HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 25, 2004 RegularCITY 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
Ma}~or
Julienne bffyckoff
Councihnembers
Robert A. I~filliams
Bruce Nm~rocki
Tammera Ericson
Bt~tce Kelzenberg
Cit~ Manager
l~alter R. Fehst
The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 p.m. or immediately
following the 6:30 p.m. EDA meeting on Monday, October 25, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, City
Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN.
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in 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, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are
available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Deputy City Clerk at 763-706-3611,
to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only)
Invocation: Reverend Dan Thompson, Coltmabia Heights Assembly of God Church
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA
(The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda. These
may be items brought to the attention of the Council under the Citizen Forurn or items submitted after the
agenda preparation deadlh~e.)
PROCLAMATIONS~ PRESENTATIONS~ RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS
A) Proclmnations - none
B) Presentations - none
C) Introduction of New Employees - none
D) Recognition - none
e
CONSENT AGENDA
(These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted as part of the Consent
Agenda by one motion. Items removed from consent agenda approval will be taken up as the next order of
business.)
1) Approve Ci_ty Com~cil Meeting Minutes
a) MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2004 Special Assessment Levy
Hearing.for Zone 6 City Council meeting as presented.
b) MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2004 Special Assessment Levy
Hearing for Zone 7A City Council meeting as presented.
c) MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the regular October 11, 2004 City Council meeting.
2)
Accept Boards and Commissions Meeting Minutes
a) MOTION: Move to accept the October 5, 2004 minutes of the Library Board of Trustees.
b) MOTION: Move to accept the July 20, 2004 minutes of the HRA.
c) MOTION: Move to accept the October 4, 2004 minutes of the Traffic Conu-nission.
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF' DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF' SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City Council Agenda
October 25, 2004
Page 2 of 5
3) Establish the Canvass of the 2004 General Election results for Wednesday, November 3, 2004
begi~ming at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
MOTION: Move to establish the Canvass o£the 2004 General Election results for Wednesday,
November 3, 2004 beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
4)
Adopt Resolution 2004-70, being a Resolution to extend the terms of the Southern gmoka County
Communi _ty Consortium Joint Powers Agreement for payment of the atmual fees for FY 2005 mhd
2006.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-70, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-70, to extend the term of the Southern Anoka County
Community Consortium Joint Powers Agreement for payment of the annual fees for FY 2005 mhd
2006.
5)
Adopt Resolution 2004-71, being a Resolution to approve application to the MN Department of
Employment and Economic Development for a Contamination Clemh Up Grant
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-71, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-71, being a Resolution to approve application to the MN
Department o£Employment and Economic Development for a Contamination Clean Up Grant.
6)
Adopt Resolution 2004-72, being a Resolution authorizing application to the Metropolitan Council
for Tax Base Revitalization Account Ftmding.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-72, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to Adopt ReSolution 2004-72, being a Resolution authorizing application to the
Metropolitan Council for Tax Base Revitalization Account Funding.
7)
Second reading of Ordinance 1477, being an Ordinance mnending Ordinance 853-10.108 (6) City
Code of 1977, authorizing the ordinance violation of public nuisance under 10.108(6)(a) to be
charged as a petty_ misdemeanor and subject to the penalties set forth by Resolution
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance 1477 there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance !477, being an Ordinance mnending Ordinance 853-10.108(6)
City Code of 1977, authorizing the ordinance violation o£public nuisance under 10.108(6)(a) to be
chat'ged as a petty misdemeanor and subject to the penalties set forth by Resolution
8)
Adopt Resolution 2004-69, being a Resolution atnendin~ Resolution 2003-06 establislthhg penalties
for the violations listed and allowing for the use of administrative tagS when citing for these
violations
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-69, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-69, being a Resolution amending Resolution 2003-06
establishing penalties for the violations listed and allowing for the use of administrative tags when
citing for these violations.
P. 2
City Council Agenda
October 25, 2004
Page 3 of 5
9) Approve Refuse/Recycling contract with BFI Waste Systems
MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract with BFI Waste
Systems for refuse/recycling/yard waste removal effective January 1, 2005 - December 31, 2009.
10)
Adopt Resolution 2004-67, being a Resolution amending Resolution 2004-23 authorizing certain
Charitable Gambling.
Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-67, there being mnple copies available to the public.
Move to adopt Resolution 2004-67, being a Resolution mnending Resolution 2004-23 authorizing
certain Charitable Gambling.
11) Establish a Heari~n~ Date of November 8~ 2004 for revocation or suspension of rental property
license at 1635 49 Avenue N.E.
MOTION: Move to establish a hearing date of November 8, 2004 for revocation or suspension of a
license to operate a rental property within the City of Columbia Heights against Abullahi Elmi at
1635 49th Avenue N.E.
12) Approve Rental Housing License Applications
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for October 25,
2004.
13) Approve Business License Applications
MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for October 25, 2004
as presented and the renewals for 2005.
14) Approve Payment of Bills
MOTION: Move to approve payment of the bills out of the proper funds as listed in the attached
check register covering Check Number 110242 through 110410 in the amount of $932,744.44.
m
PI~LIC HE~Gs
A) Adopt Resolution 2004-55, Adopting a Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD)
Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and Establishing the Huset Park Area TIF
District and TIF Plan
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-55, there being an mnple amount of copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-55, Adopting a Modification to the Downtown Central
Bush_~_ess District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and Establishing the
Huset Park g2'ea Tax Increment Financing District therein and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing
Plan therefore.
B)
Adopt Resolution 2004-54, approving the elimination of parcels frolI1 the TIF 4 Multi Use
Redevelopment Proiect (MURP) K2 TIF District
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-54, there being an anaple amount of copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-54, a Resolution Approving the Elimination of Parcels fi'om
the TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 Tax Increment Financing District within the
Central Business District Redevelopment Project in the City of Columbia Heights.
P. 3
City Council Agenda
October 25, 2004
Page 4 of 5
C) Adopt Resolution 2004-75, being a Resolution for Rental Housing Revocation at 1324-26 Circle Terrace
Blvd. N.E.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-75, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-75, Resolution o£the City Council of the City of Columbia
Heights approving revocation pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of the Rental License held
by Edward Fragale regarding rental property at 1324-26 Circle Terrace Blvd. N.E.
r))
Public Hearing called for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 1308-1310 Circle
Terrace Blvd.
MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the Rental
License held by Edward Fragale regarding rental property at 1308-1310 Circle Ten'ace B lvd in that the
Property complies with the Residential Maintenance Code.
E)
Adopt Resolution 2004-73, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights Declaring
the Prope~W at 4901 5th Street NE a Nuisance and Approving the Abatement of Violations
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-73 there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt ResOlution 2004-73, Resolution of the City Council o£the City of Colun~bia
Heights Declaring the Property at 4901 5th Street NE a Nuisance and Approving the Abatement of
Violations from the Property Pursuant to City Code Section 8.602.
e
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A) Other Ordinances and Resolutions
1) Adopt Resolution 2004-68, being a Resolution approving a lot split of the property at 1600 41st
Avenue NE/4050 Tyler Street NE
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-68, there being ample copies available to
the public. '
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-68, a resolution approving a lot split of the property at
1600 41 st Avenue NE/4050 Tyler Street NE, subject to the following conditions of approval that are
deemed necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance:
1. The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and
be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka CounW
Recorder's Office.
2. The applicant shall pay a parldand dedication fee in the amount of $3,667 for the one newly
created lot. Tlfis fee is payable at the time of building permit application.
3. The propen~y owner of 1600 41st Avenue NE shall be responsible for relocating the water line
that currently runs from the rear of the house to the alley. The line shall be rerouted out to 41st
Avenue. The property owner shall be responsible for the cost o£tl~is relocation. All applicable City
requirements regarding street excavation shall be met.
4. Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the subdivision
survey with the Anoka CoUnty Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not
filed with the Anoka County Recorder withip. 4.ne (1) year of the date of the City Council action.
City Council Agenda
October 25, 2004
Page 5 of 5
B) Bid Considerations
1) Adopt Resolution 2004-74, being a Resolution accepting the bid for building demolition and
excavation of contaminated soil in the Industrial Park (Phase 1), Colmnbia Heights, MN.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-74, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-74, being a Resolution accepting the bid for building
demolition and excavation of contaminated soil in the Industrial Park (Phase 1), Columbia Heights,
MN.
