This map of Minnesota cities, townships, and counties was published by MnGeo in January 2019. The primary data set for the map is the "Cities, Townships, and Unorganized Territories" (MnCTU) data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Other reference data on the map include County Seats and Other Cities, County Boundaries, Interstate, US Trunk, and State Trunk Highways, Major Rivers, Lakes, County and State Boundaries. The download is a PDF file with embedded layers that can be printed at E-scale (36" x 48").

This feature class is basically a representation of all cities/towns and townships within Douglas County.This is the most up to date boundary for Douglas County with annexations for Alexandria City. Current boundary used in apps.

This medium-scale (nominally 1:24,000) dataset represents the boundaries of cities, townships, and unorganized territories (CTUs) in Minnesota. The Minnesota Geospatial Information Office created the initial CTU dataset by updating a municipal boundary file maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Update information was gathered primarily from boundary adjustment records maintained by the Office of Administrative Hearings, Municipal Boundary Adjustment Unit. MnDOT has maintained the file since 2014.

Note: Cities and Townships represented in this dataset are political (civil) townships as recognized by the State of MN, not congressional or public land survey townships. Unorganized territory subdivisions are those defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, which often differ from those defined by a county.

Check other metadata records in this package for more information on CTUInformation.


Link to ESRI Feature Service:

City, Township, and Unorganized Territory in Minnesota: City, Township, and Unorganized Territory

Publication Date: May 2025.

Updated as needed. Current as of the Publication Date.

A vector polygon layer of all city and town boundaries in New York State. The source data was originally a compilation of U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale digital vector files and NYS Department of Transportation 1:24,000-scale and 1:75,000-scale digital vector files. Boundaries were revised to 1:24,000-scale positional accuracy and selectively updated based on municipal boundary reviews, court decisions and NYS Department of State Local Law filings for annexations, dissolutions, and incorporations. Currently, boundary changes are made based on NYS Department of State Local Law filings (http://locallaws.dos.ny.gov/). Additional updates and corrections are made as needed in partnership with municipalities.

Additional metadata, including field descriptions, can be found at the NYS GIS Clearinghouse: https://gis.ny.gov/civil-boundaries.

Spatial Reference of Source Data: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N. Spatial Reference of Map Service: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere.

This map service is available to the public.

The State of New York, acting through the New York State Office of Information Technology Services, makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use of or reliance on the Data provided. The User accepts the Data provided “as is” with no guarantees that it is error free, complete, accurate, current or fit for any particular purpose and assumes all risks associated with its use. The State disclaims any responsibility or legal liability to Users for damages of any kind, relating to the providing of the Data or the use of it. Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this Data was created.

Exterior boundary, Annexation boundary, and County boundary coverages are examined to remove all overshoots, unwanted intersections; insure polygons are closed; and to see that there are no missing or duplicate polygon labels. Each symbolic layer is individually examined for completeness. There is no line duplication in exterior or annexation coverages. MCD's with detached or non-contiguous units (polygons) have the same polygon link/label code in each of their units. Completeness in the checking process is examined through the examination and comparison of all detail collected by County Staff. Sources used included: City Clerks, County Auditor's Office, Washington County Historical Courthouse, MN State Historical Society, Secretary of State, Minnesota Municipal Board, and MNDOT. https://www.co.washington.mn.us/1609/Municipal-Boundaries

Layered GeoPDF 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map. Layers of geospatial data include orthoimagery, roads, grids, geographic names, elevation contours, hydrography, and other selected map features.

If there are any issues with the data in this map, service, or shp file please contact the Minneapolis GIS office.

This web map shows the member and non-member communities that make up the LAPC planning area.Because we have an urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000, we are required by federal transportation law to have a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The La Crosse Area Planning Committee (LAPC) is the MPO. We are also a bi-state MPO because our urbanized area includes parts of Minnesota.The LAPC is supported by member communities, which tend to be those that have or are developing urban areas. The current membership of our Policy Board includes the towns of Campbell, Holland, Medary, Onalaska, and Shelby; the villages of Holmen and West Salem; and the cities of La Crescent (MN), La Crosse, and Onalaska. Additional non-member communities in the planning area include the towns of Barre, Greenfield, Hamilton, La Crescent (MN), and Dresbach (MN) and are rural in nature. We also gained the tiniest bit of the town of Bergen after the 2010 Census when the urbanized area was extended down CTH K in Vernon County.

