HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 24, 2004 Work SessionCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Visit Our Website at: www. ci. columbia-heights, mn.us
ADMINISTRATION
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
to be held in the
CITY OF COL UMBIA HEIGHTS
as follows:
Mayor
dulienne Wyckoff
Councilmembers
Robert A. Williams
Bntce Nawrocki
Tammera Ericson
Bruce Kelzenberg
City Manager
Walt Febst
Meeting of:
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Purpose of Meeting:
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2004
7:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 1
WORK SESSION
AGENDA
2003 CAFR and Management Letter w/Auditor
(NOTE: Councilmembers please bring this infom~ation previously provided to you.)
Budget/Levy Review
A. Refuse Contract--Discuss Alternatives
MSC Roof Investigation Report
Authorization to seek Architectural Bids for the MSC Building Maintenance Project, including
Roof Replacement.
The City of Colmnbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability h~ the admission or access to, or treatment or
employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, progrmns, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped
persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hottrs in advance. Please call the City Com~cil Secretary at
706-3611, to make arrm~gements. (TDD/706~3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only)
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
DATE:
AUGUST 19, 2004
TO:
THE HONORABLE MAYOR JULIENNE WYCKOFF
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
TAMI ERICSON
BRUCE KELZENBERG
BRUCE NAWROCKI
BOBBY WILLIAMS
FROM:
WALT FEHST, CITY MANAGER
WILLIAM ELRITE~/~
FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE:
BUDGET WORK SESSION OF AUGUST 24, 2004 (Page 1 of 2)
The work session scheduled for August 24th to review the 2005 budget and set a proposed levy
for 2005 may be one of the most crucial meetings in determining the future of Columbia Heights
and what will transpire in upcoming years. With the major reductions in local government aid,
which is projected to reach $1,931,902 by the year 2006, the City Council and staff m-e faced
with the dilemma of budget cut-backs, reduction of services, increased property tax levies, and
the task of seeking out new and innovative revenue sources. At the same time statistics indicate
an increase in crime and rental housing, a decrease in the quality of housing maintenance, and a
growing diversity in our population. The loss of local government aid from the State of
Minnesota is beyond the control of the City Council. However, the authority to make up for lost
state aid through property tax levies and other sources is within the control of the City Council.
At previous budget meetings assorted docmnentation has been presented to the council showing
the significant reductions that have been made in the City's operating budget. This is reflected in
the attached schedule that shows the adopted 2003 budget at $9,719,781. The proposed 2005
budget is reduced by $770,928 from this amount. This figure does not take into consideration
inflation that has been absorbed into the proposed budget. If we were to figure a 3% inflationary
rate, it would place the actual reduction of the 2005 budget at $1,362,862 less than the adopted
2003 budget. This is a major decrease and a great effort to do more with less, or at least to
maintain the same level of services for a significant reduction in cost. At the same time, if we
look at the property tax structure in Columbia Heights, we find two significant factors. First, the
taxes on a median priced home in Columbia Heights are amongst the lowest in the metropolitan
area. The second and even more important fact is that the average home in Columbia Heights is
paying less taxes in 2004 than they paid in 1997, and a considerable amount of the increase in
property taxes over the last five yem-s is due to legislative changes and adjustments to the
property class rate structure whereby the state legislature moved a large amount of the
commercial-industrial property tax burden to residential property. This resulted in a decrease in
commercial-industrial property taxes and an increase in residential property taxes. Here, again,
this tax shift and tax
Page Two
increase was outside the control of the City Council. The bottom line is that since 1997 the
decrease and increase in local property taxes has been a direct result of state legislative action
through the reduction of state aid, the shifting of state revenue between schools, cities, and
counties, and the shifting of the property tax burden from commercial-industrial property to
residential. Even with these drastic legislative changes, the City Council and staff has put forth
every effort to "hold the line" on expenses and in more recent years, significantly reduce
expenses while absorbing inflation.