C) Other Business - none
8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A) Report of the City Manager
B) Report of the City Attorney
CITIZENS FORUM
(At this time, citizens have an opportunity to discuss with the Council items not on the regular agenda.
Citizens are requested to limit their comments to five minutes.)
10. COUNCIL CORNER
11. ADJOURNMENT
Walter R. Fehst
City Manager
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY HEARING - ZONE 6
OCTOBER 11, 2004
THESE I INUTES FIAVE
NOT BEEN APPROVED,.
The following are the minutes for the Special Assessment Levy Hearing - Zone 6 meeting of the
City Council held at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, October 11, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, City
Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Colmnbia Heights, MN.
Call to order/Roll Call/Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Wyckoff called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present: Mayor Wyckoff, Councihnember Williams, Councilmember Nawroclci, Councih~ember
Ericson, Councilmember Kelzenberg
Resolution No. 2004-62, being a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Rolls for the Zone 6 Seal Coat
improvements.
Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director, read the items included in the Council packet. The purpose of
the hearing is to consider the assessment m~ount and set the interest rate for one year. In the past, the
Council has lowered the interest rate. Residents were noticed at seven percent. He stated that a 1.5
percent rate has been past precedent above the amount of the bond rate. The 2003 bond rate is 3.9
percent.
Hansen indicated that construction costs came in at the same amount predicted at the time of the
improvement hearing. The street rate $207 per lot and the avenue rate at $69 per lot. Hansen
explained the difference between street rates and avenue rates. The project is complete except for a
final street sweep. This was handled tlu'ough the Joint Powers Agreement.
Nawrocki asked the assessment cost at the time of the hearing. Hansen listed the an~ounts.
Motion by Willian~s to change the interest rate to 5.5 percent.
Nawrocki suggested five percent.
Motion to amend by Williams to a five percent interest rate. Second by Nawrocki. Upon vote: Ayes:
Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
A resident ask_ed for the boundm/~ lines. Hansen listed the boundaries. He referred to a short segment
of 41 st that did not get seal coated because the construction process interfered with seal coating that
street. That is the reason for suggesting seal coating an area the year after street reconstruction.
Williams asked if it would be done next year. Hansen stated yes, in one or two years,
Motion by Williams, second by Nawrocki, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-62, there
being maple copies available to the public. Upon vote: Ayes: Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson,
Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
Motion by Williams, second by Nawrocki, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-62, being a resolution
adopting assessment rolls for the Zone 6 Seal Coat improvements, with a five percent interest rate.
Upon vote: Ayes: Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
P. 6
Sandra Whalen, 4306 Madison Street, listed work done on her street last year and concerns about a
tree the City removed, work on the water system, damage to the sidewalk in front of her home, and
bad sod. There is a 13 inch deep wash out by her neighbor's cm'b. Hansen stated that staff would
. check when the sod was laid. Residents are asked to water the sod. Nawrocki asked that this resident
receive a written response, and that Council receive a copy. Williams asked Ms. Whalen if she had
contacted anyone before this. She stated no. Wyckoff stated that staffwould follow up on this.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-62
RESOLUTION LEVYING AND ADOPTING TIlE ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 0301
ZONE 6 SEAL COAT BITUMINOUS STREETS
Adopting assessment roll according to the City Charter for the following local improvements and determining that said
improvements have been made and ratifying and conforming all other proceedings, heretofore had: Special Assessments
numbered 2004-Z6-01-001 and 2004-Z6-01-002, P.I.R. 1078, 4a~, 5th and 6m Streets, 40m to 44th Aveunes; Jackson Street,
40th to 41st Avenues, 41~t Avenue, 4th Street to 6~ Street; 41st Avenue, west of Washington Street to Central Avenue; 42nd
Avenue, University Service Drive to Central Avenue; 43rd Avenue, 4m Street to Central Avenue, 45a~ Avenue, University
Service Drive to 5~' Street and adjoining streets or avenues all in Project 0301 in Zone 6.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, met at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on the 11'~ day of
October, 2004, in the City Council Chamber, 590 40~ Avenue N.E., Colmnbia Heights, Mhmesota, being the time and place
set when and where all persons interested cOuld appear and be heard by the Council with respect to benefits, and to the
proportion of the cost of making the local improvelnents above described; a notice of such hearing having been heretofore
duly published as requked by law, and a notice mailed to each property owner of record, Stating the proposed amount of the
assessment; and,
WHEREAS, this Council has heretofore estimated and fixed the cost of such local improvements and has prepared an
assessment roll therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HEREBY RESOLVES:
Section 1.
That this Council does hereby adopt the aforesaid assessment roll known and described as "Assessment Roll
for Local Improvements" numbered 2004-Z6-01-001 and 2004-Z6-01-002, P.I.R. 1078 - Project 0301.
Section 2:
Section 3:
That this Council hereby finds and determines that each of the lots and parcels of land enumerated in said
assessment roll was and is especially benefited by such improvement in an amount not less than the amount
set opposite in the coh~mn headed "Assessment Amount". And this Council further finds and determines
that the proper proportion of the cost of such improvements to be especially assessed against such lot or
parcel of land is the amount set opposite the description of each such lot or parcel of land respectively in
said assessment roll.
That said assessments may be paid in part or in full without interest on or before November 10% 2004. Any
unpaid amount will be certified to Anoka County for collection with the real estate taxes beginning with the
taxes payable in the year 2005. The annual principal instalhxtents, together with 5% accrued on the unpaid
balance are due and payable with the real estate taxes for a period of one year or less as designated on the
assessment roll.
Section 4:
That this Council did hereby determine and re-determine to proceed with said improvement, does ratify and
confmri all other proceedings heretofore had in regard to this improvement, and said improvement shall
hereafter be known and numbered as Local Improvement nmnbered 2004-Z6-01-001 and 2004-Z6-01-002,
P.I.R. 1078 - Project 0301.
Mayor Wyckoff adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
P. 7
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY HEARING - ZONE 7A
OCTOBER 11, 2004
The following are the minutes for the Special Assessment Levy Hearing - Zone 7A meeting of the City
Council held at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, October 11, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590
40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN.
Call to Order/Roll Call
Mayor Wyckoff called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present: Mayor Wyckoff, Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Nawrocki, Councilmember
Ericson, Councilmember Kelzenberg
Resolution No. 2004-63, being a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Rolls for the Zone 7A
improvements.
Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director, stated the purpose of this meeting is for the City Council to
consider the assessment and the term for this project, which is a 15 year project of street
reconstruction. Hansen listed the boundaries of the project and items in the City Council packet. The
cost is 3.5% lower than the improvement hearing. The final assessment street rate is $2,460 and $820
for the avenue rate. Hansen spoke of water service line replacements, wlfich were reduced from
$1,200 to $860 per parcel; curb stop replacement of $520 per parcel and curb box risers replacement
of $430 per parcel. There were five homes with lead pipes, where owners have been notified they
have one year to replace the pipe. Sanitary sewer repair included the replacement of one line, mad
were one-half of the cost for a final of $500 per parcel. The interest rate was noticed at seven
percent. A 1.5 percent rate has been past precedent above the amount of the bond rate. The 2003
bond rate is 3.9 percent. He described a portion of the work, which is not finished, but stated it
would be completed yet tlfis year.
Williams questioned if it is mandatory to replace the lead service and if it would be cheaper to do so
now. Hansen stated a plumber must do the replacement.
Motion by Nawrocki, second by Williams, to set the Zone 7A interest rate at five percent. Upon
vote: Ayes: Wyckoff, Willimns, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
Kelzenberg questioned 3948 Quincy. Hansen stated it is park property. Kelzenberg asked if we have
to pay our share. Hm~sen stated we do and the improvements are budgeted for.
