September 1 2016 Abstract to the Department of Revenue October 15 Second Half Pay 2016 Taxes Due November 15 Anticipated Day to mail Pay 2016 Proposed Tax Notices December 1 Last Day to Establish Homestead for pay 2016 December 15 Final Day to File Homestead Application for pay 2016 City of Centerville The 2016 Assessment The 2016 assessment should be a reflection of the 2015 market conditions. Sales of property are constantly analyzed to chart the activity of the market place. The Assessing staff does not create value; they only measure its movement. Assessing property values equitably is part science, part judgment and part communication skill. Training as an assessor cannot tell us how to find the "perfect" value of a property, but it does help us consistently produce the same estimate of value for identical properties. That after all, is the working definition of equalization. As of January 2, 2016, there were 1,687 taxable parcel/accounts in the City. That is essentially the same as from 2015. This total includes: • 1,408 residential parcels • 96 non-taxable parcels • 83 commercial and industrial parcels • 2 apartment/nursing home/man. housing parcels • 0 manufactured home accounts • 1 personal property account • 0 railroad parcels • 8 agricultural parcels • 0 utility parcels Current state law mandates that all property must be re -assessed each year and physically reviewed once every five years. We also inspect all properties with new construction each year. During 2016 1 reviewed nearly 450 existing properties. 4 City of Centerville For the 2016 Assessment, parcels in Section 23 QQ12 thru QQ22 as well as all Exempt parcels were reviewed by an on-site inspection. For the 2017 Assessment, parcels in Section 23 Q041 thru Section 26 will be inspected. City of Centerville Reassessment State Statute reads: "All real property subject to taxation shall be listed and reassessed every year with reference to its value on January 2nd preceding the assessment." This has been done, and the owners of property in Centerville have been notified of any value change. Minnesota Statute 273.11 reads: "All property shall be valued at its market value." It further states that "In estimating and determining such value, the Assessor shall not adopt a lower or different standard of value because the same is to serve as a basis for taxation, nor shall the assessor adopt as a criterion of value the price for which such property would sell at auction or at a forced sale, or in the aggregate with all the property in the town or district, but the assessor shall value each article or description of property by itself, and at such sum or price as the assessor believes the same to be fairly worth in money." The Statute says all property shall be valued at market value, not may be valued at market value. This means that no factors other than market factors should affect the Assessor's value and the subsequent action by the Board of Equalization. Market Value Market value has been defined many different ways. One way used by many appraisers is the following: The most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by any undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated: (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 6 City of Centerville Authority of the Local Board of Equalization Assessments of property are made to provide the means for the measuring of the relative share of each taxpayer in the meeting of the costs of local government. It is the duty of the Assessor to assess all real and personal property except that which is exempt or taxable under some special method of taxation. If the burden of local government is to be fairly and justly shared among the owners of all property of value, it is necessary that all taxable property be listed on the tax rolls and that all assessments be made accurately. Whenever any property that should be assessed is omitted from the tax rolls, an unfair burden falls upon the owners of all property that has been assessed. If any property is undervalued in relation to the other property on the assessment record, the owners of the other property are called upon automatically to assume part of the tax burden that should be borne by the undervalued property. Fairness and justice in property taxation demands both completeness and equality in assessment. Minnesota Statutes Section 274.01 provides that the council of each city shall be or appoint a Board of Appeal and Equalization. The charter of certain cities provides for the establishment of a Board of Equalization. The provisions of Section 274.01 and this regulation apply to all Boards of Appeal or Boards of Equalization. The 2003 Legislature enacted State Statute 274.014 which requires that there be at least one member at each meeting of a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (beginning with the 2006 local boards) who has attended an appeals and equalization course developed or approved by the Commissioner of Revenue within the last four years. (The member must attend the course by no later than January 1, 2006.) Mayor Mary Capra as well as Councilmembers Ben Fehrenbacher and Jeff Paar, have met this requirement for the City of Centerville. Section 274.01 states the county assessor shall fix a date for each Board of Appeal and Equalization to meet for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property in its respective town or city. The county assessor is required to serve written notice to the clerk of each of such bodies on or before February 15th of each year. These meetings are required to be held between April 1 st and May 31 st; and the clerk of the Board of Appeal and Equalization is required to give published and posted notice at least ten days before the date set for the first meeting. The Board of Appeal and Equalization of any city, unless a longer period is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue, must complete its work and adjourn within twenty days (20) from the time of convening specified in the notice of the clerk. No action taken subsequent to such date shall be valid. A request for additional time in order to complete the work of the Board of Appeal and Equalization must be addressed to the Commissioner of Revenue in writing. The Commissioner's approval is necessary to legalize any procedure subsequent to the expiration of the twenty -day period. The Commissioner of 7 City of Centerville Revenue will not, however, extend the time for local Boards of Appeal and Equalization to meet beyond the time when the County Board of Equalization meets, which is the final two weeks of June. The authority of the local Board extends over the individual assessments of real and personal property. The Board does not have the power to increase or decrease by percentage all of the assessments in the district of a given class of property. Changes in aggregate assessments by classes are made by the County Board of Equalization. Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or reduce individual assessments, the total of such adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the Assessor by more than one percent of said aggregate assessment. If the total of such adjustments does lower the aggregate assessment made by the Assessor by more than one percent, none of the adjustments will be allowed. This limitation does not apply, however, to the correction of clerical errors or to the removal of duplicate assessments. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the authority in any year to reopen former assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The Board considers only the assessments that are in process in the current year. Adjustment can be made only by the process of abatement or by legal action. In reviewing the individual assessments, the Board may find instances of undervaluation. Before the Board can raise the market value of property it must notify the owner. The law does not prescribe any particular form of notice except that the person whose property is to be increased in value must be notified of the intent of the Board to make the increase. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meetings assure a property owner an opportunity to contest any other matter relating to the taxability of their property. The Board is required to review the matter and make any corrections that it deems just. When a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes, it is necessary that a majority of the members be in attendance in order that any valid action may be taken. The local assessor is required by law to be present with his/her assessment books and papers. He/she is required also to take part in the proceedings but has no vote. In addition to the local assessor, the county assessor or one of his/her assistants is required to attend. The Board should proceed immediately to review the assessments of property. The Board should ask the local assessor and county assessor to present any tables that have been prepared, making comparisons of the current assessments in the district. The county assessor is required to have maps and tables relating particularly to land values for the guidance of Boards of Appeal and Equalization. Comparisons should be presented of assessments of types of property with previous years and with other assessment districts in the same county. It is the primary duty of each Board of Appeal and Equalization to examine the assessment record to see that all taxable property in the assessment district has been properly placed upon the list and valued by the assessor. In case any property, either real or personal, has been omitted; the Board has the duty of making the assessment. s City of Centerville The complaints and objections of persons who feel aggrieved with any assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the Board. Such assessments must be reviewed in detail and the Board has the authority to make corrections it deems to be just. The Board may recess from day to day until all cases have been heard. If complaints are received after the adjournment of the Board of Appeal and Equalization they must be handled on the staff level; as a property owner cannot appear before a higher board unless he or she has first appeared at the lower board levels. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 274.01: The Board may not make an individual market value adjustment or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures. A non-resident may file written objections to his/her assessment with the county assessor prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization. Such objections must be presented to the Board for consideration while it is in session. Before adjourning, the Board of Appeal and Equalization should cause the record of the official proceedings to be prepared. The law requires that the proceedings be listed on a separate form which is appended to the assessment book. The assessments of omitted property must be listed in detail and all assessments that have been increased or decreased should be shown as prescribed in the form. After the proceedings have been completed, the record should be signed and dated by the members of the Board of Appeal and Equalization. It is the duty of the county assessor to enter changes by Boards of Appeal and Equalization in the assessment book of each district. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the opportunity of making a great contribution to the equality of all assessments of property in a district. No other agency in the assessment process has the knowledge of the property within a district that is possessed jointly by the individual members of a Board of Appeal and Equalization. The County or State Board of Equalization cannot give the detailed attention to individual assessments that is possible in the session of the Local Board. The faithful performance of duty by the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization will make a direct contribution to the attainment of equality in meeting the costs of providing the essential services of local government. The 2016 assessment should be a reflection of the 2015 market conditions. Sales of property are constantly analyzed to chart the activity of the market place. 9 City of Centerville Local Market Values After thorough studies of the sales in the market place are conducted, we establish the assessed value of all real property. During the 2016 study period, we recorded 102 sales, of which we considered 64 to be "arms -length" sales. There were only 6 bank/foreclosure sales in Centerville during 2016. This was about the same # of foreclosures as last year (8).. In accordance with the results of these sales studies, downward adjustments were made to all areas of the city with certain styles and grades of homes having larger decreases than others. This will more properly reflect current market trends. According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, the median home sales price in Centerville increased 12.9% from 2014 to 2015. In my opinion, this is misleading, given a 17% increase they reported for the previous year. If I look at the average over the previous three years, I see an increase of 5.5% in the City. This is a direct result of the continued reduction of the impact bank owned home sales have in the City. The 2016 assessment that is up for your review has a total unaudited assessed value of $322,941,237. It reflects an approximate valuation increase of 4.6%% compared to the 2015 assessment of 304,090,311. Also included in this figure is the addition of $4,866,400 in new construction. 10 City of Centerville 2016 Market Value Comparison?? 2015 ASSESSMENT PERCENT OF TOTAL MARKET VALUE APARTMENTS .2% COMMERCIAL ®APARTMENTS 3.7 ❑COMMERCIAL ❑INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 96,1% ❑RESIDENTIAL 11 City of Centerville Residential Appraisal System Per State Statute, each property must be physically inspected and individually appraised once every five years. For this individual appraisal, or in the event of an assessed value appeal, we use two standard appraisal methods to determine and verify the estimated market value of our residential properties: 1. First, an appraiser inspects each property to verify data. If we are unable to view the interior of a home on the first visit, a notice is left requesting a return telephone call from the owner to schedule this inspection. Interior inspections are necessary to confirm our data on the plans and specifications of new homes and to determine depreciation factors in older homes. E To calculate the estimated market value from the property data we use a Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system based on a reconstruction less depreciation method of appraisal. The cost variables and land schedules are developed through an row® analysis of stratified sales within the city. This method uses the "Principle of Substitution" and calculates what a buyer „T would have to pay to replace each home today less age dependent depreciation. 'lam"' 3. A comparative market analysis is used to verify these estimates. The properties used for these studies are those that most recently have sold and by computer analysis, are most comparable to the subject property taking into consideration construction quality, location, size, style, etc. The main point in doing a market analysis is to make sure that you are comparing "apples with apples". This will make the comparable properties "equivalent to" the subject property and establish a probable sale price of the subject. These three steps give us the information to verify our assessed value or to adjust it if necessary. Sales Studies According to State Law, it is the assessor's job to appraise all real property at market value for property tax purposes. As a method of checks and balances, the Department of Revenue uses statistics and ratios relating to assessed market value and current sale prices to confirm that the law is upheld. Assessors use similar statistics and sales ratios to identify market trends in developing market values. A sales ratio is obtained by comparing the assessor's market value to the adjusted sales price of each property sold in an arms -length transaction within a fixed period. An "arms -length" transaction is one that is generated after a property has had sufficient time on the open market, between both an informed buyer and seller with no undue pressure on either party. The median or mid -point ratios are calculated and stratified by property classification. 12 City of Centerville The only perfect assessment would have a 100% ratio for every sale. This is of course, is impossible. Because we are not able to predict major events that may cause significant shifts in the market, the state allows a 15% margin of error. The Department of Revenue adjusts the median ratio by the percentage of growth from the previous year's abstract value of the same class of property within the same jurisdiction. This adjusted median ratio must fall between 90% and 105%. Any deviation will warrant a state mandated jurisdiction -wide adjustment of at least 5%. To avoid this increase, the Anoka County Assessor requests a median sales ratio of 94.5%. Countywide, we have the ability to stratify the ratios by style, age, quality of construction, size, land zone and value. This assists us in appraising all of our properties closer to our goal ratio. Sales Statistics Defined In addition to the median ratio, we have the ability to develop other statistics to test the accuracy of the assessment. Some of these are used at the state and county level also. The primary statistics used are: Aggregate Ratio: This is the total market value of all sale properties divided by the total sale prices. It, along with the mean ratio, gives an idea of our assessment level. Within the city, we constantly try to achieve an aggregate and mean ratio of 94% to 95% to give us a margin to account for a fluctuating market and still maintain ratios within state mandated guidelines. Mean Ratio: The mean is the average ratio. We use this ratio not only to watch our assessment level, but also to analyze property values by development, type of dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to track market trends in neighborhoods, popular housing types and classes of property. Coefficient of Dispersion (COD): The COD measures the accuracy of the assessment. It is possible to have a median ratio of 93% with 300 sales, two ratios at 93%, 149 at 80% and 149 at 103%. Although this is an excellent median ratio, there is obviously a great inequality in the assessment. The COD indicates the spread of the ratios from the mean or median ratio. The goal of a good assessment is a COD of 10 to 20. A COD under 10 is considered excellent and anything over 20 will mean an assessment review by the Department of Revenue. Price Related Differential (PRD): This statistic measures the equality between the assessment of high and low valued property. A PRD over 100 indicates a regressive assessment, or the lower valued properties are assessed at a greater degree than the higher. A PRD of less than 100 indicates a progressive assessment or the opposite. A perfect PRD of 100 means that both higher and lower valued properties are assessed exactly equal. 13 City of Centerville Current Sales Study Statistics The following statistics are based upon ratios calculated using 2016 pay 2017 market values and October 2014 - September 2015 sales. These are the ratios that our office uses for citywide equalization, checking assessment accuracy, and predicting trends in the market. Statistic 2016 Median Ratio: 93.00 COD: 5.46 PRD: 101 2016 Centerville Residential Ratio by Zone Zone/Code Neighborhood Desc. #Sales Median CE01 AGRICULTURAL 0 na CE02 DOWNTOWN CENTERVILLE 2 88.98 CE03 NORTHSIDE AVERGE 18 93.49 CE04 2.5 TP 10 ACRE RES 1 85.48 CE05 LAKESHORE 6 93.67 CE06 SOUTHSIDE AVERAGE 1 91.89 CE07 ABOVE AVERAGE RES 20 93.62 CE08 AVERAGE TOWNHOMES 9 93.60 CE09 ABOVE AVERAGE TOWNHOMES 7 93.20 ALL ZONES 64 93.00 "There were 6 foreclosure/bank sales in the 2016 sales study. 14 City of Centerville Residential Tax Changes Examined Although the Assessor's Office is considered by many to be the primary reason for any property tax changes, there are actually several elements that can contribute to this change, including, but not limited to: • Changes in the approved levies of individual taxing jurisdictions. • Bond referendum approvals. • Tax rate changes approved by the State Legislature. • Changes to the homestead credit, educational credits, agricultural aid, special programs (including "This Old House", limitations on increases in value) approved by the State Legislature. • Changes in assessed market value. • Changes in the classification (use) of the property. A combination of any of these factors can bring about a change in the annual property tax bill. 2016 Real Estate Tax Information The 2016 real estate tax bills were sent out around the middle of March. A brief review of the tax procedure is provided. Discussion The real estate tax is an ad valorem tax; that is, a tax levied based on the value of the property. The calculation of the tax requires two variables, a tax capacity value and the district tax capacity rate applicable to each individual property. Tax Capacity Tax capacity value is a percentage of the taxable market value of a property. State law sets the percent. Determination of tax capacity values have historically changed over the years although the payable 2016 are mostly unchanged from 2015. For the taxes payable in 2016 the rates are as follows: Tax capacity value for residential homestead property is determined as follows: Res. Homestead (1A) Taxable Market Value First $500,000 @ 1.00% Taxable Market Value Over $500,000 @ 1.25% Tax capacity value for rental residential property is determined as follows: One unit (413131) Taxable Market Value First $500,000 @ 1.00% Taxable Market Value Over $500,000 @ 1.25% Two to three -unit s (4131) Taxable Market Value All @ 1.25% Apts 4+ units (4A) Estimated Market Value All @ 1.25% Low Inc. Rental Housing Estimated Market Value All @ .75% Tax capacity value for commercial/industrial property is determined as follows: Commercial/Industrial (3A) Estimated Market Value First $150,000 @ 1.50% Over $150,000 @ 2.00% Note: These rates do not include the homestead exclusion that is calculated from the overall tax capacity value. This homestead exclusion deduction from taxable market value is based on a sliding scale up to a maximum market value of $414,000. 15 City of Centerville Appeals Procedure Each spring Anoka County sends out a property tax bill. Three factors that affect the tax bill are: 1. The amount your local governments (town, city, county, etc.) spend to provide services to your community, 2. the taxable market value of your property, and 3. the classification of your property (how it is used). The assessor determines the final two factors. You may appeal the value or classification of your property. Informal Appeal 0 Property owners are encouraged to call the appraiser or assessor whenever they have questions or concerns about their market value, classification of the property, or the assessment process. 0 Almost all questions can be answered during this informal appeal process 0 When taxpayers call questioning their market value, every effort is made to make an appointment to inspect properties that were not previously inspected. 0 If the data on the property is correct, the appraiser is able to show the property owner other sales in the market that support the estimated market value. 0 If errors are found during the inspection, or other factors indicate a value reduction is warranted, the appraiser can easily make the changes at this time. Local Board of Equalization 0 The Local Board of Equalization includes the mayor and city council members. 0 The Board meets during April and early May. This year the Board meets on April 27th at 6:15 PM. 0 Taxpayers can make their appeal in person or by letter. 0 The assessor is present to answer any questions and present evidence supporting their value. County Board of Appeal and Equalization In order to appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization, a property owner must first appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. 0 The County Board of Appeal and Equalization follows the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization in the assessment appeals process. 16 City of Centerville 0 Their role is to ensure equalization among individual assessment districts and classes of property. 0 The board meets during the final ten working days in June. In 2016 it will commence on June 13th at 6:00 pm. 0 A taxpayer must first appeal to the local board before appealing to the county board. Decisions of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization can be appealed to tax court. Minnesota Tax Court The Tax Court has statewide jurisdiction. Except for an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Tax Court shall be the sole, exclusive and final authority for the hearing and determination of all questions of law and fact arising under the tax laws of the state. There are two divisions of tax court: the small claims division and the regular division. The Small Claims Division of the Tax Court only hears appeals involving one of the following situations: • The assessor's estimated market value of the property is <$300,000 • The entire parcel is classified as a residential homestead and the parcel contains no more than one dwelling unit. • The entire property is classified as an agricultural homestead. • Appeals involving the denial of a current year application for homestead classification of the property. The proceedings of the small claims division are less formal and property owners often represent themselves. There is no official record of the proceedings. Decisions made by the small claims division are final and cannot be appealed further. Small claims decisions do not set precedent. The Regular Division of the Tax Court will hear all appeals, including those within the jurisdiction of the small claims division. Decisions made here can be appealed to a higher court. The principal office for the Tax Court is located in St. Paul. However, the Tax Court is a circuit court and can hold hearings at any other place within the state so that taxpayers may appear with as little inconvenience and expense to the taxpayer as possible. Appeals of property located in Anoka County are heard at the Anoka County Courthouse, with trials scheduled to begin on Thursdays. Three judges make up the Tax Court. Each may hear and decide cases independently. However, a case may be tried before the entire court under certain circumstances. The petitioner must file in tax court on or before April 30 of the year in which the tax is payable 17 City of Centerville Sample - Valuation Notice 'kmio" (7004ty NUAM, rK UA"Aivdl, uor'Um-, 1 06 - RN "I X0 M i '-w *M"4i Of" 01*10ft'.11j" W11k Lim, . UNS 10 11 MA 0 ow"Al"Wew w E AW, PYAWAF0 U34 AMONKRE !Sr AWKk W i Z Z016'WidAi,s1W TANN*V,T�2017 pf"""A im w.." 40".0,4 " 0., ohfoo* 10'r * , Sur 00 04"MV.4 n..w Mogaly UK vagutwo NI bo" Ilow" to j(p%wal Of qJ1410*404 Your CIASS I FICA TION ow, VALVATION 6 NOW Uvw 40 x"P"d mod U.' w, —W, J to mik .1i m `,"l "'.� — �w fwwtq WW 0-uq� mw"""A 'W# 4*f0'fw 4e, W. Mb. Aw. 01, ffpi o4o, t46rpxN gOwfoo w, smw. Ague t. =.4'oW lj� "0 Ir ftmw W 11"W411111116 MV uww i A." hmg "WA ewe gum w A2',P4,"n -( Irl jjm i "I'll-i"0'aMxws ( ".1w 1k,"m W Pikw A(40'fwks'q :I, - I PM - Pr0,pe0iy RWIM370r, NuMber, 2 Proped), Class (Provtoluis 3*616SIM49M y"Iq - F'or twee p3yar/bl tp"NCvrer7l! ye"ar, MIS 41 'UV mtas linnm,on or vot pr o"M,, I Propq4ty Close (Chill ea cement yeer) - roirtaxes pay $weMe, ye'wv* to MVIX&TVAzallo", ,at tp'* prqm'r at Estimated Market Value -pi vi all let em,,JnM ty Me ,' irfijrT'Amessv to te 0tt31 t,te p cppw-ty woull Toll Ukery Eel, tsar "" aper MaMet 5 New OrPOWOM90 ViSfUS - tM# 3MOral"R a1PACT4 T'P ;w'D;'P'nW" ll 4STMAIPO MAR YSIA Co.* t", 31olvm's, vlarges WC re, F(IDPPIly, 6, Gf000 UftildRuirall PrOWYWAg P81etSM600peo SpAC# ValueDOWT1001 - lfyitl,t ZiaVy IT)( 00fe Of Me'ev Priograrts, ft 301 411A v1"AJ tie f1`,dWVe* Mille P13ftM ViCant LJM Deforral - foot IlJiM ?iW, t, at riCeMy Merl jpatiml NA rM y V trvol""' Wti a StSuVW1 Cie SANd TMe WArreCvgr* It pr,1014M, itwef Vrn* 6 Me OW Houtar ExOuition - v,Ae airtmmlcir o°* re* liriprovemarltl wvg'm ex,"I'voW Irom WaTIOM Or, MOMesTeX: Pir.'Peny 45 years or afip or Wif FV M'm lee Mf'",esaw $0,10a IT, 011411, le 04batled Velarlenji ExtkU Won - 0ijili),tig dMabIle,11 ve* mrs may te fOrIve t2f, a vatf�4 iftnr,' axcl�,projn cwm vineir mr,,qsteld pnopaM IC H'ameatead Ma e4 VWuoi Exclusion - k(;p4p;, In. esdar1w isimmasils am is ?* rouiSe gw age a-,*, or* a,:ve rO mr,3 or, ag nurlv V, NrIT"M tleals Tr* exiNt"VIOM uS a Madmx�m a $X,4�X M 176,1),X arrarwal,,vae, mo meroecirpasem iry rmepirce'lit"X mve ovef 57 OCZ "ire evVv,&xr. prasFs oul PYr IPfopeMes yaks ed r, U 1, 1, 1,10 or rrcfe 11, TaxaWs Kaftat Value - wis m ?* IVNL* TV(, T4 rWM;,iVrw Wfet 31 31=.Acty sae es On, Aer 3#1 P.rMsUar's" "r,41,00rit, Fjemplllws wd 30'efrMs 12 LOUR 801ird WApp#AJ and EqUMA6M - IA4 362MI, arra Pi ytt i'my apr'3y rVy ar, IpPeM On rffo Propeny 1i Go Tm pgo 2 01 M4 roma Poe rincre tMtprmwfor� xavT mte SOP0,11 Pro'cost 13 Courity Board of Appall AM EqUaRSUCA - Pr ir',Ot sap? sen �OPM Ve UX311 v4 WA 14 Te 1"To'ess P1 AMM rx,0MV, 01 Am0*3 u wwvmr ror rare appeall ;v.1ce,94 GO M Pape 2 1 V116 t,11% %'t MiVe Atedut M?2PPCW PrW."16's, 18 City of Centerville Sample - Back of Valuation Notice App eahng the Value or C�sissificaflon of Your Property InIfornnalAppeW OPU0015 - CO n410 You I, Asses eor Rd' Y2 I'Zo ¢Juenfioim of dirayme with 0w d,61 k assiVimn or ffiblWol mluo I01 Walur Prope"Y lol The 20 b pletisii oontito rx1jir msr.asor's ciff'we Jiml, N o j*t>gu i, bleu ym,,dlyn Often yuur can bo reiWvod at Ous, lcvapCowars mlormabon for ymr xguh4 are OfNm, * On MH offier mdq, al UtJ5 nolias,^ sarno ollum"C' W NMI r;,perr boaR n1r-,aUgig5 w allow propeny mvrwrs to drw,,,tr;s theil corumwo Nhih ffio, If al,a �s an OlAuff arr"tArd"IP lo You, lho mooting Wlcisamil lilcauonr(sl wig ba, tlrn (I'le "Allelf ,a le ral tN's I Iofive, F,orrnM AppeaJ Options Wsghted Veterans I . $,ualllOnfl disr"rled vetermirls irlsy be u-tigbie 1w a vairia(lon edusion orl ffic"tr himle-oleurt I Eslimated MwW Vnikie • Thr, vairis ;i, Mahal Cho mssessor oMm,rafoq yrurar Prolfroi ly Wiltfld HWV se',M br tarn jile OPQn miarl'ir'A, Green Aures - App ks tiro clasg 2a gildcuittmel properry (fral is lasing fnereasIng vilhiclIq MAP, to jlmmurorb no;; uWaWd W) Me agnoillural valuo "'M kind, Tos, rakm by looking al, whM cornparnb16 Nmd ps ,aeklrj log in areas Mime fficro ls no devolerli'lle-111; primsuro, "Im laxer on Me highi vrih,* are cilokasnld u09 rine prt,)Pefty qs imlonfYIN cqurlfifesiov Ille Prollfaln ff ycmt qua5fiow, 01Goncotn", "oe ocA rosolved Mer 110mostovid IMarkol Value Exclugion - Applk)s 'U0 jiuetinil,i m(h ,t,nkir have Iwo Tivnial AppeA ae.WerlW he rnegWarls and I,) Uri house, garagee niinmrrx, aful orli ar,,ru3 i,rt livwd fat ,Qrl;k,iIfuRW hoiwmlearls, Option 'I -The Boards afAppelfl and Equrtfizaflon You inoy ajl4x�,Dr bela,ie the Bcmrds of Appeal und Equahzalkm l') pt",m)" lhlow,pIl a holtm, vt IE"uLugh o triple ,crrhuPdwda aullvr,"�.od fly sans, Inc amhtiil'Tl IvineS nnd era alimmMarr on ihda ochre sqrjeoftlhv� nolico You irrugr Mvir prosantlid your case to the, Local Flow d of'AppeW and Eqwlization BEFORE appealing H yuli [wiiPvc., ycurvaluerli You may bing yaw cusp kr Ole Local Bmudl r.yf AjpjKmO mid Pilk-ni,— c.orflatl You, Mr nom, rlfo 1.1" if You, aglym Iu6m5h,pno intvITn Nil" M b"a"I oiApplial a"I Eg.,Wakoi (,w n"W"mad oil tho Whop sift, of III* floijovi yrdo rplay ;3ppkjl[ jrn,,(,Ifly to We CoRknIly pain al AppeaN and If Ille, Local Dwvd +A Apjoml and EcliliMvauua dtj not rolmOwl your mrnicivnSL you may linno , vinir cinse to 1ho Crmnfly floard or Apjpeer .,wtd Roa,"N, cuni,xA orhai to, ,jel (ln the, il"Jeod-,j or for no)w inforntawli 0 ptio ni 2 - M lon esota Tax Court Deper,rhng on Che lyp r i arppal, you renew Luku yens Garsut to elNh e.r dimnaM (AilulDiv,siuo or the Retfular r,,4 L'O Co my Y,,w have urM Aprill Lg) t lhe year in wrknl rl tomp are lqqWalyhr, lo Duly an oppeamll Ih,t smait (�Imlw, 1,10sim or flre Regulaq DivIslon 0 Tax Corilri, E,,r you, volua&pon iuvr Flo, emn WoreniA,ra, (,,rarl Phonp! 651 2%,mr� ra, frur PAitt J-mnioy lmir I aw On Ithe woba w,,vwAjxcow0,sI,We mr, ue The exiMskiall is a niax(nnim of w $70,000 or nwrk4.u,4 valuo, aml than devreases Lq Hinp imment (oi owr $76,400 The rmduskm phasos cod for propmUes vitoed M $413 W) or I11.nndd. Businettir 7one Imay rte rqi(Pbtr,, Iii bH Ftfrtk)l ixoperty Wi vixerlipikliT, New lrnprovermerrits - Jbis N Pie assei5,sDr's, txArnale of IN WDIp.,Ifk ol nuw or pnwiously urm"iro"Mod bripruvemenm y,lli have rroKJe fia, yr3uf im4,erty. Pl,,vt Nfervalim - Prn land ftat hay, been myrrOv plaftd idand ded lnrta indwadiial Us) bLa ra01, yffl impraved with a Mnjuijure, Me irli,,,reasad tlmrkevalluo due lu eI is pha,.wd It ovon fjrrj(If l"llpst0jrkni begins, m 9 Orm, 1,31 is sold Emkiie ,,rimaimn of the i,r, pmvf, lhu� p will to a.rase. ssed at full n1avMA dalkle, Rn IN., riex :F—iisment, Rulat Pvvservoa Apldbos loclatot 'Llb neral vacvint land thait a larm Numcilcmd arffiai hadprovrously boon emirnrk.rd lit Groen N.1,rint, if 11 11; UnYligumm to agne0ung larml eilroHm$ In Greran Aureix I Hs xpdw, may ThQ IMM OD M0 hirINY VOW0 @P'� fWWNTed 50 Me 0'5 veno proriany qv riiiiios TaXablc btaiket Value , llws f¢t RR', value ftrt yols lotopndytrixe% ,Yreilolii;rily hrlm'll On, ,'altar ll all riAuclkins, 'Thj,, Old i4otmao Eyetusion - rivi; progiana expired Wah Irri, ?(Wl assessr-nerif i4owrwer, prupovty moy strdi be via"raWing the o0w.xckWon ruough ihe 2013 gvssalssrmrnlq. Qualipyhy pIapenros With ImprDywilerrU, Mit inC.teaned iba esurnatfri mRrkan value by $5,000 Or MWO INDIO al nap illi hrwL, u)rne Of the Vdija derDned E ta maximm, iq 'In vewm Alleir Rilf� lime, titil"foirwi'd wr1l4d Y.i:EN. ph"I'sod "', rW rri ore htfornurgion on appoaPs, Wsk the Deparrinew of Re.we nue websifir; 19 City of Centerville Sample - Tax Statement .fw,amV bl 5„awywr r k,""Al A r w , :rrrb Low .PornvA: MA* 4 df,„WM +w wnmf& W;I' rtm f ,a W1 t bJ, m:'M'"u"NW1YKAW,S hfnWMA,7"M ": MIX firlhi�ii�i�iaw7�lhv�ea�i✓dlC'I%�ri��?iHIUu9Y�iiC11111)rf � TW�,,� '�I IIk %nJ!Www^w 71WmWmad^N1"xrrc WlNNh Af1.f IV A„s'W 8fl"M11 1111111 WlmuwM "N�Nw "q�'E��t'�.w.�'misiI"Ms't � WryW%°�!'d'W'JIwWaA1" Ir�YIm, C G�VM'iJ '.' VCM pp li tor Or I�"^ Open IP'WII✓�rMM rlr�, mwW!19 IIA-42.6- .': AWWWA0. M4wrc "+;tea 6,un n0N.ww wS,M.A I,wrvwt�No, N�41o..tiu!mun 4fnowh gpW,w:" w �u�wMNw Aawrry W 1 Mw.wM y. Tanblis, Markst O - Vormly'w14se toe tMe W ! ItIt4*1 Oy 3PINIM114 aNrn ons,, Po Y ryg�NO"aa ",x ,�� MU 1,�pimW Ww+U'iP:wk Wyi �,hwiIAWWA ..� I�fwn"anstl lW rPWw ��,������ W VAr"W I YikµhII*wW GWA,W%'�If J°7"M gY,$ Y, A,NtLAM Y(M ItlIL n NUm^,,GW Il nagrewruW k ;UnW'Mr My, Tw m+plkSV w -�w>x+w� mrmaoxMnw o A"" Rfi r 91191'7- UM f0l* �M,�wa w.xwr.w+wrvrMw+r"m vN KwaW7Y"WWM4NN'W„�, ,,, q a rAW �,WWi WIE4k " �Ip MMnW#.. !WS duu wf, >WW 14"A Am WN FU , t WwM&W Wwm N!Mi, if WP UYa Wp tw!ut 00, W,y KAw'uw„pAa a1rvs Wn1,wwWaw Wury M M Y IlN bf1ke, 14. "OoUmb 6w w noxw W.W Kwt P U�,'PoPWim aw, , wmauw WPoWA !"W wyMM, ow'"wwMV 01,1111 "NOS Poo wroMW 60., Aon,..^pp'. ��n >w,a wrw,.wrwww rw,m iP'"'miw, a wn+Nwi`�W'w,w,w �n�m rlNro'Na'a:'�'i mww mww:wwm�mw"`"""m>wa'ww' � `•",«.w.".. ","„",", JUS,,. �,.. 44 11,94 111� COMM VAN, NI, Wu... wN wwurw„Mw1A M ,ww'wrM .waw^"" 4,.6,4410, MIA, 0 M 4 w pyy III I � .Po. WlmuwM "N�Nw "q�'E��t'�.w.�'misiI"Ms't � WryW%°�!'d'W'JIwWaA1" Ir�YIm, C G�VM'iJ '.' VCM pp li tor Or I�"^ Open IP'WII✓�rMM rlr�, mwW!19 tiV6,0,0I .': AWWWA0. M4wrc "+;tea 6,un n0N.ww �W WW- aWn w r nnua. + Nwu 4y� A;,6 atr„ 5'''y,C » 01, Irmarw eN v V,O , Jr N ZVI µr aces 111y' r t I C s, iT4 rr L, 1f Vb,Waro, ikiv MAP W 1 Mw.wM y. Tanblis, Markst O - Vormly'w14se toe tMe W ! ItIt4*1 Oy 3PINIM114 aNrn ons,, rA"r„1'�,wr�w as -7' u� rowW7 rn, tl�r 17� " V, 1MA Wwl"IWo W Am nwwA rrMA URICV,, II mP',. PM - y,l TM �Omrimat' r MMM", "11", wt ey n6, 4 rw E-Wnrwn+ M N4 A INMmm aA0"10 Vowrma II � W6,Hwu4wro 'Bl1Nw �^'N UW. I YnnwaflfGown IWO;Or, SAW= 6b 4ft"bw,w.,q Am", w,, dMwuw,6,w6,,uowe ym wA wv**JNw,d'vlwrwa 1" . othar specis17SArmg DmIN'Nnct'l'IN - C9;00,14 HVaII 3nf,S Re*e V&1,,JN1Mer1,A.V,01,100s ("IIA„wra', 444,6,6, 4VjlU lr WMr mm Iw awro '. ". 0Yaa 14,11 1rnpr"'cvv'w% mh+n alk row y aurwg, StRow r"SUO rmlwr, ^NOr°- A rWM ,,VJwU wMMfM M,mman,. W�, MNNr MW I� � b4, WI Ytl fA Ww1WW MI%II;W1 9WkN* auWML N.w,tlIW WIIIw�M O'6, WA o'rW NNIUwWIw 20 'G",✓IGW WN F W r�;m A,m" wnlSw ly�l�wxs',w1wm(HjN ',NrtbuMtlf�H4M ............................... xPow, ,�„INWY DN ,w,,,,Ik+C4✓k "Aw Pow 1uX WVIWwf+a0.,Aw mrMm rm ,+0 W+ w -I ur Wnwwwrun Mw 4.40, AM PIP, U*1911 6,i. u@ nrobfwam n� I owwauu!Wwww:. "^ N°„"„'..".. Iwl%fatwl' rarWl & IWAldmm� ANNM�Wdw4plAkym m y W iYmry ObwAA 01610e,"•444M Vm wmrWA �.m�yarl„r�.M ww wwAo. W.Wenwdb,m mu, w",,•, 1m+mP W^mWun,wl. Kuw le �l ka V, 7;WW M1. 'WrwrvrwiaW WN Of" mn 0 4P., 4Wew, A:Wn ibp.,M ll�X 44 Wweappru*maWM1¢ r1lFW d"P4 &WMEIY3&N A ,n. `m IIIc PNW'Wlr 1':r aw, nrnw6,.;"w," 4 n,Www",w a rm ,wa r uMuW p'"n$A1WW MSI",d t'M" w'Y WPw 4':w HAi Now rylwW P"I'M 4' ;M"rc re,.'iwo.M. P AM N 11 Gil,".. Mf a3wm1lyulvwrlN +w,=luWka '.+'Nrra mwrM wu w+wW Yttv.'.ereMrwuu2 sA'mwW Mr�w,�w au aLAry wuN wmrow eu�W .... Nmo wm'4«rk 1;f°W^R"b,Wlk imd,"LN'rlNra'6 nw moiu. wl'A wrulm a Nr w q n mXWw zm w p6, A pdre A d"mow 1, Wu"+sIk ` �W'1;4*ny�' vtIIke i��'��^"W^ irmiin,od �r'y MO. z,re pmv AMEW i� I'A' NPoA W ��6"'A tiN 91M 4 xNx ,n aLL"luwf .fim, a mUur wmv M1" W"W"V1dww18bo "q�'E��t'�.w.�'misiI"Ms't � WryW%°�!'d'W'JIwWaA1" Ir�YIm, C G�VM'iJ '.' VCM pp li tor Or I�"^ Open IP'WII✓�rMM rlr�, LI "uii:*. WNnw' ,rrylrmMwlw W I1JA M.M 6,1wWs5+.Lw wm d4 mwA r6, . 6��1"M*41 '19110' EiW�ffkk, °6,pAINIIO' '� f�.I@I9�I��.n - A ID.b'es $o L,e,,Pia�'f�"IM, B IY"P«1^Y9"6 id1'0111 'tI"M'� p�%„W C,e "'O'afSS " .': AWWWA0. M4wrc "+;tea 6,un n0N.ww �'a 2' N knoorfe ie cm'N rN ;IrI,'LalRwrjG rX'ft1F,,PX-Tne'eAlc%raff 'I II a MYYvAYA6P'0°W, M:0 4y� A;,6 atr„ 5'''y,C » 01, Irmarw eN v V,O , Jr N ZVI µr aces 111y' r t I C s, iT4 rr L, 1f 476, 0 , 7N 4xvt br, ptmi es ^M tot PMpfenes wht,,�ed jr,F e "a.yw v mVim' , y. Tanblis, Markst O - Vormly'w14se toe tMe W ! ItIt4*1 Oy 3PINIM114 aNrn ons,, rA"r„1'�,wr�w as -7' u� rowW7 rn, tl�r 17� " orl on" 'zardY °Ir ar,,3dar 44 4 Pro arty" clas'o -4119 SUN sy ara7;" rmy r NINIYMr " ,r yr 1 rM bN IM a4�7i?I2IC"ell 14'y'C'RiJb URICV,, II mP',. PM - y,l TM �Omrimat' r MMM", IS MIAPR- Tho S1803,76,1'1 mr^Ir,*lip I NY),:zypft I zfty Tax roa)fls P&rrmore r7^ M321rcr, go 1c, to NII r gMmFM Y,7P I Vmb sle, 7. AgricWt wfliI Pr#s#"#- j01 sped r,0 rvmmV"Op"Nh n PeOP011,46 Jr, a Jnr 341to),oa 1 Use I w tr3 m 71,4 PrIII u,.countYINUMSPAI Puts 9t strety syets -,3r 10'uIlm:rorm W V41 Irnposw In 2,001 I7 wrr&:wa 9. ''Iwi" N r Appirc, ILW 1 7N - WON w> ,',,6f "nyTWOM W4,1 P,1 ,wl'r;WOC %fir INyc9n: tion; 11I . IC, Otnat LOCSN LOOP$ - AfNN1110 d&SOn rrJ11R ovigerrrv; IIt,r Il"emera IrlaI 1" . othar specis17SArmg DmIN'Nnct'l'IN - C9;00,14 HVaII 3nf,S Re*e V&1,,JN1Mer1,A.V,01,100s ("IIA„wra', ' 144 AiVr CIdqfel, Vfz adr 14'4 Mru01 ""'I U, WOE have +es,„r (4, 1r ; W&W)VA, 1.1 a dial a+.sess mr ent - I„4'"IargeII WI.I here mmr.l,;y F y n,4''"n�10„1'nCll"R,a;� 4�":'uI'VI'O ad' �U �' RI" h�y"1 �'NIn4"�i'"d'r 'B"«�" b;41, 1rnpr"'cvv'w% mh+n alk row y aurwg, StRow r"SUO rmlwr, ^NOr°- N I SOW wa MA Manapowt chu - o , I:rrairp I a e"1,292"rA1 arm IIrmpry pc Ptopmes, 1I nLr'nly, aevernjer Prnrrm rmct 'are jised T,7 Prownow, I ra 3rm 3r)'j, Mr Rr,O OhM, /°wrAU?M 'tr'3VIe-**4r :r, y,,mary e"I'A61w", eximmiIIve ie 11+;,arj e1ws.,. r;"L Item*Aj tan,US ArNYi'1WN yaro " nt# rr ^rti7ao .1 'k 1nlw MI, wr, rxl °merle we:va ,,1mTr, 14 conINplCk" MIJI"On 71 X, - a UX p4ned Ort p Y W is g ere tr4 VV1,e y1rf'ouln IR COd";1,'f'f"P1D1'N%!&O,rewe,11 6. r1V"r'";V'M,'rit/,eUsea"A't0V.XIRY'I4'Nb'1rjr1.,3Vtl,:n 20 City of Centerville Sample - Back of Tax Statement $$$RIE , Ph 1.) N ID S "(fou qwdify I , �'Y for cw holh "A . .......... — - - ----------------------- - - - . . . ......... . . ....... . . . ........... . .. swuw I P,olm,(Y Ku. D.fjm,I� If :'w I a I CI,burr, I (( km I all Ply41 I "t" 'J, 0I "I I,,, [j, hwir hrjm)yp-, vi:tl hu l,I (I I I I I I , ij f[ 01 kf C,M (, L fh 1 1 ji, (x I �)I, '(r FM1,UFN1,illi vili as ,�I J!, d,, 'R, 1>� Ijqhk� w u [I wA fidI, I I I �N I I I AO� I AW "'I mf 11 ": 1 16 n (;) W V) ,,I I y, 1W 1,,j Ti (. 1fA I(1 ;c, ' o Iri P 11i1Y1,111 f1j" I, y, P,yI,,,fty ir,,v LRt,r, Pspncyn, or 11'ropeft NI Z,�O G m H li pf, )( (I "'i M J1) J, A 0', I"1 Nlo Propyrl�r yp(,. Y P p"I Y I f d IIP,°,I e II,lu, I I( I 1 11 W I I {',w k�x iY y( H a c rp,. r Im v jr ) nd C,r,fof i I 14 1 Pe."vaill I Prapwly Loinfimj W7 rve 4111avvinmeW, Agm;,,kauelf Lmndn t,,Iy Y, pmd,, lv,,,, 0r lkl d), , '-31 IN,, III 1 'Y �x reubt 1(-,F 1 Io,r A +J p"'I'l /(l I If I "'W17 M My c' I, ri I I I I Iv '1 0 11] e f M z, Now, tlo �wmv ow wn, Jl( h JI 4 p f f, IY )Ww flkwiy No,,,H rn"""m(I"I" 01 U. ','fo,;fvf T NP&ffM 1'Y01,R P'rROPUr l'Y l AY kA f 11,t Only "'m (tire,1,,mumpfr pjI,r,l " Il"IIII'd 1 i(n-w„(r01, Iw'd"d , JIjf,j I”, ,w 1 " ,fm nvwm d In "n In Mr,, Jun,', A m ffiv ov'IW,mYr( I f on b'd f, I� if Iw y [ w MH, [ M,,o, Iw!,, 'I", ,I,1. ,sr7 Hrr l h n,A MIbI,w-nH,1 7h,nYYva(Ady rtk', nr mwmhfw�f, d 4vM (R,:I� ('1460 moca fhqflh,:,�rf, ry,"Abn", )"'0 rJh(rj,"rn),I—d y,,, 0 [1 "r,,ly p"'/ y(Ir tox"I", Ir,a, f, uolq ',)1 1-1, ,1 " d, ., 1, f ',I; , , I f� „ .I I" f()pIff %"I:AD al Ay curronNy tNwahod hom u,f, nd mh v,Y Im, I, :(.t ;1 I �„,f r.Y.;,,I , ,j 4N, ( 6y fl vw, w q,,,k,iviy Jh rfr yerrr Rm, i. c tIpamy itmw,; [,,1utpfi,ny i1hu Hy M, whwd m, q'I"', 4MQ X ,-1, 21 A D� J P I", I.,a(, (")(1 l �[ 1, ) IN T1I ONOM LA'TE YC�UR PXAYN1E1'4T T VAI,�Kl D HY T� H�� 0,"7E s'11-KW11!114 Old -1 I -R, H"', F 0 1"I IU lE S I D E 1114 °11 A L F lEA IIh , ESTATE A G11 V I "T°Y" IN 11,11H TWIN C IU'TI E S FlE G I O N VNNEAPOLIIS AREA Association of REALTORS IC A Based on several measures, residential real estate just had its best year since 2005. Buyer activity reached levels not seen since 2005; seller activity reached its highest level since 2010. The median sales price rose for a fourth consecutive year to the highest figure since 2007. Days on market fell for a fourth straight year and reached a 10 -year low. Sellers accepted offers that were close to their list price—and in some instances, above. Interest rates were a story throughout the year, as every syllable from Chairwoman Yellen was scrutinized for clues. After a few head fakes, the Fed finally raised the Federal Funds rate target in December and more incremental increases are likely in 2016. That move may dishearten some, but any outrage should be muted for a multitude of reasons. First, raising rates too quickly can threaten the recovery, so expect a gradual and incremental normalization process. Second, leaving interest rates this low for this long comes with its own set of risks. Third, the Fed now has some wiggle room to move rates down if conditions change—an ace in the hole in the face of global challenges. Fourth, most forecasts call for 30 - year mortgage rates to touch 4.5 or 4.6 percent in 2016—still roughly half their long-term average of over 8.0 percent. That means it will be a historically attractive time to finance a home for years to come. Fifth, other factors aside from monetary policy affect the 30 -year rate, which is partly why mortgage rates fell in the weeks following the Fed announcement. ales: Despite several looming rate hikes—only one of which materialized at year-end—buyers were out in force taking advantage of low rates, pushing sales levels to 10 -year record highs. Closed sales increased 13.7 percent to 56,390 for the year. And more of those tended to be traditional, previously - owned, single family homes than in past years. Listings: Sellers struggled to keep up with all those buyers They listed 77,380 properties on the market, 5.1 percent more than 2014, but only a 5 -year high. There were 10,166 active listings at the end of 2015, down 21.8 percent from 2014. But most buyers don't "experience" inventory in December. April 2015 inventory levels increased 3.8 percent compared to April 2014. Inventory should rise in 2016, but that depends on confident builders and motivated sellers. Distressed Properties: Foreclosures and short sales made up a smaller share of activity. Low supply and high demand are typically credited for price gains, but a product mix shifting from lower-priced foreclosures and back toward higher -priced traditional homes is also helping prices recover. In the metro area, the percentage of activity that was either foreclosure or short sale fell to 10.6 percent of sales but only 8.8 percent of new listings. U 7 MINNEAPOII-15 AREA Association ofREALTORS' Prices: Home prices rose across the board in 2015. The metro wide median sales price was up 7.0 percent to $220,000, an 8 - year high and just 4.5 percent below its peak. Home prices should continue to rise in 2016 but perhaps at a tempered pace as the market approaches equilibrium. Price gains should better reflect historical norms moving forward. Single family home prices were up 5.6 percent compared to last year, and Townhouse -Condo home prices were up 3.8 percent. List PriceReceived: Sellers accepted offers at an average of 96.6 percent of their original list price, a year -over -year increase of 0.9 percent. That reflects a mix of market recovery, robust demand and significant supply constraints. This figure should continue to rise in 2016. It's easy to love housing data, but housing doesn't live in a vacuum. It's affected by a wide array of economic, political and social forces. For instance, at 2.7 percent, the Twin Cities has the lowest unemployment rate of any major metro in the U.S., and Minnesota has more Fortune 500 companies per capita than all but one other state. Thus, our local and state economic landscapes have been conducive to a strong labor market, improving family finances and widespread housing recovery. Other developments from 2015 are also worth reflection, as is the year that lies ahead. Some of those topics are as familiar as sales, inventory, prices, and market times. Other subjects may be indirectly related to housing but just as important to sustained recovery. That includes a presidential election, the cost of energy, student loan debt, housing starts, savings rates, the Canadian and Chinese economies, geo-politics overseas, climate change and understanding the housing preferences of Millennials and Boomers. The stage is set for ongoing improvement in 2016. Here's to another successful year! Quick Facts Property Type Review Distressed Homes Review New Construction Review Area Overviews 17 Area Historical Prices 26 Historical Review 0 IW I, W, I I. ?W(I , A r,,, V/iI I ,(, 1 ), , io IOP l 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metrlriq o Quick Facts )d[)CM ryf)(�Inljphk> VdIkh 1`1 �A( f)1, 'Ioi'(; 650 72,026 ,3, 650 68,851 2011 2012 2013 Top 5 Areas: Change in New Listings from 2014 Willernie Hampton Saint Bonifacius Zumbrota Saint Paul - Downtown Bottom 5 Areas: Change in New Listings from 2014 Minneapolis - Near North Oak Grove Newport Nowthen Lilydale 77,380 2014 2015 +111.1% +110.5% +45.2% +37.2% +37.1% -16.1% -17.6% -25.0% -26.4% -47.2% - - 53,172 An nnA 56,390 2011 2012 2013 Top 5 Areas: Change in Closed Sales from 2014 Willernie Greenfield Lauderdale Lexington Hampton Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Closed Sales from 2014 Independence Medina Elko New Market Minneapolis - Central Lilydale MINNEAPOII-15 AREA As.5ociizloii ZEMMM 57,376 An 0 00 52,761 An A 0-4 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Top 5 Areas: Change in Pending Sales from 2014 Willernie +400.0% Lauderdale +135.7% Greenfield + 108.7% Hampton +92.3% Grant +81.8% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Pending Sales from 2014 +88.9% Osseo -7.7% Independence -8.0% Newport -17.0% Elko New Market - 17.7% Lilydale -45.2% Inventory of Homes for Sale Al !h(; and (')I !h(; Y(;r,[] Arden Hills 17,453 13,034 12,698 12,997 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Top 5 Areas: Change in Homes for Sale from 2014 +150.0% Zumbrota +183.3% +95.7% Minneapolis - Phillips +88.9% +83.3% Lake Elmo +51.7% +80.0% Saint Bonifacius +42.9% +76.9% Medina +35.2% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Homes for Sale from 2014 -11.5% Arden Hills -52.9% -13.2% Nowthen -52.9% -19.1% Bloomington - East -54.4% -20.7% Minneapolis - Powderhorn -61.1% -41.4% Lauderdale -72.7% w, I I ?(AW /,,(J�;, 1)v INK 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro Quick Facts 11)(d[Mn nf)(�Inljphln VdIkh 1`1 �An� f)I, I'lol'n fmli)lily 110 VIII)I)n�11pf)1k )n!r�Ihhf)dhf)f)ch� 11'n I)oR)dh)dd $205.600 $220,000 MEERMSE32M MINNEAPOII-15 AREA As.5ociizlon &-, - $252,692 $263,175 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Top 5 Areas: Change in Median Sales Price from 2014 +18.5% Top 5 Areas: Change in Avg. Sales Price from 2014 +13.6% Dayton +50.6% Lakeland +39.5% Lauderdale +48.6% Deephaven +34.8% Long Lake +27.2% Minneapolis - Phillips +28.5% Nowthen +26.6% Clear Lake +25.3% Minneapolis - Near North +24.0% Nowthen +23.1% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Median Sales Price from 2014 Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Avg. Sales Price from 2014 Greenfield -15.7% Bayport - 12.6% Wayzata -15.9% Willernie -13.1% Minneapolis - Central -19.0% Wayzata -13.4% Tonka Bay -22.1% Rush City -16.9% Spring Park -30.5% Spring Park -20.9% Cumulative Days on Market Until Sale 147 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Top 5 Areas: Change in Cumulative Days on Market from 2014 Birchwood Village +76.1% Dayton +22.2% Saint Paul - Summit Hill +18.5% Corcoran +13.6% Faribault +12.7% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Cumulative Days on Market from 2014 Mayer -49.0% Osseo -49.4% Lake Elmo -49.5% Rogers -50.8% Rockford -61.4% Percent of Original List Price Received 96.1% 95.7% 96.6% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Top 5 Areas: Change in Pct. of Orig. Price Received from 2014 Grant +6.6% Tonka Bay +4.8% Zumbrota +4.6% Saint Paul - North End +4.4% Hammond +4.0% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Pct. of Orig. Price Received from 2014 Long Lake -2.0% Lexington -2.2% South Haven -3.7% Marine on St. Croix -3.9% Willernie -8.5% 0 j I , WI I I fi, A (J,, o Ij o I IAI I ) o (j 1 ,/ Irlµ I o �; I K 2015 Annual HousingReport - Twin Cities Metro Property Type Review 79 Average Cumulative Days on Market Single -Family 63 Average Cumulative Days on Market Townhouse -Condo Cumulative Days on Market Until Sale hl ; 0-irA11 it >(,a rA InIllino 1 lnorilh ,[Vuruy,1'ni w'[0-1 drairA poll -1t, Single -Family -Townhouse-Condo 190 no �xnx MOO 150 130 110 90 70 50 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014 1-2015 +5.6% One -Year Change in Price Single -Family Detached Median Sales Price $238K +3.8% One -Year Change in Price Townhouse -Condo Attached 2011 ■2012 '✓x.2013 02014 1112015 Single -Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached MiNNEAPOII-IS AREA Assoriizlon Top Areas: Townhouse -Condo Attached Market Share in 2015 Twin Cities Region 23.4% Saint Paul - Downtown 100.0% Minneapolis - Central 99.2% Lilydale 94.1% Minneapolis - University 65.2% Spring Park 57.9% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park 53.4% Saint Paul - Summit -University 51.4% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle 50.0% Hugo 49.5% Wayzata 48.9% Vadnais Heights 48.8% Oak Park Heights 47.5% Apple Valley 45.5% Inver Grove Heights 43.8% Minneapolis - Phillips 43.0% Saint Paul - Summit Hill 41.3% Little Canada 40.7% Circle Pines 40.6% Burnsville 40.2% Shakopee 40.2% Woodbury 40.1% Eden Prairie 39.9% Maple Grove 38.9% Hopkins 38.0% Oakdale 37.1% 96.6% 96.6% Pct. of Orig. Price Received Pct. of Orig. Price Received Single -Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached Percent of Original List Price Received 2011 ■2012 ,Yx.2013 ®2014 is2015 94.1 % 96.0% 95.6% 96.6% 93.4 96.3% 96.0% 96.6% Single -Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached I. ?