During the budget process there are several areas that need to be reviewed in greater depth before
adopting a final tax levy. One of these is the pros and cons of implementing new and innovative
revenue sources such as a utility franchise tax and other means of generating revenue such as
placing a street light fee on the City utility bill to recover street light costs, increasing housing
maintenance code and rental housing license fees in addition to developing a housing point-of-
sale program, and establishing fees to offset the expenses. Another major cost and fee area that
should be reviewed is the taxpayers' financial support and subsidy for the operation of Murzyn
Hall and Parkview Villa South. The current burden on taxpayers for supplementing these two
operations is in excess of $1,000,000. Restructuring of the Murzyn Hall operation to make it
self-sustaining or profitable along with exploring the option of selling Parkview Villa and
restructuring the debt could result in a considerable property tax reduction to residents. These
are just a few of the important items that need to be addressed during the budget process.
The outcome of the City Council's decision on several of the above items could have a major
effect on the final property tax levy. Subsequently, it is my recommendation that the preliminary
levy be set at a high enough level to accomplish everything that may be desired with the intent
that the decisions made through the budget process will result in a reduction of costs or an
increase in other revenue and that the levy will be adjusted accordingly in the final budget and
levy adoption in December. If the preliminary levy is set at a very low level, the council is really
tying their hands and severely limiting what can be done during the budget review process.
Under the state's current Truth in Taxation process, the adoption of the preliminary levy is
actually the starting point of the budget and levy review process that culminates with the Truth in
Taxation hearing in December. The intent of the current Truth in Taxation process is to set a
preliminary maximum levy. The county then informs property taxpayers of how this will affect
their property tax statement. It is then the responsibility of the taxpayer to attend the council
budget meetings and let the council know how they feel about the tax increase and provide any
suggestions they may have for changes. If taxpayers do not respond to the notice they receive or
attend the budget meetings, one could assume that they are content with what is proposed?
WE:sms
O408 t 92BUD
Attachments: Three-year Budget Plan 2003-2007 Budgets
Aids 2003-2006
Property Taxes 2003-1997
Property Tax History 1997-2004
Emrn
M-.- I
.,.%-,~ r.-0
01--'04
lo
o
LO CO
0 0
0 0
O'T'
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
n
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
WALT FEHST, CITY MANAGER
LINDA MAGEE, ASST. TO THE CITY MANAGER
FROM:
JEAN KUEHN, SPEC. PROJECT COORDINATOR
DATE:
AUGUST 19, 2004
EXTENSION VS RFP FOR GARBAGE/RECYCLING CONTRACT
While garbage service is the larger portion of onr contract, both of the larger con~panies have the
ability to provide excellent trash collection se~wice. The recycling collection is the focus here, as
that is where the significant differences occur.
BFI has proposed a 2-year extension of our current contract, in return for a reduction of $.30 (30
cents) per household for residential garbage service, netting the city a cost savings of $21,186
mmually.
In addition, BFI would reduce the recycling charges by $. 10 (10 cents) per household, further
reducing the city costs by $9,246.00 for an annual savings of $30,450.00. The rates woUld
remain constant for the 2-year extension period.
CURRENT VS PROPOSED
Trash Service 2004 2005-2006 # of Households Annual
(estimated) Savings
90 Gallon Full Smwice $11.67 $11.37 5050 $18,180.00
60 Gallon Limited $10.72 $10.42 425 $1,530.00
30 Gallon Low Volmne $9.20 $8.90 185 $666.00
Senior Rate $9.20 $8.90 225 $810.00
Total Almual Trash Savings $21,186.00
Recycling Service
Single & Double households $2.40 $2.30 5885 $7,062.00
Multifamily units $1.61 $1.51 1820 $2,184.00
Total Recycling Savings $9,246.00
TOTAL SAVINGS $30,432.00
Waste Management is very interested in securing the Columbia Heights contract for garbage,
recycling and yardwaste. They use a recycling collection system that is unique to their company.
They are the only haulers in the region using a 60 gallon cart to collect all recyclable materials in
one container. They have built a MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) in northeast Minneapolis
where the materials are taken mhd sorted for market.
See attached comparison of the current two-sort system vs single sort recycling
Given the current local climate in the waste hauling industry, it is highly likely Columbia
Heights would benefit financially by issuing an RFP at this time. The City has not issued an
RFP for garbage, recycling and yardwaste in 8 years.
We have enjoyed good service and have a solid working relationship with our current hauler.