Wi!limn Janek, 37!3 Van Buren, stated he received a $3,300 estimate from a plumber to replace the
lead pipe. He indicated that a portion of sideWalk was broken during the construction. Hansen stated
the contractor would replace the broken sidewalk. State Statute allows one year for the replacement
of lead piping; our ordinance allows us to replace it if not completed in the proper time. The City has
no programs available to help with the cost, but suggested contacting the Cormnunity Development
DePartment regarding loW interest improvement loans. Janek stated that it is a working service and
fears it will snowball into additional problems.
Nawrocld asked the address of the library. Hm~sen stated 820 40m Avenue.
P. 8
Motion by Nawrocki that the City participate in one-half the cost of lead se~wice line replacement.
Hansen stated there are five properties. Second by Williams.
Williams stated this is an example of unfunded mandates. Ericson questioned if there were similar
cases in the past and what was done. Hansen indicated there were similar cases and they were
noticed and given no assistm~ce for replacement. There are about three to five such services found
per year. Hansen questioned where the assistance funds would come from.
Ericson asked if the motion is for the properties affected this year or includes past years. Nawrocki
stated he made the motion considering the property now being discussed has a $3,300 assessment
and anticipated tax increases. He stated that the line should have been replaced as part of the project,
and that we find funds for the industrial area from our utility fm~d.
Willimns stated we should limit the motion to these five homes and in the future have one plumber
do all the work for us. Hansen asked that we look at this project only, but as a general policy we
would need to look at the general impact. This work is on private property and the project is on the
public right-of-way. Nawrocki questioned the need for a private plumber versus the contractor that
installs the stop box.
Ericson suggested placing money in a fund, which residents could apply for. She asked to delay this
motion tmtil the next regular City Council meeting. Ericson stated that over the past years we have
had the mandate to change the lead pipe, and agreed it is an mxfi.mded mandate that some residents
need help with. If we have a fund, those in need would apply. Hansen stated that Council could table
this for discussion; we could let the residents affected lmow that the City is interested in assisting
them, and contact a plumber for uniform pricing.
Wyckoff stated this is an issue for the Troth in Housing Act, and asked if there is something
available through Anoka County for fix up of older homes. She stated that we would have to answer
if this would be retroactive. Council would need to direct staffto find funding.
Motion by Kelzenberg to table the previous motion, mhd set discussion for the second work session
in January. Second by Ericson. Upon vote: Kelzenberg, aye; Williams, aye; Ericson, aye; Nawrocki,
nay; Wyckoff, aye. 4 ayes - 1 nay. Motion carried.
Hansen indicated he would nOtify the other affected property owners. 715 3 9th Avenue would be
reduced from $7,300 to $4,500.
Motion by Williams, second by Nawroclci, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-63, there
being ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: Ayes: Wyckoff, Williams, Nava'ocki, Ericson,
Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
Motion by Williams, second by Kelzenberg, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-63, being a resolution
adopting assessment rolls for the Zone 7A improvements, with a five percent interest rate. Upon
vote: Ayes: Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-63
RESOLUTION LEVYING AND ADOPTING TIlE ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 0402
ZONE 7A STREET REHABILITATION
Adopting assessment roll according to the City Charter for the following local improvements and determining that
said improvements have been made and ratifying and confmxning all other proceedings, heretofore had: Special
Assessments numbered 2004-Z7-02-002, P.I.R. ~, 7~ Street, 40th to 42nd Avenues, Quincy Street, 37th to 39th
Avenues, Quincy Street, south of 40th Avenue, Jackson Street, 37~' to 40th Avenues, Van Buren Street, 37th to 40a~
Avenues and adjoining avenues all in Project 0402- Zone 7A.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, met at 6:30 o'clock p.m. on the 11 al day
of October, 2004, h~ the City Council Chamber, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota, being the time
and place set when and where all persons interested could appear and be heard by the Council with respect to
benefits, and to the proportion of the cost of making the local improvements above described, a notice of such
hearing having been heretofore duly published as required by law, and a notice mailed to each property owner of
record, stating the proposed amount of the assessment; and,
WHEREAS, this Council has heretofore estimated and fixed the cost of such local improvements and has prepared
an assessment roll therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HEREBY RESOLVES:
Section 1. That this Council does hereby adopt the aforesaid assessment roll known and described as
"Assessment Roll for Local lanprovements" numbered 2004~Z7-02-002, P.I.R. 1083 - Project 0402.
Section 2: That this Council hereby f'mds and determines that each of the lots and parcels of land enumerated
in said assessment roll was and is especially benefited by such improvement in an amount not less than the amount
set opposite in the colunm headed "Assessment Amount". And this Council further finds and determines that the
proper proportion of the cost of such improvements to be especially assessed against such lot or parcel of land is the
amount set opposite the description of each such lot or parcel of land respectively in said assessment roll.
Section 3: That said assessments may be paid in part or in full without interest on or before November l0th,
2004. Any unpaid amount will be certified to Anoka County for collection with the real estate taxes beginning with
the taxes payable in the year 2005. The annual principal installments, together with 5% accrued on the unpaid
balance are due and payable with the real estate taxes for a period of fifteen years or less as designated on the
assessment roll.
Section 4: That this Council did hereby determine and re-determine to proceed with said improvement, does
ratify and conf'mn all other proceedings heretofore had in regard to this improvement, and said improvement shall
hereafter be known and numbered as Local Improvement numbered 2004-Z7-02-002, P.I.R. 1083 - Project 0402.
Section 5:
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Adjourn
Mayor Wyckoff adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Com~cil Secretary
P. 10
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2004
THESE MINUTES HAVg
.BOT, BEEN APPROVED
The following are the minutes for the regular meeting of the City Council held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October
11, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN.
Pastor Paul Widen, Oak Hill Baptist Church gave the Invocation.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor Wyckoff called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. following the two Special Assessment Hearings.
Present: Mayor Wyckoff, C°uncilmember Williams, Councihnember Nawrocki, Councilmember Ericson,
Councilmember Kelzenberg
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - recited
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA
Nawrocki questioned the refuse contract. Fehst stated that the contract is not complete. Nawrocld added
discussion of the December City newsletter. Wyckoffplaced this under 7C - Other Business.
PROCLAMATIONS~ PRESENTATIONS~ RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS
Presentations
Columbia Heights Boosters Club - donation for Cmumunity Center Study
Fehst welcomed Gary Mayer, Jerry Foss, and Aurora Johnston, of the Colun~bia Heights Athletic
Boosters Club. Mayer, CEO, indicated that the Boosters support the concept of a new community
center and presented the City with a check for $5,000 to complete a demand analysis. Johnston
stated this is done by a research company that has data aVailable to assess the surrounding areas and
identify what current mnenities are available, while considering needs, future clientele and
developments. The company would consider sites that have been discussed and assess what would
be the most ideal situation. Public meetings would be held. Wyckoff questioned the time line.
Aurora stated it would be November 15th to December 1~t.
CONSENT AGENDA
Walt Fehst City Manager took Council through the consent agenda.
1) Approve City Council Meeting Minutes for September 27, 2004 regular City Council meeting
Motion to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2004 regular City Council meeting as
presented.
Nawrocki expressed displeasure at having his questions at the last meeting, regarding the
Schafer/Richardson contract, cut off Wyckoff stated the motion to move on was passed by a Council
majority. Williams stated his appreciation of the questions and would have giving Councilmember
Nawrocki his time to speak. Ericson expressed that all Councilmembers have the right to ask
questions, but they can be asked of staff in advance, as we ask residents to limit their discussion to
five minutes. Many of the same questions were asked at the EDA meeting prior to the Council
meeting and it is our duty to ask concise questions. Nawrocki indicated he stated at the EDA meeting
that he would save his questions for the Council meeting to be accom~nodating and to ensure
openness in government. Ericson stated the meeting lasted until ahnost l :O0 a.m. and that residents
have a right to hear the business of the City before they go to sleep. Nawrocki stated that five
minutes is not a rule of this Council, and both meetings should not have been on the same night.
Wyckoff indicated he should have held a separate meeting, and it is her right to move the meeting
P. 11
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 2 of 11
along. Fehst stated the time limit is self-imposed by Council, and if members wish to meet with the
financial consultant they can do so at any time.