This web map shows the communities in the LAPC planning area and identifies which communities are members of the LAPC MPO.This web map shows the member and non-member communities that make up the LAPC planning area.Because we have an urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000, we are required by federal transportation law to have a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The La Crosse Area Planning Committee (LAPC) is the MPO. We are also a bi-state MPO because our urbanized area includes parts of Minnesota.The LAPC is supported by member communities, which tend to be those that have or are developing urban areas. The current membership of our Policy Board includes the towns of Campbell, Holland, Medary, Onalaska, and Shelby; the villages of Holmen and West Salem; and the cities of La Crescent (MN), La Crosse, and Onalaska. Additional non-member communities in the planning area include the towns of Barre, Greenfield, Hamilton, La Crescent (MN), and Dresbach (MN) and are rural in nature. We also gained the tiniest bit of the town of Bergen after the 2010 Census when the urbanized area was extended down CTH K in Vernon County.

The MUSA Composite dataset depicts current and future boundaries of the Urban Service Areas (sewer service areas) based on communities' comprehensive plans for the seven-county metropolitan area of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. The dataset does not depict the precise location of current urban services (Sewer service). In other words, the Urban Service Areas designate areas that might be serviced, it does not represent the urban areas that are serviced. The depiction of Urban Service Areas provides a framework in which known urban development and anticipated future development can exist with adequate sewer capacity at efficient service levels. Seven other datasets are derived from these data: MUSA_2020, MUSA_2020_Outline, MUSA_2030, MUSA_2030_Outline, MUSA_2040, MUSA_2040_Outline, MUSA Undesignated_Reserve (see below). NOTE: As of August 2020, the derived dataset MUSA_Undesignated is no longer being used as a desingation but remain in the Attributes for an unknown period of time for historical comparison purposes but there will no longer be a designated layer as part of any download.

Each community (city or township) in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area is required to complete a comprehensive plan for approval by the Metropolitan Council per the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1995 (Minn. Stat 473.864, Subd 2 and 473.175, Subd 1). The comprehensive plan must include a depiction of current and future boundaries of the Urban Service Areas (i.e., 2030, 2040, Post-2040).

As of March 2011, a new designation area was created specifically to address the agreed upon development plan for southeastern Scott County between the county, the city of Elko New Market and the town of New Market : 'Undesignated MUSA Reserve.' This is an area where an agreed upon acreage of urban sewer service can be added to the current MUSA by 2030 through their 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The distinction between 'Undesignated MUSA' and 'Undesignated MUSA Reserve' is that 'Undesignated MUSA' is an area within a municipal boundary defined by that municipality's comprehensive plan, whereas, 'Undesignated MUSA Reserve' is an area beyond the current municipal boundary (i.e., surrounding township) that is designated in a joint agreement by the city, town, and county to accommodate future municipal growth. Urban sewer services will not be provided to these areas until they have been annexed by the municipality (i.e., Elko New Market).

Although the Metropolitan Council provides the majority of the urban sewer service in the seven-county metropolitan area, several smaller, free-standing rural communities in the region (primarily in Carver and Scott Counties), private systems, and independent nations (Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community) provide their own urban services. Where information on their urban service areas are available, it is included in this dataset.

Although the information included in this dataset is derived from the communities' 2008 and 2018 comprehensive plans, subsequent plan amendments are intended to be current within 4 months, for exact MUSA information, please contact the community.

When referring to CURRENT MUSA extent, this includes areas up to 2025 MUSA. For communities who have had their 2040 Comprehensive Plan adopted (Benchmark 2040), this includes areas up to 2030 MUSA.

These data were previously incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan Composite dataset.

A dataset listing Minnesota counties by population for 2024.

Rob-N-Cin Farms is a 455-acre dairy factory farm that is currently noncompliant with zoning regulations with the Town of Trenton and illegally operating over the legal amount of animal units permitted. It is seeking a WPDES Permit as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) to gain compliance and the Town of Trenton is creating zoning laws to allow it to operate. The residents of Trenton have voiced concern over the operation of the farm spreading concentrated manure slurry in areas outside of its owned land. To better present the concerns of the residents, the Friends of Trenton need visuals to present to the town to present the impact it has to its residents in hopes the town will enact better laws and zoning to prevent the CAFO’s growth. Map is being used to accomplished this through analysis of the CAFO’s manure spread areas showing the number of houses impacted by its operation and an environmental analysis of its runoff into environmental areas. This map only displays the impact on the Town of Trenton.