(AM I)o,rr,,(, )v , errµ i�rl ,; INK � 2015 Annual Housing Market Report1'. Distressed Homes Review 10.6% - 26.7% Percent of Closed Sales in One -Year Change in Sales of 2015 That Were Distressed Distressed Properties �• 111 1 1' 50.0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 +31.0% +9.7% Three -Year Change in Price Three -Year Change in Price All Properties Traditional Properties $220.000 $221.000 $229,000 MINNEAPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon Top Areas: Distressed Market Share in 2015 Twin Cities Region 10.6% Newport 35.7% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff 26.8% Pine City 25.8% Minneapolis - Camden 24.3% Rush City 24.2% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale (Frogtown) 23.8% Clearwater 23.2% Minneapolis - Near North 22.7% Nowthen 22.2% Lexington 22.2% East Bethel 22.2% Saint Paul - Payne -Phalen 21.8% Saint Paul - Greater East Side 21.8% Minneapolis - Phillips 21.5% South Haven 21.1% Saint Paul - West Side 20.6% Brooklyn Center 20.6% Princeton 20.3% Spring Lake Park 20.2% Mora 20.0% Circle Pines 19.8% Saint Paul - North End 19.3% Coon Rapids 18.9% Saint Paul Park 18.8% Isanti 18.5% +23.8% Three -Year Change in Price Short Sales +18.6% Three -Year Change in Price Foreclosures =2012 m 2013 2014 N 2015 Traditional Short Sales Foreclosures 0 Ia I I. ,'.'I fi, A (J,, o I j I „rIAI I ) o r, 1 ,/ , I µ I � i I K fi 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro New Construction Review Oct 14 Peak of New Construction Inventory 256 Drop in New Construction Inventory from Peak New Construction 1mes for Sa '1 2,100 1,900 1,700 1,500 1,300 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014 1-2015 6.2 1.9 Year -End Months Supply Year -End Months Supply New Construction Previously Owned Months Supply of Inventory 2011 02012 X2013 ■2014 1112015 7.4 6.8 r_ n New Construction Previously Owned MINNIEAPOII-15 AREA Associizlors �f R mm A L"T 0 R S, Top Areas: New Construction Market Share in 2015 Twin Cities Region 6.3% North Oaks 42.2% Dayton 35.6% Medina 34.7% Chisago 33.3% Otsego 27.6% Hanover 27.1% Minnetrista 26.5% Victoria 23.4% Delano 21.5% Lake Elmo 20.7% Cologne 20.4% Mayer 18.3% Rogers 17.5% Lakeville 17.5% Blaine 17.4% Chanhassen 17.2% Chaska 15.5% Isanti 15.1% Monticello 14.7% Excelsior 14.3% Ham Lake 14.0% North Branch 13.9% Oak Grove 13.5% Waconia 13.5% Prior Lake 12.3% 99.6% Pct. of Orig. Price Received New Construction 96.4% Pct. of Orig. Price Received Previously Owned Percent of Original List Price Received hl.; it ,(;s, rA InIllinu 1, lnorrt ni dr,0r,[ poll -rt, �New Construction Previously Owned 102% 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014 1-2015 (, i m, w, 0 I„ ry I I. ,')'I fi, F, r,,, ra k iI A I , I 1,/ , for , to INK '7 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro nArea Overview - Around the Metro WNNEAPOILIS AREA Assodation of REAL " 0 I„ r I I. ,'.'I fi, A (,,, o I j iI A I I ) o r, 1 ,/ , I µ I � i I K f% Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Twin Cities Region 56,390 +13.7% 6.3% 23.4% 10.6% 76 96.6% Afton 37 +8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 148 94.0% Albertville 179 +27.0% 8.9% 15.6% 10.1% 66 97.5% Andover 508 +19.0% 8.7% 6.9% 14.0% 67 97.3% Annandale 130 +26.2% 1.5% 2.3% 12.3% 141 93.6% Anoka 212 +7.6% 6.1% 13.7% 13.7% 58 97.3% Apple Valley 980 +16.3% 6.0% 45.5% 10.7% 64 97.2% Arden Hills 122 +24.5% 0.0% 19.7% 4.1% 75 96.1% Bayport 37 -9.8% 5.4% 13.5% 5.4% 107 95.7% Becker 167 +38.0% 7.2% 6.6% 9.6% 86 96.7% Belle Plaine 173 +24.5% 5.2% 2.3% 17.9% 78 97.2% Bethel 6 -14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 59 95.3% Big Lake 375 +24.2% 12.0% 5.6% 12.3% 65 97.8% Birchwood Village 11 -15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57 96.0% Blaine 1,288 +14.5% 17.4% 32.6% 11.2% 59 97.8% Bloomington 1,299 +13.0% 1.1% 27.9% 7.0% 63 97.0% Bloomington - East 415 +2.7% 1.9% 15.4% 7.2% 57 97.4% Bloomington - West 884 +18.5% 0.7% 33.7% 6.9% 66 96.8% Brainerd MSA 1,902 +9.1% 1.9% 4.9% 10.0% 170 92.1% Brooklyn Center 456 +10.1% 1.3% 13.4% 20.6% 62 98.3% Brooklyn Park 1,240 + 10.2% 6.9% 24.0% 16.3% 64 97.5% Buffalo 322 +0.9% 6.8% 11.5% 9.9% 79 96.6% Burnsville 981 +20.1% 3.7% 40.2% 8.8% 63 96.7% Cambridge 271 +23.7% 10.0% 12.2% 12.9% 76 95.9% Cannon Falls 100 +8.7% 2.0% 6.0% 10.0% 119 93.6% Carver 121 +37.5% 9.9% 29.8% 7.4% 89 97.2% Centerville 71 +22.4% 8.5% 16.9% 7.0% 57 97.4% Champlin 390 + 12.1% 1.5% 24.1% 10.8% 61 97.5% Chanhassen 548 +21.8% 17.2% 35.4% 3.5% 84 96.6% Chaska 490 +35.4% 15.5% 33.3% 6.1% 80 96.8% Chisago 123 +18.3% 33.3% 11.4% 11.4% 86 97.8% Circle Pines 106 + 15.2% 0.0% 40.6% 19.8% 57 96.1% Clear Lake 107 + 1.9% 1.9% 5.6% 16.8% 168 93.0% Clearwater 69 +16.9% 0.0% 7.2% 23.2% 110 94.5% Coates 2 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 139 95.6% Cokato 78 +56.0% 0.0% 1.3% 15.4% 128 92.6% Cologne 49 +25.6% 20.4% 6.1% 4.1% 93 96.6% Columbia Heights 313 +0.3% 4.2% 16.9% 16.9% 65 97.2% Columbus 39 +21.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 72 96.7% Coon Rapids 1,041 +21.6% 1.5% 30.1% 18.9% 56 97.7% Corcoran 61 +27.1% 9.8% 0.0% 14.8% 98 95.1% Cottage Grove 630 + 17.3% 6.8% 15.9% 15.9% 61 97.3% Crystal 462 +20.6% 1.9% 4.1% 15.8% 68 96.8% Dayton 73 +1.4% 35.6% 8.2% 11.0% 94 96.8% 0 I„ r I I. ,'.'I fi, A (,,, o I j iI A I I ) o r, 1 ,/ , I µ I � i I K f% 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro n Area Overview - Around the Metro NWVNNEAPOLIS AREA Assodation o Rmm L " 0 I„ a I I. ,'.'I fi, A (,,, o I j iI A I I ) o r, 1 ,/ , I µ I � i I K t Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Deephaven 63 +14.5% 6.3% 0.0% 1.6% 147 93.5% Delano 149 +4.2% 21.5% 9.4% 4.7% 64 97.8% Dellwood 14 -26.3% 0.0% 0.0% 21.4% 198 90.9% Eagan 1,025 + 12.0% 3.9% 37.1% 9.6% 59 97.2% East Bethel 167 +6.4% 7.2% 0.6% 22.2% 80 95.8% Eden Prairie 1,105 +7.8% 4.3% 39.9% 5.2% 87 95.8% Edina 1,004 +5.8% 6.5% 33.6% 3.5% 94 94.9% Elk River 552 + 18.2% 10.3% 23.2% 10.7% 72 97.1% Elko New Market 106 - 19.1% 6.6% 20.8% 11.3% 76 96.9% Excelsior 28 +47.4% 14.3% 25.0% 0.0% 102 94.8% Falcon Heights 56 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 1.8% 106 96.5% Faribault 391 +8.3% 2.0% 6.9% 16.6% 112 94.0% Farmington 591 +18.9% 7.1% 24.7% 13.0% 63 97.0% Forest Lake 412 +36.4% 8.0% 26.7% 11.9% 95 95.9% Fridley 360 +5.0% 0.3% 12.8% 15.8% 65 96.6% Gem Lake 7 +250.0% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 127 91.6% Golden Valley 417 +20.9% 1.2% 18.7% 8.2% 82 95.4% Grant 39 +30.0% 2.6% 0.0% 5.1% 146 95.7% Greenfield 45 +95.7% 2.2% 8.9% 11.1% 189 93.6% Greenwood 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 165 92.5% Ham Lake 200 +5.8% 14.0% 8.0% 15.5% 90 96.3% Hamburg 10 + 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 170 89.4% Hammond 59 0.0% 5.1% 5.1% 10.2% 144 98.3% Hampton 23 +76.9% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 77 94.4% Hanover 70 +2.9% 27.1% 1.4% 11.4% 76 99.2% Hastings 436 +35.0% 2.3% 26.1% 12.2% 80 95.6% Hilltop 0 -100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Hopkins 234 +21.9% 0.9% 38.0% 14.1% 69 95.7% Hudson 556 + 12.1% 7.9% 20.9% 6.1% 101 96.5% Hugo 327 + 17.2% 10.4% 49.5% 10.4% 64 97.3% Hutchinson 338 +9.0% 3.8% 11.2% 8.0% 82 97.5% Independence 46 -11.5% 4.3% 0.0% 4.3% 184 94.0% Inver Grove Heights 495 + 17.0% 4.0% 43.8% 15.2% 74 96.3% Isanti 232 +38.1% 15.1 % 10.3% 18.5% 61 98.0% Jordan 121 +6.1% 6.6% 7.4% 9.9% 92 95.6% Lake Elmo 87 -8.4% 20.7% 9.2% 3.4% 97 96.0% Lake Minnetonka Area 1,022 +19.4% 9.7% 14.8% 8.1% 133 94.0% Lake St. Croix Beach 20 +25.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 122 93.3% Lakeland 35 +59.1% 2.9% 2.9% 11.4% 129 94.1% Lakeland Shores 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19 95.2% Lakeville 1,149 + 14.2% 17.5% 19.6% 7.4% 73 97.0% Lauderdale 33 +83.3% 0.0% 18.2% 15.2% 97 92.7% Lexington 18 +80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 84 95.6% Lilydale 17 -41.4% 0.0% 94.1% 0.0% 83 94.4% 0 I„ a I I. ,'.'I fi, A (,,, o I j iI A I I ) o r, 1 ,/ , I µ I � i I K t 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro n Area Overview - Around the Metro WNNEAPOILIS AREA Assodation o R mm L " 0 I„ W, I I I A (,,, „ o:ri ! o i , ,.rlVAI I )o r, 1 „ , ire N1 Io I i I K I Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Lindstrom 137 +30.5% 5.8% 10.2% 15.3% 101 97.3% Lino Lakes 281 +18.1% 7.5% 17.8% 8.2% 71 96.5% Little Canada 118 +11.3% 5.1% 40.7% 11.9% 78 95.2% Long Lake 25 +13.6% 0.0% 8.0% 12.0% 81 93.2% Lonsdale 110 +27.9% 8.2% 0.9% 14.5% 66 97.4% Loretto 10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50 95.3% Mahtomedi 139 +46.3% 7.2% 13.7% 5.0% 91 96.1% Maple Grove 1,387 +13.6% 6.5% 38.9% 7.6% 71 97.0% Maple Lake 92 +10.8% 3.3% 4.3% 13.0% 121 93.6% Maple Plain 21 +10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 68 95.2% Maplewood 540 +18.9% 1.1% 29.6% 11.1% 69 96.1% Marine on St. Croix 19 +46.2% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 232 92.4% Mayer 71 +29.1% 18.3% 1.4% 8.5% 71 97.6% Medicine Lake 6 +20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57 89.3% Medina 118 - 13.2% 34.7% 16.1% 0.8% 129 94.4% Mendota 0 -100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Mendota Heights 189 +44.3% 1.6% 25.9% 3.7% 88 95.0% Miesville 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Minneapolis - (Citywide) 5,679 +3.6% 2.1% 23.4% 9.6% 66 97.0% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle 492 +13.9% 0.2% 50.0% 1.2% 93 95.4% Minneapolis - Camden 585 -3.8% 1.0% 1.4% 24.3% 73 95.7% Minneapolis - Central 625 -20.7% 2.7% 99.2% 5.1% 62 97.4% Minneapolis - Longfellow 433 +9.9% 2.5% 2.5% 10.4% 57 97.9% Minneapolis - Near North 321 -2.1% 5.9% 7.8% 22.7% 75 96.0% Minneapolis - Nokomis 847 +9.3% 1.7% 3.4% 7.6% 58 97.5% Minneapolis - Northeast 490 +0.8% 1.2% 5.1% 9.0% 54 98.2% Minneapolis - Phillips 79 -2.5% 2.5% 43.0% 21.5% 57 98.3% Minneapolis - Powderhorn 577 +1.9% 0.9% 18.4% 13.3% 56 98.0% Minneapolis - Southwest 1,011 +20.4% 3.9% 7.1% 3.4% 69 96.6% Minneapolis - University 204 +22.2% 1.0% 65.2% 5.9% 71 96.4% Minnetonka 887 +6.6% 2.6% 29.9% 5.7% 86 95.2% Minnetonka Beach 12 +20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 173 93.7% Minnetrista 170 +31.8% 26.5% 10.0% 10.6% 131 94.9% Monticello 278 0.0% 14.7% 16.9% 8.3% 70 96.7% Montrose 87 +14.5% 11.5% 10.3% 17.2% 73 96.9% Mora 115 -2.5% 0.9% 2.6% 20.0% 111 91.9% Mound 238 +22.1% 5.0% 11.8% 10.9% 112 94.8% Mounds View 133 +9.9% 3.0% 10.5% 12.0% 64 97.6% New Brighton 284 +8.8% 2.1% 26.4% 10.2% 67 97.0% New Germany 11 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 18.2% 113 98.7% New Hope 295 +25.5% 0.7% 17.3% 14.6% 63 97.4% New Prague 200 +14.9% 6.0% 13.5% 10.0% 101 95.3% New Richmond 247 +0.4% 5.3% 11.7% 13.4% 114 96.9% New Trier 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 109 88.6% 0 I„ W, I I I A (,,, „ o:ri ! o i , ,.rlVAI I )o r, 1 „ , ire N1 Io I i I K I 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro n Area Overview - Around the Metro WNNEAPOLIS AREA Assodation o Rmm L " 0 I„ W, I I . , I A (,,, „ o:ri ! o i , ,.rlVAI I )o r, 1 „ , Io Io I i I K 'I 'I Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Newport 42 4.5% 0.0% 2.4% 35.7% 70 96.9% North Branch 252 +13.5% 13.9% 4.0% 18.3% 77 97.5% North Oaks 116 +54.7% 42.2% 8.6% 4.3% 121 96.7% North Saint Paul 203 + 16.7% 1.0% 6.9% 13.3% 65 96.6% Northfield 292 -5.2% 1.0% 28.1% 7.9% 90 96.4% Norwood Young America 78 +20.0% 3.8% 10.3% 12.8% 66 97.2% Nowthen 45 -2.2% 8.9% 0.0% 22.2% 114 94.8% Oak Grove 126 +4.1% 13.5% 0.0% 15.1% 85 96.4% Oak Park Heights 61 +41.9% 3.3% 47.5% 6.6% 74 94.2% Oakdale 463 +19.0% 0.9% 37.1% 10.8% 63 97.6% Orono 193 +31.3% 11.9% 10.4% 8.8% 175 92.2% Osseo 25 -10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 62 96.4% Otsego 467 +37.4% 27.6% 32.5% 8.4% 56 97.3% Pine City 120 +7.1% 4.2% 2.5% 25.8% 81 94.0% Pine Springs 7 +75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 109 90.7% Plymouth 1,399 +16.9% 12.2% 32.3% 6.4% 69 96.6% Princeton 246 +5.1% 2.4% 6.1% 20.3% 86 94.5% Prior Lake 617 +21.2% 12.3% 28.5% 8.4% 90 96.3% Ramsey 512 +16.1% 10.5% 22.9% 13.9% 63 97.1% Randolph 9 +50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 168 90.6% Red Wing 275 + 13.2% 0.4% 13.5% 6.2% 115 94.5% Richfield 559 +2.9% 0.7% 7.3% 10.9% 51 97.2% River Falls 257 + 17.4% 10.5% 16.0% 8.9% 106 96.6% Robbinsdale 322 + 16.7% 0.6% 9.0% 11.8% 70 96.5% Rockford 72 +20.0% 0.0% 13.9% 6.9% 82 97.3% Rogers 211 +1.0% 17.5% 15.2% 6.6% 76 97.8% Rosemount 479 + 17.4% 9.4% 34.0% 11.1% 66 96.8% Roseville 483 +21.7% 0.4% 26.3% 7.9% 65 96.5% Rush City 66 +3.1% 0.0% 6.1% 24.2% 96 95.2% Saint Anthony 154 +30.5% 0.6% 33.8% 5.2% 57 96.9% Saint Bonifacius 39 +11.4% 0.0% 28.2% 10.3% 81 94.5% Saint Cloud MSA 2,411 + 12.5% 4.1% 4.0% 10.2% 125 94.4% Saint Francis 160 + 14.3% 10.6% 15.0% 16.3% 79 96.8% Saint Louis Park 960 +14.8% 2.1% 24.6% 6.4% 65 96.8% Saint Mary's Point 7 +600.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 95 94.2% Saint Michael 295 +27.7% 8.1% 20.7% 12.5% 80 96.8% Saint Paul 3,682 +11.8% 1.2% 15.2% 14.5% 75 96.3% Saint Paul - Battle Creek / Highwood 267 +6.8% 0.0% 6.4% 18.0% 64 97.1% Saint Paul - Como Park 253 -2.7% 0.4% 4.7% 9.1% 64 97.3% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff 190 +0.5% 2.6% 2.6% 26.8% 75 96.1% Saint Paul - Downtown 162 +42.1% 0.0% 100.0% 6.8% 98 94.6% Saint Paul - Greater East Side 400 +16.6% 0.5% 4.3% 21.8% 74 97.4% Saint Paul - Hamline-Midway 159 +8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 15.7% 58 97.6% Saint Paul - Highland Park 337 +14.6% 2.1% 12.8% 5.3% 73 96.7% 0 I„ W, I I . , I A (,,, „ o:ri ! o i , ,.rlVAI I )o r, 1 „ , Io Io I i I K 'I 'I 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro nArea Overview - Around the Metro NWVNNEAPOLIS AREA Assodation o Rmm L " 0 I„ W, I I I A (,,, „ o:ri ! o i , ,.rlVAI I )o r, 1 „ , ire Nl Io I i I K 'I l Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Saint Paul - Merriam Park/ Lexington-Hamline 185 +27.6% 0.5% 6.5% 9.7% 73 95.9% Saint Paul - Macalester-Groveland 354 +24.6% 2.8% 8.8% 5.1% 73 96.3% Saint Paul - North End 212 -3.2% 0.0% 9.4% 19.3% 71 97.1% Saint Paul - Payne -Phalen 344 + 17.8% 3.5% 3.2% 21.8% 74 96.2% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park 88 +39.7% 0.0% 53.4% 6.8% 90 96.4% Saint Paul - Summit Hill 104 +7.2% 1.9% 41.3% 5.8% 107 94.2% Saint Paul - Summit -University 175 -3.8% 0.0% 51.4% 10.9% 108 94.6% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale (Frogtown) 105 -0.9% 3.8% 1.9% 23.8% 73 94.0% Saint Paul - West Seventh 152 +4.1% 0.7% 23.0% 13.8% 72 96.1% Saint Paul - West Side 194 +22.8% 0.0% 5.7% 20.6% 74 95.3% Saint Paul Park 80 +6.7% 3.8% 6.3% 18.8% 66 96.6% Savage 584 + 11.2% 6.3% 24.5% 7.4% 69 97.2% Scandia 48 -4.0% 8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 143 93.6% Shakopee 772 +16.3% 3.8% 40.2% 10.6% 69 97.2% Shoreview 481 +24.6% 2.3% 32.8% 6.4% 64 96.2% Shorewood 115 +2.7% 3.5% 13.0% 5.2% 120 94.5% Somerset 91 + 16.7% 5.5% 5.5% 11.0% 82 97.2% South Haven 57 +9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 147 89.9% South Saint Paul 321 +18.5% 0.9% 4.7% 18.4% 70 95.9% Spring Lake Park 84 +25.4% 0.0% 17.9% 20.2% 54 96.9% Spring Park 19 +72.7% 0.0% 57.9% 10.5% 114 94.3% Stacy 63 +1.6% 11.1% 3.2% 17.5% 79 95.9% Stillwater 407 +21.1% 4.9% 24.8% 8.8% 95 95.4% Sunfish Lake 7 +75.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 185 89.0% Tonka Bay 31 +34.8% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2% 129 94.7% Vadnais Heights 209 +25.1% 4.3% 48.8% 12.4% 75 96.1% Vermillion 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Victoria 205 -2.8% 23.4% 11.2% 5.9% 91 96.8% Waconia 275 +18.0% 13.5% 20.0% 8.0% 83 96.2% Watertown 82 -9.9% 4.9% 6.1% 8.5% 99 94.6% Wayzata 94 -2.1% 11.7% 48.9% 3.2% 140 94.1% West Saint Paul 328 +33.3% 1.2% 18.3% 12.5% 66 95.8% White Bear Lake 396 + 14.8% 1.3% 25.0% 10.1% 71 97.1% Willernie 15 +150.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 85 89.8% Woodbury 1,375 +9.5% 9.5% 40.1% 5.9% 68 97.2% Woodland 9 +28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97 89.3% Wyoming 108 + 10.2% 6.5% 5.6% 14.8% 74 97.1% Zimmerman 298 +33.6% 11.1% 3.0% 11.1% 83 96.7% Zumbrota 18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 105 97.0% 0 I„ W, I I I A (,,, „ o:ri ! o i , ,.rlVAI I )o r, 1 „ , ire Nl Io I i I K 'I l 2015 Annual Housing Market- Twin Cities Metro Area Overview - Minneapolis Neighborhoods MUNNIEAPOILIs AREA Asso dation Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Minneapolis 5,679 +3.6% 2.1% 23.4% 9.6% 66 97.0% Armatage 130 +7.4% 5.4% 1.5% 3.8% 63 97.2% Audubon Park 104 +22.4% 2.9% 0.0% 6.7% 48 99.4% Bancroft 77 +32.8% 0.0% 6.5% 13.0% 49 98.7% Beltrami 5 -54.5% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 39 95.4% Bottineau 14 -26.3% 7.1% 21.4% 0.0% 26 100.7% Bryant 51 +34.2% 2.0% 0.0% 9.8% 41 98.7% Bryn Mawr 65 +38.3% 0.0% 7.7% 1.5% 74 97.6% Calhoun (CARAG) 64 +8.5% 0.0% 48.4% 1.6% 84 95.6% Cedar - Isles - Dean 73 -14.1% 1.4% 67.1% 0.0% 113 96.5% Cedar -Riverside 16 -5.9% 6.3% 93.8% 6.3% 77 96.1% Central 65 +27.5% 0.0% 7.7% 26.2% 45 97.5% Cleveland 90 +9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 23.3% 68 96.0% Columbia Park 31 +55.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.9% 73 99.2% Cooper 73 +65.9% 1.4% 0.0% 2.7% 49 98.7% Corcoran Neighborhood 48 -25.0% 0.0% 10.4% 8.3% 43 99.0% Diamond Lake 136 +20.4% 1.5% 0.7% 5.9% 71 97.1% Downtown East - Mpls 57 - 75.6% 17.5% 100.0% 0.0% 35 98.6% Downtown West - Mpls 130 -13.3% 0.8% 100.0% 10.8% 74 96.4% East Calhoun (ECCO) 34 +47.8% 0.0% 29.4% 2.9% 90 95.9% East Harriet 47 -7.8% 0.0% 25.5% 6.4% 97 94.2% East Isles 56 +7.7% 0.0% 62.5% 1.8% 86 94.2% East Phillips 21 -32.3% 0.0% 38.1% 23.8% 59 98.7% Elliot Park 84 +40.0% 0.0% 98.8% 2.4% 52 98.0% Ericsson 71 +29.1% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 49 97.5% Field 44 -13.7% 2.3% 0.0% 6.8% 44 96.9% Folwell 87 -34.6% 1.1% 8.0% 25.3% 71 93.7% Fulton 167 +33.6% 7.8% 0.0% 4.2% 75 96.1% Hale 64 -9.9% 3.1% 0.0% 1.6% 52 97.8% Harrison 23 +15.0% 8.7% 0.0% 26.1% 76 97.9% Hawthorne 51 +59.4% 11.8% 5.9% 23.5% 73 95.4% Hiawatha 96 +11.6% 3.1% 1.0% 11.5% 74 97.7% Holland 46 -4.2% 0.0% 8.7% 19.6% 71 96.1% Howe 139 -12.6% 3.6% 2.2% 15.1% 54 97.9% Jordan Neighborhood 97 +1.0% 6.2% 0.0% 22.7% 75 93.6% Keewaydin 67 -13.0% 0.0% 1.5% 7.5% 56 97.6% Kenny 102 +32.5% 2.0% 1.0% 3.9% 50 98.3% Kenwood 34 +70.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 83 93.0% Kenyon 43 + 16.2% 4.7% 2.3% 7.0% 187 92.8% King Field 111 +18.1% 1.8% 12.6% 5.4% 56 97.1% Lind-Bohanon 91 -9.0% 1.1 % 1.1% 24.2% 57 96.7% Linden Hills 195 +38.3% 7.2% 20.0% 2.6% 75 95.0% Logan Park 13 -18.8% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 32 99.6% Longfellow 74 +15.6% 1.4% 0.0% 8.1% 52 98.2% 2015 Annual Housing Market- Twin Cities Metro Area Overview - Minneapolis Neighborhoods r uNNIEAPOILIs AREA Asso dation (, �, �,�;0 Ia II I A (J,, ! ,,.rlViI I ) o r, 1 „ ,ire NlIoI i I K Ib Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Loring Park 115 +2.7% 0.0% 100.0% 2.6% 88 96.3% Lowry Hill 78 +21.9% 0.0% 52.6% 1.3% 126 93.6% Lowry Hill East 44 -2.2% 0.0% 81.8% 0.0% 70 96.9% Lyndale 57 -8.1% 0.0% 43.9% 10.5% 62 96.5% Lynnhurst 113 +2.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 73 96.5% Marcy Holmes 31 -6.1% 0.0% 83.9% 3.2% 76 93.1% Marshall Terrace 19 17.4% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 59 97.8% McKinley 44 13.7% 2.3% 0.0% 29.5% 77 94.0% Midtown Phillips 29 +11.5% 6.9% 34.5% 20.7% 49 96.6% Minnehaha 108 +11.3% 0.9% 14.8% 10.2% 47 98.4% Morris Park 78 + 14.7% 1.3% 0.0% 11.5% 59 96.3% Near North 41 -8.9% 2.4% 4.9% 24.4% 84 98.3% Nicollet Island - East Bank 74 +25.4% 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% 64 96.0% North Loop 196 -2.0% 3.1% 100.0% 1.0% 39 98.8% Northeast Park 4 -66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43 94.9% Northrop 97 +15.5% 1.0% 4.1% 5.2% 49 98.1% Page 27 -34.1% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 71 96.3% Phillips West 17 +6.3% 0.0% 47.1% 23.5% 58 100.8% Powderhorn Park 62 -17.3% 0.0% 16.1% 14.5% 54 98.0% Prospect Park - East River Road 42 +20.0% 0.0% 42.9% 4.8% 70 97.0% Regina 48 +9.1% 0.0% 14.6% 8.3% 47 99.9% Seward 51 +24.4% 2.0% 13.7% 9.8% 52 96.4% Sheridan 15 -34.8% 0.0% 6.7% 13.3% 32 101.7% Shingle Creek 55 + 12.2% 1.8% 0.0% 27.3% 71 97.9% Southeast Como 41 +78.3% 0.0% 0.0% 17.1% 81 99.1% St. Anthony East 20 +33.3% 0.0% 20.0% 10.0% 38 94.9% St. Anthony West 17 +13.3% 0.0% 41.2% 5.9% 38 99.2% Standish 147 -2.0% 2.7% 5.4% 11.6% 51 99.2% Stevens Square - Loring Heights 43 +34.4% 0.0% 90.7% 25.6% 105 94.8% Sumner -Glenwood 21 +31.3% 0.0% 95.2% 4.8% 43 97.3% Tangletown 78 +9.9% 0.0% 3.8% 5.1% 77 97.1% University of Minnesota 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Ventura Village 12 +50.0% 0.0% 66.7% 16.7% 69 98.3% Victory 125 +5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 24.8% 81 95.8% Waite Park 143 +2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 8.4% 60 98.0% Webber -Camden 93 +24.0% 2.2% 0.0% 19.4% 81 95.9% Wenonah 107 +44.6% 0.9% 0.0% 13.1% 74 97.0% West Calhoun 44 +18.9% 0.0% 86.4% 2.3% 78 94.8% Whittier 70 +2.9% 0.0% 68.6% 12.9% 105 95.1% Willard -Hay 88 -26.1% 4.5% 0.0% 25.0% 80 97.2% Windom 68 +36.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 63 98.2% Windom Park 59 -1.7% 1.7% 3.4% 8.5% 52 97.4% (, �, �,�;0 Ia II I A (J,, ! ,,.rlViI I ) o r, 1 „ ,ire NlIoI i I K Ib 2015 Annual Housing Market- Twin Cities Metro Area Overview - Townships MUNNIEAPOILIs AREA Asso dation 0 Ii i u I I . , � I A (J,, I ! lViI I )o r, 1 „ , Io Io I i I K I �i Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Baytown Township 17 52.8% 52.9% 0.0% 5.9% 70 98.5% Belle Plaine Township 1 -66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 109.8% Benton Township 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 215 93.2% Blakeley Township 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 163 71.8% Camden Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Castle Rock Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Cedar Lake Township 5 150.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 76 84.7% Credit River Township 11 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 141 93.2% Dahlgren Township 30 15.4% 3.3% 0.0% 16.7% 150 95.4% Douglas Township 5 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 133 91.3% Empire Township 1 -80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 41 89.1% Eureka Township 21 +10.5% 19.0% 4.8% 19.0% 75 98.7% Greenvale Township 9 -35.7% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 85 87.4% Grey Cloud Island Township 2 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23 96.3% Hancock Township 6 200.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 121 93.5% Hassan Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Helena Township 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Hollywood Township 2 -60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 308 88.5% Jackson Township 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 244 81.3% Laketown Township 10 -9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 160 96.9% Linwood Township 15 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 193 90.9% Louisville Township 58 13.7% 12.1% 0.0% 8.6% 79 97.8% Marshan Township 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 96.7% May Township 1 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31 96.3% New Market Township 18 +38.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 85 92.0% Nininger Township 11 -26.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 136 92.6% Randolph Township 1 -4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 570 91.7% Ravenna Township 7 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 167 95.0% San Francisco Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Sand Creek Township 2 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92 94.4% Sciota Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Spring Lake Township 15 -11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 73 97.5% St. Lawrence Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Stillwater Township 16 60.0% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 128 97.1% Vermillion Township 1 -50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15 101.2% Waconia Township 2 -33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 48 91.4% Waterford Township 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Watertown Township 4 -20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 98 86.2% West Lakeland Township 27 -15.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 115 94.1% White Bear Township 194 +14.8% 2.1% 26.8% 7.7% 82 95.2% Young America Township 4 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 119 92.1% 0 Ii i u I I . , � I A (J,, I ! lViI I )o r, 1 „ , Io Io I i I K I �i 2015 Annual Housing Market- Twin Cities Metro Area Overview - Counties NWVNNEAPOILIS AREA Assodation (, �, �,�;0 I„ W, I I I A (,,,! ,,.rlViI I ) o r, 1 „ , ire Nl I o I i I K Ifs Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2014 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Anoka County 5,618 + 13.7% 8.6% 20.9% 14.8% 65 97.2% Carver County 1,962 + 21.1 % 15.2% 24.8% 6.5% 85 96.5% Chisago County 987 +14.4% 11.0% 5.3% 16.6% 93 96.6% Dakota County 7,093 +18.3% 6.6% 31.6% 10.6% 68 96.7% Goodhue County 508 + 14.7% 1.0% 9.6% 8.5% 123 94.1% Hennepin County 19,886 +9.7% 4.5% 25.0% 9.0% 74 96.6% Isanti County 703 +21.8% 9.1% 8.3% 16.4% 75 96.6% Kanabec County 234 +10.4% 0.9% 1.3% 20.9% 132 92.4% Mille Lacs County 433 +19.9% 1.6% 6.5% 20.3% 115 92.7% Ramsey County 7,101 +15.4% 2.1% 20.9% 11.9% 74 96.3% Rice County 861 +7.4% 2.6% 13.6% 13.8% 98 95.2% Scott County 2,588 +13.0% 6.8% 26.3% 9.8% 80 96.7% Sherburne County 1,764 +20.7% 9.5% 10.3% 11.4% 84 96.8% St. Croix County 1,408 +9.5% 7.3% 13.1% 9.7% 107 96.6% Washington County 4,390 +15.9% 7.1% 28.8% 9.6% 78 96.6% Wright County 2,450 + 16.7% 12.4% 15.1% 10.7% 82 96.3% (, �, �,�;0 I„ W, I I I A (,,,! ,,.rlViI I ) o r, 1 „ , ire Nl I o I i I K Ifs 1 ! �. t 1'. MIVWNEAPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon o R E A LT 0 R S, Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Twin Cities Region $150,000 $1679900 $1929000 $2059600 $2209000 +7.0% +46.7% Afton $430,000 $275,000 $409,500 $412,375 $435,000 +5.5% + 1.2% Albertville $142,500 $149,950 $178,900 $179,900 $210,000 " + 16.7% +47.4% Andover $182,000 $205,000 $227,491 $236,700 $248,200 +4.9% +36.4% Annandale $153,170 $169,500 $159,000 $172,221 $204,450 +18.7% +33.5% Anoka $114,000 $122,900 $146,950 $166,000 $179,900 +8.4% +57.8% Apple Valley $149,900 $175,000 $195,000 $213,000 $224,900 +5.6% +50.0% Arden Hills $157,500 $325,000 $300,300 $252,000 $282,000 " +11.9% +79.0% Bayport $147,000 $184,500 $200,000 $237,450 $207,000 - 12.8% +40.8% Becker $131,700 $149,375 $155,900 $169,900 $183,900 +8.2% +39.6% Belle Plaine $136,050 $144,500 $159,000 $187,700 $193,250 +3.0% +42.0% Bethel " $100,000 $115,950 $135,000 $115,000 $158,185 " +37.6% +58.2% Big Lake $117,500 $134,900 $154,500 $169,900 $178,000 +4.8% +51.5% Birchwood Village $240,500 $227,900 $287,375 $340,000 $260,000 -23.5% +8.1% Blaine $154,900 $175,000 $199,200 $218,665 $220,000 +0.6% +42.0% Bloomington $157,000 $171,000 $193,100 $201,000 $218,000 +8.5% +38.9% Bloomington - East $140,000 $145,300 $169,000 $182,000 $198,000 +8.8% +41.4% Bloomington - West $181,725 $191,000 $215,000 $225,000 $235,000 +4.4% +29.3% Brainerd MSA $147,000 $155,000 $161,000 $165,000 $170,000 +3.0% +15.6% Brooklyn Center $82,300 $95,000 $122,250 $139,950 $154,950 " + 10.7% +88.3% Brooklyn Park $127,000 $146,000 $167,000 $174,900 $194,000 +10.9% +52.8% Buffalo $131,500 $141,000 $171,810 $175,000 $200,000 +14.3% +52.1% Burnsville $147,750 $165,300 $185,000 $209,500 $222,000 +6.0% +50.3% Cambridge $94,000 $101,300 $127,000 $148,250 $163,500 " +10.3% +73.9% Cannon Falls $123,500 $145,000 $177,500 $166,100 $193,000 + 16.2% +56.3% Carver $225,000 $245,000 $282,500 $270,000 $277,750 +2.9% +23.4% Centerville $154,600 $180,000 $189,950 $197,500 $223,000 + 12.9% +44.2% Champlin $148,000 $159,400 $182,500 $193,950 $205,000 +5.7% +38.5% Chanhassen $297,500 $280,500 $305,000 $318,838 $325,000 +1.9% +9.2% Chaska $170,000 $207,500 $252,000 $235,000 $255,000 +8.5% +50.0% Chisago $155,700 $168,500 $199,850 $201,500 $235,150 + 16.7% +51.0% Circle Pines $124,150 $139,450 $144,150 $154,000 $162,550 +5.6% +30.9% Clear Lake $146,800 $152,450 $160,375 $154,500 $184,750 +19.6% +25.9% Clearwater $127,750 $150,000 $160,000 $159,500 $157,500 -1.3% +23.3% Coates $0 $0 $0 $0 $161,625 Cokato $107,500 $105,000 $129,900 $123,200 $132,450 +7.5% +23.2% Cologne $189,900 $182,550 $181,500 $262,950 $250,000 -4.9% +31.6% Columbia Heights $101,500 $99,950 $132,000 $140,000 $158,125 + 12.9% +55.8% Columbus " $177,277 $208,500 $202,800 $227,500 $236,300 +3.9% +33.3% Coon Rapids $114,900 $125,105 $150,000 $160,300 $175,000 +9.2% +52.3% Corcoran $246,000 $230,000 $300,000 $312,500 $330,000 +5.6% +34.1% Cottage Grove $160,000 $174,400 $194,000 $209,900 $222,000 +5.8% +38.8% Crystal $105,000 $127,550 $149,250 $157,500 $172,000 +9.2% +63.8% Dayton $142,000 $191,500 $274,000 $218,250 $328,709 +50.6% +131.5% 1 ! �. t 1'. MIVWNEAPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon o R E A LT 0 R S, Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Deephaven $322,000 $493,250 $518,500 $585,000 $622,500 +6.4% +93.3% Delano $173,150 $205,500 $232,870 $241,250 $275,600 + 14.2% +59.2% Dellwood $499,000 $360,000 $507,500 $765,000 $594,215 -22.3% +19.1% Eagan $171,000 $193,990 $220,000 $234,700 $243,050 +3.6% +42.1% East Bethel $162,500 $165,000 $179,900 $198,000 $219,500 +10.9% +35.1% Eden Prairie $257,110 $257,000 $279,294 $300,000 $299,900 -0.0% +16.6% Edina $339,000 $344,000 $350,000 $380,000 $396,000 +4.2% +16.8% Elk River $132,000 $157,000 $172,000 $195,000 $215,700 " +10.6% +63.4% Elko New Market $193,000 $215,000 $247,627 $257,520 $264,250 +2.6% +36.9% Excelsior $350,000 $291,500 $409,750 $452,500 $502,500 +11.0% +43.6% Falcon Heights $207,500 $228,706 $238,000 $257,450 $257,000 -0.2% +23.9% Faribault $102,000 $115,000 $135,000 $135,250 $143,450 +6.1% + 40.6% Farmington $140,500 $163,000 $192,500 $210,000 $220,000 +4.8% +56.6% Forest Lake $153,750 $185,000 $191,500 $219,900 $225,500 +2.5% +46.7% Fridley $120,000 $126,500 $154,250 $160,000 $175,000 +9.4% +45.8% Gem Lake $240,000 $352,261 $169,450 $563,864 $411,000 -27.1% + 71.3% Golden Valley $199,450 $218,500 $246,000 $247,500 $264,900 +7.0% +32.8% Grant $422,500 $367,500 $415,500 $445,000 $399,900 10.1% -5.3% Greenfield $373,000 $350,000 $354,000 $486,500 $410,000 15.7% +9.9% Greenwood $755,000 $675,000 $921,500 $747,500 $965,000 " +29.1% + 27.8% Ham Lake $211,500 $231,000 $271,600 $289,900 $297,500 +2.6% +40.7% Hamburg $75,200 $111,500 $95,500 $138,000 $119,900 -13.1% + 59.4% Hammond $118,000 $121,900 $145,000 $163,000 $160,950 -1.3% +36.4% Hampton $172,000 $138,500 $204,000 $200,000 $233,000 " +16.5% +35.5% Hanover $214,950 $211,000 $239,950 $254,313 $266,250 +4.7% +23.9% Hastings $128,500 $142,000 $169,900 $182,250 $196,000 +7.5% +52.5% Hilltop $0 $24,500 $34,500 $47,500 $0 -100.0% -- Hopkins $125,000 $159,950 $180,500 $182,000 $214,250 " + 17.7% +71.4% Hudson $184,500 $195,000 $228,500 $233,500 $261,575 +12.0% +41.8% Hugo $137,000 $164,199 $195,000 $180,000 $204,500 +13.6% +49.3% Hutchinson $115,250 $111,750 $125,000 $142,900 $145,000 +1.5% +25.8% Independence $249,900 $387,500 $411,500 $424,950 $525,000 " +23.5% +110.1% Inver Grove Heights $155,000 $160,000 $194,950 $180,000 $193,250 +7.4% +24.7% Isanti $91,500 $117,000 $125,000 $149,900 $158,500 +5.7% +73.2% Jordan $178,000 $177,000 $215,000 $209,000 $247,000 + 18.2% +38.8% Lake Elmo $374,800 $367,500 $374,900 $428,500 $401,000 -6.4% +7.0% Lake Minnetonka Area $329,000 $340,000 $369,950 $380,000 $395,000 +3.9% +20.1% Lake St. Croix Beach $85,250 $180,000 $139,000 $176,250 $187,250 +6.2% +119.6% Lakeland $221,000 $195,500 $204,990 $223,000 $244,000 +9.4% +10.4% Lakeland Shores $178,139 $270,000 $265,000 $1,500,000 $247,423 -83.5% +38.9% Lakeville $205,000 $226,000 $258,000 $272,000 $298,745 +9.8% +45.7% Lauderdale $128,150 $171,450 $175,000 $117,750 $175,000 +48.6% +36.6% Lexington $108,563 $136,950 $149,900 $181,920 $172,862 -5.0% +59.2% Lilydale $177,500 $190,000 $200,250 $280,000 $240,000 - 14.3% +35.2% 1 ! �. t 1'. MINNE,GPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon o R E A LT 0 R S, Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Lindstrom $143,900 $140,000 $160,025 $179,999 $190,000 + 5.6% +32.0% Lino Lakes $173,500 $208,375 $229,900 $243,000 $254,600 +4.8% +46.7% Little Canada $140,000 $175,000 $185,500 $192,593 $206,250 +7.1% + 47.3% Long Lake $186,500 $227,500 $231,500 $212,250 $269,950 " +27.2% +44.7% Lonsdale $137,000 $145,000 $171,900 $183,000 $211,300 +15.5% +54.2% Loretto $217,875 $130,000 $199,900 $156,900 $256,000 +63.2% + 17.5% Mahtomedi $257,500 $249,900 $245,000 $301,450 $325,000 +7.8% +26.2% Maple Grove $214,000 $219,453 $233,000 $245,500 $245,000 -0.2% +14.5% Maple Lake $112,840 $134,950 $145,000 $167,000 $170,000 +1.8% +50.7% Maple Plain $153,500 $187,450 $178,750 $212,500 $243,900 +14.8% +58.9% Maplewood $139,400 $145,000 $165,000 $182,000 $187,998 +3.3% +34.9% Marine on St. Croix $242,000 $274,450 $320,000 $322,450 $320,000 -0.8% +32.2% Mayer $169,900 $164,405 $189,900 $190,000 $212,000 +11.6% +24.8% Medicine Lake $315,000 $650,000 $542,000 $465,000 $836,250 +79.8% +165.5% Medina $485,000 $457,985 $521,623 $527,500 $555,047 +5.2% +14.4% Mendota $80,000 $154,500 $287,000 $78,000 $0 -100.0% -100.0% Mendota Heights $286,500 $272,000 $282,500 $330,000 $339,797 +3.0% +18.6% Miesville $0 $140,000 $231,671 $205,000 $0 -100.0% Minneapolis - (Citywide) $140,000 $165,000 $189,000 $205,000 $220,000 +7.3% +57.1% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle $267,021 $300,000 $327,780 $318,500 $360,000 " +13.0% +34.8% Minneapolis - Camden $45,052 $59,700 $77,000 $101,250 $122,000 +20.5% + 170.8% Minneapolis - Central $214,250 $220,000 $247,250 $321,000 $260,000 - 19.0% +21.4% Minneapolis - Longfellow $147,500 $169,000 $185,200 $196,250 $207,250 +5.6% +40.5% Minneapolis - Near North $43,000 $60,000 $80,500 $101,000 $125,200 " +24.0% + 191.2% Minneapolis - Nokomis $162,700 $176,500 $199,900 $222,375 $227,000 +2.1% + 39.5% Minneapolis - Northeast $125,000 $140,000 $168,755 $179,500 $199,825 +11.3% +59.9% Minneapolis - Phillips $72,500 $88,000 $90,225 $115,000 $141,500 +23.0% +95.2% Minneapolis - Powderhorn $110,000 $116,400 $157,250 $168,000 $185,050 " +10.1% + 68.2% Minneapolis - Southwest $264,450 $277,000 $306,000 $323,500 $340,000 +5.1% + 28.6% Minneapolis - University $207,500 $221,000 $232,250 $226,000 $230,000 +1.8% +10.8% Minnetonka $232,500 $255,000 $279,000 $270,000 $300,000 + 11.1% +29.0% Minnetonka Beach $1,130,000 $675,000 $670,000 $1,096,450 $1,487,500 " +35.7% +31.6% Minnetrista $349,950 $385,000 $435,000 $436,000 $445,500 +2.2% +27.3% Monticello $124,000 $137,095 $156,045 $172,000 $186,000 +8.1% + 50.0% Montrose $115,000 $130,357 $149,000 $164,550 $164,450 -0.1% + 43.0% Mora $84,400 $86,500 $98,000 $99,750 $122,000 " +22.3% +44.5% Mound $150,000 $169,000 $191,000 $202,000 $215,950 +6.9% +44.0% Mounds View $134,950 $139,500 $163,000 $176,000 $187,673 +6.6% +39.1% New Brighton $157,500 $165,000 $171,000 $197,000 $219,900 +11.6% +39.6% New Germany $110,000 $100,000 $142,450 $165,708 $153,610 -7.3% +39.6% New Hope $126,125 $155,000 $173,000 $185,000 $199,000 +7.6% +57.8% New Prague $146,000 $174,000 $195,000 $189,900 $215,000 + 13.2% +47.3% New Richmond $110,000 $124,900 $137,850 $155,850 $178,000 " + 14.2% +61.8% New Trier $0 $75,000 $63,700 $0 $137,000 1 ! �. t 1'. MIVWNEAPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon o R E A LT 0 R S, Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Newport $72,175 $98,500 $140,500 $167,000 $157,261 - 5.8% +117.9% North Branch $115,000 $123,650 $150,000 $164,900 $175,778 +6.6% +52.9% North Oaks $480,000 $510,000 $625,000 $632,997 $692,844 +9.5% +44.3% North Saint Paul $120,000 $139,900 $150,500 $168,000 $174,000 +3.6% +45.0% Northfield $145,000 $157,500 $183,000 $183,000 $199,000 +8.7% +37.2% Norwood Young America $122,500 $128,912 $144,000 $158,500 $166,400 +5.0% +35.8% Nowthen $180,000 $209,500 $234,500 $241,000 $305,000 +26.6% +69.4% Oak Grove $175,000 $200,825 $228,920 $243,495 $265,000 +8.8% +51.4% Oak Park Heights $130,000 $134,799 $176,200 $177,000 $202,000 +14.1% + 55.4% Oakdale $133,000 $134,950 $164,000 $167,500 $188,400 +12.5% +41.7% Orono $532,500 $377,223 $501,000 $572,000 $542,500 -5.2% +1.9% Osseo $115,000 $153,950 $141,950 $175,000 $174,900 -0.1% +52.1% Otsego $159,900 $163,450 $194,525 $214,950 $218,500 + 1.7% +36.6% Pine City $82,250 $105,260 $111,275 $120,000 $126,375 +5.3% +53.6% Pine Springs $300,000 $271,500 $320,000 $377,500 $395,000 +4.6% +31.7% Plymouth $245,000 $275,500 $304,450 $305,000 $320,000 +4.9% +30.6% Princeton $111,000 $105,000 $138,900 $149,000 $163,500 +9.7% +47.3% Prior Lake $212,000 $227,500 $270,100 $281,250 $300,000 +6.7% +41.5% Ramsey $137,000 $153,000 $182,000 $199,900 $216,000 +8.1% + 57.7% Randolph $168,937 $139,950 $190,000 $262,500 $208,250 -20.7% +23.3% Red Wing $130,000 $130,000 $133,875 $145,000 $147,950 +2.0% +13.8% Richfield $140,250 $155,000 $174,950 $183,500 $205,000 +11.7% +46.2% River Falls $143,600 $151,000 $168,500 $179,900 $195,000 +8.4% +35.8% Robbinsdale $104,750 $123,499 $140,000 $158,875 $175,000 " +10.1% +67.1% Rockford $130,000 $154,000 $197,400 $184,535 $195,299 +5.8% +50.2% Rogers $210,000 $236,000 $265,000 $278,950 $293,978 +5.4% +40.0% Rosemount $170,388 $181,000 $215,000 $228,500 $239,950 +5.0% +40.8% Roseville $158,500 $187,450 $197,535 $205,000 $215,000 +4.9% +35.6% Rush City $113,000 $92,000 $122,750 $149,000 $129,500 -13.1% + 14.6% Saint Anthony $178,200 $154,950 $179,950 $211,700 $248,435 +17.4% +39.4% Saint Bonifacius $145,000 $189,500 $185,500 $179,000 $220,000 +22.9% +51.7% Saint Cloud MSA $128,000 $135,000 $145,000 $150,000 $155,900 +3.9% +21.8% Saint Francis $122,550 $130,000 $149,900 $159,450 $180,500 +13.2% +47.3% Saint Louis Park $185,000 $198,450 $218,900 $230,000 $239,000 +3.9% +29.2% Saint Mary's Point $1,100,000 $170,500 $258,800 $347,400 $235,000 -32.4% - 78.6% Saint Michael $165,000 $183,000 $198,900 $220,000 $231,000 +5.0% +40.0% Saint Paul $100,000 $120,000 $143,450 $157,250 $168,000 +6.8% +68.0% Saint Paul - Battle Creek / Highwood $89,250 $112,000 $135,050 $146,251 $157,900 +8.0% +76.9% Saint Paul - Como Park $134,900 $155,000 $177,500 $187,080 $195,000 +4.2% +44.6% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff $49,500 $59,000 $93,950 $110,463 $130,000 " + 17.7% + 162.6% Saint Paul - Downtown $126,500 $136,000 $160,000 $172,000 $164,900 -4.1% + 30.4% Saint Paul - Greater East Side $85,000 $88,900 $115,500 $129,900 $141,600 +9.0% +66.6% Saint Paul - Hamline-Midway $104,500 $126,350 $149,125 $155,950 $168,299 +7.9% +61.1% Saint Paul - Highland Park $235,000 $229,900 $249,500 $264,000 $270,350 +2.4% +15.0% 1 ! �. t 1'. MIVWNEAPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon o R E A LT 0 R S, Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Saint Paul - Merriam Park/ Lexington-Hamline $210,000 $240,000 $228,950 $249,950 $256,000 +2.4% +21.9% Saint Paul - Macalester-Groveland $228,750 $235,000 $263,500 $277,750 $292,000 +5.1% + 27.7% Saint Paul - North End $55,000 $68,550 $89,900 $107,750 $128,500 " +19.3% +133.6% Saint Paul - Payne -Phalen $65,000 $80,500 $100,000 $124,900 $133,500 +6.9% +105.4% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park $180,000 $192,500 $259,500 $239,000 $227,900 -4.6% +26.6% Saint Paul - Summit Hill $325,000 $288,000 $340,000 $344,500 $369,000 +7.1% + 13.5% Saint Paul - Summit -University $130,000 $159,900 $170,000 $194,280 $210,000 +8.1% + 61.5% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale (Frogtown) $45,000 $55,000 $80,900 $106,500 $130,000 " +22.1% + 188.9% Saint Paul - West Seventh $103,626 $121,000 $145,000 $148,250 $169,900 +14.6% +64.0% Saint Paul - West Side $82,000 $90,000 $122,000 $137,000 $150,000 +9.5% +82.9% Saint Paul Park $117,000 $127,750 $145,200 $160,000 $172,200 +7.6% +47.2% Savage $187,000 $208,000 $235,000 $255,000 $254,950 -0.0% +36.3% Scandia $240,000 $247,870 $283,367 $286,250 $298,950 +4.4% +24.6% Shakopee $154,900 $166,750 $194,700 $205,000 $209,000 +2.0% +34.9% Shoreview $180,000 $191,000 $222,750 $223,000 $237,000 +6.3% +31.7% Shorewood $349,950 $414,900 $425,000 $382,500 $417,500 +9.2% +19.3% Somerset $127,000 $119,900 $144,500 $175,000 $179,550 +2.6% +41.4% South Haven $187,500 $153,500 $179,900 $190,750 $217,000 +13.8% + 15.7% South Saint Paul $115,000 $112,000 $139,450 $148,000 $165,000 +11.5% +43.5% Spring Lake Park $92,250 $118,000 $141,000 $164,900 $169,950 +3.1% + 84.2% Spring Park $199,900 $352,500 $272,500 $446,050 $310,000 -30.5% +55.1% Stacy $139,000 $108,750 $181,750 $201,950 $200,000 -1.0°% +43.9°/% Stillwater $208,000 $216,000 $233,000 $265,000 $256,500 -3.2% +23.3% Sunfish Lake $550,320 $685,000 $819,000 $1,110,000 $900,000 -18.9% +63.5% Tonka Bay $550,000 $797,500 $477,500 $570,000 $444,012 -22.1% - 19.3% Vadnais Heights $165,000 $149,900 $167,250 $194,650 $191,000 -1.9% +15.8% Vermillion $153,500 $187,500 $157,500 $220,000 $0 -100.0% -100.0% Victoria $351,250 $344,123 $371,500 $369,990 $403,250 +9.0% +14.8% Waconia $187,500 $205,000 $229,000 $237,000 $250,000 +5.5% +33.3% Watertown $118,000 $153,000 $175,000 $170,450 $204,900 +20.2% +73.6% Wayzata $426,000 $427,500 $359,000 $627,500 $528,000 - 15.9% +23.9% West Saint Paul $120,000 $125,700 $143,500 $156,200 $171,000 +9.5% +42.5% White Bear Lake $148,500 $161,950 $178,500 $192,900 $198,500 +2.9% +33.7% Willernie $77,000 $141,500 $128,900 $160,000 $145,767 -8.9% +89.3% Woodbury $219,900 $240,000 $267,500 $284,000 $289,000 +1.8% +31.4% Woodland $1,782,500 $700,000 $370,000 $3,275,000 $850,000 - 74.0% -52.3% Wyoming $150,000 $163,750 $190,000 $209,000 $213,250 +2.0% +42.2% Zimmerman $118,000 $130,000 $150,500 $161,900 $185,000 +14.3% +56.8% Zumbrota $120,750 $168,000 $126,250 $161,950 $167,000 +3.1% + 38.3% 2015 Annual Housing Market Report1'. Median Prices Minneapolis Neighborhoods MIVWNE,GPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon 0 I„ i i u I I I A (,,, „ o:ri I ! o i I A I I )o r, 1 „ , ire Nl Io I i I K /l Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Minneapolis $140,000 $1659000 $1899000 $2059000 $2209000 +7.3% +57.1% Armatage $203,750 $218,000 $250,000 $265,000 $286,600 +8.2% +40.7% Audubon Park $137,275 $144,259 $164,900 $193,800 $221,000 " +14.0% +61.0% Bancroft $128,500 $143,500 $165,000 $188,000 $221,650 " + 17.9% +72.5% Beltrami $100,450 $72,500 $131,000 $147,500 $159,650 +8.2% +58.9% Bottineau $80,001 $132,000 $217,500 $152,250 $205,000 +34.6% + 156.2% Bryant " $110,000 $120,369 $135,500 $154,000 $186,000 +20.8% +69.1% Bryn Mawr $317,000 $278,000 $308,000 $355,950 $358,470 +0.7% +13.1% Calhoun (CARAG) $195,000 $198,143 $274,900 $254,000 $261,000 +2.8% +33.8% Cedar - Isles - Dean $366,250 $324,500 $367,500 $322,500 $350,025 +8.5% -4.4% Cedar -Riverside $116,950 $119,050 $123,000 $114,100 $128,000 + 12.2% +9.4% Central $78,450 $89,000 $141,500 $157,800 $164,250 +4.1% + 109.4% Cleveland $50,000 $74,000 $84,400 $110,500 $122,000 +10.4% +144.0% Columbia Park $120,718 $127,000 $147,250 $147,750 $155,000 +4.9% +28.4% Cooper $164,500 $202,500 $232,450 $217,000 $235,000 +8.3% +42.9% Corcoran Neighborhood $99,900 $105,000 $137,500 $162,450 $183,500 " +13.0% +83.7% Diamond Lake $195,000 $210,000 $245,000 $257,000 $272,000 +5.8% +39.5% Downtown East - Mpls $415,500 $412,500 $460,750 $469,581 $513,000 +9.2% +23.5% Downtown West - Mpls $165,000 $184,900 $210,000 $227,250 $231,000 + 1.7% +40.0% East Calhoun (ECCO) $397,500 $425,000 $509,000 $398,500 $400,000 +0.4% +0.6% East Harriet $290,000 $268,000 $297,750 $300,000 $283,350 -5.6% -2.3% East Isles $275,000 $299,000 $300,000 $275,000 $327,500 +19.1% +19.1% East Phillips $55,000 $90,300 $81,250 $112,000 $139,000 +24.1% + 152.7% Elliot Park $220,000 $182,500 $229,500 $306,500 $261,500 -14.7% +18.9% Ericsson $160,750 $175,000 $208,000 $248,000 $224,900 -9.3% +39.9% Field $180,000 $185,750 $205,000 $230,000 $252,500 +9.8% +40.3% Folwell $30,325 $44,034 $60,000 $75,000 $80,500 +7.3% +165.5% Fulton $336,000 $349,000 $400,000 $449,950 $416,000 -7.5% +23.8% Hale $249,000 $266,000 $281,500 $292,500 $310,940 +6.3% +24.9% Harrison $76,450 $65,000 $89,000 $135,450 $126,000 -7.0% +64.8% Hawthorne $40,000 $60,000 $89,000 $97,500 $122,500 +25.6% +206.3% Hiawatha $150,400 $165,000 $184,000 $195,000 $198,444 +1.8% +31.9% Holland $63,575 $100,000 $127,290 $165,200 $163,500 -1.0% +157.2% Howe $125,900 $165,000 $179,900 $193,000 $206,000 +6.7% +63.6% Jordan Neighborhood $28,706 $50,000 $45,000 $72,000 $99,900 +38.8% +248.0% Keewaydin $161,775 $189,250 $207,500 $242,495 $224,750 -7.3% +38.9% Kenny $242,500 $246,950 $256,850 $272,500 $313,672 +15.1% + 29.3% Kenwood $682,500 $770,000 $786,180 $922,500 $793,750 - 14.0% +16.3% Kenyon $63,625 $64,250 $82,750 $99,750 $135,000 +35.3% +112.2% King Field $176,500 $227,000 $250,000 $254,000 $248,200 -2.3% +40.6% Lind-Bohanon $50,000 $54,250 $82,500 $93,500 $116,000 +24.1% + 132.0% Linden Hills $347,500 $373,750 $415,000 $469,250 $455,500 -2.9% +31.1% Logan Park $129,250 $153,850 $200,000 $181,500 $210,000 " +15.7% +62.5% Longfellow $121,000 $155,000 $174,900 $183,700 $197,200 +7.3% +63.0% 0 I„ i i u I I I A (,,, „ o:ri I ! o i I A I I )o r, 1 „ , ire Nl Io I i I K /l 2015 Annual Housing Market Report1'. Median Prices Minneapolis Neighborhoods MIVWNEAPOII-I5 AREA As.5ocii¢lon �f R mm A L"T 0 R S, Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Loring Park $169,000 $157,450 $210,000 $228,950 $219,950 -3.9% +30.1% Lowry Hill $239,900 $517,000 $562,300 $475,000 $562,500 +18.4% +134.5% Lowry Hill East $233,050 $236,500 $255,000 $236,500 $299,500 " +26.6% +28.5% Lyndale $125,000 $121,000 $179,000 $174,997 $181,000 +3.4% +44.8% Lynnhurst $418,000 $414,500 $435,000 $449,900 $480,000 +6.7% +14.8% Marcy Holmes $312,000 $299,900 $238,400 $315,000 $284,000 -9.8% -9.0% Marshall Terrace $68,650 $128,000 $157,500 $146,250 $170,000 +16.2% + 147.6% McKinley $35,000 $44,450 $60,000 $81,050 $93,000 " + 14.7% + 165.7% Midtown Phillips $84,850 $94,900 $102,400 $132,000 $148,000 +12.1% + 74.4% Minnehaha $144,000 $149,000 $174,900 $187,500 $198,500 +5.9% +37.8% Morris Park $109,950 $125,000 $150,000 $165,450 $168,250 + 1.7% +53.0% Near North $37,756 $63,750 $85,000 $128,000 $134,500 +5.1% + 256.2% Nicollet Island - East Bank $300,000 $322,500 $393,000 $299,000 $294,950 - 1.4% -1.7% North Loop $224,400 $261,500 $273,842 $284,000 $295,000 +3.9% +31.5% Northeast Park $52,000 $88,875 $135,000 $162,950 $132,000 - 19.0% +153.8% Northrop $182,000 $195,000 $207,530 $239,900 $232,000 -3.3% +27.5% Page $254,500 $306,000 $321,525 $350,000 $339,900 -2.9% +33.6% Phillips West $50,000 $69,250 $98,625 $127,950 $174,900 +36.7% +249.8% Powderhorn Park $73,250 $99,900 $137,000 $165,700 $168,900 +1.9% +130.6% Prospect Park - East River Road $229,750 $230,000 $261,250 $229,000 $286,250 " +25.0% +24.6% Regina $107,000 $133,241 $155,000 $173,500 $222,500 +28.2% + 107.9% Seward $162,000 $171,300 $185,000 $210,000 $191,639 -8.7% +18.3% Sheridan $89,000 $111,500 $134,000 $178,000 $205,000 + 15.2% +130.3% Shingle Creek $55,000 $60,450 $90,000 $118,500 $135,947 " + 14.7% + 147.2% Southeast Como $155,000 $140,000 $180,000 $160,750 $182,750 + 13.7% + 17.9% St. Anthony East $120,550 $154,771 $168,000 $205,550 $181,500 11.7% +50.6% St. Anthony West $207,250 $171,750 $237,500 $278,318 $243,000 12.7% + 17.2% Standish $128,500 $142,000 $169,950 $180,000 $194,000 +7.8% +51.0% Stevens Square - Loring Heights $62,950 $104,000 $120,000 $113,750 $112,000 -1.5% +77.9% Sumner -Glenwood $170,550 $201,500 $220,500 $222,500 $270,000 +21.3% +58.3% Tangletown $330,000 $320,000 $320,500 $315,000 $388,000 +23.2% + 17.6% University of Minnesota $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ventura Village $57,900 $70,300 $82,775 $95,350 $103,000 +8.0% +77.9% Victory $85,200 $96,250 $129,000 $138,000 $144,500 +4.7% +69.6% Waite Park $137,588 $159,150 $188,780 $185,000 $200,000 +8.1% + 45.4% Webber -Camden $42,000 $47,500 $62,000 $100,900 $115,000 " +14.0% + 173.8% Wenonah $143,000 $152,250 $176,000 $184,450 $202,000 +9.5% +41.3% West Calhoun $113,000 $180,000 $235,000 $228,250 $186,000 - 18.5% +64.6% Whittier $107,000 $84,500 $151,500 $145,000 $170,000 + 17.2% +58.9% Willard -Hay $51,750 $67,000 $97,000 $108,750 $129,350 " +18.9% + 150.0% Windom $163,832 $185,915 $218,900 $216,850 $262,225 +20.9% +60.1% Windom Park $164,163 $163,500 $188,000 $223,875 $235,000 +5.0% +43.2% 2015 Annual Housing Market Report1'. Median Prices - Townships MIVWNE,GPOII-15 AREA As.5ocii¢lon �f R mm A L"T 0 R S, 0 I„ i i u I I I A (,,, „ o:ri I ! o i I A I I )o r, 1 „ , ire Nl Io I i I K / t Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Baytown Township $455,000 $509,167 $525,000 $590,000 $735,429 +24.6% +61.6% Belle Plaine Township $212,500 $216,000 $330,000 $305,000 $225,000 -26.2% +5.9% Benton Township $165,000 $0 $122,950 $299,000 $460,000 " +53.8% + 178.8% Blakeley Township $0 $0 $180,000 $314,000 $395,000 +25.8% -- Camden Township $177,500 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 -- -100.0% Castle Rock Township $160,000 $256,250 $252,500 $172,500 $331,000 +91.9% +106.9% Cedar Lake Township $330,000 $203,000 $372,250 $470,000 $405,000 13.8% +22.7% Credit River Township $392,000 $438,000 $449,000 $525,680 $423,250 19.5% +8.0% Dahlgren Township $470,000 $250,000 $290,000 $176,000 $383,000 +117.6% - 18.5% Douglas Township $0 $0 $170,000 $316,900 $154,900 -51.1% -- Empire Township $154,000 $208,000 $253,000 $267,950 $278,100 +3.8% +80.6% Eureka Township $172,100 $132,500 $125,000 $216,250 $149,900 -30.7% - 12.9% Greenvale Township $0 $150,000 $201,000 $0 $312,000 -- Grey Cloud Island Township $270,000 $203,000 $0 $159,050 $267,500 +68.2% -0.9% Hancock Township $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Hassan Township $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -- Helena Township $260,000 $303,000 $346,066 $215,000 $577,500 +168.6% + 122.1% Hollywood Township $319,950 $210,000 $169,950 $0 $195,000 -- -39.1% Jackson Township $143,000 $214,750 $117,450 $147,500 $161,900 +9.8% + 13.2% Laketown Township $189,900 $129,750 $137,000 $130,000 $135,000 +3.8% -28.9% Linwood Township $139,750 $156,600 $219,900 $199,900 $238,200 + 19.2% +70.4% Louisville Township $395,000 $115,000 $345,000 $352,500 $232,000 -34.2% -41.3% Marshan Township $284,200 $205,000 $277,500 $0 $409,000 -- +43.9% May Township $285,000 $310,000 $360,000 $323,125 $410,000 +26.9% +43.9% New Market Township $266,000 $331,500 $359,700 $290,000 $380,000 +31.0% +42.9% Nininger Township $0 $400,000 $324,000 $325,000 $405,000 +24.6% Randolph Township $0 $0 $0 $0 $344,000 Ravenna Township $200,000 $219,165 $238,000 $245,500 $303,500 +23.6% +51.8% San Francisco Township $199,250 $242,500 $185,000 $0 $0 -- -100.0% Sand Creek Township $152,500 $269,000 $284,500 $332,500 $310,000 -6.8% +103.3% Sciota Township $323,850 $245,000 $0 $0 $0 -- -100.0% Spring Lake Township $263,500 $301,000 $385,450 $327,000 $350,000 +7.0% +32.8% St. Lawrence Township $0 $0 $146,300 $0 $0 Stillwater Township $350,000 $356,500 $479,425 $415,000 $447,250 +7.8% +27.8% Vermillion Township $0 $298,000 $258,450 $270,000 $291,000 +7.8% -- Waconia Township $96,000 $366,000 $291,250 $415,000 $496,750 +19.7% +417.4% Waterford Township $0 $0 $72,500 $0 $0 Watertown Township $472,500 $297,500 $392,500 $192,000 $435,000 +126.6% -7.9% West Lakeland Township $308,000 $399,950 $438,000 $480,000 $445,000 -7.3% +44.5% White Bear Township $181,000 $179,500 $215,000 $225,900 $236,000 +4.5% +30.4% Young America Township $262,400 $215,000 $537,500 $0 $350,450 -- +33.6% 0 I„ i i u I I I A (,,, „ o:ri I ! o i I A I I )o r, 1 „ , ire Nl Io I i I K / t 1 t '•fit MINNE,GPOII-I5 ,AREA As.5ocii¢lon o REALTORS 0 I„ i iu I I , W S A3 r,,,„ o' I!o i,,.rlVhl I.;r, 1 „ ,ire IOP Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Anoka County $136,900 $152,000 $174,900 $187,825 $200,700 +6.9% +46.6% Carver County $215,799 $230,150 $252,000 $258,100 $273,240 +5.9% +26.6% Chisago County $136,000 $139,000 $165,000 $183,000 $190,700 +4.2% +40.2% Dakota County $156,000 $170,500 $200,000 $215,000 $226,800 +5.5% +45.4% Goodhue County $130,000 $134,450 $145,000 $153,500 $165,000 +7.5% +26.9% Hennepin County $162,500 $182,500 $209,900 $221,000 $235,000 +6.3% +44.6% Isanti County $94,950 $117,900 $128,050 $149,900 $161,865 +8.0% +70.5% Kanabec County $76,250 $79,500 $100,000 $101,000 $121,625 " +20.4% +59.5% Mille Lacs County $85,000 $92,005 $110,000 $124,900 $137,500 +10.1% + 61.8% Ramsey County $125,500 $142,000 $163,000 $176,500 $187,948 +6.5% +49.8% Rice County $128,000 $135,000 $158,000 $167,500 $172,000 +2.7% +34.4% Scott County $180,000 $197,000 $226,500 $239,900 $244,950 +2.1% +36.1% Sherburne County $129,900 $143,500 $162,500 $175,000 $189,900 +8.5% +46.2% St. Croix County $144,650 $149,000 $177,500 $186,000 $208,000 +11.8% +43.8% Washington County $179,000 $200,000 $220,000 $236,000 $242,500 +2.8% +35.5% Wright County $139,000 $151,900 $176,250 $185,000 $205,000 +10.8% +47.5% 0 I„ i iu I I , W S A3 r,,,„ o' I!o i,,.rlVhl I.;r, 1 „ ,ire IOP 2015 Annual Housing Market- Twin Cities Metro More Data! Visit mplsrealtor.com to access up-to-date market reports throughout the year. See residential real estate trends in sharp detail by week, month, locality and even through a mobile -ready interactive interface that allows for the creation of shareable charts. 10 MINNEAPOLIS AREA As.sociazrii..on 1980-1996 All property types and all MLS districts. • ♦ . f Single-family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes for the 13 -county metro area. Home sales were recalculated in 2012 to account for all late - recorded activity, affecting data back to 2003. 