2) Accept Boards and Commissions Meeting Minutes
Motion to accept the October 5, 2004 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Cormnission
Nawrocki questioned 640 40th Avenue, a duplex, being billed for two sets of service when used only
by one family. Fehst stated the property is non-conforming for duplex use. The owner has indicated
that a previous building official stated that he might as well continue to pay duplex fees if he ever
intended to sell it as such and he requested the money be refunded. Fehst stated that we must look at
how to handle this in the future. Wyckoff stated it is the owner's responsibility to keep the City
informed. Jim Hoefi, City Attorney, stated that no one has spoken to the former employee for his
interpretation. Ericson suggested this be discussed at a work session. She suggested that when a
license does lapse, the owner be notified of their options.
3)
Adopt Resolution No. 2004-64, being a Resolution to certify_ delinquent utili _ty and miscellaneous
charges to Anoka County for collection with the property taxes payable in 2005
Motion to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-64 there being ample copies available to the public.
Motion to adopt Resolution 2004-64 being a reSolution to certify delinquem utility and
miscellaneous charges to Anoka Cotmty for collection with the property taxes payable in 2005.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-64
CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, that
THE COUNTY AUDITOR be, and is hereby directed, to levy delinquent utility and miscellaneous delinquent bills
on the properties in the City of Columbia Heights as listed on page two of this resolution and flied in the Assessment
Book for 2004 totaling $ 9,080.52.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing amounts shall be included in the individual property tax
statements for the current year and identified thereon as "Special Assessments."
SAID CHARGES shall be enforced and collected in the mam~er provided for the enforcement and collection of State
and County taxes under and in accordance with the provisions of the general laws of the State. All delinquent utility
and miscellaneous bills with penalties as indicated thereon paid to the County Treasurer shall belong to the City of
Columbia Heights and shall be turned over to the City Treasurer in the manner provided by the City Chatter and
Ordinances.
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS shall accept payments on these utility and miscellaneous bills until
November 15~ 2004. Upon receipt of said payments, the City. will remove them fi.om the certification list sent to
Anoka County.
4)
Authorize Lease' Amendment with Heritage Investment Trust Inc. for Top Value 1
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract amendment with Heritage
Investment Trust, Inc. to extend our cun-ent lease at 4340 Central Avenue for an additional 38
months at a rental rate of $7.85 per square foot with the option to extend the lease for an additional
36 months at a rental rate of $8.64 per square foot.
Fehst stated that the five year lease, with afire year option for our liquor store next to Rainbow
Foods, expires this fall. Bill Elrite, Finance Director stated that terms were renegotiated to a
reduced rate from $8.64for the five year option to $7.85 and a three year lease with a 36 month
option. Nawrocki indicated that we do not receive good information on the CAM charges or how
they are calCulated. Larry Scott, Liquor S, tC~l~2(anage~; Stated the second three years would be
negotiable and would be at a slightly highe, ', ~,e. This would be done as an addendum to the
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 3 of 11
cu~v'ent contract. Nawrocki stated that he had suggested the use of Councilmember 14"illiams to help
negotiate for a better deal.
Elrite stated that the CAM charges in our lease are the same as in 1984. He indicated that the
statements and info~w~ation received are very limited but some of the charges have been negotiated
down. They are not interested in renegotiating CAM. This was a good will effort to reduce the
monthly rate and to write the lease in shorter terms to keep our options open. Over the first three
years we will save $14,000. Fehst stated that he remembered hearing Councihnember Nawrocki say
that the CAM charges were not out of line.
5) Adopt Resolution No. 2004-65 being a Resolution of revised fees charged by the Columbia Heights
Police Department Removed
6)
First Reading of Ordinance No. 1477, being and Ordinance mnending 853-10.108(6) Ci_ty Code of
1977, Pertaining to Public Nuisances
Motion to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1477 there being ample copies available to the
public.
Motion to schedule the second reading of Ordinance No. 1477, being an ordinance amending
Ordinance 853-10.108(6), CitY Code of 1977 authorizing the Ordinance violation of Public Nuisance
under 10.108(6)(a) to be charged as a petty misdemeanor and subject to the penalties set forth by
Resolution.
Police Chief Tom Johnson gave the histo~T on administrative tag usage, and that we stopped using
them a year ago as the State gave an opinion that it was not legal to do. This Ordinance would allow
the charge to be made as a Public Nuisance for minor speeding, running stop signs and making
illegal turns. The Proposed fee would be $45 paid directly to the City. It Would be the Officer's
option to issued a County/State tag.
l/Vyckoff questioned the speeds considered for the public nuisance charge. Johnson indicated one to
ten, or possibly 15 miles over the limit, at the discretion of the Officer. If the ticket is disputed it
would go through the County system. IgZyckoff referred to comments that Officers wouM be more
likely to stop someone if the fine goes to the City. Johnson stated that the large cost of the
State/County tag is a lot for our community and that a public nuisance tag would allow for
correction of action. Nawrocki questioned petty misdemeanor fees. ttoefi indicated current fines
charged and that we lose money on eve~T speeding ticket issued.
V/illiams stated this is long overdue.
7)
Approve Transfer of Safe and SOber Funds from General Fund to Police Departmeut Budget O.T.
line 1020
Motion to transfer $i,294.30, the total amount of money received from the state of Minnesota for
our efforts ha the Safe and sober progrmn, from the General Fund to the Police Department 2004
budget line #1020 overtime.
8) Support request of Columbia Heights Athletic Boosters regarding Charitable Gambling Lease Limits
Removed
9)
Authorize Continuation of the Public Hearing for ReSolution No. 2004-55, Adopting a Modification
to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment
Project and Establishing the Huset Park Ar~ ~'~F District and TIF Plan to Monday, October 25,
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 4 of 11
2004 at approximately 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
Motion to authorize Continuation of the Public Hearing for Resolution No. 2004-55, Adopting a
Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD
Redevelopment Project and Establishing the Huset Park Area TIF District and TIF Plan to Monday,
October 25, 2004 at approximately 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Fehst stated that items 9 and 10 were tabled at the September 27, 2004 City Council meeting and
need to be continued as an order of form.
lO)
Authorize Continuation of the Public Hearing for Resolution 2004-54, approving the elimination of
parcels from the TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 TIF District to Monday,
October 25, 2004 at approximately 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
Motion to authorize Continuation of the Public Hearing for Resolution 2004-54, approving the
elintination of parcels from the TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 TIF District to
Monday, October 25, 2004 at approximately 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
11)
Establi.~h a Hearing Date of October 25, 2004 for revocation or suspension of rental property license
at 1308-10 and 1324-26 Circle Terrace Blvd.
Motion to establish a hearing date of October 25, 2004 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to
Operate a Rental Property within the City of Colmubia Heights against Edward Fragale at 1308-10
& 1324-26 Circle Terrace Blvd. N.E.
12) Approve Business License Applications
Motion to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for October 11, 2004 as
presented.
13) Approve Payment of Bills
Motion to approve payment of the bills out of the proper funds as listed in the attached check
register covering Check Number 110068 through 110241 in the amount of $738,782.92.
Nawrocki questioned the extra $500 on check #33071for the study exercise. Fehst stated this was
for expenses. Nawrocki questioned check #110174 Environment Resources for $6,300 tank removal
at NEI and why this was not covered in the original contract. Fehst stated that the tank was removed
prior to demolition and under separate contract.
Motion by Williams, second by Nawrocki, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of
items nmnber 5 and 8. Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion
carried,
#5
Adopt Resolution No. 2004-65 being a Resolution of revised fees charged by the Columbia Heights
Police Department
Nawrocld cluestioned why this was not part of the budget process. Fehst stated that fees are reviewed
yearly. Jol~son stated that Staff was directed to look at fees chat'ged to cover our costs and to have
them in place before the fn:st of the year. Information on fees was requested from eleven other
agencies. He stated consideration was given to residents, with fee increases aimed at non-residents.
Nawrocki requested to see the Survey and questioned the charge for fingerprinting children. Jotmson
indicated there is no charge for residents, non-residents $10, and child fingerprinting is a different
program and will always be free. Nawxocld questioned picture printing, letter of good standing, and
impounded vehicles. Jolmson explained the cost and time involved. He stated there are five to ten
letters of good standing written per month for things such as adoptions and immigration. Fees for
towing go to the towing company. P. 14
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 5 ofl 1
Willimns commended Chief Johnson for doing this, indicating some of the fees are still low.