They are eager to continue that relationship. BFI has offered the City an incentive to extend the
current contract, but will be a bidder if an RFP is issued.
An RFP cannot be so restrictive as to eliminate competent bidders, but at the same time the City
must consider its needs and the needs of its residents in collection services. The industry is
changing. If a new company were the successful bidder it may require the City to restructure
how and where materials are collected. It would require a collection of the current carts and
delivery of new ones during December/January.
Is every other week recycling acceptable?
Is the City amenable to an ordinance change, accepting bi-weekly collections?
· Is alley collection of recyclables acceptable to the City Engineer and Public Works?
· Are 60-gallon recycling containers acceptable to residents?
The City would be best served by issuing an RFP for garbage, recycling and yardwaste. The RFP
will need to go to all interested parties by September 30, 2004.
SINGLE SORT VS CURRENT TWO SORT SYSTEM FOR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Current Two Sort System with 15 gallon recycling bin
PRO:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Smaller box container affords easier storage in limited spaces
Collection fi'om the curb, throughout the City
Containers easier to handle?
Collections every week
Opportunity to educate resident if inappropriate material is put in container
Wheels and strap for pulling can be added.
Company now provides Recycle Bins to the City
CON
1.
2.
3.
4.
Small container not large enough for some households
Un-lidded recycle bins allows blowing of materials
Recyclable materials are frequently wet from rain/snow, alters tormage numbers
Bins are frequently taken from household when resident moves.
Single Sort cart system
PRO:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Larger container hold everything
Lidded cart prevents blowing of materials
Recyclable materials are kept dry, for accurate tolmage
Facilitates ease of recycling
Carts are unlikely to be taken when residents move.
Wheeled carts move easily
Data show increase of recycling tonnage
CON:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Large container problematic to store in limited spaces (condos, single stall garage)
Recycling collection from the curb throughout the City may not be feasible
Additional trucks in alleys considered undesirable from an engineering standpoint
Wheeled containers easier to handle? In hilly areas? On stairs? Seniors?
Collections would be every other week, cost approximately equal to weekly collection
No opportunity to educate resident if inappropriate material is in container
Automation requires carts be in specific locations
Data shows increase contamination of recyclables with carts
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 8/24/04
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
ITEM: CONDITION REPORT FOR THE MUNICIPAL BY: K. Hansen qe4/~
SERVICES CENTER ROOF DATE: 8/19/04 ~ DATE:
For the last 5-8 years, leaks have been developing in the flat roof system at the Mmficipal Smwices Center (MSC). While m/nor in
the beginning, the leaks have become progressively worse. Two years ago, we had some m/nor repairs made to visible or obvious
areas of the roofmg system, but the leaking has become worse and more widespread dm'ing the spring melt and dm~ing rain events.
For this reason, Public Works contracted with a roof consultant, Bill Holman, to investigate the existing condition of the roof and
provide Public Works with a written report. Mt'. Holman is the same consultant who performed the Librm2g, police dept., and
Parkview Villa reports and recommendations.
The report, attached herewith, details the following:
· The existing roof is actually two roof systems on top of each other. The original and one added approx 17 years ago.
· Moistm'e is and will continue to be trapped between the two roofing systems.
· The roof system is rubber and shrinking, and it will continue to shrink so repaks are not an option.
· The type of roof has a life expectancy of 11 years. The MSC roof is 17 years old.
· The existing two roofing may compromise the live load of the existing concrete deck (when adding a variable snow load)
· The glued seams are failing.
In Mr. Holman's report, he has detailed 3 roof system options for the replacement of the MSC roof. The options are all similar
with the differences being the type of asphalt used for the flood coat. Option 2 and 3 use a higher qnality product that increases the
life expectancy of the roof. The three options and associated life expectancy are as follows:
Roof Type
1. Option 1 - Premium Asphalt
2. Option 2 - Emulsified Coal Tar
3. Option 3 - Poly~ner Modified Asphalt
Life Expectancy
18years + 1 restoration adding another lO-15 yrs
25years + 1 restoration adding another lO-15 yrs
35 years + 1 restoration adding another 20 yrs
The third system is what was placed at the Police Station and Parkview Villa.