0 Ii i„ r 'I I . , . I A (,,, I ! lViI I )o r, 1 „ , Io I I K /f� Number of Listings Total Dollar Volume Number of Average Year Processed (in billions) Units Sold Sales Price 1980 37,018 $1.34 18,351 $74,069 1981 35,580 $1.25 15,675 $80,238 1982 41,465 $1.00 12,193 $82,288 1983 50,794 $1.35 15,914 $84,953 1984 53,646 $1.55 18,231 $85,007 1985 51,492 $1.87 21,335 $87,789 1986 58,382 $2.52 28,015 $90,319 1987 55,422 $2.46 25,772 $95,914 1988 80,771 $3.21 34,244 $93,977 1989 89,170 $3.28 33,962 $96,658 1990 78,548 $3.37 34,496 $98,016 1991 71,850 $3.52 35,598 $99,402 1992 72,730 $4.31 41,944 $103,264 1993 70,685 $4.30 39,842 $107,569 1994 63,369 $4.73 42,454 $111,806 1995 64,556 $4.94 42,310 $117,053 1996 73,433 $5.82 46,949 $124,022 1997 63,189 $5.68 41,441 $137,085 1998 64,280 $7.09 47,836 $147,346 1999 57,573 $7.62 46,675 $163,277 2000 59,618 $8.76 48,208 $181,605 2001 71,861 $10.22 50,298 $203,136 2002 73,940 $11.33 51,212 $221,275 2003 88,131 $13.80 57,457 $240,019 2004 100,039 $15.61 60,180 $259,282 2005 99,627 $16.60 60,063 $273,702 2006 108,034 $13.92 49,419 $279,153 2007 104,962 $11.41 41,018 $275,798 2008 93,362 $9.43 39,550 $236,603 2009 82,876 $9.17 45,775 $199,489 2010 81,813 $8.15 38,256 $211,400 2011 68,851 $8.10 41,589 $193,366 2012 65,874 $10.35 48,791 $210,740 2013 72,026 $12.64 53,172 $236,262 2014 73,650 $12.61 49,604 $252,692 2015 77,380 $14.90 56,390 $263,175 More Data! Visit mplsrealtor.com to access up-to-date market reports throughout the year. See residential real estate trends in sharp detail by week, month, locality and even through a mobile -ready interactive interface that allows for the creation of shareable charts. 10 MINNEAPOLIS AREA As.sociazrii..on 1980-1996 All property types and all MLS districts. • ♦ . f Single-family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes for the 13 -county metro area. Home sales were recalculated in 2012 to account for all late - recorded activity, affecting data back to 2003. 0 Ii i„ r 'I I . , . I A (,,, I ! lViI I )o r, 1 „ , Io I I K /f� z 0 mom Z 0 V LLJ r_. z 0 P ui Ix CL yet u 0 W rr� W u I L LL t� a -J c u 4) L OLO L 4r- L m N co C E E E 0 .5 L QU N U (U 19 _U 41 O �1 L 0 v .E L O m E v m U ice+ C O M E E O U m U v N U S2 Q1 _U EU t F s- 0 0 m m s 0 F ABDO (X� EICKK 11'JEJL ERS LLP Certified Addic Atwuntants & Coiaultants April 4, 2016 Management, Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Centerville, Minnesota We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Centerville, Minnesota (the City), for the year ended December 31, 2015. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated December 8, 2015. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Our Responsibility Under Auditing Standards Generally Accepted in the United States of America As stated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to express opinions about whether the financial statements prepared by management with your oversight are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your responsibilities. Our responsibility is to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement. As part of our audit, we considered the internal control over financial reporting of the City. Such considerations were solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control over financial reporting. We are responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures specifically to identify such matters. Significant Audit Findings In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. 5201 Eden Avenue, Suite 250 Edina, MN 55436 _ 1_ 952.835.9090 1 Fax 852,835.3261 Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements, and other matters noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit. While our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion, it does not provide a legal determination on the City's compliance with those requirements. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported in accordance with Minnesota statutes. Summary Prior Year Findings 2014-001 Public purpose expenditure Condition: Our audit procedures include certain tests of the City's compliance with specific statutes and rules. During our tests we noted that the City Council approved a purchase for a painting costing $296 and presented it as a gift to the retiring City Administrator. Criteria: According to Minnesota statutes section 15.46, in order for an expenditure of public funds to be lawful it should meet two standards: 1.) There must be a public purpose for the expenditure and 2.) There must be specific or implied authority for the expenditure in statute or in the City's charter. Minnesota statutes do not provide the authority for employee recognition. Current year status: The Mayor and City Council members have, subsequently, reimbursed the City for the entire cost of the painting. 2014-002 Financing plan Condition: During our audit, it was noted that a payment was made to the City of Lino Lakes for the City's share of a joint project totaling $310,961. The project included a street, sewer and water component but the entire project was paid from the water fund. Typically, project costs should be funded by the benefitted fund. Furthermore, when reviewing support for this payment it appeared that a documented financing plan was not in place. Upon further review, a draft special assessment agreement was found in the project file. However, it was not signed or approved by City Council. Criteria: Without a signed agreement or other supporting documentation, the City cannot establish evidence that a commitment for payment from the benefitted party has been agreed to. Current year status: The City has located the signed assessment agreement and presented it to the City Council for official approval in 2015. The agreement was revised to include updated costs and new financing terms. -2- People + Process, Cuing; lieuolultl. V1616 -r" Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 7 to the financial statements, the City changed accounting policies related to accounting and financial reporting for pensions by adopting Statement of Governmental Accounting Standards (GASB) Statements No. 68 and 71 in 2015. Accordingly, the cumulative effect of the accounting change as of the beginning of the year is disclosed in Note 7. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period except for the prior period restatement in Note 7. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements include depreciation on capital, allocation of payroll expenses, other post -employment benefits and the liability for the City's pensions. • Management's estimate of depreciation is based on estimated useful lives of the assets. Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method. • Allocations of gross wages and payroll benefits are approved by City Council within the City's budget and are derived from each employee's estimated time to be spent servicing the respective functions of the City. These allocations are also used in allocating accrued compensated absences payable. • The City's liability for other post -employment benefits was estimated to be zero primarily based on the assumption that employees, whom participate in the health insurance plan, will retire after the age of 65 and not continue to participate in the plan following retirement. • Management's estimate of its pension liability is based on several factors including, but not limited to, anticipated investment return rate, retirement age for active employees, life expectancy, salary increases and form of annuity payment upon retirement. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. The disclosures in the financial statements are neutral, consistent, and clear. Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Uncorrected misstatements of the financial statements related to the GASB 68 pension liability allocated to the City in relations its participation in PERA. Management has determined that their effects are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit's financial statements taken as a whole. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated April 4, 2016. People + I'ro(c5S. -3- (;villi; I levol Id u,,. ` ltllllI)Prs Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the governmental unit's financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor's opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Matters We applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information (RSI) (Management's Discussion and Analysis, the Schedules of Employer's Shares of the Net Pension Liability and the Schedules of Employer's Contributions, which is information that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We were engaged to report on the supplementary information (combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules), which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the introductory section, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other information and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Financial Position and Results of Operations Our principal observations and recommendations are summarized on the following pages. These recommendations resulted from our observations made in connection with our audit of the City's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015. General Fund The General fund is used to account for resources traditionally associated with government, which are not required legally or by sound principal management to be accounted for in another fund. The General fund balance decreased $149,948 from 2014. The fund balance of $1,169,065 is 54.1 percent of the 2016 budgeted expenditures. We recommend that the fund balance be maintained at a level sufficient to fund operations until the major revenue sources are received in June. The City's fund balance policy for the General fund identifies a minimum unassigned fund balance of 40 - 50 percent of the following year's budgeted expenditures. The City's ending fund balance is above this target level. The purposes and benefits of an adequate fund balance are as follows: Expenditures are incurred somewhat evenly throughout the year. However, property tax and state aid revenues are not received until the second half of the year. An adequate fund balance will provide the cash flow required to finance the governmental fund expenditures. Expenditures not anticipated at the time the annual budget was adopted may need immediate City Council action. These would include capital outlay replacement, lawsuits and other items. An adequate fund balance will provide the financing needed for such expenditures. A strong fund balance will assist the City in obtaining, maintaining or improving its bond rating. The Bf'ople, result will be better interest rates in future bond sales. + Process, i;PV't lNIthe -4- 1utllbe , A table summarizing the General fund balances in relation to budgeted expenditures out follows: $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Fund Balances as a Percent of Next Year's Budget $2,162,003 $1,902,800 $1,914,400 $1,951,416 $1,988,424 64% 66% 60% 63% ° 54 /° 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (Actual Fund Balance Budget M People + Process, G11, 11(n.6 1011', Percent Total General of Fund Fund Balance Budget Fund Balance to Year December 31 Year Budget Budget 2011 $ 1,142,321 2012 $ 1,902,800 60 % 2012 1,205,820 2013 1,914,400 63 2013 1,258,596 2014 1,951,416 64 2014 1,319,013 2015 1,988,424 66 2015 1,169,065 2016 2,162,003 54 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Fund Balances as a Percent of Next Year's Budget $2,162,003 $1,902,800 $1,914,400 $1,951,416 $1,988,424 64% 66% 60% 63% ° 54 /° 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (Actual Fund Balance Budget M People + Process, G11, 11(n.6 1011', A summary of the 2015 operations is as follows: • Total expenditures had a positive budget variance of $33,920. Total general government, public safety and public works expenditures were under budget by a total of $23,290, $12,473 and $7,700, respectively. • The City also transferred $498,000 from the General fund to other funds, which was $242,000 more than budget. City Council approved a transfer of $242,000 which was authorized to fund expenditures associated with the Centerville Road Reconstruction Project. -6- People (itIfh >) 7 e OIld ". \tllllf el" Original Final Budgeted Budgeted Actual Variance with Amounts Amounts Amounts Final Budget Revenues $ 2,244,424 $ 2,244,424 $ 2,302,556 $ 58,132 Expenditures 1,988,424 1,988,424 1,954,504 33,920 Excess of revenues over expenditures 256,000 256,000 348,052 92,052 Other financing uses Transfers out (256,000) (256,000) (498,000) (242,000) Net change in fund balances - - (149,948) (149,948) Fund balances, January 1 1,319,013 1,319,013 1,319,013 - Fund balances, December 31 _$__1 319 013 $ 1,319,013 $ 1,169,065 $ (149,948) • Total revenue had a positive budget variance of $58,132. All revenue categories had positive variances, except for fines and forfeitures and special assessments. • Total expenditures had a positive budget variance of $33,920. Total general government, public safety and public works expenditures were under budget by a total of $23,290, $12,473 and $7,700, respectively. • The City also transferred $498,000 from the General fund to other funds, which was $242,000 more than budget. City Council approved a transfer of $242,000 which was authorized to fund expenditures associated with the Centerville Road Reconstruction Project. -6- People (itIfh >) 7 e OIld ". \tllllf el" A more detailed comparison of General fund revenues for the past three years is as follows: The sources of General fund revenues are presented graphically as follows: $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 Revenues 2013 2014 2015 t Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental —0—Other -7- People + Process. G,oing \ulilbers Percent Per Source 2013 2014 2015 of Total Capita Taxes $ 1,758,243 $ 1,736,310 $ 1,818,645 78.9 % $ 463 Licenses and permits 122,994 108,921 134,781 5.9 34 Intergovernmental 203,212 259,763 273,604 11.9 70 Charges for services 5,889 6,520 4,840 0.2 1 Fines and forfeitures 34,828 23,043 22,230 1.0 6 Special assessments 57,821 18,618 - - - Interest on investments - 4,050 13,279 0.6 3 Miscellaneous 12,695 25,254 35,177 1.5 9 Total revenues $ 2,195,682 $ 2,182,479 $ 2.302,556 100.0 % $ 586 The sources of General fund revenues are presented graphically as follows: $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 Revenues 2013 2014 2015 t Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental —0—Other -7- People + Process. G,oing \ulilbers A summary of the past three years General fund expenditures and transfers is as follows: Total expenditures and transfers $ 2,152,906 $ 21169,562 $ 2,452,504 100.0% $ 625 $ 590 The above chart compares the amount the City spends per capita, in comparison to a peer group. The peer group average is derived from information we requested from the Office of the State Auditor for Cities of the 4 class which have populations between 2,500 and 10,000. The function/program of the expenditures and transfers are presented graphically as follows: Expenditures and Transfers Out $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $ 600,000 $400,000 $200,000 2013 2014 2015 -4-- General government -41- Public safety -8- --A Public works -)*-Other 11-o )le + Process (;01119 \ulilhrl:s Peer Percent Per Group Per Program 2013 2014 2015 of Total Capita Capita Current General government $ 440,344 $ 467,067 $ 433,610 17.7 % $ 110 $ 130 Public safety 1,051,591 1,066,100 1,112,162 45.4 283 231 Public works 297,471 325,201 289,300 11.8 74 120 Culture and recreation 73,906 78,671 105,632 4.3 27 58 Economic development 2,038 - - - - 4 Miscellaneous 5,950 6,287 6,300 0.3 2 15 Total current 1,871,300 1,943,326 1,947,004 79.4 496 558 Capital outlay 29,403 3,236 7,500 0.3 2 32 Transfers out 252,203 223,000 498,000 20.3 127 - Total expenditures and transfers $ 2,152,906 $ 21169,562 $ 2,452,504 100.0% $ 625 $ 590 The above chart compares the amount the City spends per capita, in comparison to a peer group. The peer group average is derived from information we requested from the Office of the State Auditor for Cities of the 4 class which have populations between 2,500 and 10,000. The function/program of the expenditures and transfers are presented graphically as follows: Expenditures and Transfers Out $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $ 600,000 $400,000 $200,000 2013 2014 2015 -4-- General government -41- Public safety -8- --A Public works -)*-Other 11-o )le + Process (;01119 \ulilhrl:s Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are used to account for revenue derived from specific taxes or other earmarked revenue sources. They are usually required by statute or local ordinance to finance particular functions or activities of government. A summary of year end fund balances for all special revenue funds follows: Fund Balances December 31, Increase Fund 2015 2014 (Decrease) Nonmajor Cable T.V. $ 26,936 $ 20,403 $ 6,533 Capital Projects Funds The capital projects funds are used to account for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities other than those financed by enterprise funds. A summary of year end fund balances for all capital projects funds follows: Fund Major Park 2013 Street Project Nonmajor Revolving Street Pedestrian Trail Ways Capital Equipment Revolving Total Fund Balances December 31, 2015 2014 Increase (Decrease) $ (1,116,065) $ (1,103,264) $ (12,801) (471,947) 173,430 (645,377) 306,045 247,653 58,392 11,406 15,838 (4,432) 65,530 9,017 56,513 $ (1,205,031) $ (657,326) $ (547,705) The City should continue to annually evaluate the status of each project to determine if the fund should be closed or if additional funding sources will be needed for deficits. Each deficit indicates a funding shortfall and all will eventually need to be eliminated either by future charges or by transfers from other funds. The deficit fund balance in the Park fund of $1,116,065 is due to a transfer out of $825,000 in 2011 to the Pedestrian Trail Ways to fund the project plan. The decrease in the 2013 Street Project fund is due to street improvement to Centerville road. The Revolving Street and Capital Equipment Revolving fund increase due to scheduled transfers in for future projects and equipment purchases. -9- lit o llc + i YOC:CSS ("OHI( I'(' thr Nutllbel-, Debt Service Funds Debt Service funds are a type of governmental fund to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of interest and principal on debt (other than enterprise fund debt). Debt Service funds may have one or a combination of the following revenue sources pledged to retire debt as follows: • Property taxes - Primarily for general City benefit projects such as parks and municipal buildings. Property taxes may also be used to fund special assessment bonds which are not fully assessed. • Tax increments - Pledged exclusively for tax increment/economic development districts. • Capitalized interest portion of bond proceeds - After the sale of bonds, the project may not produce revenue (tax increments or special assessments) for a period of one to two years. Bonds are issued with this timing difference considered in the form of capitalized interest. • Special assessments - Charges to benefited properties for various improvements. In addition to the above pledged assets, other funding sources may be received by Debt Service funds as follows: • Residual project proceeds from the related capital projects fund • Investment earnings • State or federal grants • Transfers from other funds A comparison of the assets of each fund and the remaining bonds outstanding at year end are as follows: Fund Cash and Temporary Total Investments Assets Bonds Outstanding Maturity 309 Joint Police Station 2012A $ 68,084 $ 73,886 $ 330,000 2021 348 G.O. Improvement Refunding 2015A 42,434 76,840 1,385,000 2025 349 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2011A 325,795 662,271 1,490,000 2019 351 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2009A 837,714 1,395,110 2,925,000 2025 352 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2013A 73,815 277,160 1,485,000 2029 Total $ 1,347,842 $ 2,485,267 $ 7,615,000 The following graph shows the next five years of principal and interest payments from the debt service funds: $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 ■ Principal ■ Interest -10- 2020 People + I YocesS, WWI 13eN011 a", \u l f1bet .s $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 Water Utility Cash Flow 2012 2012 Receipts Disbursements $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 2013 2013 Receipts 2014 2014 Receipts 2015 2015 Receipts Disbursements Disbursements Disbursements w Operating costs_ ■ Other (capital, interfund) ■ Operating receipts ' &Other (connections, intergovernmental, interest) _-1 Water Utility Cash Reserve Target 2012 2013 2014 2015 Unrestricted —*—Minimum target balance (35% of operating costs) Some of the items with significant changes are highlighted below: • Operating receipts (blue) were sufficient to cover operating costs (grey) with the exception of 2014, which was due to the City's share of a joint project totaling $310,961 being funded through the Water fund. • The Water fund received CDBG funds total roughly $422,000, which help offset some of the capital costs in the fund for 2014. • The cash balance has increased roughly $220,000 to do less capital costs incurred during the year. We recommend the City review rates annually to determine if operating revenues will cover operating costs and future projects. mo le -f- PrOCC5S, G, "'g -11- \UtiIbcI', $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $- Sewer Utility Cash Flow 2012 2012 Receipts 2013 2013 Receipts 2014 2014 Receipts 2015 2015 Receipts Disbursements Disbursements Disbursements Disbusements rs Operating costs ■ Other (capital, interfund) ■ Operating receipts ■ Other (connections, interfund, interest) 2012 2013 20I4 2015 Due from other funds $ 1,579,520 $ 1,191,917 $ 1,186,796 $ 1,281,598 Sewer Utility Cash Reserve Target $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 Unrestricted (Minimum target balance (35% of operating costs) Some of the items with significant changes are highlighted below: • Operating receipts (blue) were sufficient to cover operating costs (grey) with the exception of 2013. • The Sewer fund has a balance of $1,281,598 due from other funds. This is mostly funding the cash deficit in the Park fund and also funding the cash deficit in the 2013 Street Project fund. We recommend the City review rates annually to determine if operating revenues will cover operating costs and Beople future projects. + P 1 OCcSS, 13t���xtcl l�,r -12- \uit1ber., $]80,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 2012 2012 Receipts 2013 2013 Receipts 2014 2014 Receipts 2015 2015 Receipts Disbursements Disbursements Disbursements Disbursements — ^it Operating costs ■ Other (capital, interf ind) _ ■ Operating receipts _e Other (transfers, interest earnings) 2012 2013 2014 2015 Storm Water Utility Cash Flow Due to other funds $ 88,650 $ 66,980 $ 44,985 $ 22,660 Storm Water Utility Cash Reserve Target $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $130,947 $130,644 —_--- —^-- $125,112 ------------ ----- ---------- ---- $88,787 -- — --- 2012 2013 2014 2015 Unrestricted —fir --Minimum target balance (35% of operating costs) i Some of the items with significant changes are highlighted below: • Operating receipts (blue) were sufficient to cover operating costs (grey) the past four years. • The fund has been able to make the requirement payments on the due to other funds balance. This balance is scheduled to be eliminated in 2016. We recommend the City review rates annually to determine if operating revenues will cover operating costs and future projects. -n_ I JIV It, + I YoCCSS, doing -13- N111fi ers Ratio Analysis The following captures a few ratios from the City's financial statements that give some additional information for trend and peer group analysis. The peer group average is derived from information we requested from the Office of the State Auditor. Different peer group averages were used for Cities of the 0 class (population 2,500 –10,000). The majority of these ratios facilitate the use of economic resources focus and accrual basis of accounting at the government -wide level. A combination of liquidity (ability to pay its most immediate obligations), solvency (ability to pay its long-term obligations), funding (comparison of financial amounts and economic indicators to measure changes in financial capacity over time) and common -size (comparison of financial data with other cities regardless of size) ratios are shown below. Ratio Calculation Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Debt to assets Total liabilities/total assets Government -wide 31% 31% 31% 29% 28% 33% 33% 32% 32% N/A Debt per capita Bonded debt/population Government -wide $ 2,459 $ 2,310 $ 2,486 $ 2,200 $ 1,937 $ 2,826 $ 2,626 $2,656 $2,506 N/A Taxes per capita Tax revenues/population Government -wide $ 442 $ 456 $ 455 $ 440 $ 460 $ 500 $ 480 $ 487 $ 484 N/A Current expenditures per capita Governmental fund current Governmental funds $ 528 $ 526 $ 507 $ 493 $ 498 expenditures/population $ 640 $ 649 $ 634 $ 674 N/A Capital expenditures per capita Governmental fund capital Governmental funds $ 246 $ 33 $ 330 $ 129 $ 290 expenditures/population $ 229 $ 298 $ 294 $ 320 N/A Capital assets % left to Net capital assets/ Government -wide 79% 74% 72% 68% 65% depreciate - Governmental gross capital assets 64% 65% 64% 63% N/A Capital assets % left to Net capital assets/ Government -wide 69% 66% 64% 63% 60% depreciate - Business -type gross capital assets 65% 63% 63% 6/% N/A Represents the City of Centerville Represents Peer Group Average Debt -to -Assets Leverage Ratio (Solvency Ratio) The debt -to -assets leverage ratio is a comparison of a city's total liabilities to its total assets or the percentage of total assets that are provided by creditors. It indicates the degree to which the City's assets are financed through borrowings and other long-term obligations (i.e. a ratio of 50 percent would indicate half of the assets are financed with outstanding debt). Bonded Debt per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total bonded debt by the population of the city and represents the amount of bonded debt obligation for each citizen of the city at the end of the year. The higher the amount, the more resources are needed in the future to retire these obligations through taxes, assessments or user fees. Taxes per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total tax revenues by the population of the city and represents the amount of taxes for each citizen of the city for the year. The higher this amount is, the more reliant the city is on taxes to fund its operations. Current Expenditures per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total current governmental expenditures by the population of the City and represents the amount of governmental expenditure for each citizen of the City during the year. Since this is generally based on ongoing expenditures, we would expect consistent annual per capita results. ]A,ople .L 1).,, � —, -,milli; 13evol ld il'.. -14-11111 f)(T..�+ Capital Expenditures per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total governmental capital outlay expenditures by the population of the City and represents the amount of capital expenditure for each citizen of the City during the year. Since projects are not always recurring, the per capita amount will fluctuate from year to year. Capital Assets Percentage (Common -size Ratio) This percentage represents the percent of governmental or business -type capital assets that are left to be depreciated. The lower this percentage, the older the city's capital assets are and may need major repairs or replacements in the near future. A higher percentage may indicate newer assets being constructed or purchased and may coincide with higher debt ratios or bonded debt per capita. Future Accounting Standard Changes The following Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements have been issued and may have an impact on future the City financial statements: (1) GASB Statement No. 72 - Fair Value Measurement and Application Summary This statement addresses accounting and financial reporting issues related to fair value measurements. The definition of fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. This Statement provides guidance for determining a fair value measurement for financial reporting purposes. This Statement also provides guidance for applying fair value to certain investments and disclosures related to all fair value measurements. Effective Date and Transition The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements of this Statement will enhance comparability of financial statements among governments by requiring measurement of certain assets and liabilities at fair value using a consistent and more detailed definition of fair value and accepted valuation techniques. This Statement also will enhance fair value application guidance and related disclosures in order to provide information to financial statement users about the impact of fair value measurements on a government's financial position. GASB Statement No. 73 - Accounting and financial reporting for pension and related assets that are not within the scope of GASB Statement No. 68, and amendments to certain provisions of GASB Statements No. 67 and No. 68 Summary The objective of this Statement is to improve the usefulness of information about pensions included in the general purpose external financial reports of state and local governments for making decisions and assessing accountability. This Statement results from a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of existing standards of accounting and financial reporting for all postemployment benefits with regard to providing decision -useful information, supporting assessments of accountability and interperiod equity, and creating additional transparency. This Statement establishes requirements for defined benefit pensions that are not within the scope of Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, as well as for the assets accumulated for purposes of providing those pensions. In addition, it establishes requirements for defined contribution pensions that are not within the scope of Statement 68. It also amends certain provisions of Statement No. 67, Financial Reporting for Pension Plans, and Statement 68 for pension plans and pensions that are within their respective scopes. -15- People + Process. G0111" \utilher> Future Accounting Standard Changes - Continued The requirements of this Statement extend the approach to accounting and financial reporting established in Statement 68 to all pensions, with modifications as necessary to reflect that for accounting and financial reporting purposes, any assets accumulated for pensions that are provided through pension plans that are not administered through trusts that meet the criteria specified in Statement 68 should not be considered pension plan assets. It also requires that information similar to that required by Statement 68 be included in notes to financial statements and required supplementary information by all similarly situated employers and nonemployer contributing entities. This Statement also clarifies the application of certain provisions of Statements 67 and 68 with regard to the following issues: Information that is required to be presented as notes to the 10 -year schedules of required supplementary information about investment -related factors that significantly affect trends in the amounts reported. 2. Accounting and financial reporting for separately financed specific liabilities of individual employers and nonemployer contributing entities for defined benefit pensions. 3. Timing of employer recognition of revenue for the support of nonemployer contributing entities not in a special funding situation. Effective Date and Transition The requirements of this Statement that address accounting and financial reporting by employers and governmental nonemployer contributing entities for pensions that are not within the scope of Statement 68 are effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2016, and the requirements of this Statement that address financial reporting for assets accumulated for purposes of providing those pensions are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2015. The requirements of this Statement for pension plans that are within the scope of Statement 67 or for pensions that are within the scope of Statement 68 are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements of this Statement will improve financial reporting by establishing a single framework for the presentation of information about pensions, which will enhance the comparability of pension -related information reported by employers and nonemployer contributing entities. GASB Statement No. 74 - Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other than Pension Plans Summary The objective of this Statement is to improve the usefulness of information about postemployment benefits other than pensions (other postemployment benefits or OPEB) included in the general purpose external financial reports of state and local governmental OPEB plans for making decisions and assessing accountability. This Statement results from a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of existing standards of accounting and financial reporting for all postemployment benefits (pensions and OPEB) with regard to providing decision -useful information, supporting assessments of accountability and interperiod equity, and creating additional transparency. This Statement replaces Statements No. 43, Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other Than Pension Plans, as amended, and No. 57, OPEB Measurements by Agent Employers and Agent Multiple -Employer Plans. It also includes requirements for defined contribution OPEB plans that replace the requirements for those OPEB plans in Statement No. 25, Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans, as amended, Statement 43, and Statement No. 50, Pension Disclosures. Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions, establishes new accounting and financial reporting requirements for governments whose employees are provided with OPEB, as well as for certain nonemployer governments that have a legal obligation to provide financial support for OPEB provided to the employees of other entities. -16- People + Process GA )1119; BeN't 1110 a". Nu I i I I )c)-, Future Accounting Standard Changes - Continued The scope of this Statement includes OPEB plans -defined benefit and defined contribution -administered through trusts that meet the following criteria: • Contributions from employers and nonemployer contributing entities to the OPEB plan and earnings on those contributions are irrevocable. • OPEB plan assets are dedicated to providing OPEB to plan members in accordance with the benefit terms. • OPEB plan assets are legally protected from the creditors of employers, nonemployer contributing entities, and the OPEB plan administrator. If the plan is a defined benefit OPEB plan, plan assets also are legally protected from creditors of the plan members. This Statement also includes requirements to address financial reporting for assets accumulated for purposes of providing defined benefit OPEB through OPEB plans that are not administered through trusts that meet the specified criteria. Effective Date and Transition This Statement is effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2016. Earlier application is encouraged. How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements of this Statement will improve financial reporting primarily through enhanced note disclosures and schedules of required supplementary information that will be presented by OPEB plans that are administered through trusts that meet the specified criteria. The new information will enhance the decision -usefulness of the financial reports of those OPEB plans, their value for assessing accountability, and their transparency by providing information about measures of net OPEB liabilities and explanations of how and why those liabilities changed from year to year. The net OPEB liability information, including ratios, will offer an up-to-date indication of the extent to which the total OPEB liability is covered by the fiduciary net position of the OPEB plan. The comparability of the reported information for similar types of OPEB plans will be improved by the changes related to the attribution method used to determine the total OPEB liability. The contribution schedule will provide measures to evaluate decisions related to the assessment of contribution rates in comparison with actuarially determined rates, if such rates are determined. In addition, new information about rates of return on OPEB plan investments will inform financial report users about the effects of market conditions on the OPEB plan's assets over time and provide information for users to assess the relative success of the OPEB plan's investment strategy and the relative contribution that investment earnings provide to the OPEB plan's ability to pay benefits to plan members when they come due. GASB Statement No. 75 - Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other than Pension Summary The primary objective of this Statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting by state and local governments for postemployment benefits other than pensions (other postemployment benefits or OPEB). It also improves information provided by state and local governmental employers about financial support for OPEB that is provided by other entities. This Statement results from a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of existing standards of accounting and financial reporting for all postemployment benefits (pensions and OPEB) with regard to providing decision -useful information, supporting assessments of accountability and interperiod equity, and creating additional transparency. This Statement replaces the requirements of Statements No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions, as amended, and No. 57, OPEB Measurements by Agent Employers and Agent Multiple -Employer Plans, for OPEB. Statement No. 74, Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other than Pension Plans, establishes new accounting and financial reporting requirements for OPEB plans. The scope of this Statement addresses accounting and financial reporting for OPEB that is provided to the employees of state and local governmental employers. This Statement establishes standards for recognizing and measuring liabilities, deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of resources, and expense/expenditures. For defined benefit OPEB, this Statement identifies the methods and assumptions that are required to be used to project benefit payments, discount projected benefit payments to their actuarial present value, and attribute that present value to periods of I3E'ople employee service. Note disclosure and required supplementary information requirements about defined benefit -j- I`l'pCCSS OPEB also are addressed. Going r -17- ViInbel" Future Accounting Standard Changes - Continued In addition, this Statement details the recognition and disclosure requirements for employers with payables to defined benefit OPEB plans that are administered through trusts that meet the specified criteria and for employers whose employees are provided with defined contribution OPEB. This Statement also addresses certain circumstances in which a nonemployer entity provides financial support for OPEB of employees of another entity. In this Statement, distinctions are made regarding the particular requirements depending upon whether the OPEB plans through which the benefits are provided are administered through trusts that meet the following criteria: • Contributions from employers and nonemployer contributing entities to the OPEB plan and earnings on those contributions are irrevocable. • OPEB plan assets are dedicated to providing OPEB to plan members in accordance with the benefit terms. OPEB plan assets are legally protected from the creditors of employers, nonemployer contributing entities, the OPEB plan administrator, and the plan members. Effective Date This Statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2017. Earlier application is encouraged. How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements of this Statement will improve the decision -usefulness of information in employer and governmental nonemployer contributing entity financial reports and will enhance its value for assessing accountability and interperiod equity by requiring recognition of the entire OPEB liability and a more comprehensive measure of OPEB expense. Decision -usefulness and accountability also will be enhanced through new note disclosures and required supplementary information, as follows: • More robust disclosures of assumptions will allow for better informed assessments of the reasonableness of OPEB measurements. • Explanations of how and why the OPEB liability changed from year to year will improve transparency. • The summary OPEB liability information, including ratios, will offer an indication of the extent to which the total OPEB liability is covered by resources held by the OPEB plan, if any. • For employers that provide benefits through OPEB plans that are administered through trusts that meet the specified criteria, the contribution schedules will provide measures to evaluate decisions related to contributions. The consistency, comparability, and transparency of the information reported by employers and governmental nonemployer contributing entities about OPEB transactions will be improved by requiring: • The use of a discount rate that considers the availability of the OPEB plan's fiduciary net position associated with the OPEB of current active and inactive employees and the investment horizon of those resources, rather than utilizing only the long-term expected rate of return regardless of whether the OPEB plan's fiduciary net position is projected to be sufficient to make projected benefit payments and is expected to be invested using a strategy to achieve that return. • A single method of attributing the actuarial present value of projected benefit payments to periods of employee service, rather than allowing a choice among six methods with additional variations. • Immediate recognition in OPEB expense, rather than a choice of recognition periods, of the effects of changes of benefit terms. • Recognition of OPEB expense that incorporates deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB over a defined, closed period, rather than a choice between an open or closed period. -18- Future Accounting Standard Changes - Continued GASB Statement No. 76 - The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for State and Local Governments Summary The objective of this Statement is to identify -in the context of the current governmental financial reporting environment -the hierarchy of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The "GAAP hierarchy" consists of the sources of accounting principles used to prepare financial statements of state and local governmental entities in conformity with GAAP and the framework for selecting those principles. This Statement reduces the GAAP hierarchy to two categories of authoritative GAAP and addresses the use of authoritative and nonauthoritative literature in the event that the accounting treatment for a transaction or other event is not specified within a source of authoritative GAAP. This Statement supersedes Statement No. 55, The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for State and Local Governments. Effective Date The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2015, and should be applied retroactively. Earlier application is permitted. How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements in this Statement improve financial reporting by (1) raising the category of GASB Implementation Guides in the GAAP hierarchy, thus providing the opportunity for broader public input on implementation guidance; (2) emphasizing the importance of analogies to authoritative literature when the accounting treatment for an event is not specified in authoritative GAAP; and (3) requiring the consideration of consistency with the GASB Concepts Statements when evaluating accounting treatments specified in nonauthoritative literature. As a result, governments will apply financial reporting guidance with less variation, which will improve the usefulness of financial statement information for making decisions and assessing accountability and enhance the comparability of financial statement information among governments. GASB Statement No. 77 - Tax Abatement Disclosures Summary Financial statements prepared by state and local governments in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles provide citizens and taxpayers, legislative and oversight bodies, municipal bond analysts, and others with information they need to evaluate the financial health of governments, make decisions, and assess accountability. This information is intended, among other things, to assist these users of financial statements in assessing (1) whether a government's current -year revenues were sufficient to pay for current -year services (known as interperiod equity), (2) whether a government complied with finance -related legal and contractual obligations, (3) where a government's financial resources come from and how it uses them, and (4) a government's financial position and economic condition and how they have changed over time. Financial statement users need information about certain limitations on a government's ability to raise resources. This includes limitations on revenue -raising capacity resulting from government programs that use tax abatements to induce behavior by individuals and entities that is beneficial to the government or its citizens. Tax abatements are widely used by state and local governments, particularly to encourage economic development. For financial reporting purposes, this Statement defines a tax abatement as resulting from an agreement between a government and an individual or entity in which the government promises to forgo tax revenues and the individual or entity promises to subsequently take a specific action that contributes to economic development or otherwise benefits the government or its citizens. Although many governments offer tax abatements and provide information to the public about them, they do not always provide the information necessary to assess how tax abatements affect their financial position and results of operations, including their ability to raise resources in the future. This Statement requires disclosure of tax abatement information about (1) a reporting government's own tax abatement agreements and (2) those that are entered into by other governments and that reduce the reporting government's tax revenues. _19 - People + l roceSS at)II lrr I 3evi id Ihr iL1111ber s- Future Accounting Standard Changes - Continued This Statement requires governments that enter into tax abatement agreements to disclose the following information about the agreements: • Brief descriptive information, such as the tax being abated, the authority under which tax abatements are provided, eligibility criteria, the mechanism by which taxes are abated, provisions for recapturing abated taxes, and the types of commitments made by tax abatement recipients. • The gross dollar amount of taxes abated during the period. • Commitments made by a government, other than to abate taxes, as part of a tax abatement agreement. Governments should organize those disclosures by major tax abatement program and may disclose information for individual tax abatement agreements within those programs. Tax abatement agreements of other governments should be organized by the government that entered into the tax abatement agreement and the specific tax being abated. Governments may disclose information for individual tax abatement agreements of other governments within the specific tax being abated. For those tax abatement agreements, a reporting government should disclose: • The names of the governments that entered into the agreements. • The specific taxes being abated. • The gross dollar amount of taxes abated during the period. Effective Date and Transition The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements of this Statement improve financial reporting by giving users of financial statements essential information that is not consistently or comprehensively reported to the public at present. Disclosure of information about the nature and magnitude of tax abatements will make these transactions more transparent to financial statement users. As a result, users will be better equipped to understand (1) how tax abatements affect a government's future ability to raise resources and meet its financial obligations and (2) the impact those abatements have on a government's financial position and economic condition. GASB Statement No. 78 - Pension Provided Through Certain Multiple -Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plans Summary The objective of this Statement is to address a practice issue regarding the scope and applicability of Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions. This issue is associated with pensions provided through certain multiple - employer defined benefit pension plans and to state or local governmental employers whose employees are provided with such pensions. Prior to the issuance of this Statement, the requirements of Statement 68 applied to the financial statements of all state and local governmental employers whose employees are provided with pensions through pension plans that are administered through trusts that meet the criteria in paragraph 4 of that Statement. This Statement amends the scope and applicability of Statement 68 to exclude pensions provided to employees of state or local governmental employers through a cost-sharing multiple -employer defined benefit pension plan that (1) is not a state or local governmental pension plan, (2) is used to provide defined benefit pensions both to employees of state or local governmental employers and to employees of employers that are not state or local governmental employers, and (3) has no predominant state or local governmental employer (either individually or collectively with other state or local governmental employers that provide pensions throughthe pension plan). This Statement establishes Peoplele requirements for recognition and measurement of pension expense, expenditures, and liabilities; note +oce S . disclosures; and required supplementary information for pensions that have the characteristics described above. i3t�ut ui ��„• -20- \utilbers Future Accounting Standard Changes - Continued Effective Date The requirements of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. GASB Statement No. 79 - Certain External Investment Pools and Pool Participants Summary This Statement addresses accounting and financial reporting for certain external investment pools and pool participants. Specifically, it establishes criteria for an external investment pool to qualify for making the election to measure all of its investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes. An external investment pool qualifies for that reporting if it meets all of the applicable criteria established in this Statement. The specific criteria address (1) how the external investment pool transacts with participants; (2) requirements for portfolio maturity, quality, diversification, and liquidity; and (3) calculation and requirements of a shadow price. Significant noncompliance prevents the external investment pool from measuring all of its investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes. Professional judgment is required to determine if instances of noncompliance with the criteria established by this Statement during the reporting period, individually or in the aggregate, were significant. If an external investment pool does not meet the criteria established by this Statement, that pool should apply the provisions in paragraph 16 of Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools, as amended. If an external investment pool meets the criteria in this Statement and measures all of its investments at amortized cost, the pool's participants also should measure their investments in that external investment pool at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes. If an external investment pool does not meet the criteria in this Statement, the pool's participants should measure their investments in that pool at fair value, as provided in paragraph 11 of Statement 31, as amended. This Statement establishes additional note disclosure requirements for qualifying external investment pools that measure all of their investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes and for governments that participate in those pools. Those disclosures for both the qualifying external investment pools and their participants include information about any limitations or restrictions on participant withdrawals. Effective Date The requirements of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2015, except for the provisions in paragraphs 18, 19, 23-26, and 40, which are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. now the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting This Statement will enhance comparability of financial statements among governments by establishing specific criteria used to determine whether a qualifying external investment pool may elect to use an amortized cost exception to fair value measurement. Those criteria will provide qualifying external investment pools and participants in those pools with consistent application of an amortized cost -based measurement for financial reporting purposes. That measurement approximates fair value and mirrors the operations of external investment pools that transact with participants at a stable net asset value per share. (1) Note. From GASB Pronouncements Summaries. Copyright 2015 by the Financial Accounting Foundation, 401 Merritt 7, Norwalk, CT 06856, USA, and is reproduced with permission. -21- 1-6" le G0111" I3t�,c�nd ci„� Nutiil�i>> Restriction on Use This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council, management and the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor and is not intended and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. Our audit would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system because it was based on selected tests of the accounting records and related data. The comments and recommendations in the report are purely constructive in nature, and should be read in this context. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the items contained in this letter, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. We wish to thank you for the continued opportunity to be of service and for the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by your staff. ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota April 4, 2016 dxA hl' )T)IP + i roveSS (10in(; 1 I )(Miff u l hr City of Centerville Centerville, Minnesota For the Year Ended December 31, 2015 }r ABDO EICK & `7— M■ � 1 ERS LL[� s-. Grrtifwd Public .Amounlants K Gormullants THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 INTRODUCTORY SECTION Elected and Appointed Officials Page No. FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 9 Management's Discussion and Analysis 13 Basic Financial Statements Government -wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Position 27 Statement of Activities 28 Fund Financial Statements Governmental Funds Balance Sheet 32 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position 35 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 36 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities 38 General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual 39 Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position 40 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position 43 Statement of Cash Flows 44 Notes to the Financial Statements 47 Required Supplementary Information Schedule of Employer's Share of Public Employees Retirement Association Net Pension Liability - General Employees Retirement Fund 70 Schedule of Employer's Public Employees Retirement Association Contributions - General Employees Retirement Fund 70 Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet 72 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 73 General Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual 75 Debt Service Funds Combining Balance Sheet 80 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 82 Summary Financial Report Revenues and Expenditures for General Operations - Governmental Funds 84 OTHER REQUIRED REPORT Independent Auditor's Report on Minnesota Legal Compliance se 87 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -2- INTRODUCTORY SECTION CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 -3- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -4- Name Thomas Wilharber Steve King Ben Fehrenbacher Jeff Paar D. Love Mike Ericson Teresa Bender Ellie Paulseth CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 ELECTED Title Mayor Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member APPOINTED City Administrator City Clerk Finance Director 515 Term Expires 01/03/17 01/01/19 01/02/17 01/02/17 01/01/19 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -6- FINANCIAL SECTION CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 -7- 1 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -s- .a ABDO 4EICK& VMMRS LLP Certified Pablic Acwuruants & Consultants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT P Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Centerville, Minnesota Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Centerville, Minnesota (the City), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the City's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of December 31, 2015, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof and the respective budgetary comparison for the General fund for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 5201 Eden Avenue, Wile 250 Edina, MN 55436 _ 952.835.9090 1 Fox 952.835 3261 -9 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -10- Change in Accounting Standards As described in Note 7 to the financial statements, the City adopted the provisions of Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions - an Amendment of GASB Statement No. 27 and Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date - an Amendment of GASB Statement No. 68, for the year ended December 31, 2015. Adoption of the provisions of these statements results in significant change to the classifications of the components of the financial statements. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's Discussion and Analysis on page 13 and the Schedule of Employer's Shares of the Net Pension Liability and the Schedule of Employer's Contributions on page 70 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements. The introductory section and the combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. The introductory section has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota April 4, 2016 -11- People + I YOoeSS . G{ )I11 N -N -011d Ihr Nudtbe , THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -12- Management's Discussion and Analysis As management of the City of Centerville, Minnesota, (the City), we offer readers of the City's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Financial Highlights • The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflow of resources at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $21,064,577 (net position). Of this amount, $4,717,663 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. • The City's total net position decreased $395,579. A further breakdown of net position is chronicled under Government wide financial statement analysis. • At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance for the General fund was $1,167,292, or 59.7 percent of total 2015 General fund expenditures. • The City's total debt decreased $647,171, during the current fiscal year. The decrease was mainly due to regularly scheduled debt payments. -13- Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government -wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This analysis contains other supplemental information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. The financial statements also include notes that explain some of the information in the financial statements and provide more detailed data. The statements are followed by a section of combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules that further explains and supports the information in the financial statements. Figure 1 shows how the required parts of this annual report are arranged and relate to one another. In addition to these required elements, we have included a section with combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules that provide details about nonmajor governmental funds, which are added together and presented in single columns in the basic financial statements. Figure 1 Required Components of the City's Annual Financial Report .......................................................... Management's Basic Required Discussion and Financial Supplementary Analysis I Statements Information Government- Fund Notes to the wide Financial Financial Financial Statements I I Statements Statements Summary Detail -14- Figure 2 summarizes the major features of the City's financial statements, including the portion of the City government they cover and the types of information they contain. The remainder of this overview section of management's discussion and analysis explains the structure and contents of each of the statements. Figure 2 Major features of the Government -wide and Fund Financial Statements Government -wide financial statements. The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private -sector business. The statement of net position presents information on all of the City's assets, deferred inflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources with the difference being reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the City's net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cashflows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government -wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenue (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business -type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public works, economic development, culture and recreation, and interest on long-term debt. The business - type activities of the City include water, sewer, and storm water. The government -wide financial statements start on page 27 of this report. -15- Fund Financial Statements Government -wide Statements Governmental Funds Proprietary Funds Scope Entire City government (except The activities of the City that are Activities the City operates fiduciary funds) and the City's not proprietary or fiduciary, such similar to private businesses, component units as police, fire and parks such as the water and sewer system Required financial • Statement of Net Position • Balance Sheet • Statements of Net statements . Statement of Activities • Statement of Revenues, Position Expenditures, and Changes in • Statements of Revenues, Fund Balances Expenses and Changes in Net Position • Statements of Cash Flows Accounting Basis and Accrual accounting and Modified accrual accounting and Accrual accounting and measurement focus economic resources focus current financial resources focus economic resources focus Type of asset/liability All assets and liabilities, both Only assets expected to be used All assets and liabilities, both information financial and capital, and short- up and liabilities that come due financial and capital, and term and long-term during the year or soon thereafter; short-term and long-term no capital assets included Type of deferred All deferred inflows of Only deferred inflows of All deferred inflows of Inflows of resources resources, regardless of when resources that come due during resources, regardless of when Information cash is received or paid the year or soon thereafter; no cash is received or paid capital assets included Type of inflow/out All revenues and expenses Revenues for which cash is All revenues and expenses flow information during year, regardless of when received during or soon after the during the year, regardless of cash is received or paid end of the year; expenditures when cash is received or paid when goods or services have been received and payment is due during the year or soon thereafter Government -wide financial statements. The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private -sector business. The statement of net position presents information on all of the City's assets, deferred inflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources with the difference being reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the City's net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cashflows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government -wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenue (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business -type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public works, economic development, culture and recreation, and interest on long-term debt. The business - type activities of the City include water, sewer, and storm water. The government -wide financial statements start on page 27 of this report. -15- Fund financial statements. Afund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other State and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: governmental funds and proprietary funds. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. However, unlike the government -wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government -wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact by the government's near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City maintains 12 individual governmental funds, five of which are Debt Service funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for the General, Debt Service, Park and 2013 Street Project funds. Data from the other four non -major governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non -major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements or schedules elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General fund. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for the General fund to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements start on page 32 of this report. Proprietaryfund. The City maintains one type of proprietary fund. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business -type activities in the government -wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its water, sewer and storm water. The proprietary fund provides the same type of information as the government -wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for each of the enterprise funds. The basic proprietary fund financial statements start on page 40 of this report. Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government -wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements start on page 47 of this report. Other information. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non -major governmental funds are presented following the notes to the financial statements. Combining and individual fund statements and schedules start on page 72 of this report. -16- Government -wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City, assets exceeded liabilities by $21,064,577 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. By far, the largest portion of the City's net position ( 66 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery and equipment); less any related debt used to acquire those assets that are still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. Assets Current and other assets Capital assets Total assets Deferred outflows of resources Deferred pension resources Liabilities Noncurrent liabilities outstanding Other liabilities Total liabilities Deferred outflows of resources Deferred pension resources City of Centerville's Summary of Net position Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Increase Increase 2015 2014 (Decrease) 2015 2014 (Decrease) $ 2,694,410 $ 4,111,423 $ (1,417,013) $ 5,212,075 $ 4,322,341 $ 889,734 14,844,955 15,616,337 (771,382) 6,713,084 7,042,412 (329,328) 17,539,365 19,727,760 (2,188,395) 11,925,159 11,364,753 560,406 36,129 - 36,129 14,572 - 14,572 7,959,225 8,728,978 (769,753) 139,269 16,687 122,582 240,076 376,643 (136,567) 11,521 25,458 (13,937) 8,199,301 9,105,621 (906,320) 150,790 42,145 108,645 71,656 - 71,656 28,901 - 28,901 Net position Net investment in capital assets 7,229,955 6,921,337 308,618 6,713,084 7,042,412 (329,328) Restricted for Debt service 2,376,939 2,969,448 (592,509) - - Street projects - 165,065 (165,065) - - - Cable TV 26,936 20,403 6,533 - - - Unrestricted (329,293) 545,886 (875,179) 5,046,956 4,280,196 766,760 Total net position_$ 9,304,537 $10,622,139 $(1,317,6021 $11,760,040 $11,322,608 $ 437,432 An additional portion of the City's net position (11.4 percent) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position ($4,717,663) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net position for the City as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business -type activities with the exemption of unrestricted net position for governmental activities. The same situation held true for the prior year. -17- Governmental activities. Governmental activities decreased the City's net position by $970,036. Key elements of this decrease are as follows: • Public works expenditures increased $770,429 from the prior year due to expenses related to a cost share agreement with Anoka County for the improvements to Centerville road. • Gain on sale of capital assets decreased $171,268 from the prior year relating to the sale of old public works site in 2014. Revenues Program revenues Charges for services Operating grants and contributions Capital grants and contributions General revenues Taxes Property taxes/tax increments Property taxes, levied for debt service Other taxes Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs Unrestricted investment earnings Gain on sale of capital assets Total revenues Expenses General government Public safety Public works Culture and recreation Interest on long-term debt Water Sewer Storm Water Total expenses Change in net position City of Centerville's Changes in Net position Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Increase Increase 2015 2014 (Decrease) 2015 2014 (Decrease) $ 352,896 $ 325,007 $ 27,889 $ 862,656 $ 815,029 $ 47,627 125,643 130,617 (4,974) 9,945 9,945 - 179,664 139,381 40,283 522,149 700,282 (178,133) 1,800,648 1,734,708 65,940 - - - 591,496 531,574 59,922 - - 6,752 3,123 3,629 - - - 61,999 54,875 7,124 - - - 29,336 33,080 (3,744) 49,385 52,169 (2,784) 16,109 187,377 (171,268) - - - 3,164,543 3,139,742 24,801 1,444,135 1,577,425 (133,290) 479,175 397,951 81,224 - - - 1,113,185 1,068,879 44,306 - - - 2,002,860 1,232,431 770,429 - - - 236,418 203,022 33,396 - - - 302,941 306,499 (3,558) - - - - - - 353,091 749,629 (396,538) - - - 433,338 418,082 15,256 - - - 83,249 82,109 1,140 4,134,579 3,208,782 925,797 869,678 1,249,820 (380,142) (970,036) (69,040) (900,996) 574,457 327,605 246,852 Net position, January 1 as restated (Note 7) 10,274,573 10,691,179 (416,606) 11,185,583 10,995,003 190,580 Net position, December 31 $ 9,304,537 $10,622,139 $ (1,317,602) $11,760,040 $11,322,608 $ 437,432 * GASB Statement No. 68 was implemented for the year ended December 31, 2015 and required a restatement of beginning governmental and business -type activity net position. Prior year amounts were not restated causing a variance in ending net position at December 31, 2014 and beginning net position on January 1, 2015. See Note 7. -18- The following graph depicts various governmental activities and shows the program revenues and expenses directly related to those activities. $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Expenses and Program Revenues - Governmental Activities General Public safety Public works Culture and Economic Interest on long - government recreation development term debt Capital grants and contributions 700/. Operating gra contributi, 4.9% Charges for s 13.8% Unrestricted i eamin 1.1°i G not restricted 2.4% r_-■-`Prog--ram revenues ■ Expenses Revenues by Source - Governmental Activities -19- Taxes 70.8% Business -type activities. Business -type activities increased the City's net position by $574,457. Key elements of this increase are as follows: $900,000 $800,000 $ 700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 Expenses and Program Revenues - Business -type Activities Capita con Water Sewer Storm water ■ Program revenues ■ Expenses Revenues by Source - Business -type Activities Investment A further breakdown of expenses is shown below: Charges for services 60.2% -20- Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Increase Increase 2015 2014 (Decrease) 2015 2014 (Decrease) Personnel costs $ 526,547 $ 560,942 $ (34,395) $ 204,596 $ 196,411 $ 8,185 Supplies 36,748 34,439 2,309 23,324 95,734 (72,410) Other charges for services 1,392,144 1,352,432 39,712 641,083 956,670 (315,587) Capital outlay 1,140,077 509,231 630,846 - - - Total $ 3,095,516 $ 2,457,044 $ 638,472 $ 869,003 $ 1,248,815 $ (379,812) -20- Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal requirements. Governmental funds. The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. Activity in the City's major governmental funds is discussed below: Fund Balance December 31, Increase Major Funds 2015 2014 (Decrease) General $ 1,169,065 $ 1,319,013 $ (149,948) The General fund balance has decreased from 2014 and is healthily moving into The fund transferred out $498,000 during the year. Debt Service $ 1,369,769 $ 1,799,549 $ (429,780) The Debt Service fund decreased $429,780. The City manages cash flow in all Debt Service funds and ensures adequate resources exist to fund future obligations. Park $ (1,116,065) $ (1,103,264) $ (12,801) The Park fund balance decreased $12,801 from the previous year, Which is due to interest paid on the interfund loan. 2013 Street Nojeet $ (471,947) $ 173,430 $ (645,377) The 2013 Street Project fund decreased $645,377 from 2014 due to capital outlay expenditures related to a joint project with Anoka County for street improvements. As of the end of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $1,360,739, a decrease of $1,120,900 in comparison with the prior year. A deficit fund balance $420,720 constitutes unassigned fund balance. The remainder of fund balance ($1,781,459) is not available for spending because it is either: 1) nonspendable ($22,755), 2) restricted ($1,375,723, or 3) assigned ($382,981) for the purposes described in the fund balance section of each balance sheet. Proprietary funds. The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government -wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position of the enterprise funds at the end of the year amounted to $5,046,956. The total increase in net position for the funds was $574,457. Other factors concerning the finances of this fund have already been addressed in the discussion of the City's business -type activities. General Fund Budgetary Highlights The City's General fund budget was not amended during the year. Revenues had a positive budget variance of $58,132 and expenditures had positive budget variance of $33,920. Overall the General fund had a net negative budget variance of $149,948. Some of the significant variances can be briefly summarized as follows: • Total revenue had a positive budget variance of $58,132. All revenue categories had positive variances, except for fines and forfeitures and special assessments. • Total expenditures had a positive budget variance of $33,920. Total general government, public safety and public works expenditures were under budget by a total of $23,290, $12,473 and $7,700, respectively. • The city also transferred $498,000 from the General fund to other funds, which was $242,000 more than budget. City Council approved a transfer of $242,000 which was authorized to fund expenditures associated with the Centerville Road Reconstruction Project. -21- Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business -type activities as of December 31, 2015, amounts to $21,558,039 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, structures, improvements, machinery and equipment, park facilities, roads, highways and bridges. Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following: The 2013 street and utility project was completed. • The Royal Meadows watermain improvement project was completed. The City made improvements to the Thin Bituminous Overlay and other road improvements Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 3B starting on page 57 of this report. City of Centerville's Capital Assets (net of depreciation) Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Increase Increase 2015 2014 (Decrease) 2015 2014 (Decrease) Land $ 3,157,823 $ 3,179,023 $ (21,200) $ 200,655 $ 200,655 $ - Construction in progress - 1,320,356 (1,320,356) - 705,124 (705,124) Buildings 823,112 860,402 (37,290) 348,450 356,730 (8,280) Infrastructure 10,635,735 9,952,484 683,251 6,127,023 5,712,861 414,162 Machinery and equipment 228,285 304,072 (75,787) 36,956 67,042 (30,086) Total $14,844,955 $15,616,337 $ (771,382) $ 6,713,084 $ 7,042,412 $ (329,328) Street maintenance program. Beginning in 2012 the City began annually accumulating funds for a street maintenance program that will consist of mill and overlay to each segment of street in the city, at approximately every twelve year intervals. The initial construction program began in 2014 to be paid from funds accumulated in a revolving improvement account. A minimal special assessment of around $500 per residential lot will cover approximately 20 percent of the cost, which combined with the City levy contribution each year, should sustain the program. Each year going forward, a similar project is anticipated. Equipment funding. In 2012, the City Council approved as part of the budget, a capital replacement program for equipment and other assets that have predictable replacement cycles. All major street equipment, building roofs, carpets and similar items will be funded through an equipment replacement fund that will be sustained by an annual levy. Likewise, the enterprise funds have identified equipment and other assets that need periodic upgrading and replacement. Sufficient retained earnings will be protected to allow these repairs/replacements to be completed without incurring debt. -22- Long-term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded debt outstanding of $7,615,000. While all of the City's bonds have revenue streams, they are all backed by the full faith and credit of the City. City of Centerville's Outstanding Debt Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Increase Increase 2015 2014 (Decrease) 2015 2014 (Decrease) General obligation bonds $ 7,615,000 $ 8,695,000 $ (1,080,000) $ - $ - $ - Compensated absences payable 37,703 33,978 3,725 15,642 16,687 (1,045) Pension liability 306,522 - 306,522 123,627 - 123,627 Total $_7,.959 225 $ 8,728,978 $ (769,753) $ 139,269 $ 16,687 $ 122,582 Minnesota statutes limit the amount of net general obligation debt a City may issue to 3 percent of the market value of taxable property within the City. Net debt is debt payable solely from ad valorem taxes. The taxable market value totals $320,597,000 which calculates to a debt margin of $9,617,910. Debt financed partially or entirely by special assessments is not applied against the City's debt limit, nor is debt financed by proprietary fund revenues. Currently the City has $330,000 of general obligation debt outstanding leaving a debt margin of $9,287,910. Additional information on the City's long-term debt can be found in Note 3D starting on page 60 of this report. Economic Factors and Next Year's Budgets and Rates The area economy continues to show signs of improvement. Property values for taxes payable in 2016 increased by 2.7%. The City's net tax capacity increased 2.9% for taxes payable in 2016. The City increased its property tax levy by 7 percent for taxes payable in 2016 and tax capacity rates increased 6.9% as a result. Most taxpayers realized an increase in City property taxes as a result of the increased value of their properties, the increased City levy, and a 9.2% decrease in the distribution from the fiscal disparities pool. The City's General Fund budget increased for fiscal year 2016 by 7.5%; however, the General Fund tax levy increased 9.4%. The increase in General Fund expenditures, in the amount of $167,579, was primarily related to increases in public safety expenditures. The City's policing contract with the Centennial Lakes Police Department increased 11.2% for 2016. The fire protection contract with Centennial Fire increased 7% due to a reorganization of the fire district, as Lino Lakes ended its relationship with the district. Other factors affecting the 2016 General Fund budget include a 2.5% cost -of -living increase on employee wages and an 11% increase in legal fees related to prosecution. The debt service levy remains level at $591,000 for taxes payable in 2016. Requests for Information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all parties interested. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the City Administrator, City of Centerville, 1880 Main Street, Centerville, Minnesota, 55038. *1! THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -24- GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 -25- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -26- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION DECEMBER 31, 2015 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets Governmental Business -type Restricted for Activities Activities Total ASSETS Cable TV 26,936 - 26,936 Cash and temporary investments $ 2,774,013 $ 2,657,794 $ 5,431,807 Receivables $ 21,064,577 Accrued interest 5,920 5,672 11,592 Taxes 57,193 - 57,193 Accounts 11,870 165,791 177,661 Special assessments 1,153,746 992,139 2,145,885 Due from other governments 27,851 9,945 37,796 Internal balances (1,358,938) 1,358,938 - Inventories - 4,619 4,619 Prepaid items 22,755 17,177 39,932 Capital assets Land and construction and progress 3,157,823 200,655 3,358,478 Depreciable assets (net of accumulated depreciation) 11,687,132 6,512,429 18,199,561 TOTAL ASSETS 17,539,365 11,925,159 29,464,524 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred pension resources 36,129 14,572 50,701 LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable 47,061 4,417 51,478 Accrued salaries payable 1,126 2,371 3,497 Due to other governments 11,783 4,733 16,516 Accrued interest payable 100,799 - 100,799 Deposits payable 79,307 - 79,307 Noncurrent liabilities Due within one year 755,849 14,709 770,558 Due in more than one year 7,203,376 124,560 7,327,936 TOTAL LIABILITIES 8,199,301 150,790 8,350,091 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred pension resources 71,656 28,901 100,557 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 7,229,955 6,713,084 13,943,039 Restricted for Debt service 2,376,939 - 2,376,939 Cable TV 26,936 - 26,936 Unrestricted (329,293) 5,046,956 4,717,663 TOTAL NET POSITION $ 9,304,537 $ 11,760,040 $ 21,064,577 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -27- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 General revenues Taxes Property taxes, levied for general purposes Property taxes, levied for debt service Gambling taxes Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs Unrestricted investment earnings Gain on sale of capital assets Total general revenues and transfers Change in net position Net position, January 1 as restated (Note 7) Net position, December 31 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. KA! Program Revenues Operating Capital Grants Charges for Grants and and Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Governmental activities General government $ 479,175 $ 35,264 $ - $ - Public safety 1,113,185 250,881 62,941 - Public works 2,002,860 29,525 14,453 179,664 Culture and recreation 236,418 25,841 - - Economic development - 11,385 - - Interest on long-term debt 302,941 - 48,249 - Total governmental activities 4,134,579 352,896 125,643 179,664 Business -type activities Water 353,091 344,107 9,945 486,507 Sewer 433,338 414,867 - 35,642 Storm water 83,249 103,682 - - Total business -type activities 869,678 862,656 9,945 522,149 Total $ 5,004,257 $ 1,215,552 $ 135,588 $ 701,813 General revenues Taxes Property taxes, levied for general purposes Property taxes, levied for debt service Gambling taxes Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs Unrestricted investment earnings Gain on sale of capital assets Total general revenues and transfers Change in net position Net position, January 1 as restated (Note 7) Net position, December 31 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. KA! Net (Expenses) Revenues and Changes in Net Position Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total $ (443,911) $ - $ (443,911) (799,363) - (799,363) (1,779,218) - (1,779,218) (210,577) - (210,577) 11,385 - 11,385 (254,692) - (254,692) (3,476,376) - (3,476,376) - 487,468 487,468 - 17,171 17,171 - 20,433 20,433 - 525,072 525,072 (3,476,376) 525,072 (2,951,304) 1,800,648 - 1,800,648 591,496 - 591,496 6,752 - 6,752 61,999 - 61,999 29,336 49,385 78,721 16,109 - 16,109 2,506,340 49,385 2,555,725 (970,036) 574,457 (395,579) 10,274,573 11,185,583 21,460,156 $ 9,304,537 $ 11,760,040 $ 21,064,577 -29- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -30- FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 -31- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA BALANCESBEET GOVERNMENTALFUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2015 ASSETS Cash and temporary investments Receivables Accrued interest Taxes Accounts Special assessments Due from other governments Due from other funds Prepaid items TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Deposits payable Accrued salaries payable Due to other funds Due to other governments Advances from other funds TOTAL LIABILITIES DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable revenue - property taxes Unavailable revenue - special assessments TOTAL DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES FUND BALANCES Nonspendable Restricted Assigned Unassigned TOTAL FUND BALANCES TOTAL LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCES 101 300's 402 Debt General Service Park $ 1,256,086 $ 1,347,842 $ 42,782 2,680 2,877 91 53,635 3,558 - 11,870 - - 14,035 1,110,008 - 17,168 - - 1,773 20,982 - $ 1,357,247 $ 2,485,267 $ 42,873 $ 46,953 $ - $ - 79,307 - - 946 - - - - 65,678 4,254 7,529 - - - 1,093,260 131,460 7,529 1,158,938 42,835 - - 13,887 1,107,969 - 56,722 1,107,969 - 1,773 20,982 - - 1,348,787 - 1,167,292 - (1,116,065) 1,169,065 1,369,769 (1,116,065) $ 1,357,247 $ 2,485,267 $ 42,873 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -32- 452 2013 Street Project Other Total Governmental Governmental Funds Funds $ - $ 127,303 $ 2,774,013 272 5,920 - 57,193 - 11,870 29,703 1,153,746 - 10,683 27,851 271,947 271,947 - 22,755 $ - $ 439,908 $ 4,325,295 $ - $ 108 $ 47,061 - 79,307 180 1,126 471,947 - 537,625 - - 11,783 - - 1,093,260 471,947 288 1,770,162 - - 42,835 29,703 1,151,559 29,703 1,194,394 - 22,755 26,936 1,375,723 382,981 382,981 (471,947) - (420,720) (471,947) 409,917 1,360,739 $ - $ 439,908 $ 4,325,295 -33- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -34- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Amounts reported for the governmental activities in the statement of net position are different because Total fund balances - governmental $ 1,360,739 Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported as assets in governmental funds. Cost of capital assets 23,003,203 Less accumulated depreciation (8,158,248) Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported as liabilities in the funds. Long-term liabilities at year end consist of Bond principal payable (7,615,000) Compensated absences payable (37,703) Pension liability (306,522) Some receivables are not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures, and therefore are unavailable in the funds. Delinquent taxes receivable 42,835 Special assessments receivable 1,151,559 Governmental funds do not report long-term amounts related to pensions. Deferred outflows of pension resources 36,129 Deferred inflows of pension resources (71,656) Governmental funds do not report a liability for accrued interest until due and payable. (100,799) Total net position - governmental activities $ 9,304,537 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -35- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Sale of capital assets 101 300's 402 Transfers in - Debt - Refunding bonds issued General Service Park REVENUES - (1,770,000) - Taxes (498,000) - - General property $ 1,811,893 $ 591,496 $ - Gambling 6,752 - - Licenses and permits 134,781 - - Intergovernmental 273,604 48,249 - Charges for services 4,840 - 3,806 Fines and forfeitures 22,230 - - Special assessments - 251,852 - Interest on investments 13,279 13,358 520 Miscellaneous 35,177 - - TOTAL REVENUES 2,302,556 904,955 4,326 EXPENDITURES Current General government 433,610 - - Public safety 1,112,162 - - Public works 289,300 - - Culture and recreation 111,932 - - Capital outlay Public works - - - Culture and recreation 7,500 - - Debt service Principal - 695,000 - Interest and other - 304,844 17,127 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,954,504 999,844 17,127 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 348,052 (94,889) (12,801) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Sale of capital assets - 50,109 - Transfers in - - - Refunding bonds issued - 1,385,000 - Principal paid on refunded bonds - (1,770,000) - Transfers out (498,000) - - TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (498,000) (334,891) - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES (149,948) (429,780) (12,801) FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 1,319,013 1,799,549 (1,103,264) FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 $ 1,169,065 $ 1,369,769 $ (1,116,065) The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -36- 452 2013 Other Total Street Governmental Governmental Project Funds Funds $ - $ - $ 2,403,389 - - 6,752 - - 134,781 - 42,473 364,326 - - 8,646 - - 22,230 7,168 52,669 311,689 (1,337) 3,516 29,336 - 10,683 45,860 5,831 109,341 3,327,009 433,610 1,112,162 - 289,300 8,966 120,898 893,208 239,369 1,132,577 - - 7,500 695,000 - - 321,971 893,208 248,335 4,113,018 (887,377) (138,994) (786,009) - - 50,109 242,000 256,000 498,000 - - 1,385,000 - (1,770,000) - (498,000) 242,000 256,000 (334,891) (645,377) 117,006 (1,120,900) 173,430 292,911 2,481,639 $ (471,947) $ 409,917 $ 1,360,739 -37- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because Net change in fund balances - governmental funds Capital outlays are reported in governmental funds as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over the estimated useful lives as depreciation expense. Capital outlay Depreciation expense Governmental fund report a gain (loss) on sale of capital assets to the extent of cash exchanged, whereas the disposition of the assets book value is included in the total gain (loss) in the statement of activities Disposals Depreciation of disposals Book value on disposal of assets The issuance of long-term debt provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of principal of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net position. Also, governmental funds report the effect of issuance costs, premiums, discounts and similar items when debt is first issued, whereas these amounts are delayed and amortized in the statement of activities. Principal repayments Debt issued or incurred Interest on long-term debt in the statement of activities differs from the amount reported in the governmental fund because interest is recognized as an expenditure in the funds when it is due, and thus requires the use of current financial resources. In the statement of activities, however interest expense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due. Long-term pension activity is not reported in government funds. Pension expense Certain revenues are recognized as soon as they are earned. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, certain revenues cannot be recognized until they are available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Property taxes Special assessments Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Compensated absences payable Change in net position - governmental activities The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -38- $ (1,120,900) 250,355 (959,837) (122,094) 88,094 (27,900) 2,465,000 (1,385,000) 19,030 5,517 (11,245) (167,330) (3,726) $ (970.036) CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -39- Budgeted Amounts Actual Variance with Original Final Amounts Final Budget REVENUES Taxes General property $ 1,796,858 $ 1,796,858 $ 1,811,893 $ 15,035 Gambling 2,000 2,000 6,752 4,752 Licenses and permits 113,400 113,400 134,781 21,381 Intergovernmental 262,766 262,766 273,604 10,838 Charges for services 4,400 4,400 4,840 440 Fines and forfeitures 35,000 35,000 22,230 (12,770) Special assessments 12,000 12,000 - (12,000) Interest on investments 10,000 10,000 13,279 3,279 Miscellaneous 8,000 8,000 35,177 27,177 TOTALREVENUES 2,244,424 2,244,424 2,302,556 58,132 EXPENDITURES Current General government 456,900 456,900 433,610 23,290 Public safety 1,124,635 1,124,635 1,112,162 12,473 Public works 297,000 297,000 289,300 7,700 Culture and recreation 109,289 109,289 111,932 (2,643) Capital outlay 600 600 7,500 (6,900) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,988,424 1,988,424 1,954,504 33,920 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 256,000 256,000 348,052 92,052 OTHER FINANCING USES Transfers out (256,000) (256,000) (498,000) (242,000) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES - - (149,948) (149,948) FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 1,319,013 1,319,013 1,319,013 - FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 $ 1,319,013 $ 1,319,013 $ 1,169,065 $ (149,948) The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -39- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2015 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and temporary investments Receivables Accrued interest Accounts Special assessments Due from other governments Due from other funds Inventories Prepaid items TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS NONCURRENT ASSETS Special assessments receivable Advances to other funds Capital assets Land Buildings Infrastructure Machinery and equipment Less accumulated depreciation Net capital assets TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred pension resources LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Accrued salaries payable Due to other funds Due to other governments Compensated absences payable - current TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 603 Nonmaj or Water Sewer Storm Water Totals $ 1,315,113 $ 1,217,569 $ 125,112 $ 2,657,794 2,807 2,598 267 5,672 56,027 88,672 21,092 165,791 6,556 185 - 6,741 9,945 - - 9,945 100,000 188,338 - 288,338 4,619 - - 4,619 38 17,139 - 17,177 1,495,105 1,514,501 146,471 3,156,077 936,320 49,078 - 985,398 - 1,093,260 - 1,093,260 72,255 124,000 4,400 200,655 138,000 276,000 - 414,000 5,739,590 3,442,483 - 9,182,073 269,367 96,742 1,051,222 1,417,331 (2,359,271) (1,885,292) (256,412) (4,500,975) 3,859,941 2,053,933 799,210 6,713,084 4,796,261 3,196,271 799,210 8,791,742 6,291,366 4,710,772 945,681 11,947,819 5,785 5,784 3,003 14,572 3,343 751 323 4,417 928 928 515 2,371 - - 22,660 22,660 1,814 2,919 - 4,733 5,866 5,866 3,132 14,864 11,951 10,464 26,630 49,045 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. CI111 CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION - CONTINUED PROPRIETARY FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2015 NONCURRENT LIABILITIES Compensated absences payable Pension liability TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred pension resources NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets Unrestricted TOTAL NET POSITION Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 603 Nonmajor Water Sewer Storm Water Totals $ 389 $ 389 $ - $ 778 49,079 49,067 25,481 123,627 49,468 49,456 25,481 124,405 61,419 59,920 52,111 173,450 11,473 11,471 5,957 28,901 3,859,941 2,053,933 799,210 6,713,084 2,364,318 2,591,232 91,406 5,046,956 $ 6,224,259 $ 4,645,165 $ 890,616 $ 11,760,040 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -41- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY rya CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 OPERATING REVENUES Charges for services OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries and benefits Supplies Other services and charges Utilities MCES - disposal charges Depreciation TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Interest earnings Intergovernmental Interest expense Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 603 Nonmaj or Water Sewer Storm Water Totals $ 344,107 $ 414,867 $ 103,682 $ 862,656 82,165 83,866 38,565 204,596 19,121 3,095 1,108 23,324 46,024 33,731 7,557 87,312 14,824 4,150 - 18,974 - 194,243 - 194,243 190,957 114,253 35,344 340,554 353,091 433,338 82,574 869,003 (8,984) (18,471) 21,108 (6,347) 15,177 32,721 1,487 49,385 9,945 - - 9,945 - - (675) (675) TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) 25,122 32,721 812 58,655 INCOME BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS CHANGE IN NET POSITION 16,138 14,250 21,920 52,308 486,507 35,642 - 522,149 502,645 49,892 21,920 574,457 NET POSITION, JANUARY 1 AS RESTATED (NOTE 7) 5,721,614 4,595,273 868,696 11,185,583 NET POSITION, DECEMBER 31 $ 6,224,259 $ 4,645,165 $ 890,616 $ 11,760,040 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -43- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts from customer; and users Payments to suppliers Payments to employees NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Payment received on advance to other funds Interfund loan issued Principal paid on advance from other funds Interest paid on advance from other funds NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Acquisition of capital assets Hook up fees and unit charges received Special assessments received NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest received on investments NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 603 Nonmajor Water Sewer Storm Water Totals $ 338,525 $ 409,903 $ 106,002 $ 854,430 (87,067) (259,566) (8,861) (355,494) (81,551) (83,280) (39,164) (203,995) 169,907 67,057 57,977 294,941 22,325 (100,000) (117,127) 22,325 (217,127) (22,325) (22,325) (675) (675) (100,000) (94,802) (23,000) (217,802) (11,226) - - (11,226) - 19,199 - 19,199 148,767 21,308 - 170,075 137,541 40,507 - 178,048 13,966 31,815 1,348 47,129 221,414 44,577 36,325 302,316 1,093,699 1,172,992 88,787 2,355,478 $ 1,315,113 $ 1,217,569 $ 125,112 $ 2,657,794 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -44- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS - CONTINUED PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES $ 169,907 $ 67,057 $ 57,977 $ 294,941 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -45- Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 603 Nonmajor Water Sewer Storm water Totals RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING (INCOME) LOSS TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTMTIES Operating income (loss) $ (8,984) $ (18,471) $ 21,108 $ (6,347) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Depreciation 190,957 114,253 35,344 340,554 (Increase) decrease in assets/deferred outflows of resources Accounts receivable (5,582) (4,964) 2,320 (8,226) Inventories 112 - - 112 Prepaid items - (17,101) - (17,101) Deferred pension resources (11,130) (11,131) (5,806) (28,067) Increase (decrease) in liabilities/deferred inflows of resources Accounts payable (7,674) (324) (196) (8,194) Accrued salaries payable 281 281 153 715 Compensated absences payable (159) (159) (727) (1,045) Pension liability 149 124 (176) 97 Deferred pension resources 11,473 11,471 5,957 28,901 Due to other governments 464 (6,922) - (6,458) NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES $ 169,907 $ 67,057 $ 57,977 $ 294,941 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -45- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -46- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Reporting entity The City of Centerville, Minnesota (the City), operates under the "Optional Plan A" form of government as defined in the State of Minnesota statutes. Under this plan, the government of the City is directed by a City Council composed of an elected Mayor and four elected City Council Members. The City Council exercises legislative authority and determines all matters of policy. The City Council appoints personnel responsible for the proper administration of all affairs relating to the City. The City has considered all potential units for which it is financially accountable, and other organizations for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the City are such that exclusion would cause the City's financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has set forth criteria to be considered in determining financial accountability. These criteria include appointing a voting majority of an organization's governing body, and (1) the ability of the primary government to impose its will on that organization or (2) the potential for the organization to provide specific benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government. The City does not have any component units. B. Government -wide and fund financial statements The government -wide financial statements (statement of net position and the statement of activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the City. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business -type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. C. Measurement focus, basis of accounting and financial statement presentation The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Property taxes, franchise taxes, licenses and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City. Revenue resulting from exchange transactions, in which each party gives and receives essentially equal value, is recorded on the accrual basis when the exchange takes place. On a modified accrual basis, revenue is recorded in the year in which the resources are measurable and become available. -47- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Non-exchange transactions, in which the City receives value without directly giving equal value in return, include property taxes, grants, entitlement and donations. On an accrual basis, revenue from property taxes is recognized in the year for which the tax is levied. Revenue from grants, entitlements and donations is recognized in the year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied. Eligibility requirements include timing requirements, which specify the year when the resources are required to be used or the year when use is first permitted, matching requirements, in which the City must provide local resources to be used for a specified purpose, and expenditure requirements, in which the resources are provided to the City on a reimbursement basis. On a modified accrual basis, revenue from non-exchange transactions must also be available before it can be recognized. Unearned revenue arises when assets are recognized before revenue recognition criteria have been satisfied. Grants and entitlements received before eligibility requirements are met are also recorded as unearned revenue. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. The City reports the following major governmental funds: The General fund is the City's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the City, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Debt Service fund accounts for the resources accumulated and payments made for principal and interest on long-term general obligation debt of governmental funds. The Park fund captures all park capital items and receives all the City's park dedication fees. The 2013 Street Project fund accounts for street project revenues and expenditures. The City reports the following major proprietary funds: The Water fund accounts for the activities of the water distribution system the City maintains. The Sewer fund accounts for the activities of the City's sewage collection operations. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from government -wide financial statements. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the City enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. -48- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED D. Assets, deferred outflow of resources, liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and net position/fund balance Deposits and investments The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition. The proprietary funds' portion in the government -wide cash and temporary investments pool is considered to be cash and cash equivalents for purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows. Cash balances from all funds are pooled and invested, to the extent available, in certificates of deposit and other authorized investments. Earnings from such investments are allocated on the basis of applicable participation by each of the funds. The City may also invest idle funds as authorized by Minnesota statutes, as follows: 1. Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies. 2. Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and received the highest credit rating, rated in one of the two highest rating categories by a statistical rating agency, and have a final maturity of thirteen months or less. 3. General obligations of a state or local government with taxing powers rated "A" or better; revenue obligations rated "AA" or better. 4. General obligations of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency rated "A" or better. 5. Obligation of a school district with an original maturity not exceeding 13 months and (i) rated in the highest category by a national bond rating service or (ii) enrolled in the credit enhancement program pursuant to statute section 126C.55. 6. Bankers' acceptances of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. 7. Commercial paper issued by United States banks corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of highest quality category by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies, and maturing in 270 days or less. 8. Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending agreements with financial institutions qualified as a "depository" by the government entity, with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000, a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or certain Minnesota securities broker-dealers. 9. Guaranteed Investment Contracts (GIC's) issued or guaranteed by a United States commercial bank, a domestic branch of a foreign bank, a United States insurance company, or its Canadian subsidiary, whose similar debt obligations were rated in one of the top two rating categories by a nationally recognized rating agency. -49- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Accounts receivable Accounts receivable include amounts billed for services provided before year end. Unbilled utility enterprise fund receivables are also included for services provided in 2015. The City annually certifies delinquent water and sewer accounts to the County for collection in the following year. Therefore, there has been no allowance for doubtful accounts established. Interfund receivables and payables Activity between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as either "due to/from other funds" (i.e., the current portion of interfund loans) or "advances to/from other funds" (i.e., the non-current portion of interfund loans). All other outstanding balances between funds are reported as "due to/from other funds." Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business -type activities are reported in the government -wide financial statements as "internal balances." Property taxes The City Council annually adopts a tax levy in December and certifies it to the County for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for collecting all property taxes for the City. These taxes attach an enforceable lien on taxable property within the City on January 1 and are payable by the property owners in two installments. The taxes are collected by the County Auditor and tax settlements are made to the City during January, July and December each year. Delinquent taxes receivable include the past six years' uncollected taxes. Delinquent taxes have been offset by a deferred inflow of resources for delinquent taxes not received within 60 days after year end in the fund financial statements. Special assessments Special assessments represent the financing for public improvements paid for by benefiting property owners. These assessments are recorded as receivables upon certification to the County. Special assessments are recognized as revenue when they are received in cash or within 60 days after year end. All governmental fund special assessments receivable are offset by a deferred inflow of resources in the fund financial statements. Inventories All inventories are valued at cost using the first-in/first-out (FIFO) method. Inventories of governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased, Prepaid items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government -wide and fund financial statements. -50- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Capital assets Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items) are, reported in the applicable governmental or business -type activities columns in the government -wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 (amount not rounded) and an estimated useful life in excess of three years. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. In the case of initial capitalization of general infrastructure assets (i.e., those reported by governmental activities) the City chose to include items dating back to June 30, 1980. The City was able to estimate the historical cost for the initial reporting of these assets through back trending (i.e., estimating the current replacement cost of the infrastructure to be capitalized and using an appropriate price -level index to deflate the cost to the acquisition year or estimated acquisition year). As the City constructs or acquires capital assets each period, including infrastructure assets, they are capitalized and reported at historical cost. The reported value excludes normal maintenance and repairs which are essentially amounts spent in relation to capital assets that do not increase the capacity or efficiency of the item or extend its useful life beyond the original estimate. In the case of donations the City values these capital assets at the estimated fair value of the item at the date of its donation. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business -type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. Property, plant and equipment of the City are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Deferred outflows of resources In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expenselexpenditure) until then. The City has only one item that qualifies for reporting in this category. Accordingly, the item, deferred pension resources, is reported only in the statements of net position. This item results from actuarial calculations and current year pension contributions made subsequent to the measurement date. Pensions For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to/deductions from PERA's fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA except that PERA's fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. -51- Useful Lives Assets in Years Land improvements 4 to 25 Other improvements 10 to 20 Buildings and improvements 10 to 50 System improvements/infrastructure 20 to 50 Machinery and equipment 3 to 20 Vehicles 3 to 10 Other assets 3 to 15 Deferred outflows of resources In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expenselexpenditure) until then. The City has only one item that qualifies for reporting in this category. Accordingly, the item, deferred pension resources, is reported only in the statements of net position. This item results from actuarial calculations and current year pension contributions made subsequent to the measurement date. Pensions For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to/deductions from PERA's fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA except that PERA's fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. -51- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Compensated absences It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused paid time off benefits to a maximum of 208 hours. All paid time off pay is accrued when incurred in the government -wide and proprietary funds. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. Union employees are allowed severance equal to their unused compensatory time. In governmental fund types the cost of these benefits is recognized when payments are made to the employees. The General fund is typically used to liquidate governmental compensated absences. Long-term obligations In the government -wide financial statements, and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business -type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net position. The recognition of bond premiums and discounts are delayed and amortized over the life of the bonds using the straight-line method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. Bond issuance costs are reported as an expense in the period incurred. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognized bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. Deferred inflows of resources In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position and fund financial statements will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has only one type of item, which arises only under a modified accrual basis of accounting that qualifies as needing to be reported in this category. Accordingly, the item, unavailable revenue, is reported only in the governmental funds balance sheet. The governmental funds report unavailable revenues from two sources: property taxes and special assessments. These amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available. The City has an additional item which qualifies for reporting in this category. The item, deferred pension resources, is reported only in the statements of net position and results from actuarial calculations. -52- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Fund balance In the fund financial statements, fund balance is divided into five classifications based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of resources reported in the governmental funds. These classifications are defined as follows: Nonspendable - Amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in spendable form, such as prepaid items. Restricted - Amounts related to externally imposed constraints established by creditors, grantors or contributors; or constraints imposed by state statutory provisions. Committed - Amounts constrained for specific purposes that are internally imposed by formal action (resolution) of the City Council, which is the City's highest level of decision-making authority. Committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the City Council modifies or rescinds the commitment by resolution. Assigned - Amounts constrained for specific purposes that are internally imposed. In governmental funds other than the General fund, assigned fund balance represents all remaining amounts that are not classified as nonspendable and are neither restricted nor committed. In the General fund, assigned amounts represent intended uses established by the City Council itself or by an official to which the governing body delegates the authority. The City Council has adopted a fund balance policy which delegates the authority to assign amounts for specific purposes to the Finance Director. Unassigned - The residual classification for the General fund and also negative residual amounts in other funds. The City considers restricted amounts to be spent first when both restricted and unrestricted fund balance is available. Additionally, the City would first use committed, then assigned, and lastly unassigned amounts of unrestricted fund balance when expenditures are made. The City has formally adopted a fund balance policy for the General fund. The City's policy is to maintain a minimum unassigned fund balance of 40-50 percent of budgeted operating expenditures for cash-flow timing needs. Net position Net position represents the difference between assets and deferred outflows of resources and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources. Net position is displayed in three components: a. Net investment in capital assets - Consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation reduced by any outstanding debt attributable to acquire capital assets. b. Restricted net position - Consist of net position balances restricted when there are limitations imposed on their use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, laws or regulations of other governments. c. Unrestricted net position - All other net position balances that do not meet the definition of "restricted" or "net investment in capital assets". -53- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO TBE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 2: STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY A. Budgetary information Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for the General fund. All annual appropriations lapse at fiscal year end. The City does not use encumbrance accounting. In May of each year, all departments of the City submit requests for appropriations to the City Administrator so that a budget may be prepared. Before September 30th, the proposed budget is presented to the City Council for review. The City Council holds public hearings and a final budget is prepared and adopted in early December. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function and department. The City's department heads, with the approval of the City Administrator, may make transfers of appropriations within a department. Transfers of appropriations between departments require the approval of the City Council. The legal level of budgetary control is the department level. There were no budget amendments made during 2015. B. Deficit fund equity The following funds had a deficit fund balance as of December 31, 2015: Fund Major Park 2013 Street Project Amount $ 1,116,065 471,947 The Park fund and 2013 Street Project deficits will be eliminated with transfers in future years. iia CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS A. Deposits and investments Deposits Custodial credit risk for deposits and investments is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City's deposits and investments may not be returned or the City will not be able to recover collateral securities in the possession of an outside party. In accordance with Minnesota statutes and as authorized by the City Council, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. Minnesota statutes require that all City deposits be protected by insurance, surety bond, or collateral. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110 percent of the deposits not covered by insurance, bonds, or irrevocable standby letters of credit from Federal Home Loan Banks. Authorized collateral in lieu of a corporate surety bond includes: • United States government Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds; • Issues of United States government agencies and instrumentalities as quoted by a recognized industry quotation service available to the government entity; • General obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated "A" or better by a national bond rating service, or revenue obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated "AA" or better by a national bond rating service; • General obligation securities of a local government with taxing powers may be pledged as collateral against funds deposited by that same local government entity; • Irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by Federal Home Loan Banks to a municipality accompanied by written evidence that the bank's public debt is rated "AA" or better by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., or Standard & Poor's Corporation; and • Time deposits that are fully insured by any federal agency. Minnesota statutes require that all collateral shall be placed in safekeeping in a restricted account at a Federal Reserve Bank, or in an account at a trust department of a commercial bank or other financial institution that is not owned or controlled by the financial institution furnishing the collateral. The selection should be approved by the City. At year end, the City's carrying amount of deposits was $3,192,172, and the bank balance was $3,228,496. Of the bank balance, $500,000 was covered by federal depository insurance and the remaining balance was covered by collateral held by the City's agent in the City's name. -55- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Investments As of December 31, 2015, the City had the following investments that are insured or registered, or securities held by the City or its agent in the City's name. (1) Ratings are provided by various credit rating agencies where applicable to indicate associated credit risk. (2) Interest rate risk is disclosed using the segmented time distribution method. N/A Indicates not applicable or available. The investments of the City are subject to the following risks: • Credit Risk. The credit risk for investments is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. Ratings are provided by various credit rating agencies and where applicable, indicate associated credit risk. Minnesota statutes limit the City's investments to the list on page 49 of the notes. • Custodial Credit Risk. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Generally, the City limits its securities purchases to those insured and registered under the City's name. • Concentration of Credit Risk. The concentration of credit risk for investments is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of a government's investment in a single issuer. The City has invested more than 5 percent of investments in GE Capital Bank CD (11.0 percent), Comenity Bank CD (9.0 percent) Discover Bank CD (11.0 percent) Barclays Bank CD (11.0 percent), AMEX Centurion CD (11.0 percent), Sallie May Bank CD (10.9 percent), HSBC Bank CD (10.9 percent), and CE Capital Bank (10.8 percent) and Citi Bank CD (11.0 percent) • Interest Rate Risk. The interest rate risk for investments is the risk that changes in interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. The City does not currently have a formal investment policy that addresses the above mentioned risks. -56- Fair Value Credit Segmented Concentration and Quality/ Time of Carrying Investment Type Ratings (1) Distribution (2) Credit Risk Amount Pooled investments Broker money market N/A N/A N/A $ 78,536 Nonpooled investments Brokered CD's N/A 6 months to 1 year N/A 691,652 Brokered CD's N/A 1 to 3 years N/A 490,617 Brokered CD's N/A more than 3 years N/A 978,630 Total Brokered CD's 2,160,899 Total investments $ 2,239,435 (1) Ratings are provided by various credit rating agencies where applicable to indicate associated credit risk. (2) Interest rate risk is disclosed using the segmented time distribution method. N/A Indicates not applicable or available. The investments of the City are subject to the following risks: • Credit Risk. The credit risk for investments is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. Ratings are provided by various credit rating agencies and where applicable, indicate associated credit risk. Minnesota statutes limit the City's investments to the list on page 49 of the notes. • Custodial Credit Risk. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Generally, the City limits its securities purchases to those insured and registered under the City's name. • Concentration of Credit Risk. The concentration of credit risk for investments is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of a government's investment in a single issuer. The City has invested more than 5 percent of investments in GE Capital Bank CD (11.0 percent), Comenity Bank CD (9.0 percent) Discover Bank CD (11.0 percent) Barclays Bank CD (11.0 percent), AMEX Centurion CD (11.0 percent), Sallie May Bank CD (10.9 percent), HSBC Bank CD (10.9 percent), and CE Capital Bank (10.8 percent) and Citi Bank CD (11.0 percent) • Interest Rate Risk. The interest rate risk for investments is the risk that changes in interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. The City does not currently have a formal investment policy that addresses the above mentioned risks. -56- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED A reconciliation of cash and temporary investments as shown on the statement of net position for the City follows: Carrying amount of deposits Investments Petty cash Total B. Capital assets Tmnl $ 3,192,172 2,239,435 ,)nn $ 5,431,807 Capital asset activity for the governmental activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 was as follows: -57- Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Governmental activities Capital assets not being depreciated Land $ 3,179,023 $ 12,800 $ (34,000) $ 3,157,823 Construction in progress 1,320,356 6,168 (1,326,524) - Total capital assets not being depreciated 4,499,379 18,968 (1,360,524) 3,157,823 Capital assets being depreciated Buildings 1,627,438 - - 1,627,438 Infrastructure 15,909,602 1,557,911 - 17,467,513 Machinery and equipment 866,423 - (115,994) 750,429 Total capital assets being depreciated 18,403,463 1,557,911 (115,994) 19,845,380 Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings (767,036) (37,290) - (804,326) Infrastructure (5,957,118) (874,660) - (6,831,778) Machinery and equipment (562,351) (47,887) 88,094 (522,144) Total accumulated depreciation (7,286,505) (959,837) 88,094 (8,158,248) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 11,116,958 598,074 (27,900) 11,687,132 Governmental activities capital assets, net $ 15,616,337 $ 617,042 $ (1,388,424) $ 14,844,955 -57- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the governmental activities as follows: Governmental activities General government Public safety Public works Culture and recreation Total depreciation expense - governmental activities $ 14,244 2,339 834,133 109,121 $ 959,837 Capital asset activity for the business -type activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 was as follows: Business -type activities Capital assets not being depreciated Land Construction in progress Total capital assets not being depreciated Capital assets being depreciated Buildings Infrastructure Machinery and equipment Total capital assets being depreciated Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings Infrastructure Machinery and equipment Total accumulated depreciation Total capital assets being depreciated, net Business -type activities capital assets, net Beginning Balance Increases Ending Decreases Balance $ 200,655 $ - $ - $ 200,655 705,124 11,226 (716,350) - 905,779 11,226 (716,350) 200,655 414,000 - - 414,000 9,516,946 716,350 - 10,233,296 366,108 - - 366,108 10,297,054 716,350 - 11,013,404 (57,270) (8,280) - (65,550) (3,804,085) (302,188) - (4,106,273) (299,066) (30,086) - (329,152) (4,160,421) (340,554) - (4,500,975) 6,136,633 375,796 - 6,512,429 $ 7,042,412 $ 387,022 $ (716,350) $ 6,713,084 -58- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the business -type activities as follows: Business -type activities Water Sewer Storm water Total depreciation expense - business -type activities C. Interfund balances and transfers The composition of internal balance as of December 31, 2015 is as follows: Receivable Fund Due to/from other funds Sewer Sewer Sewer Water Nonmajor governmental fund Total due to/from other funds Advance to/from other funds Sewer Subtotal of interfund balances Payable Fund Park Storm Water 2013 Street Project 2013 Street Project 2013 Street Project Park Interfund activity eliminated from government -wide statements Total internal balances - government -wide statements $ 190,957 114,253 35,344 $ 340.554 Amount $ 65,678 22,660 100,000 100,000 271,947 560,285 1,093,260 1,653,545 (294,607) $ 1,358,938 The above interfund advance and the amount due from the Storm Water fund have and associated amortization schedules, of which current payments are being made. The remaining balances are to fund deficit cash balances. Interfund transfers The composition of interfund transfers for the year ended December 31, 2015 is as follows: Transfer In 2013 Street Other Fund Project Governmental Total Transfer out General $ 242,000 $ 256,000 $ 498,000 • A transfer of $56,000 from the General fund to other governmental funds is for future replacement of equipment, vehicles, and computers in the near future. • A transfer of $200,000 from the General fund to other governmental funds is for future street maintenance projects. A transfer of $242,000 from the General fund to the 213 Street Project fund is for the funding of expenditures associated with the Centerville Road Reconstruction Project. -59- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED D. Long-term debt General obligation bonds The City issues general obligation bonds to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities. General obligation bonds have been issued for governmental activities. General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City. General obligation bonds currently outstanding are as follows: General obligation improvement bonds The following bonds were issued to finance various improvements and will be repaid primarily from special assessments collections and tax levies. Total General Obligation Improvement Bonds Issue Authorized Interest Description and Issued Rate G.O. Improvement 08/01/25 $ 2,925,000 Bonds of 2009A $ 3,715,000 2.65-5.60 % G.O. Improvement 02/01/21 330,000 Bonds of 2011A 2,760,000 .70-2.45 G.O. Improvement Refunding 02/01/25 1,385,000 Bonds of 2012A 515,000 1.00-1.70 G.O. Improvement 3,280,000 398,927 3,678,927 Bonds of 2013A 1,465,000 1,63-3.00 G.O. Improvement Refunding $ 7,6152000 $ 1,395,589 $ 9,010,589 Bonds of 2015A 1,385,000 .85-2.25 Total General Obligation Improvement Bonds Issue Maturity Balance at Date Date Year End 08/19/09 08/01/25 $ 2,925,000 04/14/11 07/01/19 1,490,000 06/14/12 02/01/21 330,000 06/01/13 02/01/29 1,485,000 01/15/15 02/01/25 1,385,000 $ 7,615,000 The G.O. Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2012A were issued by the City of Circle Pines, refunding the Capital Improvement Plan Bonds of 2005A. The 2005A issue was for the construction of a police station per the joint powers agreement in Note 5. The $330,000 represents the City of Centerville's remaining portion of the 2012A issue. Annual debt service requirements for general obligation improvement bonds are as follows: -60- General Obligation Improvement Bonds Year Ending Governmental Activities December 31, Principal Interest Total 2016 $ 725,000 $ 233,830 $ 958,830 2017 745,000 215,420 960,420 2018 765,000 194,709 959,709 2019 945,000 170,554 1,115,554 2020 500,000 144,368 644,368 2021-2025 3,280,000 398,927 3,678,927 2026-2029 655,000 37,781 692,781 Total $ 7,6152000 $ 1,395,589 $ 9,010,589 -60- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Changes in long-term liabilities During the year ended December 31, 2015, the following changes occurred in noncurrent liabilities: Governmental activities long-term liabilities $ 8,728,978 $ 1,735,418 $ (2,505,171) $ 7,959,225 $ 755,849 Business -type activities Compensated absences payable $ 16,687 $ 15,949 $ (16,994) $ 15,642 $ 14,709 Pension liability GERF $ - $ 124,558 * $ (931) $ 123,627 $ - Business -type activities long-term liabilities $ 16,687 $ 140,507 $ (17,925) $ 139,269 $ 14,709 * Includes January 1, 2015 pension liability balance related to GASB Statement No. 68 implementation. See Note 7 for further detail. Current refunding bond On January 15, 2015 the City issued $1,385,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015A. The bonds bear an average coupon rate of 1.81 percent and the entire amount was used to refund previous issued outstanding bonds G.O Crossover Improvement Bonds, Series 2009B. As a result of the refunding issue, the City with save $376,109 in debt service payments and achieve an economic gain (the present value of the difference between the old and the new debt service) of $366,572. -61- Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Increases Decreases Balance One Year Governmental activities G.O Bonds $ 8,695,000 $ 1,385,000 $ (2,465,000) $ 7,615,000 $ 725,000 Compensated absences payable 33,978 38,379 (34,654) 37,703 30,849 Pension liability GERF - 312,039 * (5,517) 306,522 - Governmental activities long-term liabilities $ 8,728,978 $ 1,735,418 $ (2,505,171) $ 7,959,225 $ 755,849 Business -type activities Compensated absences payable $ 16,687 $ 15,949 $ (16,994) $ 15,642 $ 14,709 Pension liability GERF $ - $ 124,558 * $ (931) $ 123,627 $ - Business -type activities long-term liabilities $ 16,687 $ 140,507 $ (17,925) $ 139,269 $ 14,709 * Includes January 1, 2015 pension liability balance related to GASB Statement No. 68 implementation. See Note 7 for further detail. Current refunding bond On January 15, 2015 the City issued $1,385,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015A. The bonds bear an average coupon rate of 1.81 percent and the entire amount was used to refund previous issued outstanding bonds G.O Crossover Improvement Bonds, Series 2009B. As a result of the refunding issue, the City with save $376,109 in debt service payments and achieve an economic gain (the present value of the difference between the old and the new debt service) of $366,572. -61- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED E. Fund equity At December 31, 2015, portions of the City's fund balance are not available for appropriation due to not being in spendable form (Nonspendable), legal restrictions (Restricted), policy and/or intent (Assigned). The following is a summary of the components of fund balance: Nonspendable Prepaid items Restricted for Debt service Cable TV Assigned for Street maintenance Capital equipment Capital projects Unassigned Total Debt General Service $ 1,773 $ 20,982 $ - 1,348,787 2013 Other Street Governmental Park Project Funds Total - $ - $ - $ 22,755 - 1,348,787 26,936 26,936 306,045 306,045 65,530 65,530 - - - - 11,406 11,406 1,167,292 - (1,116,065) (471,947) - (420,720) $ 1,169,065 A1,369 769 $ 1 116 065 $ (471,947) $ 409,917 $ 1,360,739 Note 4: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE A. Plan description The City participates in the following cost-sharing multiple -employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA's defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota statutes, chapters 353 and 356. PERA's defined benefit pension plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code. General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City, other than teachers, are covered by the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF). GERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. The Basic Plan was closed to new members in 1967. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. B. Benefits provided PERA provides retirement, disability and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by Minnesota statute and can only be modified by the state legislature. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Increases are related to the funding ratio of the plan. Members in plans that are at least 90 percent funded for two consecutive years are given 2.5 percent increases. Members in plans that have not exceeded 90 percent funded, or have fallen below 80 percent, are given 1 percent increases. The benefit provisions stated in the following paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. -62- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 4: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED GERF benefits Benefits are based on a member's highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERA's Coordinated and Basic Plan members. The retiring member receives the higher of a step -rate benefit accrual formula (Method 1) or a level accrual formula (Method 2). Under Method 1, the annuity accrual rate for a Basic Plan member is 2.2 percent of average salary for each of the first ten years of service and 2.7 percent for each remaining year. The annuity accrual rate for a Coordinated Plan member is 1.2 percent of average salary for each of the first ten years and 1.7 percent for each remaining year. Under Method 2, the annuity accrual rate is 2.7 percent of average salary for Basic Plan members and 1.7 percent for Coordinated Plan members for each year of service. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65. For members hired on or after July 1, 1989, normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at 66. C. Contributions Minnesota statutes, chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state legislature. GERF contributions Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 9.10 percent and 6.50 percent, respectively, of their annual covered salary in calendar year 2015. The City was required to contribute 11.78 percent of pay for Basic Plan members and 7.50 percent for Coordinated Plan members in calendar year 2015. The City's contributions to the GERF for the years ending December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $37,110, $35,215 and $38,179, respectively. The City's contributions were equal to the contractually required contributions for each year as set by Minnesota statute. D. Pension costs GERF pension costs At December 31, 2015, the City reported a liability of $430,149 for its proportionate share of the GERF's net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2015, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City's proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City's contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA's participating employers. At June 30, 2015, the City's proportionate share was 0.0083 percent which was a decrease of 0.001 percent from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2015, the City recognized pension expense of ($4,586) for its proportionate share of GERF's pension expense. -63- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 4: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED At December 31, 2015, the City reported its proportionate share of GERF's deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, and its contributions subsequent to the measurement date, from the following sources: Differences between expected and actual experience Changes in actuarial assumptions Net difference between projected and actual earnings on plan investments Changes in proportion Contributions to GERF subsequent to the measurement date Total Deferred Deferred Outflows Inflows of Resources of Resources 4,470 $ 21,687 26,308 - 38,291 40,579 19,923 - $ 50,701 $ 100,557 Deferred outflows of resources totaling $19,923 related to pensions resulting from the City's contributions to GERF subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2016. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to GERF pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: 2016 $ (21,524) 2017 (21,542) 2018 (36,913) 2019 10,180 2020 - Thereafter - E. Actuarial assumptions The total pension liability in the June 30, 2015 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions: Inflation Active member payroll growth Investment rate of return 2.75% per year 3.50% per year 7.90% Salary increases were based on a service -related table. Mortality rates for active members, retirees, survivors and disabilitants were based on RP -2000 tables for males or females, as appropriate, with slight adjustments. Cost of living benefit increases for retirees are assumed to be: 1 percent effective every January 1" until 2034, then 2.5 percent for GERF and PEPFF. Actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2015 valuation were based on the results of actuarial experience studies. The experience study in the GERF was for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2008, with an update of economic assumptions in 2014. The experience study for PEPFF was for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2009. Experience studies have not been prepared for PERA's other plans, but assumptions are reviewed annually. There were no changes in actuarial assumptions in 2015. -64- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 4: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments is 7.9 percent. The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness of the long-term expected rate of return on a regular basis using a building-block method in which best -estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best estimates of arithmetic real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: Target Asset Class Allocation Domestic stocks 45.00 % International stocks 15.00 Bonds 18.00 Alternative assets 20.00 Cash 2.00 Total 100.00 % F. Discount rate Long-term Expected Real Rate of Return 5.50 % 6.00 1.45 6.40 0.50 The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.9 percent. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that employee and employer contributions will be made at the rate specified in statute. Based on that assumption, each of the pension plan's fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current active and inactive employees. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. G. Pension liability sensitivity The following presents the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate: GERF H. Pension plan fiduciary net position City Proportionate Share of NPL 1 Percent 1 Percent Decrease (6.90%) Current (7.90%) Increase (8.90%) 676,347 $ 430,149 $ 226,827 Detailed information about each defined benefit pension plan's fiduciary net position is available in a separately -issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained on the Internet at www.mnpera.org; by writing to PERA at 60 Empire Drive #200, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55103- 2088; or by calling (651) 296-7460 or (800) 652-9026. -65- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 5: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS A. Centennial Fire District The Centennial Fire District (the District) was formed under the authority of Minnesota statutes 471.59 in 1985 by agreement of the member cities of Centerville, Lino Lakes and Circle Pines. The district was created to provide fire protection services to the residents of the member cities. The District is managed through a three tier system consisting of a Fire Chief, a Steering Committee, and the City Councils of the member cities. The Fire Chief is an appointed position. Each member city appoints two commissioners. One of these commissioners must be an elected official of the City. Each member city contributes funds to cover the budgeted costs of operations as determined by the commissioners. The amount of contributions required by each member is based on each city's population, number of fire calls, and assessed valuations. Contributions made by member cities for 2014, the most recent data available, were as follows: City of Centerville City of Circle Pines City of Lino Lakes Total 123,461 14.20 % 153,023 17.60 592,963 68.20 $ 869,447 100.00% Volunteer firefighters of the District are members of the Centennial Firefighter's Relief Association (the Association). The Association is a single -employer pension plan (the Plan) that operates under the provisions of Minnesota statutes 69 and 424, as amended. It is governed by a board of six officers and trustees elected by the members of the Association for three-year terms. The ex -officio, non-voting members of the Board of trustees are two representatives from the Centennial Fire Steering Committee and the Fire Chief of the District. The Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to the Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55014. B. Centennial Lakes Police Department The Centennial Lakes Police Department (the Department) was formed under the authority if Minnesota statutes 436.06 in 2005 by agreement of the member cities of Centerville, Circle Pines and Lexington. The Department was created to provide police protection services to its member cities. The Department is managed through a three tier system consisting of a Governing Board, an Operations committee, and a Chief of Police. The Governing Board consists of six members, two elected officials appointed by each member city. The Operations Committee is made up of the City administrators from each member city and the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police is appointed by mutual agreement of the City Councils of all member cities. Annual contributions required by each member city are calculated based on complaint history, population, and staffing formulas. Contributions made by member cities for 2014, the most recent data available, were as follows: City of Centerville City of Circle Pines City of Lexington Total -66- 687,855 30.88 % 872,293 39.16 667,362 29.96 $ 2,227,510 100.00% CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 5: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS - CONTINUED C. Summary financial information of the joint powers agreements entities The contribution to the joint fire district and the joint police commission are reflected as expenditures in the City's General fund. The fire district and police commission's assets, liabilities, equity and operations are excluded from the City's financial statements as further explained in note IA. The following information is from the financial statements of the District and the Department as of December 31, 2013, the most recent audited information available at the time of this report. The amounts reported for the District are those presented in its government -wide financial statements. These financial statements are available for viewing at the Centerville City hall. Total assets Total liabilities Total net position Total revenue Total expenses Centennial Centennial Lakes Police Fire District Department $ 2,018,596 $ 567,896 132,173 322,182 2,018,596 245,714 1,439,961 2,299,428 1,314,467 2,335,175 Volunteer firefighters of the District are members of the Centennial Firefighter's Relief Association (the Association). The Association is a single -employer pension plan (the Plan) that operates under the provisions of Minnesota statutes 69 and 424, as amended. It is governed by a board of six officers and trustees elected by the members of the Association for three-year terms. The ex -officio, non-voting members of the Board of trustees are two representatives from the Centennial Fire Steering Committee and the Fire Chief of the District. The Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to the Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55014. D. North Metro Telecommunications Commission The general purpose of the Commission is to award, administer and enforce a cable communications franchise in member municipalities. The member Cities included the City of Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Ham Lake, Lexington, Lino Lakes, and Spring Lake Park. Each member has a representative on the Commissions Board. Note 6: OTHER INFORMATION A. Risk management The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters for which the City carries insurance. The City obtains insurance through participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), which is a risk sharing pool with approximately 800 other governmental units. The City pays an annual premium to LMCIT for its workers compensation and property and casualty insurance. The LMCIT is self-sustaining through member premiums and will reinsure for claims above a prescribed dollar amount for each insurance event. Settled claims have not exceeded the City's coverage in any of the past three fiscal years. Liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities, if any, include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNRs). The City's management is not aware of any incurred but not reported claims. -67- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015 Note 6: OTHER INFORMATION - CONTINUED B. Legal debt margin In accordance with Minnesota statutes, the City may not incur or be subject to net debt in excess of 3 percent of the market value of taxable property within the City. Net debt is payable solely from ad valorem taxes and, therefore, excludes debt financed partially or entirely by special assessments, Enterprise fund revenues or tax increments. The market value of taxable property is $320,597,000 which leaves a debt margin of $9,617,910. Currently the City has $330,000 of general obligation debt outstanding, leaving a debt margin of $9,287,910. Note 7: CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING STANDARDS During 2015, the City implemented several new accounting pronouncements issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), including Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions - an Amendment of GASB Statement No. 27 and Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date - an Amendment of GASB Statement No. 68, for the year ended December 31, 2015. These standards required a retroactive implementation which resulted in the restatement of beginning balances in the December 31, 2014 financial statements. Changes related to these standards are reflected in the financial statements and schedules and related disclosures are included in Note 4. As a result of the restatement of beginning balances, the following schedule reconciles the previously reported December 31, 2014 balances to the December 31, 2015 financial statements: Fund Governmental activities Business -type activities Business -type activities Water Sewer Storm Water Total business -type activities December 31, 2015 Net Position January 1, 2015 Net Position as Previously Prior Period January 1, 2015 Reported Restatement (1) as Restated $ 10,622,139 $ (347,566) $ 10,274,573 $ 11,322,608 $ (137,025) $ 11,185,583 $ 5,775,889 $ (54,275) $ 5,721,614 4,649,563 (54,290) 4,595,273 897,156 (28,460) 868,696 $ 11,322,608 $ (137,025) $ 11,185,583 (1) To record beginning net pension liability, deferred inflows of resources and deferred outflow of resources at January 1, 2015. -68- REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 -69- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION DECEMBER 31, 2015 Schedule of employer's share of PERA net pension liability - General Employees Retirement Fund Schedule of employer's PERA contributions - General Employees Retirement Fund Year Ending 12/31/15 Required Supplementary Information Contributions in Required Supplementary Information Relation to the Statutorily City's Contribution City's Contributions as Required State's Deficiency Proportionate a Percentage of Contribution Contribution (Excess) Proportionate Covered Payroll Share of the (b) (a -b) (c) City's Share of Net Pension Proportionate the Net Pension Liability as a Plan Fiduciary City's Share of Liability City's Percentage of Net Position Fiscal Proportion of the Net Pension Associated with Covered Covered as a Percentage Year the Net Pension Liability the City Total Payroll Payroll of the Total Ending Liability (a) (b) (a+b) (c) ((a+b)/c) Pension Liability 06/30/15 0.0083 % $ 430,149 $ - $ 430,149 $ 485,532 88.6 % 78.2 % Schedule of employer's PERA contributions - General Employees Retirement Fund Year Ending 12/31/15 Required Supplementary Information $ 37,110 $ 37,110 $ -70- - $ 494,800 7.5 % Contributions in Relation to the Statutorily Statutorily Contribution City's Contributions as Required Required Deficiency Covered a Percentage of Contribution Contribution (Excess) Payroll Covered Payroll (a) (b) (a -b) (c) (b/c) $ 37,110 $ 37,110 $ -70- - $ 494,800 7.5 % COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 -71- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 2015 Special LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable $ - $ 108 $ - $ - $ 108 Accrued salaries payable 180 - - - 180 TOTAL LIABILITIES 180 108 - - 288 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable revenue - special assessments - 29,703 - - 29,703 FUND BALANCES Revenue Fund Capital Project Funds Cable TV 614 401 414 409 Total Capital equipment - - - 65,530 65,530 Revolving - - 11,406 - 11,406 Capital Nonmajor Street Pedestrian Equipment Governmental Cable T.V. Fund Trail Ways Revolving Funds ASSETS Cash and temporary investments $ 16,398 $ 34,133 $ 11,382 65,390 $ 127,303 Receivables Accrued interest 35 73 24 140 272 Special assessments - 29,703 - - 29,703 Due from other governments 10,683 - - - 10,683 Due from other funds - 271,947 - - 271,947 TOTAL ASSETS $ 27,116 $ 335,856 65,530 $ 439,908 LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable $ - $ 108 $ - $ - $ 108 Accrued salaries payable 180 - - - 180 TOTAL LIABILITIES 180 108 - - 288 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable revenue - special assessments - 29,703 - - 29,703 FUND BALANCES Restricted for Cable TV 26,936 - - - 26,936 Assigned for Street maintenance - 306,045 - - 306,045 Capital equipment - - - 65,530 65,530 Trail projects - - 11,406 - 11,406 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 26,936 306,045 11,406 65,530 409,917 TOTAL LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE $ 27,116$ 335,856 $ 11,406 $ 65,530 $ 439,908 -72- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 REVENUES Special assessments Intergovernmental Interest on investments Refunds and reimbursements TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current Culture and recreation Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Capital outlay Public works TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers in NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 Special - - - 3,710 Revenue Fund Capital Project Funds - 614 401 414 409 Total - Revolving - Capital Nonmajor - Street Pedestrian Equipment Governmental Cable T.V. Fund Trail Ways Revolving Funds $ - $ 52,669 $ - $ - $ 52,669 - 42,473 - - 42,473 217 2,619 167 513 3,516 10,683 - - - 10,683 10,900 97,761 167 513 109,341 3,710 - - - 3,710 531 - - - 531 126 - 4,599 - 4,725 - 239,369 - - 239,369 4,367 239,369 4,599 - 248,335 6,533 (141,608) (4,432) 513 (138,994) - 200,000 - 56,000 256,000 6,533 58,392 (4,432) 56,513 117,006 20,403 247,653 15,838 9,017 292,911 $ 26,936 $ 306,045 $ 11,406 $ 65,530 $ 409,917 -73- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -74- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 2014) -75- 2015 2014 Budgeted Amounts Actual Variance with Actual Original Final Amounts Final Budget Amounts REVENUES Taxes General property $ 1,796,858 $ 1,796,858 $ 1,811,893 $ 15,035 $ 1,733,187 Gambling 2,000 2,000 6,752 4,752 3,123 Total 1,798,858 1,798,858 1,818,645 19,787 1,736,310 Licenses and permits Business 18,400 18,400 20,370 1,970 16,630 Nonbusiness 95,000 95,000 114,411 19,411 92,291 Total 113,400 113,400 134,781 21,381 108,921 Intergovernmental State Local government aid 60,466 60,466 60,466 - 53,444 Market value agricultural credit - - 200 200 98 PERA aid 1,300 1,300 1,333 33 1,333 Police aid 35,000 35,000 39,480 4,480 37,928 Fire aid 148,000 148,000 157,672 9,672 148,347 County - other 18,000 18,000 14,453 (3,547) 18,613 Total 262,766 262,766 273,604 10,838 259,763 Charges for services General government 1,300 1,300 1,440 140 2,190 Culture and recreation 3,000 3,000 3,385 385 4,260 Other 100 100 15 (85) 70 Total 4,400 4,400 4,840 440 6,520 Fines and forfeitures 35,000 35,000 22,230 (12,770) 23,043 Special assessments 12,000 12,000 - (12,000) 18,618 Interest on investments 10,000 10,000 13,279 3,279 4,050 Miscellaneous Refunds and reimbursements 7,000 7,000 22,009 15,009 19,603 Other 1,000 1,000 13,168 12,168 5,651 Total 8,000 8,000 35,177 27,177 25,254 TOTAL REVENUES 2,244,424 2,244,424 2,302,556 58,132 2,182,479 -75- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 2014) EXPENDITURES Current General government Mayor and Council Personal services Other services and charges Total Elections Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total Planning and zoning Other services and charges Administration Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total Assessing Other services and charges Legal and auditing Other services and charges General government building Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total Total general government 2015 6T.in Budgeted Amounts Actual Variance with Actual Original Final Amounts Final Budget Amounts $ 30,100 $ 30,100 $ 30,120 $ (20) $ 30,136 1,000 1,000 30 970 65 31,100 31,100 30,150 950 30,201 - - - - 4,654 - - 12 (12) 105 - - 837 (837) 1,318 - - 849 (849) 6,077 2,300 2,300 1,309 991 1,188 238,500 238,500 203,272 35,228 231,658 2,400 2,400 3,807 (1,407) 2,473 51,900 51,900 52,540 (640) 68,632 292,800 292,800 259,619 33,181 302,763 16,000 16,000 15,951 49 15,912 97,000 97,000 105,535 (8,535) 95,837 2,900 2,900 1,171 1,729 1,249 300 300 5,565 (5,265) 436 14,500 14,500 13,461 1,039 13,404 17,700 17,700 20,197 (2,497) 15,089 456,900 456,900 433,610 23,290 467,067 -76- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 2014) 2015 2014 Budgeted Amounts Actual Variance with Actual Original Final Amounts Final Budget Amounts EXPENDITURES - CONTINUED Current - continued Public safety Police protection Other services and charges $ 728,535 $ 728,535 $ 730,610 $ (2,075) $ 680,036 Fire protection 1,124,635 1,124,635 1,112,162 12,473 1,066,100 Remittance to relief association 148,000 148,000 157,672 (9,672) 148,347 Other services and charges 125,300 125,300 104,680 20,620 123,720 Personal services Total 273,300 273,300 262,352 10,948 272,067 38,300 Building inspection 20,997 17,303 24,742 Other services and charges 89,800 Personal services 104,200 104,200 103,203 997 101,580 Supplies 2,800 2,800 2,431 369 4,280 Other services and charges 13,300 13,300 12,512 788 6,908 Total 120,300 120,300 118,146 2,154 112,768 Civil defense Other services and charges 1,500 1,500 1,054 446 1,229 Animal control Other services and charges 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 - Total public safety 1,124,635 1,124,635 1,112,162 12,473 1,066,100 Public works Streets Personal