Wyckoffthanked him also, as there is a lot of paper work involved and user fees should cover costs.
Wyckoff spoke of the amount we would have generated if these fees had been in place this year.
Motion by Ericson, second by Williams, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-65, there being
ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: Ayes, Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson,
Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
Motion by Ericson, second by Williams, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-65, being a Resolution
establislfing various fees charged by the Colmnbia Heights Police Department starting on January 1,
2005. Upon vote: Ayes, Wyckoff, Willimr~s, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-65
BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICE DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Police Department has surveyed fees charged by eleven other police agencies in the
County; and,
WHEREAS, the fees currently charged do not reflect the costs we incur while performing the service; and,
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Police Department chooses to establish or modify fees to reflect the costs incurred;
and,
WHEREAS, the attached fee schedule would be implemented on JanuarY 1, 2005;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached proposed fee schedule be adopted effective JanuarY 1, 2005.
#8
Support request of Columbia Heights Athletic Boosters regarding Charitable Gmnbling Lease Limits
Fehst stated this has been discussed before, but we have now received a formal Resolution from the
Colmnbia Heights Athletic Boosters requesting a Resolution amendment regarding all inclusive
amounts charged with pull tab booth rental. This would allow total rent paid, based on the amount of
volume, not to exceed $1,700 per month as per State Statute. Our present policy states $1,000. The
City Attorney states we can defer to State Statute. Fehst stated that Maureen Caschuska, Immaculate
Conception Church Gambling Manager indicated her understanding that all local gambling
organizations would meet to discuss this. He referred to a letter from Bruce Hillson, Stax- Central
Bar, regarding fees charged.
Wyckoff indicated that the letter from Hillson states he would see more profit by having more
customer tables. Fehst stated that staffis neutral on this. Nawrocki stated that VWF Post #230 is
their own landlord, so are not in the same position as the other groups.
Jerry Foss, 4412 2nd Street, Gambling Manager for the Columbia Heights Athletic Boosters,
explained their reasoning for the increase request, such as rising costs for trash removal. The State
Statute would be all inclusive and would not allow for additional charges for garbage, heat and
electric. It would benefit Organizations as the rate is on a sliding scale to percentage of sales, if there
were two organizations in the same building, the total rent could not be more than $1,700. Hoeft
indicated our Resolution states $1,000 and is all inclusive, but does not state if it is per group or per
building.
Nawrocld indicated that our Resolution states that the group must be a member of the cmmnunity for
10 years, which is protection for local organizations. Hoeft stated that if inclined to defer to State
Statute we need to revise our resolution, which would keep other current requirements in place. He
stated no dollar mount would be listed, but ~*'~ and defer to the State Statute. Nawrocki stated he
would argue against the change, as the ide?;,l~5 to raise money for charitable purposes.
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 6 of 11
Councilmembers questioned Mr. Foss about booth size, utility costs, and proceeds.
Maureen Caschuska spoke to the rise in rental costs over the years and that other cities wish they had
our rental cap. She stated their charity has not paid above $1,000 a month, and can not understand
the request to permit a rent increase of 75 percent, which takes fi'om the charities and gives to the bar
owner. Hoeft stated that it is a charitable organization requesting the change. Ericson stated that
businesses are not required to keep these organizations in their establishment. Fehst stated it is a
draw for the bar.
Hoeft indicated tlfis motion would show support for staffto bring forward language for tl~is change.
Motion by Kelzenberg, second by Ericson, to support the Columbia Heights Athletic Boosters Club
request to have staff bring forth an amendment pertaining to lease mounts in Resolution No. 2004-
23 Authorizing Certain Charitable Gambling in Colmrtbia Heights. Upon vote: Kelzenberg, aye;
Williams, aye; Ericson, aye; Nawrocki, nay; Wyckoff, aye. 4 ayes - 1 nay. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) Public Hearing called for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4612 Polk Street
Mayor Wyckoff closed the Public Hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the Rental License
held by Marilyn Dalseth regarding rental property at 4612 Polk Street in that the violations on the
property have been corrected.
B)
Adopt Resolution No. 2004-66, being a Resolution of the City of Columbia Heights declaring the
property at 4152 Cleveland Street NE a nuisance and approve the abatement of violations from the
property pursuant to City Code Section 8.602
Gary Gorman, Assistant Fire Chief, refen'ed to the history of the property, inspections completed, and
contacts with the Building Inspection and Housing Code Depm'tments. The property remains the same as
on September 27th. Building permits were obtained for some items, but have expired. Gorman showed
pictures of the property. He asked the City Cotmcil to declare this property a nuisance. Staff will arrange
abatement, storage, and completion of the house siding, assessing the cost to the property owner or the
property.
Kelzenberg questioned if we would hire low bid to finish the construction. Gorman stated yes, and they
would be required to obtain building permit.
Williams stated this is an ongoing four year violation and repeated inspections have been very expensive
for the City. Fehst refen'ed to City Goals and Objectives for quicker clean up of such nuisances. Gorman
stated that there are a nmUber of properties in the City that have stretched out these problems for more
than a year that we want to get cleaned up.
Nawrocki indicated there would be formal notices going to the propenT owner.
Motion by Nawrocld, second by Williams, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-66, there being
ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson,
Kelzenberg. Motion carried2
Motion by Nawrocki, second by Willian~s, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-66, being a Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Columbia Heights declaring the property at 4152 Cleveland Street N.E. a
nuisance and approving the abatement of violations from the property pursuant to City Code Section
8.602. Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
P. 16
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 7 of 11
RESOLUTION 2004-66
Resolution Of The City Council For The City Of Columbia Heights Approving Abatement Of Ordinance Violations Pursuant To
Chapter 8, Article Vi, Section 1 Of City Code, Ordinance Violations Exist On Property
Owned By David Caroon (Hereinafter "Owner Of Record").
Whereas, Owner Of Record Is The Legal Owner Of The Real Property Located At 4152 Cleveland Street, Columbia Heights,
Minnesota,
And Whereas, Pursuant To Columbia Heights Code Section 8.602(1)(B), Written Notice Setting Forth The Causes And
Reasons For The Proposed Council Action Contained Herein Was Sent Via Certified And Regular Mail To The Owner Of Record On
September 29, 2004.
Now, Therefore, In Accordance With The Foregoing, And All Ordinances And Regulations Of The City Of Columbia
Heights, The City Cmmcil Of The City Of Columbia Heights Makes The Following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That on January 31, 2001 an inspection was conducted and two violations were noted. A compliance order was sent by
regular mail to the owner of record.
2. That on February 22, 2001, an extension was given to May 31,2001 to complete the work.
3. That on May 31, 2001, a reinsPectiOn was performed and the violations were not corrected. A compliance order was sent by
regular mail to the owner of record.
4. That on July 6, 2001, a reinspection was performed and the violations were not corrected. A compliance order was sent by
regular mail to the owner of record.
5. That on July 25, 2001 the owner received a ninety (90) day building permit to finish the siding work. The violations were
closed in the RMC office file.
6. That on April 18, 2002 an inspection revealed that the owner did not finish the work and the building permit had expired. A
compliance order detailing two violations was sent to the owner of record by regular mail.
7. That on April 23, 2002 the owner received a ninety (90) day building permit to finish the siding work. The violations were
closed in the RMC office file.
8. That on September 12, 2002 a reinspection was performed and the violations were not corrected and the building permit had
expired. A compliance order was sent by the regular mail by regular mail to the owner of record.
9. That on November 14, 2002, a reinspection was performed and the violations were not corrected. A compliance order was
sent by regular mail to the owner of record.
10. That on July 18, 2003, a reinspection was performed and the violations were not corrected. An administrative citation was
issued.
11. That on August 26, 2003, a reinspection was performed and the violations were not corrected. The property file was given to
the building department to complete enforcement. Violations were closed in the RMC office file
12. That on September 3, 2003, the Building Official sent the property owner a letter. .
13. That On October 21, 2003 a complaint about outside storage and junk vehicles was received. Enforcement was handled by
the Police Department.