Public Works recommends the replacement of the MSC roof with either option 2 or 3.
Attachments: MSC Roof Investigation Report
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
MAINTENANCE GARAGE
ROOF REPORT
FROM:
AAC BILL HOLMAN 612-670-9497
AAC Roof Consulting, Inc.
6-27-04
City of Columbia Heights
Public Works Department
Steve Synowczynski - Supervisor
Lauren McClanahan- Superintendent
Kevin Hansen - Director
637 38th Avenue N.E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3806
Gentlemen;
This is to confirm my recent closed inspection of your Public Works Garage roof area. As per your request please
find enclosed report of the conditions present and our recommendations for corrective repairs.
The existing system is composed of a concrete deck (preformed), Urethane insulation, four ply asphalt and gravel
roofing system with most of its gravel still in place, 4-6 inches of expanded poly styrene (bead board) loose laid,
with a 45 mill E.P.D.Mi robber roofing system. There is moisture trapped between the single ply and original roof.
The field seams are starting to separate in most areas. The glue they used to seam is water soluble glue that fails
with constant contact with water. The entire system is shrinking dramatically as is evidence from the metal edge
detail and how it is being pulled up onto the roof.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
There are several reasons that this roofmg system can not be repaired and must be replaced at this time.
The first reason is that the roofing system is shrinking and will continue to shrink after repairs are made. The
second reason is the live load of the present system may very well exceed the load limits on the deck. The old
roofing system weighs approximately 6-8# and the EPDM system weighs 14-20 #, if you add the weight of the A/C
units, and add a snow load you could be over or right at the capacity of the deck. The third reason is that the average
life of an EPDM system in the USA (accorchng to Project Pin Point done by the NRCA) is 11 years. Once the
membrane gets that old we will see tiny pin holes develop in the system creating phantom leaks.
There are three systems that I would recommend you considering. The first system is as follows:
1. Remove both roofs down to a clean deck and examine for deterioration (none expected). If
damage is found contact the specifier as soon as possible.
2. Install a slope to drain isocyanerate insulation system meeting current codes. Adhere the
insulation using a 100% layer of low rise urethane foam. Hold board in place tmfil the foam has
flashed off. An optional way would be to install a two ply vapor barrier with a premium asphalt
and polyester ply base sheet materials.
3. Install a ½" layer of fiber board over the top of the isocyanerate insulation staggering all joints
using a hot layer of Premium Asphalt with 100% coverage.
4709Aspasia Circle, Suite B · Edina, Minnesota 55435 · (612) 252-2500 · FAX (612) 252-2501
826 Golf Course Parkway, Suite D · Davenport, Florida 33837 · (863) 424-7510 · FAX (863) 420-8301
billholman @ usinternet.com
4. Install one layer of coated or uncoated polyester felt via mopping into fresh premium asphalt.
5. Install three plies of type IV felt as per specifications using premium asphalt.
6. Install a flood coat of premium asphalt broadcasting fresh clean gravel meeting ASTM 1863
type 7 or 8 at arate of 450 -500#per 100 sq. ft.
7. Install a mineral surfaced APP modified two ply flashing meeting the specification
requirements.
8. Install overflow scuppers to meet code (no less than two) including down spouts.
9. Install roof crickets where needed to accommodate the proper flow of water.
10. Fmmish a ten year warranty covering the entire roof system from the deck up. Pro ratings and
dollar limits will not be acceptable. All subsidiaries must have parent company issue and sign
the warranty.
11. The entire system must meet FM Global requirements in all categories.
12. Install Kynar coated per/meter fascia, and interior counter flashing metals in accordance with
SMACNA and the NRCA. The metal must be included in the warranty.
13. Budget for this type of roofing system approximately $7.35 per foot or approximately
$228,000.00 plus the A/C & heating unit.
The second system is identical to the first except for the flood coat of Emulsified Coal Tar that will give you twice
the life of an asphalt product because water does not deteriorate the Coal Tar Coating like it does any asphalt
product. The budget would increase another $20,000.00 aprox. Or $.65 per foot for a total sq. ft. price of $8.00 or
$248,000.00 for the total roofing project plus the AdC & heating unit.