services 140,100 140,100 145,011 (4,911) 143,473 Supplies 38,300 38,300 20,997 17,303 24,742 Other services and charges 89,800 89,800 92,470 (2,670) 99,817 Total 268,200 268,200 258,478 9,722 268,032 Recycling Personal services 9,000 9,000 9,420 (420) 8,816 Supplies 100 100 - 100 - Other services and charges 7,700 7,700 5,769 1,931 10,005 Total 16,800 16,800 15,189 1,611 18,821 -77- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 2014) EXPENDITURES - CONTINUED Current - continued Public works - continued Engineering services Other services and charges Total public works Culture and recreation Parks and recreation Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total City Festival Other services and charges Total culture and recreation Total current expenditures Capital outlay General government Culture and recreation 2015 Budgeted Amounts Original Final Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget 2014 Actual Amounts $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 15,633 $ (3,633) $ 38,348 297,000 297,000 289,300 7,700 325,201 39,900 39,900 30,640 9,260 35,032 3,600 3,600 3,936 (336) 2,403 60,189 60,189 71,056 (10,867) 41,236 103,689 103,689 105,632 (1,943) 78,671 5,600 5,600 6,300 (700) 6,287 109,289 109,289 111,932 (2,643) 84,958 1,987,824 1,987,824 1,947,004 40,820 1,943,326 600 600 - 600 - - 7,500 (7,500) 3,236 Total capital outlay 600 600 7,500 (6,900) 3,236 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,988,424 1,988,424 1,954,504 33,920 1,946,562 -78- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERALFUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 2014) 2015 Budgeted Amounts Original Final Actual Amounts 2014 Variance with Actual Final Budget Amounts EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES $ 256,000 $ 256,000 $ 348,052 $ 92,052 $ 235,917 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Sale of capital assets - - - - 47,500 Transfers out (256,000) (256,000) (498,000) (242,000) (223,000) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (256,000) (256,000) (498,000) (242,000) (175,500) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 (149,948) (149,948) 60,417 1,319,013 1,319,013 1,319,013 - 1,258,596 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 $ 1,319,013 $ 1,319,013 $ 1,169,065 $ (149,948) $ 1,319,013 -79- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 2015 ASSETS Cash and temporary investments Receivables Accrued interest Taxes Special assessments Prepaid items TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Due to other governments DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable revenue - special assessments FUND BALANCES Restricted for debt service TOTAL LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCES -80- 309 348 349 Joint G.O. G.O. Police Improvement Improvement Station Bonds of Bonds of 2012A 2015A 2007A $ 68,084 $ 42,434 $ 325,795 145 91 695 421 - 1,643 - 34,315 318,392 5,236 - 15,746 $ 73,886 $ 76,840 $ 662,271 $ 7,529 $ - $ - 34,315 317,740 66,357 42,525 344,531 $ 73,886 $ 76,840 $ 662,271 351 352 G.O. G.O. Improvement Improvement Bonds of Bonds of 2009A 2013A Total $ 837,714 $ 73,815 $ 1,347,842 1,788 158 2,877 1,384 110 3,558 554,224 203,077 1,110,008 - - 20,982 $ 1,395,110 $ 277,160 $ 2,485,267 553,029 202,885 $ 7,529 1,107,969 842,081 74,275 1,369,769 $ 1,395,110 $ 277,160 $ 2,485,267 -81- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 REVENUES Property taxes Special assessments Intergovernmental Interest on investments TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Debt service Principal Interest and other TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Sale of capital assets Principal paid on refunded bonds Refunding bonds issued TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 -82- 309 348 349 Joint G.O. G.O. Police Improvement Improvement Station Bonds of Bonds of 2012A 2015A 2007A $ 70,035 $ - $ 273,137 - 4,990 87,378 674 507 2,915 70,709 5,497 363,430 65,000 - 365,000 5,618 75,795 37,098 70,618 75,795 402,098 91 (70,298) (38,668) - 50,109 - - (1,770,000) - - 1,385,000 - - (334,891) - 91 (405,189) (38,668) 66,266 447,714 383,199 $ 66,357 $ 42,525 $ 344,531 351 352 G.O. G.O. Improvement Improvement Bonds of Bonds of 2009A 2013A Total $ 230,115 $ 18,209 $ 591,496 124,061 35,423 251,852 48,249 - 48,249 8,564 698 13,358 410,989 54,330 904,955 265,000 - 695,000 148,819 37,514 304,844 413,819 37,514 999,844 (2,830) 16,816 (94,889) 50,109 (1,770,000) 1,385,000 (334,891) (2,830) 16,816 (429,780) 844,911 57,459 1,799,549 $ 842,081 $ 74,275 $ 1,369,769 5*11 CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL OPERATIONS GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 AND 2014 TOTAL REVENUES Per Capita EXPENDITURES Current General government Public safety Public works Culture and recreation Capital outlay General government Public works Culture and recreation Debt service Principal Interest and other TOTAL EXPENDITURES Per Capita Total Long-term Indebtedness Per Capita $ 3,327,009 $ 3,103,236 7.21 % $ 846 $ 785 7.81 % $ 433,610 $ Percent (7.16) % Total 1,112,162 Increase 1,066,100 2015 2014 (Decrease) REVENUES 325,201 (11.04) Taxes $ 2,410,141 $ 2,267,884 6.27 % Licenses and permits 134,781 108,921 23.74 Intergovernmental 364,326 310,796 17.22 Charges for services 8,646 13,035 (33.67) Fines and forfeitures 22,230 23,043 (3.53) Special assessments 311,689 310,391 0.42 Interest on investments 29,336 33,080 (11.32) Miscellaneous 45,860 36,086 27.09 TOTAL REVENUES Per Capita EXPENDITURES Current General government Public safety Public works Culture and recreation Capital outlay General government Public works Culture and recreation Debt service Principal Interest and other TOTAL EXPENDITURES Per Capita Total Long-term Indebtedness Per Capita $ 3,327,009 $ 3,103,236 7.21 % $ 846 $ 785 7.81 % $ 433,610 $ 467,067 (7.16) % 1,112,162 1,066,100 4.32 289,300 325,201 (11.04) 120,898 90,574 33.48 - 1,186 (100.00) 1,132,577 505,995 123.83 7,500 3,236 131.77 695,000 855,000 (18.71) 321,971 318,352 1.14 $ 4,113,018 $ 3,632,711 13.22 % $ 1,046 $ 919 13.85 % $ 7,615,000 $ 8,695,000 (12.42) % 1,937 2,200 (11.93) General Fund Balance - December 31 $ 1,169,065 $ 1,319,013 (11.37) % Per Capita 297 334 (10.87) The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of financial information concerning the City of Centerville to interested citizens. The complete financial statements may be examined at City Hall, 1880 Main Street, Centerville, MN 55038. Questions about this report should be directed to City Hall at (651) 429-3232. -84- OTHER REQUIRED REPORT CITY OF CENTERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 -85- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -86- : ABDO �f EICK & MEYERS LLP Certified PuUic Accountants & f insidtants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Centerville, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Centerville, Minnesota (the City), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 4, 2016. The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota statute §6.65, contains seven categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing. Our audit considered all of the listed categories, except that we did not test for compliance with the provisions for tax increment financing because the City has not established a tax increment financing district. In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City failed to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City's noncompliance with the above referenced provisions. The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. oa�&4w"J)14P ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota April 4, 2016 5201 Eden Avenue, Suite 250 Edina, MN 55436 -87- 952 835.9090 1 fax 852.835.3261 CITY OF CENTERVILLE Check Detail - April 27, 2016 04/22/16 8:36 AN Page 1 Check Date Check # Vedder Name Comments Amount 4/21/2016 000873E WELLS FARGO H.S.A. W/H - PAY PERIOD 8 Check Nbr 000873 WELLS FARGO $1,045.82 4/21/2016 000874E IRS/EFTPS FED W/H - PAY PERIOD 8 $2,197.17 4/21/2016 000874E IRS/EFTPS FICA/MED W/H - PAY PERIOD 8 $3,066.28 Check Nbr 000874 IRS/EFTPS $5.263.45 4/21/2016 000875E MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE STATE W/H - PAY PERIOD 8 Check Nbr 000875 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE $909.32 4/21/2016 000876E PERA PERA W/H - PAY PERIOD 8 Check Nbr 000876 PERA $2.754.06 4/21/2016 000877E PSN MISC. - CHARGES - ON LINE PAYMENTS $59.25 4/21/2016 000877E PSN UTILITIES BILLING - CHARGES - ON LINE PAYMENTS $152.35 4/21/2016 000877E PSN UTILITIES BILLING - CHARGES - ON LINE PAYMENTS $152.35 4/21/2016 000877E PSN PERMIT & FEES - CHARGES - ON LINE PAYMENTS $10.00 Check Nbr 000877 PSN $373.95 4/27/2016 030140 BATTERIES PLUS BULBS BATTERIES (Gators) Check Nbr 030140 BATTERIES PLUS BULBS $1.239.88 4/27/2016 030141 BLAINE BROTHERS, INC. BRAKES/BRAKE LINE REPAIR - VIN#2TZAAWDC27AY48794 Check Nbr 030141 BLAINE BROTHERS. INC. $708.28 4/27/2016 030142 BUDGET EXTERIORS REFUND PERMIT #16-026 -6954 DUPRE RD - WINDOW Check Nbr 030142 BUDGET EXTERIORS $83.04 4/27/2016 030143 BUELL CONSULTING, INC. ECROW RELEASE - T -MOBILE ANTENNA ON WATER TOWER Check Nbr 030143 BUELL CONSULTING. INC. $1.000.00 4/27/2016 030144 CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT 2ND QTR 2015 FIRE SERVICES Check Nbr 030144 CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT $53,050.75 4/27/2016 030145 CITY OF HUGO APRIL 14, 15, 19 & 20, 2016 STREET SWEEPING 1br 030145 CITY OF HUGO $1.820.00 4/27/2016 030146 COMCAST HIGH SPEED INTERNET Check Nbr 030146 COMCAST $37.92 4/27/2016 030147 DELTA DENTAL MAY 2016 DENTAL INSURANCE Check Nbr 030147 DELTA DENTAL $352.70 Check 4/27/2016 Nbr 030148 EMERALD 030148 CUSTOM EMERALD CUSTOM HOMES, INC. HOMES. INC. ESCROW RELEASE - RD REPAIR WOODS OF CLEAR WATER $4,400.00 4/27/2016 030149 HAWKINS INC. CHEMICALS Check Nbr 030149 HAWKINS INC. $1.007.84 4/27/2016 030150 HEALTH PARTNERS 2016 MAY HEALTH INS $3,763.12 4/27/2016 030150 HEALTH PARTNERS 2016 MAY COBRA - D LARSON $732.10 Check Nbr 030150 HEALTH PARTNERS $4,495.22 4/27/2016 030151 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL GOVT MEMBER DUES Check Nbr 030151 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL $135.00 Check 4/27/2016 Nbr 030152 K -LEE 030152 ELECTRIC - K -LEE ELECTRIC - CHRIS ROLSTAD CHRIS ROLSTAD STATION 3 - WIRING FOR NEW OFFICES 1810,00 4/27/2016 030153 LANG BUILDERS 1615 WIDGEON CIR -10-009 - ESCROW RELEASE Check Nbr 030153 LANG BUILDERS $500.00 Check 4/27/2016 Nbr 030154 MET, COUNCIL 030154 ENV. MET. COUNCIL ENV. SERV. (SDS) SERV. (SDS) MAY 2016 WASTEWATER SERVICES $17.101 14 Check 4/27/2016 Nbr 030155 NATIONWIDE 030155 RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION SOLUTION DEF COMP W/H - PAY PERIOD 8 $100.28 CITY OF CENTERVILLE Check Detail - April 27, 2016 04/22/16 8:36 AM Page 2 Total Checks $104,788.04 Voided Check #30161 Check Date Check # Vender Name Comments Amount 4/27/2016 030156 PAUL STEFFEL INSURANCE AGENCY, MARCH 2016 - MARCH 2017 RENEWAL - LMCIT Check Nbr 030156 PAUL STEFFEL INSURANCE AGENCY $1.500.00 4/27/2016 030157 T -RAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN ESCROW RELEASE - R12-011 - 7222 UNITY AVE - RIGHT AWAY Check Nbr 0301573--RAY-CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN $1.000.00 4/27/2016 030158 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFER AGENT DEF. COMP W/H - PAY PERIOD 8 Check Nbr 030158 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFER AGENT $400.00 4/27/2016 030159 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE SERV THRU 4-9-2016 $52.05 4/27/2016 030159 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE SERV THRU 4-9-2016 $52.05 4/27/2016 030159 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE SERV THRU 4-9-2016 $52.05 4/27/2016 030159 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE SERV THRU 4-9-2016 $52.06 4/27/2016 030159 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE SERV THRU 4-9-2016 $156.16 Check Nbr 030159 VERIZION WIRELESS $364.37 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 1880 MAIN ST - CITY HALL/FIRE STATION - SERV THRU 4-6- $466.98 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY STREET LIGHTS - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $2,199.40 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 1875 FOX RUN - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $117.33 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR - WARMING HOUSE - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $16.13 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 7300 MILL RD - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $182.08 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 1889 CENTER ST - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $23.35 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 7285 MAIN ST - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $51.53 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 1880 MAIN ST - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $899.19 4/27/2016 030160 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR - BALLFIELD LIGHTS - SERV THRU 4-6-16 $171.76 Check Nbr 030160 XCEL ENERGY $4.127.75 4/27/2016 030162 ACR, INC. REPAIR & MAINT - PACKER ROLLER Check Nbr 030162 ACR. INC. $207.27 Total Checks $104,788.04 Voided Check #30161 CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT Check Register- Police GI -without invoice numbers Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 4/7/2016 - 4/19/2016 Apr 19, 2016 04:16PM ?ort Criteria: Report type: Summary GL Check Ck No Period Issue Date 04/16 04/19/2016 10829 04/16 04/19/2016 10830 04/16 04/19/2016 10831 04/16 04/19/2016 10832 04/16 04/19/2016 10833 04/16 04/19/2016 10834 04/16 04/19/2016 10835 04/16 04/19/2016 10836 04/16 04/19/2016 10837 04/16 04/19/2016 10838 04/16 04/19/2016 10839 04/16 04/19/2016 10840 04/16 04/19/2016 10841 04/16 04/19/2016 10842 04/16 04/19/2016 10843 04/16 04/19/2016 10844 04/16 04/19/2016 10845 04/16 04/19/2016 10846 04/16 04/19/2016 10847 04/16 04/19/2016 10848 04/16 04/19/2016 10849 14/16 04/19/2016 10850 4/16 04/19/2016 10851 04/16 04/19/2016 10852 04/16 04/19/2016 10853 04/16 04/19/2016 10854 04/16 04/19/2016 10855 04/16 04/19/2016 10856 04/16 04/19/2016 10857 04/16 04/19/2016 10858 04/16 04/19/2016 10859 04/16 04/19/2016 10860 04/16 04/19/2016 10861 04/16 04/19/2016 10862 Grand Totals. Payee PETTY CASH /JENNIFER GRUBBS A.T.O.M. JEAN ALT ANOKA COUNTY ANOKA CO TREASURY DEPT. ANOKA COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY ATTORNEY ASPEN MILLS, INC CENTENNIAL UTILITIES CENTURY LINK CIRCLE PLUMBING, INC CONNEXUS ENERGY CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS DELTA DENTAL DON'S CIRCLE SERVICE, INC E C S I, LLC JENNIFER GRUBBS HEALTH PARTNERS HOLIDAY COMPANIES JEFF'S S.O.S. DRAIN & SEWER KFD TRAINING & KNOWLAN'S SUPER MARKETS LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST CITY OF LEXINGTON MMKR INC MIDWAY FORD INC NEAL A. NOREN POST BOARD QUILL CORPORATION SHRED -N -GO, INC STAG ARMS LLC STATE OF MINNESOTA TELECIDE PRODUCTIONS, INC M = Manual Check, V = Void Check 4 Description INTERVIEWERS LUNCH TRAINING LF TACTICAL SEARCH & S REIMB FOR UNIFORM PANTS 1ST QTR CJDN/MDT MAY BROADBAND SOLID WASTE FEE FOREFEITURE DISTRIBUTION 02 COR UNIFORMS MARCH UTILITIES COMMUNICATIONS PLMG REPAIR BATHROOM MARCH ELECTRIC PHONES/LONG DISTANCE MAY DENTAL INS VEH MTC & REPAIRS SEMI ANNUAL FIRE ALARM INSPECTI MEDICAL SUPPLY REIMB MAY HEALTH INS MARCH FUEL KITCHEN DRAIN PLMG WORK MG USE OF FORCE TRAINING EVIDENCE BAGS WJ LOSS CONTROL WORKSHOP DEDUCTIBLE FORFEITURE DISTRIB'02 SABLE PROGRESS BILLING 2015 AUDIT 2016 FORD SQUAD BLDG MTC HOURS PEACE LIC PA/RB/KC/AD/MG OFFICE SUPPLIES SHREDDING SERVICE STAG 15 RIFLE FORFEITURE DISTRIBUTION 02 COR COMPUTER MTC/SUPPORT Check Amount 98.75 150.00 44.98 540.00 75.00 155.53 9.60 59.35 397.52 121.18 310.00 2,103.48 407.72 1,368.80 1,252.32 325.00 10.73 10,175.17 1,884.40 115.00 250.00 6.41 40.00 320.08 270.00 3,000.00 26,315.46 135.00 450.00 150.62 45.00 740.00 4.80 1,134.53 52,466.43 CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT Check Register - FIRE GL Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 4/6/2016 - 4/15/2016 Apr 15, 2016 02:13PM Report Criteria: Report type: Summary GL Period Check Issue Date Check Number Vendor Number Payee Description Check Amount 04/16 04/15/2016 7416 10850 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURY D MAY BROADBAND 113.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7417 11565 ASPEN MILLS, INC UNIFORMS 21.32 04/16 04/15/2016 7418 30480 CENTENNIAL UTILITIES MARCH UTILITIES STATION 1 242.27 04/16 04/15/2016 7419 30485 CENTER MART FUEL 69.06 04/16 04/15/2016 7420 30500 CENTURY LINK COMMUNICATIONS 24.04 04/16 04/15/2016 7421 30800 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE DEP FEMA -IMMUNIZATIONS ONLY 2,872.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7422 40500 DRAIN KING INC STATION 1 PUMPING TRAP 400.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7423 60650 FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE S CLEANING SUPPLIES 55.08 04/16 04/15/2016 7424 80280 HEALTH PARTNERS FEMA -MAY HEALTH INS 1,773.70 04/16 04/15/2016 7425 180600 CITY OF ROSEVILLE MARCH PHONE 1,021.20 04/16 04/15/2016 7426 190850 JERRY STREICH FEMA -REFERRAL BONUS 700.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7427 200150 THOMAS MOTORS, INC 2010 F150 SERVICE 737.53 04/16 04/15/2016 7428 888816 KENNETH WILLIAMS FEMA -REFERRAL BONUS 100.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7429 1000036 DEREK ECKSTROM FEMA -RETENTION BONUS 500.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7430 1000037 LAWRENCE ELFELT FEMA -REFERRAL BONUS 100.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7431 1000038 NICHOLAS LORCH FEMA -RETENTION BONUS 500.00 04/16 04/15/2016 7432 1000040 JOHN WALLACE FEMA -REFERRAL BONUS 100.00 Grand Totals: 9,329.20 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check 3'ay"U efiezk #7411-7415 5 April 14, 2016 Paul Palzer City of Centerville 1880 Main St Centerville, MN Paul, Thank you for the opportunity to quote portable restrooms for your upcoming year. We know you will be satisfied with our prompt and reliable service. Per your request, I have compiled a price list of the services our company can provide for your upcoming year. The below prices are per each 28 -day billing cycle, not including tax. The prices do include once a week service. Handicap accessible Unit (cleaned once wkly) $125.00 Hand Sanitizer Free Included - Extra service/tip over charge per unit $25.00 Damage Waiver , Environmental Disposal Fee $15.00 $8.00 Extra Service $25 per unit weekday $25 per unit weekend/Min. $100 Weekly servicing consists of pumping and sanitizing the toilet, thoroughly cleaning all toilet surfaces and replacing the toilet paper. We also offer increased assurance of excellent service with the addition of vehicle tracking systems in our service trucks. Using state-of-the-art GPS technology, we are able to guarantee your toilets are serviced as scheduled. In fact, we are so confident in our service that we will offer a full month's refund if a single service is missed. Please feel free to visit our website www.oimmysiohnnys.com . If you need further information regarding any of our services please call or email me at any time. If you have any questions or would like to accept our bid, please call me at 651-277-5912 Sincerely, 6 OWSite snn�cartw► i' clxr.la- t sank�ik6y ', ..." - .. .... .. ' . 95 Woodlynn Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55117 t. 651-429-3781 f.651-486-6400 City of Centerville Paul Palzer 1880 Centerville Road Centerville, MN 55038 ppalzer@centervillemn.com Phone:•(651)429-4750 Fax: 1. Sanitation Quote Project Name:.- Portable 'Restrooms for 2.016. Season - r Date: Dec 17, 2015 SalesYour -. - - Mary Adam Phone: 651.429.3781 Email: marya@onsiteco.com Fax: 651.486.6400 February 28, 2017 I would like to thank you for allowing On Site Companies the opportunity to provide portable sanitation pricing for the 2016 season. On Enhanced Access Unit - Serviced'Once per Week $160.00 Enhanced Access Unit- Added Routed Service per Week Regular Portable Restroom - Serviced Once per Week Regular Portable Restroom - Added Routed Service per Week $100.00 $98.50 $93.50 Hand Sanitizer - Included $0.00 Other Delivery and Pickup Winter Service Charge $0.00 Environmental' Fee $10.00 Damage Waiver - Included $0.00 Fuel Surcharge - Included $0.00 Optional Extra Service - Weekdays $45.00 Extra Service -Emergency / Weekends $45.00 Please sign and return by March 31st, 2016 A 28 day minimum will be charged for all rental units. Rental units and service will be billed In advance on a 28 day billing cycle and all applicable taxes/ surcharges will be applied. If you have any further questions regarding portable restrooms or the service we provide, please feel free to contact me at 651-429-3781. AAAPROJECT6777 Signature Date h Page 1 of 1 THE CHURCH OF t. eneilieve 7087 GOIFFON ROAD CENTERVILLE, MN 55038 April 6, 2016 City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 Subject: St. Genevieve's Parish Festival Sunday, August 21, 2016 Liquor License Enclosed is the completed Application for a temporary license for sale of liquor. This year's event will take place on our Parish Community Center grounds, 6995 Centerville Road. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions. Sincerely, Andrew A. Melcher St. Genevieve Festival Coordinator 952-927-2431 days 8 THE CHURCH OF t. lof neilie ve 7087 GOIFFON ROAD CENTERVILLE, MN 55038 April 6, 2016 Centerville City Council City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 Subject: St. Genevieve's Parish Festival Sunday, August 21, 2016 Dear Council Members: We are requesting your support in approving our gaming permit for our annual Parish Festival. Enclosed is the completed form. We respectfully request your signature and the return of the form to us. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions. Sincerely, Andrew A. Melcher St. Genevieve Festival Coordinator 952-927-2431 days 9 MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AMENDMENT Assessor's Parcel Number: 23-31-22-14-0004 THIS MEMORANDUM evidences that a FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT effective the day of , 20_ by and between City of Centerville, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Landlord") and T -Mobile Central LLC, as successor in interest to APT Minneapolis, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company ("Tenant") was made regarding a portion of the following property: See attached Exhibit A incorporated herein for all purposes The Lease is for a term that is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2021. Tenant shall have the right to extend the Lease for four (4) additional and successive five (5) -year terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this memorandum. LANDLORD: City of Centerville, Minnesota By: Printed Name: Title: Date: LANDLORD: City of Centerville, Minnesota By: Printed Name: Title: Date: TENANT: T -Mobile Central LLC By: Printed Name: Hossein Sgpehr Title: Area Director, Network Engineering & Ops Date: 1 10 STATE OF — COUNTY OF ) ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me by , [title) of City of Centerville, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Notary Public Print Name My commission expires 11 STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me by for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) [title] of City of Centerville, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Notary Public Print Name My commission expires 12 STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me by Hossein Sepehr, the Area Director, Network Engineering and Operations of T -Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Notary Public Print Name My commission expires 13 Memorandum of Lease Amendment Exhibit A Legal Description Assessor's Parcel Number: 23-31-22-14-0004 The Property is legally described as follows: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows., The South 277.10 feat of the North 589.47 feet of that part of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying between a line that is parallel to and 956.5 feet Easterly from the Westerly litre of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and a line that is parallel to and 50 feet Westerly from the Easterly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Anoka County, Minnesota. 14 Site ID: AlN0003A Site Address: 7087 - 20th Avenue South Centerville MN 55038 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into effective on the date of the last party to execute this Amendment ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Centerville, Minnesota (together with its successors and assigns, "Landlord"), and T -Mobile Central LLC, successor in interest to APT Minneapolis, Inc. ("Tenant") a Delaware corporation (a.k.a VoiceStream Wireless) (together with its successors and assigns, "Tenant"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant (or their predecessors in interest) entered into that certain Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and APT Minneapolis, Inc. dated August 29, 1996 as amended by First Amendment to Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. successor in interest to APT Minneapolis, Inc. dated July 29, 2005, the Second Amendment to Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. dated December 28 2006 and Third Amendment to Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and T -Mobile Central LLC, successor in interest to VoiceStream Minneapolis dated September 19, 2014 (collectively, the "Lease"), whereby Landlord leased to Tenant certain premises described therein, together with all other space and access and utility easements pursuant to the terms of the Lease (collectively, the "Premises"), that are a portion of the property located at 7087 - 20th Avenue South, Centerville MN 55038, County of , State of Minnesota (the "Property"); WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to extend the Lease term and add additional renewal terms to the Lease; and WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant, in their mutual interest, wish to amend the Lease on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein by this reference, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as follows: 1. Extension of Current Expiration Date. The current term (whether such term is the initial term, a renewal term, a modified term or other) of the Lease is amended and extended such that it shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2021 (the "Modified Current Term"). During the Modified Current Term, Rent shall increase in accordance with Section 2 of this Amendment. 2. Renewal Terms. (a) Upon the expiration of the Modified Current Term, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Lease, Tenant shall have the right to renew the term of the Lease for up to four (4) additional and successive five (5) year periods (each a "Renewal Term"). Each Renewal Term shall automatically commence, on the same terms and conditions of the Lease (as amended by this Amendment), without further action by Tenant, unless (i) the Lease is sooner terminated in accordance with its terms or (ii) Tenant provides Landlord with written notice of its intention not to renew at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Modified Current Term or of any Renewal Term. (b) The Base Rent for the lease year beginning January 1, 2017 shall be Twenty-wee—Six Thousand Dollars ($326,000.00). Thereafter, on January 1 St of each year during the remainder of the Modified Current Term and any Renewal Terms, the Base Rent shall be adjusted to an amount equal to one hundred three percent (103%) of the Base Rent in effect immediately prior to the adjustment date. Site Number: AIN0003A Site Name: New Centerville WT Market: MN 16 3. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and communications under the Lease, as amended hereby, will be given by first class certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, postage prepaid. Notices will be addressed to the parties as follows: LANDLORD: Centerville Water Tank 1880 Main Street Centerville MN 55038-9794 TENANT: T -Mobile Central LLC 12920 SE 381s Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attn: Property Management/A1N0003A Either party hereto may change the place for the giving of notice to it by not less than thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other as provided herein. 4. Recordine of Documents. Landlord approves and agrees to cooperate with the recording of the Memorandum of Lease Amendment attached hereto as Schedule I and incorporated herein (together with such changes therein as may be required to comply with local law and requirements) in the recording jurisdiction where the Property is located. 5. Other Terms and Conditions Remain. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Lease and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall govern and control. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Lease otherwise is unmodified and remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and conditions. 6. Miscellaneous. Landlord acknowledges that: (a) Landlord has read and understands this Amendment and the underlying Lease and (b) Landlord has been advised and is informed that if Landlord does not enter into this Amendment, the underlying Lease between Landlord and Tenant, including any termination or non -renewal provisions therein, will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. Landlord hereby acknowledges that Tenant's facilities and use of the Premises as of the Effective Date are in conformity with the Lease. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts. Signatures hereon sent by facsimile, e-mail or other electronic means shall be treated as original signatures. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their properly authorized representatives to execute and deliver this Amendment effective as of the Effective Date. LANDLORD: TENANT: City of Centerville, Minnesota T -Mobile Central LLC By: Print Name: Title: Date: Site Number: AIN0003A Site Name: New Centerville WT Market: MN 17 Lo Print Name: Hossein Sgpehr Title: Area Director, Network Engineering & Operations Date: SCHEDULE Fourth Amendment to Site Lease A906 ent Memorandum of Lease 91 18 MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AMENDMENT Assessor's Parcel Number: 23-31-22-14-0004 THIS MEMORANDUM evidences that a FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT effective the day of '20 by and between City of Centerville, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Landlord") and T -Mobile Central LLC, as successor in interest to APT Minneapolis, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company ("Tenant") was made regarding a portion of the following property: See attached Exhibit A incorporated herein for all purposes z.. The Lease is for a term that is currently scheduled to expire on —ember 31, 20_. 21. Tenant shall have the right to extend the Lease for five (5)four 4 additional and suc - s iVe five (5) -year terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this memoranduxi,_, LANDLORD: City of Centerville, Minnesota F'v° By: Printed Name: Title: Date: LANDLORD: By: Printed Name: Title: Date: 1121MAZO A By: - Printed e: Title:'_ Date: 4 19 STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me by , [title] of City of Centerville, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for n( Notary Public Print Name My commission expires 5 20 STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me by of City of Centerville, Minnesota, a for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Notary Yu011C Print Name _ My commission 6 21 _, [title] municipal corporation, �.a Notary Yu011C Print Name _ My commission 6 21 _, [title] municipal corporation, STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me by Hossein Sepehr, the .Director, Network Engineering and Operations of T -Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability com „ or and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Notary Public Print Name _ My commission i 22 Memorandum of Lease Amendment Exhibit A Legal Description Assessor's Parcel Number: 23-31-22-14-0004 The Property is legally described as follows: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, descn'hed as follows: The South 277.10 feet of the North 588.47 feat of dot part of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying between a line that is parallel to and 956.5 feet Easterly t3•om the Westerly litre of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and a Jim that is parallel to and 50 feet Westerly from the Easterly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Anoka County, Minnesota. 23 Site ID: AIN0003A Site Address: 7087 - 20th Avenue South Centerville MN 55038 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment') is entered into effective on the date of the last party to execute this Amendment ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Centerville, Minnesota (together with its successors and assigns, "Landlord"), and T -Mobile Central LLC, successor in interest to APT Minneapolis, Inc. ("Tenant") a Delaware corporation (a.k.a VoiceStream Wireless) (together with its successors and assigns, "Tenant'). RECITALS WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant (or their predecessors in interest) entered into that certain Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and APT Minneapolis, Inc. dated August 29, 1996 as amended by First Amendment to Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. successor in interest to APT Minneapolis, Inc. dated July 29, 2005, the Second Amendment to Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. dated December 28 2006 and Third Amendment to Site Lease Agreement between the City of Centerville, Minnesota and T -Mobile Central LLC, successor in interest to VoiceStream Minneapolis dated September 19, 2014 (collectively, the "Lease"), whereby Landlord leased to Tenant certain premises described therein, together with all other space and access and utility easements pursuant to the terms of the Lease (collectively, the "Premises"), that are a portion of the property located at 7087 - 20th Avenue South, Centerville MN 55038, County of , State of Minnesota (the "Property"); WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to extend the Lease term and add additional renewal terms to the Lease; and WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant, in their mutual interest, wish to amend the Lease on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein by this reference, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as follows: 1. Extension of Current Expiration Date. The current term (whether such term is the initial term, a renewal term, a modified term or other) of the Lease is amended and extended such that it shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2021 (the "Modified Current Term"). During the Modified Current Term, Rent shall increase in accordance with Section 2 of this Amendment. 2. Renewal Terms. (a) Upon the expiration of the Modified Current Term, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Lease, Tenant shall have the right to renew the term of the Lease for up to four (4) additional and successive five (5) year periods (each a "Renewal Term"). Each Renewal Term shall automatically commence, on the same terms and conditions of the Lease (as amended by this Amendment), without further action by Tenant, unless (i) the Lease is sooner terminated in accordance with its terms or (ii) Tenant provides Landlord with written notice of its intention not to renew at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Modified Current Term or of any Renewal Term. (b) The Base Rent for the lease year beginning January 1, 2017 shall be Twenty -Six Thousand Dollars ($26,000.00). Thereafter, on January 0 of each year during the remainder of the Modified Current Term and any Renewal Terms, the Base Rent shall be adjusted to an amount equal to one hundred three percent (103%) of the Base Rent in effect immediately prior to the adjustment date. Site Number: AIN0003A Site Name: New Centerville WT Market: MN 24 3. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and communications under the Lease, as amended hereby, will be given by first class certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, postage prepaid. Notices will be addressed to the parties as follows: LANDLORD: Centerville Water Tank 1880 Main Street Centerville MN 55038-9794 TENANT: T -Mobile Central LLC 12920 SE 38a' Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attn: Property Management/A1N0003A Either party hereto may change the place for the giving of notice to it by not less than thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other as provided herein. 4. Recordina of Documents. Landlord approves and agrees to cooperate with the recording of the Memorandum of Lease Amendment attached hereto as Schedule I and incorporated herein (together with such changes therein as may be required to comply with local law and requirements) in the recording jurisdiction where the Property is located. 5. Other Terms and Conditions Remain. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Lease and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall govern and control. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Lease otherwise is unmodified and remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and conditions. 6. Miscellaneous. Landlord acknowledges that: (a) Landlord has read and understands this Amendment and the underlying Lease and (b) Landlord has been advised and is informed that if Landlord does not enter into this Amendment, the underlying Lease between Landlord and Tenant, including any termination or non -renewal provisions therein, will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. Landlord hereby acknowledges that Tenant's facilities and use of the Premises as of the Effective Date are in conformity with the Lease. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts. Signatures hereon sent by facsimile, e-mail or other electronic means shall be treated as original signatures. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their properly authorized representatives to execute and deliver this Amendment effective as of the Effective Date. LANDLORD: TENANT: City of Centerville, Minnesota T -Mobile Central LLC By: Print Name: Title: Date: Site Number: AIN0003A Site Name: New Centerville WT Market: MN 25 IU0 Print Name: Hossein Sepehr Title: Area Director, Network Engineering & Operations Date: SCHEDULE Al,- Fourth Amendment to Site Lease A ,QCwent Memorandum of Lease 26 MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AMENDMENT Assessor's Parcel Number: 23-31-22-14-0004 THIS MEMORANDUM evidences that a FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT effective the day of , 20_ by and between City of Centerville, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Landlord") and T -Mobile Central LLC, as successor in interest to APT Minneapolis, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company ("Tenant") was made regarding a portion of the following property: See attached Exhibit A incorporated herein for all purposes The Lease is for a term that is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, h Tenant shall have the right to extend the Lease for four (4) additional and successive five (5) -year terms.>,a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this memorandux�}.;=. -; r`. LANDLORD: By: Printed Name: Title: Date: LANDLORD: By: Printed Name: Title: Date: TENANT: By: �t Printed e: Title: } Date: i -i*- of ('Anr—mA T/iinnPenta 4 27 STATE OF COUNTY OF )ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me by , [title) of City of Centerville, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Notary Public Print Name My commission expires 28 JE 28 STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me by of City of Centerville, Minnesota, a for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) vuuuy ruuu" 'Tint Name _ qty commission 6 29 _, [title] municipal corporation, STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me by Hossein Senehr, the Alt Director Network Engineering and Operations of T -Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability co II for and on behalf of said entity. Dated: (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Notary Public Print Name My commission e 7 30 Memorandum of Lease Amendment Exhibit A Legal Description Assessor's Parcel Number: 23-31-22-14-0004 The Property is legally described as follows: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Seetion 23, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: The South 277.10 feet of the North 588.47 feet of that pati of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying between a line that is parallel to and 456.5 feet Easterly from the Westerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northasst Quarter and a line that is parallel to and 50 feet Westerly fx+om the Easterly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Anoka County, Minuesota. z, log Ail - 31 31 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Stantec (651) 636-4600 J'ta ntec Fax: (651) 636-1311 March 15, 2016 File: 1938OTBD Attention: Paul Palzer Public Works Director City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 Dear Paul, Reference: City of Centerville Water Supply Plan Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City of Centerville by assisting with your Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Supply Plan. This letter presents Stantec's proposal for engineering services based on the task list as detailed below. Stantec will provide a completed Water Supply Plan Template based on data and guidance provided by the City of Centerville. Completion of the Water Supply Plan (Plan) will need to be a collaborative effort between the City of Centerville and Stantec. Stantec will update the Plan template with as much information as we have available. A large number of the required tables in the Plan are strictly data entry that will need to be completed by City staff. Then Stantec can complete evaluations, projections, and recommendations as detailed in the tasks below. A meeting with City staff to finalize emergency response, conservation projects, and other Plan elements is recommended. A key component of the new DNR Water Supply Plan template is to address the sustainability of the aquifer(s) serving the City's wells. As water use conflicts have arisen in the region in recent years, the plan requires that aquifer sustainability (along with impacts to natural resources) be addressed. Even cities with no known current water use conflicts will be required to develop a monitoring plan to ensure that sustainability goals are being met over the next decade PROJECT TASKS To complete the Water Supply Plan, Stantec proposes to complete the following tasks: 1. Update the Plan template for the City of Centerville and provide to the City for data entry. 2. Answer questions from the City regarding data entry as needed. Then review the Plan as completed by the City, facilitate additional data entry as needed, and compile Appendices. 3. Complete water demand trends and projections, per capita water demand graphs, demand triggers and priorities, general capital improvement planning, etc. 4. Stantec will assess the available data on the sustainability of the resources supplying the City, including reviewing water levels from monitoring wells and other observation points. Summary of observed trends in aquifer levels and any monitored natural resources will be provided. 5. Meet with City staff to review draft Plan including suggestions for future water sources, water use priorities and demand reductions, and conservation measures. 6. Finalize Plan based on City input and provide to the City for submission to the DNR. Design with community in mind jkb \\us 1291-f01\workgroup\1938\active\193803433\design\water supply plan proposal mor 2016- centerville.docx 32 March 15, 2016 Paul Palzer Page 2 of 3 Reference: City of Centerville Water Supply Plan Potential tasks beyond the scope of this proposal: 1. Recently, the DNR has been re-examining what if traditionally accepted for water level monitoring plans. We are hopeful that the DNR will accept the City's current water level monitoring plan (for Appendix 2). If this is not sufficient to meet DNR requirements, developing a new groundwater monitoring plan would be beyond the scope of this proposal. 2. While our proposal includes assisting the City with general water system planning through 2040, to complete Table 12 of the Plan, a highly detailed Capital Improvement Plan that extends through 2040 is beyond the scope of this proposal. Stantec can expand this task list to assist the City with additional tasks if requested. DATA NEEDS To complete the Water Supply Plan, a large number of the required tables in the Plan are strictly data entry that will need to be completed by City staff. City staff will need to complete the data in the template word document. The attached Water Supply Plan template is highlighted to identify the follow City responsibilities: 1. Tables highlighted yellow identify data entry to be completed by the City. (For example, Table 2 - Historic Water Demand) 2. Tables highlighted green are tables which Stantec will start and provide to the City to review, update, and complete. (e.g. Table 6 - Water Sources) 3. Tables highlighted magenta are tables where Stantec can provide suggestions or examples for the City to consider, but the City will need to review and determine their preferred choices. (e.g. Table 18 - Water Use Priorities) Design with community in mind 33 rVIN March 15, 2016 Paul Palzer Page 3 of 3 Reference: City of Centerville Water Supply Plan COMPENSATION AND SCHEDULE Stantec proposes to provide the City of Centerville with professional engineering services required to provide the tasks described herein. Stantec will provide services on an hourly basis and estimates the level of effort required to not exceed $8,550. Reimbursable expenses are included in this proposed figure. Stantec will bill our time in accordance with the rate schedule utilized in the master agreement with the City of Centerville. Stantec will not exceed the hourly amount without further authorization from you. The DNR requires the City of Centerville Water Supply Plan be submitted through the MN DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) by December 31, 2016. Stantec can begin work once initial data entry by the City is complete and will provide a complete Plan within 3 months. We are truly grateful for this opportunity to be of service to you and the City. Please contact us if you have any specific questions; either Mark Statz at 651.604.4709 or Jason Bordewyk at 651.967.4568. If this agreement is acceptable, please sign below and return a copy to us. f Mark R.Statz Associate, Stantec Design v.,ith community in mind 34 City of Centerville Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Local Water Supply Plan Template Third Generation for 2016-2018 Formerly called Water Emergency & Water Conservation Plan Notes regarding Stantec's assistance 35 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Table of contents INTRODUCTION TO WATER SUPPLY PLANS(WSP)...............................................................5 Who needs to complete a Water Supply Plan.......................................................................................... 5 Groundwater Management Areas(GWMA).............................................................................................5 Benefitsof completing a WSP................................................................................................................... 5 WSPApproval Process.............................................................................................................................. 6 PART 1. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION..................................8 A. Analysis of Water Demand................................................................................................................8 B. Treatment and Storage Capacity....................................................................................................10 Treatment and storage capacity versus demand.................................................................11 C. Water Sources.................................................................................................................................11 Limits on Emergency Interconnections................................................................................11 D. Future Demand Projections — Key Metropolitan Council Benchmark............................................12 WaterUse Trends................................................................................................................12 ProjectionMethod................................................................................................................13 E. Resource Sustainability...................................................................................................................13 Monitoring — Key DNR Benchmark......................................................................................13 WaterLevel Data.................................................................................................................14 Potential Water Supply Issues & Natural Resource Impacts — Key DNR & Metropolitan CouncilBenchmark..............................................................................................................14 Wellhead Protection (WHP) and Source Water Protection (SWP) Plans ............................17 F. Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)......................................................................................................18 Adequacy of Water Supply System.....................................................................................18 Proposed Future Water Sources.........................................................................................19 Part 2. Emergency Preparedness Procedures...........................................................................20 A. Federal Emergency Response Plan.................................................................................................20 B. Operational Contingency Plan........................................................................................................ 20 C. Emergency Response Procedures...................................................................................................20 Emergency Telephone List..................................................................................................21 2 36 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Current Water Sources and Service Area...........................................................................21 Procedure for Augmenting Water Supplies.........................................................................21 Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures...................................................................22 Notification Procedures........................................................................................................24 Enforcement........................................................................................................................25 PART 3. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN................................................................................26 Progresssince 2006................................................................................................................................26 A. Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions.................................................................27 B. Conservation Objectives and Strategies — Key benchmark for DNR ............................................... 28 Objective 1: Reduce Unaccounted (Non -Revenue) Water loss to Less than 10% ..............28 Objective 2: Achieve Less than 75 Residential Gallons per Capita Demand (GPCD)......... 30 Objective 3: Achieve at least a 1.5% per year water reduction for Institutional, Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural GPCD over the next 10 years or a 15% reduction in ten years.................................................................................................................................... 31 Objective 4: Achieve a Decreasing Trend in Total Per Capita Demand..............................32 Objective 5: Reduce Peak Day Demand so that the Ratio of Average Maximum day to the AverageDay is less than 2.6...............................................................................................32 Objective 6: Implement a Conservation Water Rate Structure and/or a Uniform Rate Structure with a Water Conservation Program....................................................................32 Objective 7: Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use and Support Wellhead Protection Planning............................................................................................................................... 