14. That on September 27, 2004 the police department inspected the property and found a large amount of outside storage, debris
and junk vehicles along with the house and garage siding replacement work not finished. A compliance order was sent by
certifed mail to the ovmer of record.
15. That based upon said records of the Fire Department, the following conditions and violations of City Ordinance(s) were
found to exist, to-wit:
1) Shall complete all/any exterior work on the house. This work requires a building permit. (Chapter 5A,
Section 5A.205(1)(a), Section 5A.205(1)(g)).
2) Shall remove all/any outside storage fi'om the property (Chapter 5A, Section 5A.207(1)(f)).
16. That ail pm-ties, mciuamg rne
this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section 8.602(1)(a) and 8.602(1)(b).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
1. That the property located at 4152 Cleveland Street is in violation of the provisions of the Columbia Heights City Code as set
forth in the Notice of Abatement attached hereto;
2. That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of hhis hearing, and any other hearings relevant to
the abatement of violations on the property listed above.
3. That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the owner of record, occupant, or tenant, as the case may be,
have expired, or such rights have been exercised and completed.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The property located at 4152 Cleveland Street constitutes a nuisance pursuant to City Code.
2. That a copy of this resolution/order shall be served upon all relevant parties and parties in interest.
3. That any motion for smmnary enforcement shall be served upon all relevant parties and parties in interest.
4. That all service provided for herein shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statute 483.17, subd. 2
P. 17
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 8 of 11
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Other Ordinances and Resolutions
1) Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1476, being an Ordinance providing for the issuance and sale of
approximately $2,045,000 G.O. Tax h~crement Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A
Fehst stated this would allow closing the bond early and would save $1,000,000 over four years. He
listed the thuetable to accomplish this bond sale in November.
Motion by Nava'ocki, second by Williams to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1476, there being
ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson,
Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
Motion by Nawrocki, second by Williams, to adopt Ordinance No. 1476 being an ordinance
providing for the issuance mhd sale of approximately $2,045,000 in Tax Increment Refunding Bonds,
Series 2004A.
Williams stated that the present interest rate is seven percent and the new rate would be under three
percent.
Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocld, Ericson, Kelzenberg. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 1476
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF APPROXIMATELY $2,045,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004A
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN:
1. It is hereby determined that:
(a) the City of Columbia Heights, MinneSota (the "City") is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 475.67, Subdivision 13 of the Act to issue and sell its general
obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when determined by the City Council of the City (the "City Council") to be
necessary and desirable;
00) it is necessary and desirable that the City issue its General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds,
Series 2004A (the "Bonds"), in the approximate original aggregate principal amount of $2,045,000, to refund in advance
of maturity and at their redemption date, the certain general obligation bonds previously issued by the City;
(c) the outstanding bonds to be refunded by the City (the "Refunded Bonds") consist of the City's General
Obligation Tax Increment Capital Appreciation Bonds, Series 1990, dated August 23, 1990, originally issued in the
principal amount of $2,399,710.75, of which $1,179,703.60 in original principal amount is callable on
September 1, 2005. ~
2. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. is authorized to negotiate the sale of the Bonds in the approximate principal
amount specified in Section 1 of this ordinance, in accordance with terms of proposal approved by the Finance Director
of the City. The City Council will meet on Monday, November 22, 2004 or such other date specified by the City
Manager in accordance with the City Charter, 5o consider the sale of the Bonds and take any other appropriate action
with respect to the Bonds.
3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its passage.
2)
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1475, Case #2004-0702, Industrial Park Rezoning
Fehst stated that as the City Com~cil has approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, tlfis
request is to change the zoning to be consistent with the Plan.
Nawrocki repeated his question from the last meeting regarding the address of 3700 5th Street. Fehst
stated it is owned by Grief Brothers. Hoeft described the location of this address. Ellen Berkelhamer,
City Planner, indicated that is a correct address for one of the parcels, and is a legal address.
Motion by Williams, second by Kelzenberg, to waive the reading of Ordinance 1475, there being
muple copies available to the public. Upon vote: Ayes - Wyckoff, Williams, Nawrocki, Ericson,
Kelzenberg. Motion carried. P. 18
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 9 of 11
Motion by Williams, second by Kelzenberg, to Adopt Ordinance 1475, being an Ordinance
pertainhhg to Zoning mhd Development Ordinance No. 1428, pertaining to the rezoning of certain
properties located at 317 37th Avenue NE; 450, 515, and 517 38th Avenue NE; 510, 550, 600 and
620 39th Avenue NE; and 3700, 3800, 3801 and 3901 5th Street NE. Upon vote: Kelzenberg, aye;
Williams, aye; Ericson, aye; Nawrocki, nay; Wyckoff, aye. 4 ayes - 1 nay. Motion carried:
ORDINANCE 1475
BEING AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1428,
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 317 37TH AVENUE NE; 450, 515,
AND 517 38TH AVENUE NE; 510, 550, 600 AND 620 39TH AVENUE NE; AND 3700, 3800, 3801 AND 3901 5TH
STREET NE
SECTION 1:
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted the Industrial Area RedevelOpment Plan to set a
framework for redevelopment options for the greater Industrial Park area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights recognizes that the I-1 Industrial zoning does not allow the
flexibility needed to accormnodate successful redevelopment in accordance with the Industrial Area
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, rezoning from I-1 Industrial District to MXD, Mixed-Use District provides flexibility in the
project redevelopment, and allows for mixed residential and commercial components as part of the
redevelopment project area; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, as mnended by Resolution 2004-
59, and is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of a single property owner; and
WHEREAS, the zoning classification of the property within the general area of the Industrial Park
Redevelopment area compatible with the proposed Mixed-Use zoning classification, and
WHEREAS, the objective of the 2003 Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan was to provide a catalyst for
chm~ge in the area m~d the proposed rezoning will be the genesis for transformation of the area, which
necessitates the need to consider rezoning for a more appropriate use; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommends approval of the
proposed rezoning from I-1, la~dustrial to MXD, Mixed-Use District.
SECTION 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
C) Bid Considerations -none
D) Other Business
Nawrocki indicated the desire for the December City newsletter to objectively explain the budget mhd
describe the Truth and Taxation Hearing. Wyckoff suggested he create an objective draft article.
ADMI?qISTRATIVE REPORTS Report of the City Manager
Fehst indicated that the incident at the Islmnic Center that was reported on TV was a random fire in the
storage bin. We have paid pm-ticular attention to that property for some time. They are asldng for more
security for their property. They do have the right to hire private security, if they so choose.
Wyckoff indicated receipt of a letter from the Star Central Bar requesting a 2:00 a.m. bar closing time. Fehst
suggested Council discuss this at a work session. He stated that our concern is that om' Police Department
ends their shift at 2:00 a.m. If we have additional costs due to the closing time, we may require additional
licensing costs. The Police Chief will prepare a report on this issue. Nawrocld asked that our Officers check
to see if people are leaving the bar at 11:30 p.m. to go to other towns. Wyckoffasked staffto find out what
Fridley mhd St. Anthony are dohhg.
Nawrocki stated that the attaclunent t° the October 11th green sheet was omitted. P. 19
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 10 of 11
Nawrocki referred to the Salvation An'my transitional housing at 1004-1006 Gould, stating they have their
permits and cormnents from the neighbors are good. Necessary work on the building was discussed.
Nawrocki questioned if they have a duplex license. Fehst stated this is zoned R3. Ericson stated that the
Zoning Ordinance allows for transitional housing, up to six persons. Wyckoff indicated this is minimum
security housing for prisoners just released. Nawa-ocki requested a copy of the green sheet article fi'om when
the facility opened.
Nawrocki stated that 4332 5th Street is a fire mess that needs to be cleaned up. Fehst stated the owner has
retained a contractor, will pull a building permit, and hopes to finish repairs by the end of the month.
Nawrocki stated that replacement of the garage is fine, but the existing damage should be clem'ed now.
Fehst stated there was a lack of cooperation by the insurance company.
Nawrocki indicated there is still junk in the yard at 3730 Tyler, which is not entirely building material.
Hoeft indicated that the Assistant Fire Chief would talk to the property owner again; the question is whether
this can fall under the first abatement. Hoeft stated lfis opinion that it could not.