The third system would be identical to the first two except using modified asphalt in place of premium asphalt. This
would increase the price of the roof an additional $21,000.00 approximately or $.68 per sq. ft. for a total of $8.68 per
sq ft. for a total roofing project cost of $269,000.00 plus the AdC & heating unit.
The third system is the system we used on the Police Station - Fire House & the Park Villa roofs. It is a 35 yrs. +
service roof that will perform well and can be restored after 35 years to get another 20 years. The second system
will give you 25 years of service and can then be resurfaced to get another 10-15 years. The first system will give
you 18 years of service and then it can be restored for an additional 10-15 years.
The cost per sq. ft. per year is the most reasonable for the third type of roof with modified asphalt and a coal tar
flood coat @ $.25 cents per ft. per year. The next most economical system is the second type of roof with the
premium asphalt and coal tar flood coat for a cost per year per foot of $.32. The second one seems to fit your budget
needs the best. The cost per sq. ft. of the firstsyste_m is$.41 per sq ft. per year. A single ply system would be in the
$.55 - .60 range with interim problems.
I do not know at tiffs time what you're AdC heater unit will run however, I will fred out in the near future.
The size of this project dictates that we will need an Architect to review and approve the specification. Unless one
of your civil Engineers would work with me to save the 5 to 7% fee. That fact alone will increase the budget by
$12,000.00 to $17,000.00. The State of MN says any project over $35,000.00 must have an Architect or Engineer
oversee the specification preparation.
I have asked RHA Architects to submit a quote to you. We have used them in the past successfully on the Park
Plaza and the City Hall. Their insurance like everybody else's has gone up considerably. However, I think he will
do it for around the 5% figure. If we can do this in house let me know as soon as possible.
Thank you for this opportunity to serve your roof management needs. I/there are any questions please contact me.
Sh erel--' 'IA
Gravel is quite heavy - estimated at 15-20 # per sq ft
Flashing material is starting to deteriorate
Flashing at the unit are in poor repair - note resting
A/C & heating unit to be replace during the re-roof project
Metal is being pulled up onto the roof
The metal is pulled by the EPDM on the top side
Metal is being pUlled unto the roof by shrinking EPDM
Flashing is starting to crack as it is pulled
Heating vent stacks to be replaced during re-roofing
I
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of:
8/24/04
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS ~~Z~
ITEM: AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS FOR BY: K. Hansen L/k, TI{) BY: ~. ~
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR A BUILDING DATE: 8/19/04~ DATE:
MAINTENANCE PROJECT AT THE MSC
For the last 5 years, Public Works has been contributing to the Capital Improvement Building Fund (411) to establish funds to
provide for various building maintenance needs for the Municipal Services Center (MSC). As previously presented in past budget
discussions, it was proposed to set aside approximately one half the estimated cost of the work and then begin plarming the
necessmT work. Staff has estimated the total cost of the project at $750,000, with approximately $375,000 of that now established
in the Building Fund. Additionally, with the condition report of the MSC roof detailing a full replacement, staff believes it is
appropriate to begin the process hiring an architect for a 2005 construction project.
The work plan involves the following items:
WORK PLAN:
Description -
1. Gender, ADA and Security Needs: $275,000
a. Add 3-level elevator
b. Add Main Floor Women's Restroom/Changing area
c. Building security: card reader access control
Estimated Cost
2. Complete Roof Replacement: $250,000
3. Replace Rooftop HVAC: $15,000
Building Exterior
a. Repair Deteriorated Masonry, cracking: $70,000
b. Repainting of Exterior $45,000
c. Add Wash Bay to Basement (Heavy Equipment): $15,000
5. Interior Repairs/Remodeling/Repainting $30,000
a. Main Floor structural concrete repair/recoating
b. Carpeting / Painting
c. Reconfigure main entrance lobby
6. Architectural: Plans/Inspections $50,000
Total: $750,000
Consistent with past budget discussions, staff would propose to use funding on hand, using internal borrowing for the balance, and
Public Works paying back the internal loan over the next 4-5 years.
Public Works authorization to seek bids for Architectural Services for plan development and inspection services for the MSC
Building Maintenance Project.
Council Action