35 Objective 8: Tracking Success: How will you track or measure success through the next ten years?.................................................................................................................................. 35 A. Regulation....................................................................................................................................... 36 B. Retrofitting Programs.....................................................................................................................36 RetrofittingPrograms...........................................................................................................37 C. Education and Information Programs.............................................................................................37 Proposed Education Programs............................................................................................37 Part 4. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNITIES..................................................41 A. Water Demand Projections through 2040...................................................................................... 41 3 37 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 B. Potential Water Supply Issues........................................................................................................41 C. Proposed Alternative Approaches to Meet Extended Water Demand Projections .......................41 D. Value -Added Water Supply Planning Efforts (Optional).................................................................42 Source Water Protection Strategies....................................................................................42 Technical assistance GLOSSARY ............. ............................. 42 ......................................................................................... 43 Acronymsand Initialisms........................................................................................................................45 APPENDICES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE WATER SUPPLIER.............................................47 Appendix 1: Well records and maintenance summaries — see Part 1C .................................................47 Appendix 2: Water level monitoring plan — see Part 1E........................................................................ 47 Appendix 3: Water level graphs for each water supply well - see Part 1E .............................................47 Appendix 4: Capital Improvement Plan - see Part 1E.............................................................................47 Appendix 5: Emergency Telephone List — see Part 2C........................................................................... 47 Appendix 6: Cooperative Agreements for Emergency Services — see Part 2C .......................................47 Appendix 7: Municipal Critical Water Deficiency Ordinance — see Part 2C ............................................47 Appendix 8: Graph showing annual per capita water demand for each customer category during the last ten -years — see Part 3 Objective 4....................................................................................................47 Appendix 9: Water Rate Structure — see Part 3 Objective 6..................................................................47 Appendix 10: Adopted or proposed regulations to reduce demand or improve water efficiency —see Part3 Objective 7....................................................................................................................................47 Appendix 11: Implementation Checklist — summary of all the actions that a community is doing, or proposes to do, including estimated implementation dates — see www.mndnr.gov/watersupplyplans ................................................................................................................................................................ 47 4 38 Local Water Supply Plan Template March 2015 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES AND METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INTRODUCTION TO WATER SUPPLY PLANS (WSP) Who needs to complete a Water Supply Plan Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people, and large private water suppliers in designated Groundwater Management Areas, and all water suppliers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, are required to prepare and submit a water supply plan. The goal of the WSP is to help water suppliers: 1) implement long term water sustainability and conservation measures; and 2) develop critical emergency preparedness measures. Your community needs to know what measures will be implemented in case of a water crisis. A lot of emergencies can be avoided or mitigated if long term sustainability measures are implemented. Groundwater Management Areas (GWMA) The DNR has designated three areas of the state as Groundwater Management Areas (GWMAs) to focus groundwater management efforts in specific geographies where there is an added risk of overuse or water quality degradation. A plan directing the DNRs actions within each GWMA has been prepared. Although there are no specific additional requirements with respect to the water supply planning for communities within designated GWMAs, communities should be aware of the issues and actions planned if they are within the boundary of one of the GWMAs. The three GWMAs are the North and East Metro GWMA (Twin Cities Metro), the Bonanza Valley GWMA and the Straight River GWMA (near Park Rapids). Additional information and maps are included in the DNR webpage at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ewmp/areas.htmi Benefits of completing a WSP Completing a WSP using this template, fulfills a water supplier's statutory obligations under M.S. M.S.103G.291 to complete a water supply plan. For water suppliers in the metropolitan area, the WSP will help local governmental units to fulfill their requirements under M.S. 473.859 to complete a local comprehensive plan. Additional benefits of completing WSP template: • The standardized format allows for quicker and easier review and approval • Help water suppliers prepare for droughts and water emergencies. • Create eligibility for funding requests to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for the Drinking Water Revolving Fund. • Allow water suppliers to submit requests for new wells or expanded capacity of existing wells. • Simplify the development of county comprehensive water plans and watershed plans. • Fulfill the contingency plan provisions required in the MDH wellhead protection and surface water protection plans. • Fulfill the demand reduction requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291 subd 3 and 4. Kid Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 • Upon implementation, contribute to maintaining aquifer levels, reducing potential well interference and water use conflicts, and reducing the need to drill new wells or expand system capacity. • Enable DNR to compile and analyze water use and conservation data to help guide decisions. • Conserve Minnesota's water resources If your community needs assistance completing the Water Supply Plan, assistance is available from your area hydrologist or groundwater specialist, the MN Rural Waters Association circuit rider program, or in the metropolitan area from Metropolitan Council staff. Many private consultants are also available. WSP Approval Process 10 Basic Steps for completing a 10 -Year Water Supply Plan I. Download the DNR/Metropolitan Council Water Supply Plan Template www.mndnr.eov/watersupplyplans 2. Save the document with a file name with this naming convention: WSP—cityname—permitnumber—date.doc. 3. The template is a form that should be completed electronically. 4. Compile the required water use data (Part 1) and emergency procedures information (Part 2) 5. The Water Conservation section (Part 3) may need discussion with the water department, council, or planning commission, if your community does not already have an active water conservation program. 6. Communities in the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area should complete all the information discussed in Part 4. The Metropolitan Council has additional guidance information on their webpage http://www.metrocouncil.orp/Handbook/Plan-Elements/Water- Resources/Water-Supply.aspx. All out -state water suppliers do not need to complete the content addressed in Part 4. 7. Use the Plan instructions and Checklist document to insure all data is complete and attachments are included. This will allow for a quicker approval process. www.mndnr.pov/watersupplyplans 8. Plans should be submitted electronically — no paper documents are required. https://webappsll.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/loizin 9. DNR hydrologist will review plans (in cooperation with Metropolitan Council in Metro area) and approve the plan or make recommendations. 10. Once approved, communities should complete a Certification of Adoption form, and send a copy to the DNR. 6 40 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 covered by this WSP. DNR Water Appropriation Permit Number(s) Ownership Public or private Metropolitan Council Area Yes or No (and county name) Street Address City, State, Zip Contact Person Name Title Phone Number MDH Supplier Classification Municipal, Non -municipal transient, non -municipal non- transient, etc. 41 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 PART 1. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION The first step in any water supply analysis is to assess the current status of demand and availability. Information summarized in Part 1 can be used to develop Emergency Preparedness Procedures (Part 2) and the Water Conservation Plan (Part 3). This data is also needed to track progress for water efficiency measures. A. Analysis of Water Demand �bmiipl$ie tabf6 2-thowahg #lie past;3fl }leafs of_Water tlemand data. • Some of this information may be in your Wellhead Protection Plan. • If you do not have this information, do your best, call your engineer for assistance or if necessary leave blank. If your customer categories are different than the ones listed in Table 2, please describe the differences below: 8 42 :m- m m O N M m CL m u o, OL m m D m CL V) c 0 C9 c 0 I 0 2 c _O m l7 c 0 43 rn Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 06 i i fete bjyis ii%g ei 01 - rira �u ` i" - q!Ve, from largest to smallest. For each user, include information about the category of use (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or wholesale), the amount of water used in gallons per year, the percent of total water delivered, and the status of water conservation measures. kabia I,-Ur$e sers B. Treatment and Storage Capacity the year treatment facilities were constructed, water treatment capacity, the treatment methods (i.e. chemical addition, reverse osmosis, coagulation, sedimentation, etc.) and treatment types used (i.e. fluoridation, softening, chlorination, Fe/MN removal, coagulation, etc.). Also describe the annual amount and method of disposal of treatment residuals. Add rows to the table as needed. Describe the type (i.e. elevated, ground, etc.), the storage capacity of each type of structure, the year each structure was constructed, and the primary material for each structure. Add rows to the table as needed. 10 44 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Treatment and storage capacity versus demand It is recommended that total storage equal or exceed the average daily demand. Discuss the difference between current storage and treatment capacity versus the water supplier's projected average water demand over the next 10 years (see Table 7 for projected water demand): C. Water Sources that supply water to the system, including groundwater, surface water, interconnections with other water suppliers, or others. Provide the name of each source (aquifer name, river or lake name, name of interconnecting water supplier) and the Minnesota unique well number or intake ID, as appropriate. Report the year the source was installed or established and the current capacity. Provide information about the depth of all wells. Describe the status of the source (active, inactive, emergency only, retail/wholesale interconnection) and if the source facilities have a dedicated emergency power source. Add rows to the table as needed for each installation. .r nclud wip es of nrell ec Fos_and-mainwriancestar�mary 46evach well #hailias_octuProO- i y,. -last Limits on Emergency Interconnections (e.g. not to be operated simultaneously, limitations due to blending, aquifer recovery issues etc.) and the use of interconnections, including 11 45 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 capacity limits or timing constraints (i.e. only 200 gallons per minute are available from the City of Prior Lake, and it is estimated to take 6 hours to establish the emergency connection). If there are no limitations, list none. D. Future Demand Projections - Key Metropolitan Council Benchmark Water Use Trends Use the data in Table 2 to describe trends in 1) population served; 2) total per capita water demand; 3) average daily demand; 4) maximum daily demand. Then explain the causes for upward or downward trends. For example, over the ten years has the average daily demand trended up or down? Why is this occurring? Use the water use trend information discussed above to complete Table 7 with projected annual demand for the next ten years. Communities in the seven -.county Twin Cities metropolitan area must Iso include projections for 2030 a>. . 040 as part of their local comprehensive planning. Projected demand should be consistent with trends evident in the historical data in Table 2, as discussed above. Projected demand should also reflect state demographer population projections and/or other planning projections. Table 7. Projected annual water demand 2016 Prole a ota Populatio _FOject_ �pul�iti a .e 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2030 2040 GPCD — Gallons per Capita per Day MGD — Million Gallons per Day 12 Mil Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Projection Method Describe the method used to project water demand, including assumptions for population and business growth and how water conservation and efficiency programs affect projected water demand: E. Resource Sustainability Monitoring - Key DNR Benchmark ±grnpie#e Tabu S by inserting information abQu#source waterquality rnonitoririg efforts. The list should include all production wells, observation wells, and source water intakes or reservoirs. Additional information on groundwater level monitoring program at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater section/obwell/index.html Add rows to the table as needed. �##lei. iitfor i iign about souyte watgi ;Iu lity inoniforing 13 47 O production well ❑Routine MDH ❑continuous ❑SCADA ❑ observation well sampling ❑hourly O grab sampling ❑ source water ❑Routine water O daily ❑ steel tape intake utility sampling O monthly ❑ stream gauge ❑ source water O other ❑quarterly reservoir ❑annually ❑ production well ❑Routine MDH ❑continuous ❑SCADA ❑ observation well sampling Ohourly ❑ grab sampling ❑ source water ❑Routine water ❑ daily O steel tape intake utility sampling ❑ monthly O stream gauge ❑ source water O other ❑quarterly reservoir ❑annually ❑ production well ❑Routine MDH Ocontinuous OSCADA ❑ observation well sampling Ohourly O grab sampling ❑ source water ❑Routine water ❑ daily O steel tape intake utility sampling ❑ monthly ❑ stream gauge ❑ source water O other ❑quarterly reservoir ❑annually ❑ production well ❑Routine MDH ❑continuous OSCADA ❑ observation well sampling ❑hourly ❑ grab sampling ❑ source water ❑Routine water ❑ daily O steel tape intake utility sampling ❑ monthly O stream gauge ❑ source water ❑ other ❑quarterly reservoir ❑annually ❑ production well ❑Routine MDH ❑continuous ❑SCADA ❑ observation well sampling Ohourly ❑ grab sampling ❑ source water ❑Routine water ❑ daily ❑ steel tape intake utility sampling ❑ monthly O stream gauge ❑ source water ❑ other ❑quarterly reservoir ❑annually 13 47 Local Water Supply Plan Template -March 2016 Water Level Data i+vater evel mo i t0-ingplan that includes monitoring loco#Ions and a schedule for water level readings Inusl lie subtrilttedas i4jiperadix 1. If one does not already exist, it needs to be prepared and submitted with the WSP. Ideally, all production and observation wells are monitored at least monthly. complete Table 9 to suMinarize water le -Vel data for each well being monitol ed. Provide the name of the aquifer and a brief description of how much water levels vary over the season (the difference between the highest and lowest water levels measured during the year) and the long-term trends for each well. If water levels are not measured and recorded on a routine basis, then provide the static water level when each well was constructed and the most recent water level measured during the same season the well was constructed. Also include all water level data taken during any well and pump maintenance. Add rows to the table as needed. novitie waterlev - I data graphs for each well in Appendix 3 for the life of the well, or for as many years yeei3s'y"d. See DNR website for Date Time Water Level htto://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater sect ion/obwell/waterleveldata.htmI M e t aeyal a to Potential Water Supply Issues & Natural Resource Impacts - Key DNR & Metropolitan Council Benchmark If known, provide the name of specific resources that may be impacted. Identify what the greatest risks to the resource are and how the risks are being assessed. Identify any resource protection thresholds -formal or informal -that have been established to identify when actions should be taken to mitigate impacts. Provide information about the potential mitigation actions that may be 14 48 ❑ Falling MM/DD/YY: ❑ Stable MM/DD/YY:_ ❑ Rising MM/DD/YY: ❑ Falling MM/DD/YY:_ ❑ Stable MM/DD/YY: ❑ Rising MM/DD/YY: ❑ Falling MM/DD/YY: ❑ Stable MM/DD/YY: ❑ Rising MM/DD/YY: ❑ Falling MM/DD/YY: ❑ Stable MM/DD/YY: ❑ Rising MM/DD/YY: ❑ Falling MM/DD/YY:_ ❑ Stable MM/DD/YY:_ ❑ Rising MM/DD/YY: Potential Water Supply Issues & Natural Resource Impacts - Key DNR & Metropolitan Council Benchmark If known, provide the name of specific resources that may be impacted. Identify what the greatest risks to the resource are and how the risks are being assessed. Identify any resource protection thresholds -formal or informal -that have been established to identify when actions should be taken to mitigate impacts. Provide information about the potential mitigation actions that may be 14 48 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 taken, if a resource protection threshold is crossed. Add additional rows to the table as needed. See the glossary at the end of the template for definitions. Some of this baseline data should have been in your earlier water supply plans or county comprehensive water plans. When filling out this table, think of what are the water supply risks, identify the resources, determine the threshold and then determine what your community will do to mitigate the impacts. Your DNR area hydrologist is available to assist with this table. For communities in the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area, the Master Water Supply Plan Appendix 1 (Water Supply Profiles, provides information about potential water supply issues and natural resource impacts for your community. ❑ River or ❑ Flow/water ❑ GIS analysis ❑ Revise stream level decline ❑ Modeling permit ❑ Degrading ❑ Mapping ❑ Change water quality ❑ Monitoring groundwater trends and/or ❑ Aquifer pumping MCLs exceeded testing ❑ Increase ❑ Impacts on ❑ Other: — conservation endangered, ❑ Other threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ❑Other: ❑ Calcareous ❑ Flow/water ❑ GIS analysis ❑ Revise fen level decline ❑ Modeling permit ❑ Degrading ❑ Mapping ❑ Change water quality ❑ Monitoring groundwater trends and/or ❑ Aquifer pumping MCLs exceeded testing ❑ Increase ❑ Impacts on ❑ Other: _ conservation endangered, ❑ Other threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ❑Other: 15 49 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 ❑ Lake ❑ Flow/water ❑ GIS analysis ❑ Revise level decline ❑ GIS analysis permit ❑ Degrading ❑ Modeling ❑ Change water quality ❑ Mapping groundwater trends and/or ❑ Monitoring pumping MCLS exceeded ❑ Aquifer ❑ Increase ❑ Impacts on testing conservation endangered, ❑ Other: _ ❑ Other threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ❑Other: ❑ Wetland ❑ Flow/water ❑ GIS analysis ❑ Revise level decline ❑ Modeling permit ❑ Degrading ❑ Mapping ❑ Change water quality ❑ Monitoring groundwater trends and/or ❑ Aquifer pumping MCLS exceeded testing ❑ Increase ❑ Impacts on ❑ Other: _ conservation endangered, ❑ Other threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ❑Other: ❑ Trout ❑ Flow/water ❑ GIS analysis ❑ Revise Stream level decline ❑ Modeling permit ❑ Degrading ❑ Mapping ❑ Change water quality ❑ Monitoring groundwater trends and/or ❑ Aquifer pumping MCLS exceeded testing ❑ increase ❑ Impacts on ❑ Other: _ conservation endangered, ❑ Other threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ❑Other: ❑ Aquifer ❑ Flow/water ❑ GIS analysis ❑ Revise 16 50 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 * Examples of thresholds: a lower limit on acceptable flow in a river or stream; water quality outside of an accepted range; a lower limit on acceptable aquifer level decline at one or more monitoring wells; withdrawals that exceed some percent of the total amount available from a source; or a lower limit on acceptable changes to a protected habitat. Wellhead Protection (WHP) and Source Water Protection (SWP) Plans The emergency procedures in this plan are intended to comply with the contingency plan provisions required in the Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH) Wellhead Protection (WHIR) Plan and Surface Water Protection (SWP) Plan. WHIP ❑ In Process ❑Completed ❑ Not Applicable SWP ❑ In Process ❑ Completed ❑ Not Applicable 17 51 r level decline ❑ Modeling permit ❑ Degrading ❑ Mapping ❑ Change water quality ❑ Monitoring groundwater trends and/or ❑ Aquifer pumping MCLS exceeded testing ❑ Increase ❑ Impacts on ❑ Other: — conservation endangered, ❑ Other threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ❑Other: ❑ Endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat, other Natural resource impacts * Examples of thresholds: a lower limit on acceptable flow in a river or stream; water quality outside of an accepted range; a lower limit on acceptable aquifer level decline at one or more monitoring wells; withdrawals that exceed some percent of the total amount available from a source; or a lower limit on acceptable changes to a protected habitat. Wellhead Protection (WHP) and Source Water Protection (SWP) Plans The emergency procedures in this plan are intended to comply with the contingency plan provisions required in the Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH) Wellhead Protection (WHIR) Plan and Surface Water Protection (SWP) Plan. WHIP ❑ In Process ❑Completed ❑ Not Applicable SWP ❑ In Process ❑ Completed ❑ Not Applicable 17 51 r Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 WHP — Wellhead Protection Plan SWP — Source Water Protection Plan F. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Please note that any wells that received approval under a ten-year permit, but that were not built, are now expired and must submit a water appropriations permit. Adequacy of Water Supply System to sustain current and projected demands. List planned capital improvements for any system components, in chronological order. Communities in the seven - county Twin Cities metropolitan area should also include information about plans through 2040. The assessment can be the general status by category; it is not necessary to identify every single well, storage facility, treatment facility, lift station, and mile of pipe. Wells/Intakes ❑ No action planned - adequate ❑ Repair/replacement ❑ Expansion/addition Water Storage Facilities ❑ No action planned - adequate ❑ Repair/replacement ❑ Expansion/addition Water Treatment Facilities ❑ No action planned - adequate ❑ Repair/replacement ❑ Expansion/addition Distribution Systems (pipes, valves, ❑ No action planned - adequate etc.) ❑ Repair/replacement ❑ Expansion/addition Pressure Zones ❑ No action planned - adequate ❑ Repair/replacement ❑ Expansion/addition Other: ❑ No action planned - adequate ❑ Repair/replacement ❑ Expansion/addition 18 52 Local Water Supply Plan Template –March 2016 Proposed Future Water Sources Add rows to the table as needed. Water Source Alternatives - Key Metropolitan Council Benchmark Do you anticipate the need for alternative water sources in the next 10 years? _ Yes _ No For metro communities, will you need alternative water sources by the year 2040? —Yes _ No If you answered yes for either question, then complete table 14. If no, insert NA. including approximate locations (if known), the estimated amount of future demand that could be met through the approach, the estimated timeframe to implement the approach, potential partnerships, and the major benefits and challenges of the approach. Add rows to the table as needed. For communities in the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area, these alternatives should include approaches the community is considering to meet projected 2040 water demand. 19 53 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Part 2. Emergency Preparedness Procedures The emergency preparedness procedures outlined in this plan are intended to comply with the contingency plan provisions required by MDH in the WHP and SWP. Water emergencies can occur as a result of vandalism, sabotage, accidental contamination, mechanical problems, power failings, drought, flooding, and other natural disasters. The purpose of emergency planning is to develop emergency response procedures and to identify actions needed to improve emergency preparedness. In the case of a municipality, these procedures should be in support of, and part of, an all -hazard emergency operations plan. Municipalities that already have written procedures dealing with water emergencies should review the following information and update existing procedures to address these water supply protection measures. A. Federal Emergency Response Plan Section 1433(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, (Public Law 107-188, Title IV- Drinking Water Security and Safety) requires community water suppliers serving over 3,300 people to prepare an Emergency Response Plan. ooyooIhaveajedejAi. tniswXeipc'y<je�poii#e.plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No if eyes, what * s ft date it *As caer#ifled? orpplete Tabla 13 by inserting the noted information regarding your completed federal Emergency �t�splznse 3���n: . Table 15. Emergency Preparedness Plan contact information B. Operational Contingency Plan All utilities should have a written operational contingency plan that describes measures to be taken for water supply mainline breaks and other common system failures as well as routine maintenance. Do you have a written operational contingency plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No At a minimum, a water supplier should prepare and maintain an emergency contact list of contractors and suppliers. C. Emergency Response Procedures Water suppliers must meet the requirements of MN Rules 4720.5280. Accordingly, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to submit Emergency and Conservation Plans. Water emergency and conservation plans that have been approved by the DNR, under provisions of Minnesota Statute 186 and Minnesota Rules, part 6115.0770, will be considered equivalent to an approved WHP contingency plan. 20 54 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Emergency Telephone List F-epairp end attach a_list ofemergencycontacts, including the MN Duty�Officer (1-8�i0_- 2Z-0798), as AppehdiX 5. A template is available at www.mndnr.eov/watersupplyplans The list should include key utility and community personnel, contacts in adjacent water suppliers, and appropriate local, state and federal emergency contacts. Please be sure to verify and update the contacts on the emergency telephone list and date it. Thereafter, update on a regular basis (once a year is recommended). In the case of a municipality, this information should be contained in a notification and warning standard operating procedure maintained by the Emergency Manager for that community. Responsibilities and services for each contact should be defined. Current Water Sources and Service Area Quick access to concise and detailed information on water sources, water treatment, and the distribution system may be needed in an emergency. System operation and maintenance records should be maintained in secured central and back-up locations so that the records are accessible for emergency purposes. A detailed map of the system showing the treatment plants, water sources, storage facilities, supply lines, interconnections, and other information that would be useful in an emergency should also be readily available. It is critical that public water supplier representatives and emergency response personnel communicate about the response procedures and be able to easily obtain this kind of information both in electronic and hard copy formats (in case of a power outage). Do records and maps exist? ❑ Yes ❑ No tan staff access records and maps from a central secured location in the event of ah -:emergency? ❑ Yes ❑ No goes the appropriate -staff know where the materials are located? ❑ Yes ❑ No Procedure for Augmenting Water Supplies Complete Tables 16 —17 by listing all available sources of water that can be used to augment or replace I xisting sources in an emergency. Add rows to the tables as needed. In the case of a municipality, this information should be contained in a notification and warning standard operating procedure maintained by the warning point for that community. Municipalities are ,encouraged to -execute cooperative agreements for potential emergency water services and copies should be included in Appendix 6. Outstate Communities may consider using nearby high capacity wells (industry, golf course) as emergency water sources. WSP should include information on any physical or chemical problems that may limit interconnections to other sources of water. Approvals from the MDH are required for interconnections or the reuse of water. 21 55 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 WO*lila' 0*401Wier a sil i» t It ? ri"100' �* Y GPM — Gallons per minute MGD — million gallons per day Table 17. Utilizing surface water as an alternative source If not covered above, describe additional emergency measures for providing water (obtaining bottled water, or steps to obtain National Guard services, etc.) Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures Provide information for each customer category, including its priority ranking, average day demand, and demand reduction potential for each customer category. Modify the customer categories as needed, and add additional lines if necessary. Water use categories should be prioritized in a way that is consistent with Minnesota Statutes 103G.261 (#1 is highest priority) as follows: 1. Water use for human needs such as cooking, cleaning, drinking, washing and waste disposal; use for on-farm livestock watering; and use for power production that meets contingency requirements. 2. Water use involving consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day (usually from private wells or surface water intakes) 3. Water use for agricultural irrigation and processing of agricultural products involving consumption of more than 10,000 gallons per day (usually from private high-capacity wells or surface water intakes) 4. Water use for power production above the use provided for in the contingency plan. 5. All other water use involving consumption of more than 10,000 gallons per day. 22 56 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 6. Nonessential uses — car washes, golf courses, etc. Water used for human needs at hospitals, nursing homes and similar types of facilities should be designated as a high priority to be maintained in an emergency. Lower priority uses will need to address water used for human needs at other types of facilities such as hotels, office buildings, and manufacturing plants. The volume of water and other types of water uses at these facilities must be carefully considered. After reviewing the data, common sense should dictate local allocation priorities to protect domestic requirements over certain types of economic needs. Water use for lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf courses, and recreation are legislatively considered non-essential. Residential 1 Institutional Commercial Industrial Irrigation Wholesale Non -Essential 6 TOTAL NA NA GPD — Gallons per Day Tip: Calculating Emergency Demand Reduction Potential The emergency demand reduction potential for all uses will typically equal the difference between maximum use (summer demand) and base use (winter demand). In extreme emergency situations, lower priority water uses must be restricted or eliminated to protect priority domestic water requirements. Emergency demand reduction potential should be based on average day demands for customer categories within each priority class. Use the tables in Part 3 on water conservation to help you determine strategies. 23 57 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 ❑ Contamination ❑ Supply augmentation through ❑ Supply augmentation through — ❑ Website ❑ Loss of production demand ❑ Email list serve ❑ Infrastructure failure ❑ Adopt (if not already) and ❑ Adopt (if not already) and ❑ Social media (e.g. Twitter, ❑ Executive order by enforce a critical water enforce a critical water Facebook) Governor deficiency ordinance to penalize deficiency ordinance to ❑ Direct customer mailing, lawn watering, vehicle washing, penalize lawn watering, vehicle ❑ Press release (TV, radio, ❑Other: golf course and park irrigation & washing, golf course and park newspaper), other nonessential uses. irrigation & other nonessential ❑ Meeting with large water users (> ❑ Water allocation through uses. 10% of total city use) ❑ Meet with large water users to ❑ Water allocation through ❑ Other: discuss their contingency plan. ❑ Meet with large water users to ❑ Website ❑ Daily discuss their contingency plan. ❑ Email list serve Notification Procedures water use restrictions, and suspensions; notification frequencies; and partners that may assist in the notification process. Add rows to the table as needed. M E ❑ Short-term — ❑ Website ❑ Daily demand ❑ Email list serve ❑ Weekly reduction ❑ Social media (e.g. Twitter, ❑ Monthly declared (< 1 Facebook) ❑ Annually year) ❑ Direct customer mailing, ❑ Press release (TV, radio, newspaper), ❑ Meeting with large water users (> 10% of total city use) ❑ Other: ❑ Long-term ❑ Website ❑ Daily Ongoing ❑ Email list serve ❑ Weekly demand ❑ Social media (e.g. Twitter, ❑ Monthly reduction Facebook) ❑ Annually declared ❑ Direct customer mailing, ❑ Press release (TV, radio, newspaper), ❑ Meeting with large water users (> 109,6' of total city use) ❑ Other: ❑ Governor's ❑ Website ❑ Daily Critical water ❑ Email list serve ❑ Weekly deficiency ❑ Social media (e.g. Twitter, ❑ Monthly declared Facebook) ❑ Annually ❑ Direct customer mailing, ❑ Press release (TV, radio, newspaper), 24 58 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Enforcement Prior to a water emergency, municipal water suppliers must adopt regulations that restrict water use and outline the enforcement response plan. The enforcement response plan must outline how conditions will be monitored to know when enforcement actions are triggered, what enforcement tools will be used, who will be responsible for enforcement, and what timelines for corrective actions will be expected. Affected operations, communications, and enforcement staff must then be trained to rapidly implement those provisions during emergency conditions. Important Note: Disregard of critical water deficiency orders, even though total appropriation remains less than permitted, is adequate grounds for immediate modification of a public water supply authority's water use permit (2013 MN Statutes 103G.291) P s #fie-cj . a�! , ' t to ii # t, r c 1 r tri oink l i roti#r ) j OW01#�at"1nr�0des provi;iorisx fstrc iivatersiteiirceie=tes#iirs? (This restriction may be an ordinance, rule, regulation, policy under a council directive, or other official control) ❑ Yes ❑ No if yes, attac-h'the ofificidl cunt of i bciir ent o this'WSP as'Apjiendix 1. )f -no, the municipality must adopt such an"official control within 6- months of submitting this WSP and submit it -to th .%ii�il� as aA arr�etidrnei�# totis N R, rrespec#+ve-o _Yihe*pr acritical water dei eWnCv cdhtr0l-isin placef dQ s -the public sir ter apply Futility, city t anager,,mayor, :or iergency» onager have sfaiid(hg ailltiior jj #dfimplisme►it sva er i*trictions? ❑ Yes ❑ No If -yes, cite the regulatory authority reference: If no, who has authority to implement water use restrictions in an emergency? 25 59 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 PART 3. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Minnesotans have historically benefited from the state's abundant water supplies, reducing the need for conservation. There are Priority 1:' • however, limits to the available supplies of water and increasing reduction; low • threats to the quality of our drinking water. Causes of water supply cost hanging fruit� limitation may include: population increases, economic trends, ¢ uneven statewide availability of groundwater, climatic changes, and degraded water quality. Examples of threats to drinking water Priority 2. Priority � Sl quality include: the presence of contaminant plumes from past land water reductl�htl' Significant water I significant costs use activities, exceedances of water quality standards from natural costsreduction; : significant .. . and human sources, contaminants of emerging concern, and IL increasing pollutant trends from nonpoint sources. There are many incentives for conserving water; conservation: • reduces the potential for pumping -induced transfer of contaminants into the deeper aquifers, which can add treatment costs • reduces the need for capital projects to expand system capacity • reduces the likelihood of water use conflicts, like well interference, aquatic habitat loss, and declining lake levels • conserves energy, because less energy is needed to extract, treat and distribute water (and less energy production also conserves water since water is use to produce energy) • maintains water supplies that can then be available during times of drought It is therefore imperative that water suppliers implement water conservation plans. The first step in water conservation is identifying opportunities for behavioral or engineering changes that could be made to reduce water use by conducting a thorough analysis of: • Water use by customer • Extraction, treatment, distribution and irrigation system efficiencies • Industrial processing system efficiencies • Regulatory and barriers to conservation • Cultural barriers to conservation • Water reuse opportunities Once accurate data is compiled, water suppliers can set achievable goals for reducing water use. A successful water conservation plan follows a logical sequence of events. The plan should address both conservation on the supply side (leak detection and repairs, metering), as well as on the demand side (reductions in usage). Implementation should be conducted in phases, starting with the most obvious and lowest -cost options. In some cases one of the early steps will be reviewing regulatory constraints to water conservation, such as lawn irrigation requirements. Outside funding and grants may be available for implementation of projects. Engage water system operators and maintenance staff and customers in brainstorming opportunities to reduce water use. Ask the question: "How can I help save water?" Progress since 2006 Is this your community's first Water Supply Plan? ❑ Yes R1 No 26 60 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 If yes, describe conservation practices that you are already implementing, such as: pricing, system improvements, education, regulation, appliance retrofitting, enforcement, etc. If no, on of (f Wafer table 21. molementatim of kevious ten -year_Conservation Pion Change Water Rates Structure to provide conservation pricing ❑ Yes ❑ No Water Supply System Improvements (e.g. leak repairs, valve replacements, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No Educational Efforts ❑ Yes ❑ No New water conservation ordinances ❑ Yes ❑ No Rebate or retrofitting Program (e.g. for toilet, faucets, appliances, showerheads, dish ❑ Yes washers, washing machines, irrigation systems, rain barrels, water softeners, etc. ❑ No Enforcement ❑ Yes ❑ No Describe Other ❑ Yes ❑ No What are the results you'ltave seen from the actions 1In:T;bte 21 an4 how were -results measured? A. Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions Add in additional rows to the table as needed. 27 61 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 B. Conservation Objectives and Strategies - Key benchmark for DNR This section establishes water conservation objectives and strategies for eight major areas of water use. Objective 1: Reduce Unaccounted (Non -Revenue) Water loss to Less than 10% The Minnesota Rural Waters Association, the Metropolitan Council and the Department of Natural Resources recommend that all water uses be metered. Metering can help identify high use locations and times, along with leaks within buildings that have multiple meters. It is difficult to quantify specific unmetered water use such as that associated with firefighting and system flushing or system leaks. Typically, water suppliers subtract metered water use from total water pumped to calculate unaccounted or non -revenue water loss. ❑ Yes ❑ No What is your leak detection monitoring schedule? (e.g. monitor 1/3rd of the city lines per year) 28 62 ❑ Other: Short-term demand reduction ❑ Extremely high seasonal ❑ Adopt (if not already) and enforce the (less than 1 year water demand (more than critical water deficiency ordinance to double winter demand) restrict or prohibit lawn watering, ❑ Loss of treatment capacity vehicle washing, golf course and park ❑ Lack of water in storage irrigation & other nonessential uses. ❑ State drought plan ❑ Supply augmentation through ❑ Well interference ❑ Water allocation through_ ❑ Other: ❑ Meet with large water users to discuss user's contingency plan. Long-term demand reduction ❑ Per capita demand ❑ Develop a critical water deficiency (>i year) increasing ordinance that is or can be quickly ❑ Total demand increase adopted to penalize lawn watering, (higher population or more vehicle washing, golf course and park industry)Water level in irrigation & other nonessential uses. well(s) below elevation of ❑ Enact a water waste ordinance that targets overwatering (causing water to ❑ Other: flow off the landscape into streets, parking lots, or similar), watering impervious surfaces (streets, driveways or other hardscape areas), and negligence of known leaks, breaks, or malfunctions. ❑ Meet with large water users to discuss user's contingency plan. ❑ Enhanced monitoring and reporting: audits, meters, billing, etc. Governors "Critical Water ❑ Describe ❑ Describe Deficiency Order" declared B. Conservation Objectives and Strategies - Key benchmark for DNR This section establishes water conservation objectives and strategies for eight major areas of water use. Objective 1: Reduce Unaccounted (Non -Revenue) Water loss to Less than 10% The Minnesota Rural Waters Association, the Metropolitan Council and the Department of Natural Resources recommend that all water uses be metered. Metering can help identify high use locations and times, along with leaks within buildings that have multiple meters. It is difficult to quantify specific unmetered water use such as that associated with firefighting and system flushing or system leaks. Typically, water suppliers subtract metered water use from total water pumped to calculate unaccounted or non -revenue water loss. ❑ Yes ❑ No What is your leak detection monitoring schedule? (e.g. monitor 1/3rd of the city lines per year) 28 62 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Water Audits - are intended to identify, quantify and verify water and revenue losses. The volume of unaccounted-for water should be evaluated each billing cycle. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that ten percent or less of pumped water is unaccounted-for water. Water audit procedures are available from the AWWA and MN Rural Water Association www.mrwa.com. Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds are available for purchase of new meters when new plants are built. i�1ila+>4ii#s: ❑ yearly ❑ other (specify frequency) �eketesiit�hi survey: ❑ every year ❑ every other year ❑periodic as needed er-Bast ,eat-tetitoin surrey completed: If Table 2 shows annual water losses over 10% or an increasing trend over time, describe what actions will be taken to reach the <10% loss objective and within what timeframe Metering -AWWA recommends that every water supplier install meters to account for all water taken into its system, along with all water distributed from its system at each customer's point of service. An effective metering program relies upon periodic performance testing, repair, maintenance or replacement of all meters. AWWA also recommends that water suppliers conduct regular water audits to ensure accountability. Some cities install separate meters for interior and exterior water use, but some research suggests that this may not result in water conservation. orr i e.. j3ig 3-� y�l di g }�--requested_jnform. ton -re ingAer�urnber.-type.-t irig_and Inaif%0 ani .iner meters. kabem6�# 4#o W*ej tfefs Residential Irrigation meters Institutional Commercial Industrial Public Facilities Other TOTALS NA NA For unmetered systems, describe any plans to install meters or replace current meters with advanced technology meters. Provide an estimate of the cost to implement the plan and the projected water savings from implementing the plan. 29 63 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 k6ble 2$.V0ttgr.s604 tO*ts Objective 2: Achieve Less than 75 Residential Gallons per Capita Demand (GPCD) The 2002 average residential per capita demand in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area was 75 gallons per capita per day. ❑ Yes ❑ No _ g/person/day Describe the water use trend over that timeframe: (Select all that apply and add rows for additional strategies): 30 64 ❑ Revise city ordinances/codes to encourage or require water efficient landscaping. ❑ Revise city ordinance/codes to permit water reuse options, especially for non -potable purposes like irrigation, groundwater recharge, and industrial use. Check with plumbing authority to see if internal buildings reuse is permitted ❑ Revise ordinances to limit irrigation. Describe the restricted irrigation plan: ❑ Revise outdoor irrigation installations codes to require high efficiency systems (e.g. those with soil moisture sensors or programmable watering areas) in new installations or system replacements. ❑ Make water system infrastructure improvements ❑ Offer free or reduced cost water use audits) for residential customers. ❑ Implement a notification system to inform customers 30 64 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Objective 3: Achieve at least a 1.5% per year water reduction for Institutional, Industrial, GPCD over the next 10 years or a 15% reduction in ten years. and project a likely timeframe for completing each checked strategy (add rows for additional strategies). Where possible, substitute recycled water used in one process for reuse in another. (For example, spent rinse water can often be reused in a cooling tower.) Keep in mind the true cost of water is the amount on the water bill PLUS the expenses to heat, cool, treat, pump, and dispose of/discharge the water. Don't just calculate the initial investment. Many conservation retrofits that appear to be prohibitively expensive are actually very cost-effective when amortized over the life of the equipment. Often reducing water use also saves electrical and other utility costs. Note: as of 2015, water reuse, and is not allowed by the state plumbing code, M.R. 4715 (a variance is needed). However several state agencies are addressing this issue. ❑ Conduct a facility water use audit for both indoor and when water availability conditions change. ❑ Provide rebates or incentives for installing water efficient to detect spikes in consumption appliances and/or fixtures indoors (e.g., low flow toilets, ❑ Compare facility water use to related industry high efficiency dish washers and washing machines, benchmarks, if available (e.g., meat processing, dairy, showerhead and faucet aerators, water softeners, etc.) ❑ Provide rebates or incentives to reduce outdoor water metals, technology, petroleum refining etc.), use (e.g., turf replacement/reduction, rain gardens, rain ❑ Install water conservation fixtures and appliances or barrels, smart irrigation, outdoor water use meters, etc.) ❑ Identify supplemental Water Resources ❑ Conduct audience -appropriate water conservation ❑ Investigate the reuse of reclaimed water (e.g., education and outreach. ❑ Describe other plans Objective 3: Achieve at least a 1.5% per year water reduction for Institutional, Industrial, GPCD over the next 10 years or a 15% reduction in ten years. and project a likely timeframe for completing each checked strategy (add rows for additional strategies). Where possible, substitute recycled water used in one process for reuse in another. (For example, spent rinse water can often be reused in a cooling tower.) Keep in mind the true cost of water is the amount on the water bill PLUS the expenses to heat, cool, treat, pump, and dispose of/discharge the water. Don't just calculate the initial investment. Many conservation retrofits that appear to be prohibitively expensive are actually very cost-effective when amortized over the life of the equipment. Often reducing water use also saves electrical and other utility costs. Note: as of 2015, water reuse, and is not allowed by the state plumbing code, M.R. 4715 (a variance is needed). However several state agencies are addressing this issue. ❑ Conduct a facility water use audit for both indoor and outdoor use, including system components ❑ Install enhanced meters capable of automated readings to detect spikes in consumption ❑ Compare facility water use to related industry benchmarks, if available (e.g., meat processing, dairy, fruit and vegetable, beverage, textiles, paper/pulp, metals, technology, petroleum refining etc.), ❑ Install water conservation fixtures and appliances or change processes to conserve water ❑ Repair leaking system components (e.g., pipes, valves) ❑ Investigate the reuse of reclaimed water (e.g., stormwater, wastewater effluent, process wastewater, etc.) ❑ Reduce outdoor water use (e.g., turf replacement/reduction, rain gardens, rain barrels, smart irrigation, outdoor water use meters, etc.) ❑ Train employees how to conserve water 31 65 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 ❑ Implement a notification system to inform non- residential customers when water availability conditions change. ❑ [Rainwater catchment systems intended to supply uses such as water closets, urinals, trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks, industrial processes, water features, vehicle washing facilities, cooling tower makeup, and similar uses shall be approved by the commissioner. Proposed plumbing code 4714.1702.1 http://www.dii.mn.gov/PDF/docket/4714rule.j?df ❑ Describe other plans: Objective 4: Achieve a Decreasing Trend in Total Per Capita Demand Include as Appendix 8 one graph showing total per capita water demand for each customer category (i.e., residential, institutional, commercial, industrial) from 2005-2014 and add the calculated/estimated linear trend for the next 10 years. Describe the trend for each customer category; and where trends are increasing. Objective 5: Reduce Peak Day Demand so that the Ratio of Average Maximum day to the Average Day is less than 2.6 ❑ Yes ❑ No Calculate a ten year average (2005 — 2014) of the ratio of maximum day demand to average day demand: The position of the DNR has been that a peak day/average day ratio that is above 2.6 for in summer indicates that the water being used for irrigation by the residents in a community is too large and that efforts should be made to reduce the peak day use by the community. It should be noted that by reducing the peak day use, communities can also reduce the amount of infrastructure that is required to meet the peak day use. This infrastructure includes new wells, new water towers which can be costly items. Objective 6: Implement a Conservation Water Rate Structure and/or a Uniform Rate Structure with a Water Conservation Program 32 66 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Water Conservation Program Municipal water suppliers serving over 1,000 people are required to adopt demand reduction measures that include a conservation rate structure, or a uniform rate structure with a conservation program that achieves demand reduction. These measures must achieve demand reduction in ways that reduce water demand, water losses, peak water demands, and nonessential water uses. These measures must be approved before a community may request well construction approval from the Department of Health or before requesting an increase in water appropriations permit volume (Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291, subd. 3 and 4). Rates should be adjusted on a regular basis to ensure that revenue of the system is adequate under reduced demand scenarios. If a municipal water supplier intends to use a Uniform Rate Structure, a community -wide Water Conservation Program that will achieve demand reduction must be provided. Current Water Rates ctual_ra#e 4r �lre_ir�,llppendi�c.9 or dist, curies water"tatte$.