Williams stated that the MHFA loan program interest rate is 5.5 percent. Fehst indicated that anyone
interested could call the Community Development Department. Williams questioned the location of the new
Applebee's. Fehst indicated that we have heard several locations at this time.
E) Report of the City Attorney
Hoeft stated his understanding that the Applebee's would be located on Central Avenue.
CITIZENS FORUM
Elaine Feely, Columbia Village resident, gave the background of the deer in the Milmeapolis Water Works
facility. She stated public meetings have been unsuccessful. Concerned citizens have found an owner of a
deer photography farm that will hire a profession to transport the deer, with a country singer offering to pay
all expenses. Feely showed pictures of the deer to prove their good health. She stated that Adam Kramer of
the Water Works said he would consider retaining tl~'ee to five deer. Concerned citizens would like to see
all the deer removed rather that removal by bow hunting.
Fehst questioned if the DNR would allow this. Feely indicated their permission is not necessary, but a
permit or license would have to be obtained. Wyckoff asked Ms. Feely how many deer remain at the
facility. Feely stated the DNR says there are 30 deer remaining, but citizens count 12 to15. Feely listed her
PO Box number for those interested in contacting her.
Nawroclci indicated he spent time there and referred to the many groups that stop to view the deer. It is a
shan~_e that a few deer cannot be kept. Wyckoff stated that we need to work together on this and if we keep
any deer we could end up with the same problem.
Deb Johnson, 999 41st Avenue, expressed disappointment in our housing stock and f'n'e fighters trying to do
all the inspections. She suggested that the Fire Department just do rental property inspections and contract
out garbage houses. Wyckoff indicated that a combined position is being discussed. Fehst stated this would
go along with a Point of Sale ordinance. He referred to the seminar he attended with the Assistant Fire Chief
on housing maintenance.
Harold Hoiun~, 5th Street 4315, expressed displeasure regarding the August Huset Park meeting. He
disagreed with Police squads patrolling with only one officer. Hoimn stated that contractors are stopping at
his home and telling him the City owns the property. Fehst stated that there are violations on this property
and the city does not own it. Hoeft stated this may be occurring because of the pending abatement
procedure and that contractors do not need to entrain.'2 0Property. Wyckoff suggested he call 911. Hoium
City Council Minutes
October 11, 2004
Page 11 ofll
stated that vehicles should not be allowed to park on the streets.
Lee Stauch, 1155 Khyber Lane, stated his opinion that Council needs to hold down the tax increase
proposal, as residents cannot afford that type of increase. He referred to closed businesses and stated that
City owned property does not generate tax. Stauch stated that the purchase price for Burger King was too
high, and questioned what is planned for the site. Stauch stated that voters should have the right to vote on a
community center. Fehst stated that the Athletic Boosters have donated $5,000 for a demand study.
COUNCIL CORNER
Kelzenberg
· Wished everyone a nice Columbus Day.
· Congratulated the Columbia Heights football team on the 62-6 win and the fireworks display.
Williams · The Values for this month are peace and conflict resolution, and non-violence.
· Ton'uny Peterson was inducted into the Athletic Boosters Hall of Fame. Wyckoff indicated there
were three other residents also inducted.
· Councilmembers need to be respectful of one another.
Wyckoff
· Other residents inducted into the Athletic Boosters Hall of Fame ere Lynn Lundin, Ann Lundin
Hurley; and Dave Spencer, who died in 1985 and had a big sports record in Columbia Heights.
· Two members of the Historical Society, and herself, interviewed Vivian Bixler for a cable show.
· There is an opening on the Library Board, which meets the first Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.
She encouraged those interested to apply.
Ericson
· Spent an evening with the Columbia Heights firefighters, to understand what they go through on a
daily basis. Thanked them for spending their time with her.
· October 23 is Make a Difference Day, which is a day set to do something positive or volunteer for
your community. The Rising to New Heights Committee is asking groups to highlight their activities
for recognition. More information on possible projects can be received by calling SACCA, Crest
View, Ted Landwehr, or Carole Blowers.
Nawrocki · Dave Spencer - listed his sport history. He was also inducted into the Hall of Fame.
· Agreed, community center and gyms should be voted for by the people. We should talk with the
school district so we don't build two facilities.
· Attended MN League of Cities Conference - listed activities and handouts available.
· Second half property taxes are due, good time to compare. Truth and Taxation meeting will be
Monday, December 6th at 7:00 p.m. Encouraged residents to attend.
· City of Fridley community report lists Columbia Heights second in the area for cost of government.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Wyckoff adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
P21
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC LIBRARY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MINUTES
October 5, 2004
The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Miller, at 8:15 p.m. Those members present were Barbara
Miller, Nancy Hoium, Patricia Sowada, Audrey Hyatt, Julienne Wyckoff, Catherine Vesley, and Becky Loader.
It was moved, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes of the September 7, 2004, Board meeting as mailed.
Bill list dated 9/27/04 was reviewed. It was moved, seconded, and passed that they be paid.
The accounting was reviewed.
Old Business:
1. Board vacancy: Audrey's last meeting will be November 1; her term does not expire until April 2005.
Recruitment for a new member to complete the unexpended term is underway.
2. Budget hearing with the City Council is scheduled for October 18, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. The Board will meet
at 6:30 that evening to prepare for the meeting. ..
3. Construction update on Jackson Street was reviewed. Weather and other problems have delayed the
completion of the roadwork.
Automation update: The Board just returned from the SIRSI demonstration of their version of the Online
Public Access Catalog. The Board was impressed by the client/server interface that will be available. The
Board members discussed the catalog and options that may be available. The memo from Heather Hessel
conceming the way the County allocates telecommunication charges was discussed. The proposed
addendum to the current contract with Anoka County Library was discussed. It was moved, seconded, and
passed to enter into a re-negotiation of the current contract with Anoka County Library and to endorse the
suggested allocation of telecommunications charges.
New Business:
1. The proposed 2005 Holiday/Closed schedule for Columbia Heights Public Library was reviewed. The
adopted 2005 Holiday/Closed schedule for Anoka County Library. was compared and reviewed. It was
moved, seconded and passed to adopt the Holiday/Closed schedule as presented.
2. Crossover statistics were reviewed.
P. 22
3. Letter from Stacie Lerum thanking Marsha Tubbs for her involvement and support of the Summer Fun
Program was reviewed. This was part of an outreach program sponsored by a CLIP grant.
4. The Foundation Board is applying for a MRAC grant for children's programming. If received the
Foundation would have to provide matching money.
5. Storyline-online information was shared with the Board. SAG (Screen Actors Guild) members read books
online. Tom Sherohmann provided the information for the Board. The online link is
www.bookpals.net/storytime
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Board
Ieanine M. Schmidt Secretary to the Library ' of Trustees.
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in 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, programs, and activities.
2
P. 23
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2004
CALL TO ORDER - The Regular Meeting of the Columbia Heights Housing & Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) was called to order by Chair Tammera Ericson at 7:04 p.m., Tuesday, July 20, 2004, in
the Parkview Villa Community Room B, 965 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
ROLL CALL
Cormnission Members Present:
Tammera Ericson, Brace Nawrocld, Bobby Williams, De,mis Ecldund Jr.,
Patricia Jindra, and Brace Kelzenberg
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
Motion by Nawrocki, second by Kelzenberg, to approve the minutes from April 20, 2004, regular meeting
as presented in writing. All ayes. Motion Carried.
Nawrocki stated in the April 20th HRA minutes it says the residents of the south building choose the color
of the carpeting, is this true. We#ce stated it was.
Nawrocld stated that during the last meeting it was discussed whether or not to replace the existing
stringer; which Don Murzyn, St. Paul Ca,vet and Linoleum stated did not need to be replaced. After the
meeting members of the board checked out the stringers and dete~nined they were in good shape, were
the stringers replaced. Welke stated they were replaced, as that was what the board voted to do.
Nawrocki stated his disappointment that staff spent the money to replace the stringers, ignoring the board
members comments. Streetar stated the last official motion by the HRA was to replace the stringers.