-including 110 Vo c ti rale titluded'in"fiase rate-. r servic-V charge:. t::- gallons or bic feet, ogler x quei�cy-o#pilling:. t3 _l�lontt ly .13imonthl�i ) guar ri r C3 iffier: Water lea#e Evaluation frecj eiic�+:. 7 every year - l -every years - bid sdheduie Njo-pf lost ra#e"plaange =:.. k - ;able 7. Rate structures for each custoiner category (Sete;( all [hat apply and add addiitianal rows as Deeded) Residential El Monthly Billing ❑ Uniform ❑ Service charge based on water ❑ Increasing block rates ❑ Odd/Even day watering volume (volume tiered rates) ❑ Declining block ❑ Seasonal rates ❑ Flat ❑ Time of Use rates ❑ Other (describe) ❑ Water bills reported in gallons ❑ Individualized goal rates ❑ Excess Use rates ❑ Drought surcharge ❑ Use water bill to provide comparisons ❑ Service charge not based on water volume ❑ Other (describe) Commercial/ ❑ Monthly Billing ❑ Uniform ❑ Service charge based on water Industrial/ ❑ Increasing block rates volume Institutional ❑ Seasonal rates ❑ Declining block ❑ Time of Use rates ❑ Flat ❑ Bill water use in gallons ❑ Other (describe) ❑ Individualized goal rates 33 67 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 * Rate Structures components that may promote water conservation: • Monthly billing: is encouraged to help people see their water usage so they can consider changing behavior. • Increasing block rates (also known as a tiered residential rate structure): Typically, these have at least three tiers: should have at least three tiers. o The first tier is for the winter average water use. o The second tier is the year-round average use, which is lower than typical summer use. This rate should be set to cover the full cost of service. o The third tier should be above the average annual use and should be priced high enough to encourage conservation, as should any higher tiers. For this to be effective, the difference in block rates should be significant. • Seasonal rate: higher rates in summer to reduce peak demands • Time of Use rates: lower rates for off peak water use • Bill water use in gallons: this allows customers to compare their use to average rates • Individualized goal rates: typically used for industry, business or other large water users to promote water conservation if they keep within agreed upon goals. Excess Use rates: if water use goes above an agreed upon amount this higher rate is charged • Drought surcharge: an extra fee is charged for guaranteed water use during drought • Use water bill to provide comparisons: simple graphics comparing individual use over time or compare individual use to others. • Service charge or base fee that does not include a water volume — a base charge or fee to cover universal city expenses that are not customer dependent and/or to provide minimal water at a lower rate (e.g., an amount less than the average residential per capita demand for the water supplier for the last 5 years) • Emergency rates -A community may have a separate conservation rate that only goes into effect when the community or governor declares a drought emergency. These higher rates can help to protect the city budgets during times of significantly less water usage. **Conservation Neutral** • Uniform rate: rate per unit used is the same regardless of the volume used • Odd/even day watering —This approach reduces peak demand on a daily basis for system operation, but it does not reduce overall water use. *** Non -Conserving *** • Service charge or base fee with water volume: an amount of water larger than the average residential per capita demand for the water supplier for the last 5 years • Declining block rate: the rate per unit used decreases as water use increases. • Flat rate: one fee regardless of how much water is used (usually unmetered). Provide justification for any conservation neutral pr non -conserving rate structures. If intending to adapt a conservation rate -structure, include the timefrarin_g to dp so: 34 68 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Objective 7: Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use and Support Wellhead Protection Planning Development and redevelopment projects can provide additional water conservation opportunities, such as the actions listed below. f rrtn f u # 5 ;a , ?iiif ri s� I rpy i'�_ d+� r.. =�at�vj-4?��n`���1.:�� OOU=a6t�t keti1e,U..f►si�itwnal stratogles t01t du i r i Ise °$iipport 1N411tie"ad Piotettion ❑ Participate in the GreenStep Cities Program, including implementation of at least one of the 20 "Best Practices" for water El Prepare a Master Plan for Smart Growth (compact urban growth that avoids sprawl) El Prepare a Comprehensive Open Space Plan (areas for parks, green spaces, natural areas) Adopt a Water Use Restriction Ordinance (lawn irrigation, car washing, pools, etc.) Adopt an Outdoor Lawn Irrigation Ordinance E) Adopt a Private well Ordinance (private wells in a city must comply with water restrictions) 0 Implement a Stormwater Management Program 11 Adopt Non -Zoning Wetlands Ordinance (can further protect wetlands beyond state/federal laws - for vernal pools, buffer areas, restrictions on filling or alterations) 0 Adopt a Water Offset Program (primarily for new development or expansion) 0 Implement a Water Conservation Outreach Program 0 Hire a Water Conservation Coordinator (part-time) El Implement a Rebate program for water efficient appliances, fixtures, or outdoor water management 0 Other Objective 8: Tracldng Success: Tip: 'he process to monitor demdo d reduction andfor a rate structure Includes.- a) ncludes:a) The DNR District Hydrologist or Groundwater Appropriation Hydrologist will call or visit the community the first 1-3 years after the water supply plan is completed. b) They will discuss what activities the community is doing to conserve water and if they feel their actions are successful. The Water Supply Plan, Part 3 tables and responses will guide the discussion. For example, they will discuss efforts to reduce unaccounted for water loss if that is a problem, or go through Tables 33, 34 and 35 to discuss new initiatives. c) The city representative and the hydrologist will discuss total per capita water use, residential per capita water use, and business/industry use. They will note trends. d) They will also discuss options for improvement and/or collect case studies of success stories to share with other communities. One option may be to change the rate structure, but there are many other paths to successful water conservation. 35 69 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 e) If appropriate, they will cooperatively develop a simple work plan for the next few years, targeting a couple areas where the city might focus efforts. A. Regulation �ompite)�e-9_.y sett ting uir}iicN r_elatitir�s are used to r_ duce demand and improve water fi r$ Add additional rows as needed. apleslFi list with hyperlinks is acceptable). table 29. Regulations for short-term reductions in demand and long-term improvements in water efficiencies ❑ Rainfall sensors required on landscape irrigation systems ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies ❑ Water efficient plumbing fixtures required ❑ New Development ❑ Replacement ❑ Rebate Programs ❑ Critical/Emergency Water Deficiency ordinance ❑ Only during declared Emergencies ❑ Watering restriction requirements (time of day, allowable days, etc.) ❑ Odd/Even ❑ 2 days/week ❑ Only during declared Emergencies ❑ Water waste prohibited (for example, having a fine for irrigators ❑ -Ongoing spraying on the street) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies ❑ Limitations on turf areas (requiring lots to have 10% - 25% of the ❑ New Development space in natural areas) ❑ Shoreland/zoning ❑ Other ❑ Soil preparation requirement s (after construction, requiring topsoil ❑ New Development to be applied to promote good root growth) ❑ Construction Projects ❑ Other ❑ Tree ratios (requiring a certain number of trees per square foot of ❑ New development lawn) ❑ Shoreland/zoning ❑ Other ❑ Permit to fill swimming pool and/or requiring pools to be covered (to ❑ Ongoing prevent evaporation) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies ❑ Ordinances that permit stormwater irrigation, reuse of water, or ❑ Describe other alternative water use (Note: be sure to check current plumbing codes for updates) B. Retrofitting Programs Education and incentive programs aimed at replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures and appliances can help reduce per capita water use, as well as energy costs. It is recommended that municipal water suppliers develop a long-term plan to retrofit public buildings with water efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances. Some water suppliers have developed partnerships with organizations having similar conservation goals, such as electric or gas suppliers, to develop cooperative rebate and retrofit programs. 36 70 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 A study by the AWWA Research Foundation (Residential End Uses of Water, 1999) found that the average indoor water use for a non -conserving home is 69.3 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The average indoor water use in a conserving home is 45.2 gpcd and most of the decrease in water use is related to water efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances that can reduce water, sewer and energy costs. In Minnesota, certain electric and gas providers are required (Minnesota Statute 21613.241) to fund programs that will conserve energy resources and some utilities have distributed water efficient showerheads to customers to help reduce energy demands required to supply hot water. Retrofitting Programs bmpiete Table 31) y cbec)<irig yvfiich dater uses arc targeted; the outreach methods Used, #fie measures pled-tide_nfV suc-cass, ,and ally paiticipatirigoartners. twe 30: A"(o rig praramsii gleet All #*;iply) ❑ low flush toilets, ❑ Education about ❑ Gas company ❑ toilet leak tablets, ❑ free distribution of ❑ Electric company ❑ low flow showerheads, ❑ rebate for ❑ Watershed organization ❑ faucet aerators; ❑ other ❑ water conserving washing machines, ❑ Education about ❑ Gas company ❑ dish washers, ❑ free distribution of ❑ Electric company ❑ water softeners; ❑ rebate for ❑ Watershed organization ❑ other ❑ rain gardens, ❑ Education about ❑ Gas company ❑ rain barrels, ❑ free distribution of ❑ Electric company ❑ Native/drought tolerant landscaping, etc. ❑ rebate for ❑ Watershed organization ❑ other Sriefta ilisciiss iYieasurs of success from the above table (e.g. number of stems ifistributed;_ cicllar value �fi rebates,gallons o#,aniaierriserved; etc:): C. Education and Information Programs Customer education should take place in three different circumstances. First, customers should be provided information on how to conserve water and improve water use efficiencies. Second, information should be provided at appropriate times to address peak demands. Third, emergency notices and educational materials about how to reduce water use should be available for quick distribution during an emergency. Proposed Education Programs Complete Table 31 by selecting which methods are used to provide water conservation and information, including the frequency of program components. Select all that apply and add additional lines as needed. 37 71 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Billing inserts or tips printed on the actual bill ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared emergencies Consumer Confidence Reports ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Press releases to traditional focal news ❑ Ongoing outlets (e.g., newspapers, radio and TV) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Social media distribution (e.g., emails, ❑ Ongoing Facebook, Twitter) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Paid advertisements (e.g., billboards, print ❑ Ongoing media, TV, radio, web sites, etc.) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Presentations to community groups ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Staff training ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Facility tours ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Displays and exhibits ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Marketing rebate programs (e.g., indoor ❑ Ongoing fixtures & appliances and outdoor practices) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Community news letters ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Direct mailings (water audit/retrofit kits, ❑ Ongoing showerheads, brochures) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies 38 72 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Information kiosk at utility and public ❑ Ongoing buildings ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Public Service Announcements ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Cable N Programs ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Demonstration projects (landscaping or ❑ Ongoing plumbing) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies K-12 Education programs (Project Wet, ❑ Ongoing Drinking Water Institute, presentations) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Community Events (children's water festivals, ❑ Ongoing environmental fairs) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Community education classes ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Water Week promotions ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Website (include address: ) ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Targeted efforts (large volume users, users ❑ Ongoing with large increases) ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Notices of ordinances ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Emergency conservation notices ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal ❑ Only during declared Emergencies Other: ❑ Ongoing ❑ Seasonal 39 73 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 40 74 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 Part 4. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNITIES MET U NOIc1TAN Minnesota Statute 473.859 requires WSPs to be completed for all local units of government in the seven -county Metropolitan Area as part of the local comprehensive planning process. Much of the information in Parts 1-3 addresses water demand for the next 10 years. However, additional information is needed to address water demand through 2040, which will make the WSP consistent with the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, upon which the local comprehensive plans are based. This Part 4 provides guidance to complete the WSP in a way that addresses plans for water supply through 2040. A. Water Demand Projections through 2040 �O?1 a?!;14gftriiinItpertiaF�nati�leirriafltlt troj%gh �. - .`f iti �i[airi rofrvis.`s#aoe,rt`"sisi�tiv�li t t;ijrri t iiel »jae# ti i 00theMetropolitan iiuncjl's-we#isiteand whio',was,senkothe ctri at i ii + i ; eji f rOtt. Projected Average Day, Maximum Day, and Annual Water Demands may either be calculated using the method outlined in Appendix 2 of the 2015 Master Water Supply Plan or by a method developed by the individual water supplier. B. Potential Water Supply Issues omelet Table -in mart if-b� . art v iik-injortnatjpq ab©ut the Q#ant�al.virater supply issues in your community, including those that frightoccur due to 2040 projected*iter use. The Master Water Supply Plan provides information about potential issues for your community in Appendix 1 (Water Supply Profiles). This resource may be useful in completing Table 10. tfou may d_o_curnent results of.local work -done to evaluate impact of planned uses by attaching a feasibility assessment or providing a citation and link to where the plan is available electronically. C. Proposed Alternative Approaches to Meet Extended Water Demand Projections (such as replacements, expansions or additions to wells/intakes, water storage and treatment capacity, distribution systems, and emergency interconnections) of extended plans for development and redevelopment, in 10 -year increments through 2040. It may be useful to refer to information in the community's local Land Use Plan, if available. for each approach your community is considering, provideIinfiormation about the amount of 41 75 Local Water Supply Plan Template –March 2016 s t ri ia(Orf n _ afr,0nk4itWh0ho og 00ag* APO& —) �#i00ROgcfi. As challenges are being discussed, consider the need for: evaluation of geologic conditions (mapping, aquifer tests, modeling), identification of areas where domestic wells could be impacted, measurement and analysis of water levels & pumping rates, triggers & associated actions to protect water levels, etc. D. Value -Added Water Supply Planning Efforts (Optional) The following information is not required to be completed as part of the local water supply plan, but completing this can help strengthen source water protection throughout the region and help Metropolitan Council and partners in the region to better support local efforts. Source Water Protection Strategies ❑ Yes ❑No If you answered no, skip this section. If you answered yes, please complete Table 32 with information about new water demand or land use planning -related local controls that are being considered to provide additional protection in this area. `labte 2. Local controls andschgciuletppoteiYDrinkingWatgrSuppiy a4i.4'ientAreas ❑ None at this time ❑ Comprehensive planning that guides development in vulnerable drinking water supply management areas ❑ Zoning overlay ❑ Other: Technical assistance from your community's perspective, what are the most important topics for the Metropolitan Council to address, guided by the region's Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee, as part of its ongoing water supply planning Tole? ❑ Coordination of state, regional and local water supply planning roles ❑ Regional water use goals ❑ Water use reporting standards ❑ Regional and sub -regional partnership opportunities ❑ Identifying and prioritizing data gaps and input for regional and sub -regional analyses ❑ Others: 42 76 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 GLOSSARY Agricultural/Irrigation Water Use - Water used for crop and non -crop irrigation, livestock watering, chemigation, golf course irrigation, landscape and athletic field irrigation. Average Daily Demand - The total water pumped during the year divided by 365 days. Calcareous Fen - Calcareous fens are rare and distinctive wetlands dependent on a constant supply of cold groundwater. Because they are dependent on groundwater and are one of the rarest natural communities in the United States, they are a protected resource in MN. Approximately 200 have been located in Minnesota. They may not be filled, drained or otherwise degraded. Commercial/Institutional Water Use - Water used by motels, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, commercial facilities and institutions (both civilian and military). Consider maintaining separate institutional water use records for emergency planning and allocation purposes. Water used by multi- family dwellings, apartment buildings, senior housing complexes, and mobile home parks should be reported as Residential Water Use. Commercial/Institutional/Industrial (C/I/1) Water Sold - The sum of water delivered for commercial/institutional or industrial purposes. Conservation Rate Structure - A rate structure that encourages conservation and may include increasing block rates, seasonal rates, time of use rates, individualized goal rates, or excess use rates. If a conservation rate is applied to multifamily dwellings, the rate structure must consider each residential unit as an individual user. A community may have a separate conservation rate that only goes into effect when the community or governor declares a drought emergency. These higher rates can help to protect the city budgets during times of significantly less water usage. Date of Maximum Daily Demand - The date of the maximum (highest) water demand. Typically this is a day in July or August. Declining Rate Structure - Under a declining block rate structure, a consumer pays less per additional unit of water as usage increases. This rate structure does not promote water conservation. Distribution System - Water distribution systems consist of an interconnected series of pipes, valves, storage facilities (water tanks, water towers, reservoirs), water purification facilities, pumping stations, flushing hydrants, and components that convey drinking water and meeting fire protection needs for cities, homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, industries and other facilities. Flat Rate Structure - Flat fee rates do not vary by customer characteristics or water usage. This rate structure does not promote water conservation. Industrial Water Use - Water used for thermonuclear power (electric utility generation) and other industrial use such as steel, chemical and allied products, paper and allied products, mining, and petroleum refining. 43 77 Local Water Supply Plan Template March 2016 Low Flow Fixtures/Appliances - Plumbing fixtures and appliances that significantly reduce the amount of water released per use are labeled "low flow". These fixtures and appliances use just enough water to be effective, saving excess, clean drinking water that usually goes down the drain. Maximum Daily Demand - The maximum (highest) amount of water used in one day. Metered Residential Connections - The number of residential connections to the water system that have meters. For multifamily dwellings, report each residential unit as an individual user. Percent Unmetered/Unaccounted For - Unaccounted for water use is the volume of water withdrawn from all sources minus the volume of water delivered. This value represents water "lost" by miscalculated water use due to inaccurate meters, water lost through leaks, or water that is used but unmetered or otherwise undocumented. Water used for public services such as hydrant flushing, ice skating rinks, and public swimming pools should be reported under the category "Water Supplier Services". Population Served - The number of people who are served by the community's public water supply system. This includes the number of people in the community who are connected to the public water supply system, as well as people in neighboring communities who use water supplied by the community's public water supply system. It should not include residents in the community who have private wells or get their water from neighboring water supply. Residential Connections - The total number of residential connections to the water system. For multifamily dwellings, report each residential unit as an individual user. Residential Per Capita Demand - The total residential water delivered during the year divided by the population served divided by 365 days. Residential Water Use - Water used for normal household purposes such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens. Should include all water delivered to single family private residences, multi -family dwellings, apartment buildings, senior housing complexes, mobile home parks, etc. Smart Meter - Smart meters can be used by municipalities or by individual homeowners. Smart metering generally indicates the presence of one or more of the following: Smart irrigation water meters are controllers that look at factors such as weather, soil, slope, etc. and adjust watering time up or down based on data. Smart controllers in a typical summer will reduce water use by 30%-50%. Just changing the spray nozzle to new efficient models can reduce water use by 40%. Smart Meters on customer premises that measure consumption during specific time periods and communicate it to the utility, often on a daily basis. A communication channel that permits the utility, at a minimum, to obtain meter reads on demand, to ascertain whether water has recently been flowing through the meter and onto the 44 78 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 premises, and to issue commands to the meter to perform specific tasks such as disconnecting or restricting water flow. Total Connections - The number of connections to the public water supply system. Total Per Capita Demand - The total amount of water withdrawn from all water supply sources during the year divided by the population served divided by 365 days. Total Water Pumped - The cumulative amount of water withdrawn from all water supply sources during the year. Total Water Delivered - The sum of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, water supplier services, wholesale and other water delivered. Ultimate (Full Build -Out) - Time period representing the community's estimated total amount and location of potential development, or when the community is fully built out at the final planned density. Unaccounted (Non -revenue) Loss - See definitions for "percent unmetered/unaccounted for loss". Uniform Rate Structure - A uniform rate structure charges the same price -per-unit for water usage beyond the fixed customer charge, which covers some fixed costs. The rate sends a price signal to the customer because the water bill will vary by usage. Uniform rates by class charge the same price -per- unit for all customers within a customer class (e.g. residential or non-residential). This price structure is generally considered less effective in encouraging water conservation. Water Supplier Services - Water used for public services such as hydrant flushing, ice skating rinks, public swimming pools, city park irrigation, back-flushing at water treatment facilities, and/or other uses. Water Used for Nonessential Purposes - Water used for lawn irrigation, golf course and park irrigation, car washes, ornamental fountains, and other non-essential uses. Wholesale Deliveries - The amount of water delivered in bulk to other public water suppliers. Acronyms and Initialisms AWWA —American Water Works Association C/l/I — Commercial/Institutional/Industrial CIP —Capital Improvement Plan GIS — Geographic Information System GPCD — Gallons per capita per day 45 79 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 GWMA — Groundwater Management Area — North and East Metro, Straight River, Bonanza, MDH — Minnesota Department of Health MGD — Million gallons per day MG — Million gallons MGL— Maximum Contaminant Level MnTAP — Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (University of Minnesota) MPARS — MN/DNR Permitting and Reporting System (new electronic permitting system) MRWA — Minnesota Rural Waters Association SWP — Source Water Protection WHP —Wellhead Protection 46 80 L7 Local Water Supply Plan Template —March 2016 APPENDICES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE WATER SUPPLIER M_ see Part 1C see Part 1E of ii4 OO -well- see Part 1E o Iwm,_ -ove �_ �, - _ftfv 'j� po Cap J !p h - see Part 1E IM -Ar, ft see Pa 60 -TA rt 2C g, -;v hotm s see Part 2C 000a, f.00 10, W-00,01-00 see Part 2C Appendix 8: Graph showing annual per capita water demand for each customer category during the last ten -years - see Part 3 Objective 4 i. see Part 3 Objective 6 eqW11 i AW bid e4 Ap op e. _e. or p q d _ eku a On$_ t oce mand or improve Il&I see Part 3 Objective 7 e " - summary of all the actions that a community is doing, or proposes to do, including estimated implementation dates - see www.mndnr.gov/watersupplyplans 47 81 Anoka County COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Community & Governmental Relations Renee Sande Community Development Manager Phone: 763.323.5714 E-mail: renee.sande(cbco.anoka.mn.us April 11, 2016 City of Centerville ATTN: Mike Ericson 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038-9794 RE: 2017-2019 Urban County Requalification for participation in the following HUD Programs: -CDBG (Community Development Block Grant Program); and -HOME (HOME Investment Partnerships Program) Dear Mr. Ericson: Every three years Anoka County must complete an Urban Requalification process in order to continue receiving and administering HUD funds for the CDBG and HOME programs. We are currently preparing our requalification for federal fiscal years 2017 through 2019. As part of this requalification process, the county is required to notify participating communities of their option to be excluded from the Anoka County "Urban County" qualification for these funding years. Action is required from your city as part of this process. IF YOU CHOOSE TO REMAIN A PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY (OPT -IN): The following will continue to apply: • The grant process for your city will remain the same as it is now for CDBG and HOME programs, and; • Your city will continue to be ineligible to apply for individual grants through the HUD Small Cities or State CDBG and HOME programs; • The Cooperation Agreement will automatically renew for another three-year period of time. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO REMAIN A PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY (OPT -OUT): • Your city will be able to apply for grants individually through the HUD Small Cities or State CDBG and HOME programs, but you will not be eligible to receive funds through Anoka County for federal fiscal years 2017 through 2019 82 Mike Erickson April 11, 2016 Page Two You are required to notify Anoka County in writing by May 11, 2016, of your intent to terminate the agreement at the end of the current qualification period. The notification of intent should be sent to: Anoka County Community and Government Relations ATTN: Renee Sande West Courthouse 325 East Main Street, Suite W-250 Anoka, MN 55303 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 763-323-5714 or renee.sande@co.anoka.mn.us ncerely, Renee Sande Community Development Manager 83 Community Partnership C11fbint Grant Application Ew1f/ gpplicantcity Centerville City Hall address 1880 Main Street Bpcode 55038 Reytiemname Mike Ericson Title City Administrator pf ow (651) 429-3232 Fax (651) 429-8629 Email address mericson@centervillemn.com What equipment or special project are you asking us to help fund? Two of each of the following: 50" LED TV, Microsoft Surface Pro 3 tablet, articulating TV wall mount, and HDMI cable. 9tripment/special p pim d%crption (bne# This project will modernize our two fire stations in the Centennial Fire District. The items will be used with a syste n called Active911. Active911 is initiated by Anoka County Dispatch which sends the the incident information to the firefighters' smartphone s. The firefighters then send their status (unavailable -responding) back to Active911. This status and a map of all their locations is displayed on the TVs. The TVs will be mounted in the bays of the fire stations where they can be easily viewed by responding firefighters. Total eQuipment/Vsdal protect costs 1,950.00 Amount of funding request $ 975.00 (Mean= is $2.500 Rte» p reguestcarmt axcwd50percent of total9wAWW tJproW cost.) How will your request benefit the community? The firefighters will be able to determine how many firefighters are responding and how long it will take them to get to the station. This will improve response times and increase the number of on scene durin¢ erneraencies in our Signature (required) Mike Ericson Title City Administrator Mail or fax appucatien to: CenterPoint Energy Attn: Jean Krause P.O. Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0038 Fax: 612-321-4812 Questions? Contact: Jean Krause 612-321-4609 Jean.Kmuse®CenterPointEnergy.com 84 CNP 1304 )3.2016) Pape 2 012 Mv.. e , re -i Alit a�f' wt To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members From: Staff Subject: Met. Council Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study Date: April 22, 2016 Staff has attached previous information that has been submitted to Council regarding this item during Dallas' employment. The study was completed in December of 2015 and reviews the potential to combine the municipal water systems with six cities. Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, Lexington, and Lino Lakes. A meeting is scheduled for May 26, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Lino Lakes City Hall. Stay tuned. 85 2.0 Executive Summary 2.1 Location The cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, Lexington and Lino Lakes are located approximately 20 miles northeast of Saint Paul in Anoka and Washington counties. The region is situated amongst many lakes and includes a substantial amount of undeveloped land. The geographic location of the six cities is depicted in Figure Al. Figure A2 depicts current land use and Figure A3 depicts future land use. These figures are located in the Appendix A of this report. 2.2 Existing Water Systems Municipal water supply systems provide both potable drinking water and fire protection. The systems consist of supply, treatment, storage, and distribution piping to deliver water to customers. Each of the six cities currently owns and operates Its own potable water system, and all six cities use groundwater for their water supply. However, the number and size of distribution watermain, number of groundwater supply wells, water quality, water treatment, and number of storage tanks varies between cities. There are several existing small diameter interconnections between some of the cities that allow water to flow between the separate systems for emergency uses. The age of the water system components also vary since the systems are at varying stages of development. There are two general groups in this regard, those that are can be classified as a developed city with little to no expected additional growth and those that can be classified as a growing city which have large undeveloped parcels and anticipate future growth. • Those classified as a developed city include: Lexington, Circle Pines and Centerville. These communities have more mature water systems which supply most or all of the developable area in their respective cities. • Those classified as a growing city Include: Hugo, Lino Lakes and Columbus. They are projecting growth and new infrastructure to accommodate future populations. A depiction of the existing water systems is provided in Figure A4 in Appendix A. A key potential benefit of joining the systems together is that each of these groups has assets that can benefit the other. Generally, the fully developed cities' water systems have supply and storage that, when combined with the growing cities, can be used to meet future development needs. Conversely, the growing communities are able to generate capital via developers' fees and assessments. This creates a condition where a potential buyer with capital (growing city) can join up with a potential seller who has assets (developed city) needed by the buyer. The creation of a Joint Utility would connect the growing communities with the fully developed communities via a purchase of the needed assets. They would then enter Into a long term relationship beneficial to both groups. 2.3 Summary of Joint System Analysis At a high level, the key advantages of a Joint Water Utility under Option 1--,a jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, storage and treatment system, or Option 2--e jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, storage, treatment and disiaibWon system are: For the growing cities: * Less expensive supply e Less expensive storage 86 Joint water Wity FeasiMilty study 7 • Need to hire fewer future staff For the developed cities: • Influx of capital as growing communities, via the Joint Utility, purchase access to existing infrastructure - - • Less expensive well maintenance as more communities share in the expense of maintenance • Less expensive tower maintenance as more communities share in the expense of maintenance For the Joint Water Utility communities as a whole: Need for fewer groundwater wells o Lower life cycle maintenance costs for the wells due to fewer installations Need for fewer storage tanks o Lower life cycle maintenance costs for storage due to fewer installations + Delay in infrastructure needs • Efficient use of resources • Potentially improved purchasing leverage • Strategic infrastructure siting potentially resulting in easier and less costly permitting • Capital cost savings through shared infrastructure and reduced redundancy • Operational cost savings through shared operations, maintenance, management staff and equipment Opportunities for cost sharing may be realized through more efficient use of infrastructure, shared labor and shared maintenance and operations. Cost savings can also be realized through reduced need for future investment in water system infrastructure. The most important costs, and benefits identified in this study are outlined below. 2.3.9 Capital Costs For large capital projects, it is estimated that a joint system of the six cities would eliminate the need for 3 million gallons of water storage and seven (7) future groundwater wells over the course of the planning period through 2030, as compared to individual city development. This translates to a cost savings of $12 million as compared to individual development. 2.3.2 Operational Costs The formation of a joint utility would provide cast savings in administrative and operations staffing and equipment. Much of this savings would be dependent on how the joint utility would be governed and operated. Maximum savings would occur under Option 2 with the completely joined system. Billing and distribution system maintenance would be combined under one entity, and distribution system maintenance could be the responsibility of one joint utility crew. Since most Minnesota cities hire maintenance staff to meet snow plowing demands, cities may also need to share this responsibility to see the maximum savings. Savings would be reduced If billing and distribution system maintenance were to stay with individual cities. Given the high level scope of this study and the number of options available, cost savings are not quantified for specific operational benefits; however, it can be concluded that significant savings could be made by combining into a single utility. 2.3.3 Financial and Organizational Structure Based on the high level findings of this study, the potential for resource and rate efficiencies in forming a joint utility exists. Financially, capital costs and projected water rates are reduced overall by forming a Joint water Udit Feasim ft* a 87 joint utility. However, individual savings will vary for each member city depending on how the joint utility is formed and how the joint utility costs are proportioned to each city. In Option 1, where a Joint Utility does not own and operate the distribution system, there may initially be more benefit to cities with older water systems that are near full development, as they would not need to share the new development costs of trunk mains in other cities. However, as cities with older water systems age and need repair this initial benefit would be offset by the fact that the larger Joint Utility would not help fund the repair and replacement of the aging distributions systems. Under Option 2 the Joint Utility would share increased maintenance costs associated with aging watermain. There should be more discussion between the member cities as to how the Joint Utility costs would be allocated to each city, and whether there would be buy -in costs to help make membership more equitable across the varied maturity of the member cities. 2.4 Overall Recommendations Detailed recommendations are discussed in Section 10.0; however, a summary of our recommendations is as follows: • Continue to investigate forming a Joint Utility under Option 2 • Plan for joint development now before the opportunity Is lost as each city builds out more Infrastructure that might not be needed in a Joint Utility setting • Investigate which cities should be in the Joint Utility, and consider removing Columbus due to geographic reasons • Negotiate initial buy -in for asset and capital sharing between cities • Refine cost estimates based on new comprehensive planning and other studies 2.5 Recommendations for Future Work As this study included only a high-level preliminary analysis, three subsequent studies are recommended to move the project forward. A detailed list of these studies is shown in Section 11 in the order in which they should occur. The studies Include: 1. Study 1 Water Quality Analysis. This study would quantify the impacts of mixing different qualities of water to help finalize the connect combination of cities for a joint utility. 2. Study 2 Facility Plan. This study would define in greater detail the physical facilities needed to create a Joint Utility. This would include the size of interconnecting watenmain, the location of new storage, and whether or not pressure zones would need to be managed with pump stations and pressure reducing valves. 3. Study 3 Financial and Governance Plan. This study would review the financial and organizational aspects of the Joint Utility to add more certainty to the final costs that each community would. see as a result of the formation of a Joint Utility. JdrH Water Utliky Feasibility Study 9 88 SCOPE OF SERVICES Joint Water System Feasibility Study Cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, Lexington, and Lino Lakes The six -cities coalition (which includes the cities listed above) has continually looked for ways in which they can collaborate to provide services. There are a number of collaboration efforts that exist among the cities currently, and they meet regularly in a continued effort to realize efficiencies and cost-effectiveness in the services they provide. The cities have a combined population of about 50,000, approximately 17,000 households and comprise approximately 100 square miles. A substantial amount of land is undeveloped. The six cities are interested in considering a collaborative effort whereby they would jointly construct and/or operate their water supply systems. As a first step in the process, the six cities seek to identify the benefits and disadvantages for joint operation of their water systems, how the collaborative effort would be managed, and what the financial impacts would be. To that end, the six cities have prepared a scope of services to complete a technical and financial analysis of a potential joint system to allow the cities to evaluate their interest in participating. The following represents the scope of services of the study: Task 1— Backeround Information Collect and review technical and financial data for each water system in the joint area including: Technical • Existing water demand (average and peak) • Future water demand (average and peak) • Existing well capacity • Existing storage • Water System Comprehensive Plans • Distribution System Maps • Existing water treatment, if applicable Financial • Review current policies, past financial reports and depreciation schedules, present debt levels, capital improvement plans, audit information, and other documents or information related to each city's water utility • Review engineering reports and analysis related to the proposed Joint Water Utility and each City's water utility • Review historical information related to growth in each city's customer base • Review projected future growth of each City 89 Task 2 - Develop Budeet level Feasibility and Cost/Benefit Analyses This will include the analysis of two options for consideration: 1. Jointly Planned, Constructed, and Operated Supply and Storage — This would involve the creation of a joint entity whereby the supply and storage aspects of the joint system are planned, constructed, and managed by the joint entity, with each City maintaining the distribution systems within their own community. Water would be sold to each community for resale to their respective customers under this scenario. 2. Jointly Planned, Constructed, and Operated Supply, Storage, and Distribution — This would involve the creation of a joint entity that would construct and operate the entire water system, including supply, storage, and distribution. Technical • Determine the capital improvements required to connect the communities together and create a joint system, including timing • Evaluate the implications of existing water treatment as applicable • Estimate the cost of the infrastructure improvements • Estimate the excess capacity in the joint system versus the separated systems • Estimate the cost savings and added value of the joint system • Identify options for an organizational structure of an entity to operate the joint facilities Financial • Develop preliminary alternatives for the allocation of both initial capital costs and cost of water supply to each City for each option • Review and discuss alternatives for financing anticipated capital improvements • Consider the age of the infrastructure of the various cities in allocating capital costs to a rate structure • Determine rate impacts for the joint supply and joint supply/operation scenarios and compare those to the current rates of each city Task 3 — Prepare Joint Water System Feasibility Studs A draft Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study will be prepared for review by representatives of the six cities with technical and financial recommendations related to joint supply. A workshop will be held with representatives of the six cities to review the draft Joint Water System Feasibility Study reach a consensus on the allocation of costs. Following the initial workshop, the Feasibility Study will be modified to incorporate the comments into the final document as appropriate. 90 There could be a joint City Council session (two from each City?), or individual presentations to each Council. The six-cities coalition should discuss the process they would like to see, and tive can adapt the.fnal scope accordingly 91 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes March 12, 2014 it is in their financial interest to participate in this issue and would be burdensome on their staff. Administrator Larson stated that the City could enlist the services of Stantec, however, that would be more cost effective to obtain RCWD's approval to secure their engineers to complete assist the City by providing their data. Administrator Larson stated that Mr. Gerald Rehbein is the majority property owner that is affected by this issue and no work would commence until such time as signed agreements were on file with the City for reimbursement. Motion made by Council Member Fehrenbacher, seconded by Council Member Paar to adopt Res, #14-017 — Petitioning Rice Creek Watershed District for Assistance with Flood Plan Study as aresented. All in favor. Motion carried. IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES 1. Administrator Larson reported that there would be a presentation by the consultant secured by Met Council (Saar Engineering) to complete the Joint Water System Feasibility Study Work Plan the next evening at 6:00 p.m. at the Lino Lakes City Hall, 2. Administrator Larson also reported that Staff had forwarded letters to residents of the Royal Meadows Development regarding the upcoming input meeting. 3. Legal Counsel Glaser stated that a bill had passed out of committee to protect the Ticket Education program. Legal Counsel stated that discussion at the Legislature continues regarding surcharges. Legal Counsel Glaser reported that he has been aggressively working with the Barons regarding cleanup efforts and building permits. 4. Engineer Statz stated that the League of Minnesota Cities is working hard to simplify tax exemptions for municipal entities in the legislative session. 5. Engineer Statz reported that he and staff attending a meeting with Anoka County Highway Department regarding the property North of Main Street on the corner of 20 Avenue regarding access/exit points and roadways throughout the property. Engineer Statz stated that the property owner would need to work with the County in the future regarding this item. 6. Engineer Statz stated that Council may desire to extend municipal water along Centerville Road at the same time as the road construction project in the late fall. Administrator Larson stated that residents along the roadway expressed interest at several of the Open Houses held for the project with Anoka County. Engineer Statz stated that it was anticipated to cost approximately $85,000 for municipal sewer and $85,000 for municipal water or Council could consider waiting until such time as the Vickers property developed. Administrator Larson stated that Staff' will need to bring back information prior to the County finalizing their plans. 7. Council Member King stated that the Committee is eager to work with the individuals that organized the flag football tournament last year; however no applications have been submitted. Council Member King also stated that the Committee has high concern for property along Mill Road that they were under the impression was park land and is now being sold. Administrator Larson stated that he continues to research the item. Page 7 of 8 92 L d � 2 cn cn L d � N r � = d O UL 93 c .0 .- ccc 0 .0 ca koj U 0 L -j W 0 Z 94 9t 0 N M r M am CL 3 L 4) J 95 • L .c CL _ CL CL) (A ,o O40 o ,... 3 a� �� o� :�� to Q Ln o i a� O EA 4-; M- ._ c� cn Q. �n � . cn 4-0 y— pcu cu m N V O Cu � m c L J 95 • m 96 Lj L. O O O a -J O c L 4--J 4-+ Q) >•-J •- ul E Q) -�- C: i • - +-J 5 •� E m 96 Lj c ra _ ri e� D W +W w a� ■ r• 0 CL 0 W ls�: L� L v 4-6 ra L M oz- Woz OOOz X66 t a tS'� 0 Lta 0 0 ti L N T- 97 *066 X86 096 L- G L6 L OL6 �- `96 � 096 �- X96 [ 096 LH76 r— — ; � TTUi/LLJE ti f � i , @Otlif[t✓£ cn G j MUM � � I 96S[iLtiE Y � I sm/an 1 L 066T/Lx/£I 3 i LBdTAM T86T/LZ%EI I� m � Ts6T/Lxls � C ry 0 � i � ILBT/LZIEI c IF �1 i i 696ULUf � I 3 ( i 996Y/LZ/E = ,d ; � rssUcz/eI w Q � i � awYlLzrs V EN 0 UC4VAOM PMnMmqpbv 98 cn L 4 m c s w u V EN 0 0 V) 0 W 4-1 A) V) E a C: C: W -0 cu m Q fu E M > 4m- E a O 4-1 a-1 v �tZ�� •— vi Hca .�. C: cr � V.. V c�n'� � Q J. • • • 98 ys�l L O Z c 99 L �� c 'o ea UL 100 101 L W LM m V .cu U L N Cu 0 V U = C- L V 2 � O 0 0 Lm 4w IL m 101 L W LM m .cu U L N Cu C- L 2 CU N c U � •O 015CU o '- L— O CL '— O U) m NCl) •— L � U O � N c cu cuJ — cu I I I �-+ LL. V .1 0 U, o Z! U. 0 C. c O ° 4-0cuU)E -0 CD -� V Cc +� cn-4-0 (O(u cn 4) V > m .X o . co. 102 N R O v m a MEN%0 L am a) -i+ CD c .E E O U O cn L Q O t It O CD N / le 4-- O C O cu .0 C. E i cu U. E CD 0 E O U M N E 0 O U 0 co N N 12 103 . cn U 0) 75 C � (CII O E � O �CU W M C: O cc � N Cl) y-- - N m i ca Q m O U N �O 0 ca a. O C .N ca m 104 E E co ♦♦^^ cn QVJ CD O Oo m E CU U�00 -1-+ C: '- c c cu m C/)O L O O 'X U o U a� M V ccC �C: cm a� FL 00. N C �E E >C:CU C: m U ■ � .o 2 •0 v p _cu Z CL L r N M 4) c c c AMD Q CL O CL O O 104 105 se o U f^ }vim+' m n •— O U cu 15 O C: ca N a� C iZ. O co y... O cu N �t C c U C: cu C: L L U - a cm L 105 se o U Oi m n •— CU o a... U cu 15 O 105 se U >_ O • 11. cu CU O C: -W N N C •c O co .0 cu E N �t C Q N C: C: O cu N cm L •� CU � O m � • W U cu i a� .j cc L.4-8 E �a cu I 106 CD L i U cu I W U L O Go 0 cn .0 Cn S 40-1 -1 a� .j cc L.4-8 E �a cu I 106 CD L i U cu I W U L O Go 0 cn .0 Cn S 40-1 W C O cc 4-j L n, n�'' W �= m .— a) cu C� 4-- � O � O -0 C: ( — CU a) 'UO cu 73 C: -0 a U� 0� 0 U) a) O Cl) 4.0 M� a) cu O cn 0 ,0 c6 > a) . C �' ��-O to (u O c L Cl) 0 CU O� 0 j>Cf) to CL -C (D Cl) =3 a) x �a�� Cl)I- _ LL c:ca F-- WCD . NMI 107 s c. ea L 0) 0 (1) U v 0 J 108 L E LO 109 Q. CL 3 N 110 A V 0) m Q C O U N U m m Q a RT E N a cn N C tti r O :4-a 0- 0 0 C O N a� co O E cu E .x O L. Q {6 v A V 0) m Q C O U N U m m Q a RT E N a cn N C tti r O :4-a 0- 0 0 C O N a� Zii A c m Cl)O z Cl) • J N I�- O (0 L C) 0 r c0 C: o U�� � � =.E� L C tm E U) ��Q CUZ� — C� Q. _ 0�a� E V C: V N U cl, V � C) 4�- -�WQ O O L. 4 i 0. 2 113 O LO rn N N cc O Co NN � 00 0)0)N ,C LO CU C'4 CD LO vmV°�°� O — Y � p O E Cl)� CUU � O U cn _ =0@EU ._Cn ,c U m C:L O (o Y o N J Y U cu W LM 113