Nawrocki stated he did not see in the packet the information he requested Welke to do: 0 give residents a
copy of the disciplinary rules; 2) keep a list of incidents that happen in the building; and 3) report to the
board what happened. Welke stated she has not given residents a copy of the disciplinary rules, but can do
this, has been Iceeping a list of incidents since she started in February and can supply the board with a
report.
REPORT OF MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Welke stated there were 6police calls in June; one for damaged property of a tenant, one for an animal
complaint, one for an unwanted person, ~o for medical and one for a we~are check. ~e north building
rehab started on July 6th on the 9ti' floor and is going well, Jonah Smith the maintenance man is going to
another Walker site. Ter~, a 15-year veteran of Walker will be starting on July 12t~' to replace Jonah.
Currently on the waiting list for the North building there are 10 residents of Columbia Heights and 60
non-residents and for the South building there are 10 residents of Columbia Heights, 9 non-residents and
I ..... ~ .............. ~ .... ~ ....... ~ ..... e,.~.~ been ~'...~ ....... to d~w thepub!ic to Par~iew
~illa and haye placed a ~'ee add in the ~ousing Sense, removed some overgrown tree& added mulch,
painted, etc. on the outside of the building. Staff is sffH worMng on revising the Tenant Handbooks,
Lease agreentents, attd Occupancy Policies.
Ericson asked if staff did all of the clean up work to the outside or did residents participate. Welke stated
residents have helped with some of the outdoor work, but Walker staffhas done most of it.
Nawrocki stated he opposes the statement in the May management report, stating Walker would like to
change the age of applicants to 55 instead of 62 in hopes to draw more people to the South building and
suggested advertising on the local cable channel, the Heights Happenings Newspaper and with Karen
Moeller, the Senior Citizens Coordinator for the CiO~.
Williams congratulated Welke on the quick turn around time she has provided ftlling openings.
P. 24
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 2 of 4
Ericson asked Welke is she wanted to go through the memo that was enclosed in the packet. Welke stated
she could if the board wishes her to. Nawrocki stated under Maintenance Issues #2, it states that 2 of the
sump pumps in the garage were not working, were they fixed. Welke stated they were. Nawrocki asked if
they are pumping into the drain water; and stated there is a CiO; Ordinance against that. Welke stated,
she wash 't sure, but would check into it.
Nawrocki asked about #6, which states there were 93 work orders in the computer when they started at
Partn~iew. How many are left. Welke stated all of the 93 work orders have been completed. Ecklund
stated he has written a work order to trhn the bushes, weeks ago, and after asking staff many times about
the work order with no prevail, he went out and trimmed them hhnself. Welke stated that was a recent
request, not included in the 93 work orders.
Ericson asked about #11 where it states staff has replaced 80% of the outlets in the hallways that were
broken or damaged, what lcind of determination is staff using to lmow how many to replace. Welke stated
after reviewing the budget, they determined they can purchase a dozen outlets at a time.
Ericson asked if Walker sends out a Resident's Survey. Welke stated they send the survey out to 25% of
the residents on a quarterly basis, therefore, receiving feedback at different times of the year and reaching
all of the residents by the end of the year. Kelzenberg stated he would like to see the susn,ey sent out once a
yea~; as it was done in the past, results reported to the board and that it should be sent out now to see how
residents feel about living at Parkview under the new management. Welke stated she would do this.
Nawrocki stated under Office and File Changes Needed, #13, it states the ACOP needs to be updated,
what is this. Welke stated as an example, the report identified some of the residents have been paying less
for rent, which was done by using the net income instead of gross income figures. Some of the rents have
already been adjusted, but there are still more to do. Also the 3ra Party Verifications were never done.
For example, residents with IRA's or retirement plans were never reported, which is a HUD requirement.
Nawrocld stated, he called Streetar a month ago regarding a resident that contacted him about their rent
being increased and he stated the problem should be fixed by July and expressed his disappointment that
this wasn't done.
Nawrocki stated under Office File changes needed, #23, it states staff discovered and processed several
unpaid invoices. Where did they ftnd them and why weren't they paid. Welke stated the invoices were in
various locations like the Finance or Community Development departments, or in the drawer at Parkview.
NawrocL~ stated he asked many times for receive a financial report for Parkview Villa and still hash 't
received it. Cher Bakken, Secretary stated the financials for Parkview Villa have ah,eays been included in
has not seen the reports and stated if the board would like the financial reports for Parkview put in the
HRA packets, she would gladly do so.
dindra stated years ago a policy was adopted identifyhzg how the washing machine funds would be
collected, deposited and that the resident council would receive haif of the proceeds, the other half was to
be put away for repair and/or new mach#ses as needed. What is the amount available at this time for
replacement of the machines and is there a separate account in the financial report that states the
balance. Welke stated she was not aware of a special account, but was aware the resident council should
receive a check every three months for half of the proceeds. Lindig stated he was not aware of a special
fund, but could certainly look into this for the board.
P. 25
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 3 of 4
CITIZENS FORUM
Ruth Hillestad, Unit 210 stated at a past meeting it was discussed that it would be dete~wffned by this
meeting if Walker staff wouM receive packages for residents, and wondered what was decided. Welke
explained there was an incident where a package was lost and that many residents receive refrigerated
medications. Staff does not want to be responsible for receiving packages due to the liability factors, such
as MalTy Milstein is only in the office fi'om 9 to 1 and she is in fi'om 8 to 4, but is out of the office much of
that time showfl~g apartments, doing re-certifications, meetings with residents, checldng on other building
issues, etc. and is afl'aid that they would not be available to receive the package, or would receive a
package and the resident would not pick it up for days. Nawrocki stated it may be an inconvenience to
staff, but they are here to serve our residents. Fehst asked if Walkers attorney could write up something
the resident could sign that wouM approve staff to receive packages for them without liabiliO~. Ericson
stated this was a good idea and recommended Walker staff check into this. Welke stated she would.
Ran Schmnache~; Unit 702 stated he receives insulin in a Styrofoam container and believes it says it will
last up to three days in the container and that he has so many appointments he can't always be there when
the package comes. Fehst stated if he new he was going to receive something as important as insulin, he
would make sure he was home when it came. Welke stated residents usually do la, ow what days their
insulin is coming and has suggested at a resident council meeting to purchase 4 or 5 clutter boxes that
would be locked to put packages in for residents with a key to one of the boxes put in the residents mailbox
to notify them of a package received. Williams stated he liked that idea. Ericson requested, until a policy
is adopted, packages be received by staff and expressed to the residents this Idnd of issue should be
brought up at a resident council meeting, not before this board.
Don Camp, unit 608 stated his fl'ustration with staff about the clips placed on each units door without
asking them what th. ey thought about it and stating in a letter to them that if they loose the clip they will
have to pay $3. O0 to replace it, when they most likely will be stolen. Welke explained that staff was asked
to figure out some how for residents to receive notices fi'om staff without bending over to pick it up off the
floor. The clip was an idea staff came up with, consulted Ecklund to get his feedback on the idea and the
cost of replacement, which he also agreed upon. Nawrocki stated he agreed, the clips on the doors was a
good idea, but felt staff shouldn 't wo~qy about how much replacement cost should be until they Imow the
system works.
Ruth Hillestad, unit 210 asked when they could get the windows washed by the elevators. Welke stated
staff did wash them. Pat Bake~; Caretaker stated in the past the company hired to clean the apartment
windows did them. Welke stated she wash 't aware of this and would have this taken care of. Priscilla
Cross, Unit 303 stated at a previous HRA meeting she brought up a mediation board that something like
this issue could be presented to, instead of this board. Ericson agreed.
Cross stated she would like to see the crosswalk lights adjusted on 40t~' & Central, as she cannot make it
across if traffic is turning onto Central, has brought this to the attention of the resident council and Kathy
Young in Public Works, which stated she will talk to MNDOT to resolve the problem. Joe Goodman, Unit
119 stated he and Jim Kordiak worked with MNDOT about five years ago to get the lights adjusted, with
no prevail. Ecklund stated he called Streetar about two weeks ago, got Kevin Hansen's phone number to
discuss the situation. Kevin stated MNDOT agq'eed to adjust the lights before the end of the yea~; but that
he would fax them a letter again on the issue.
Hillestad stated she would like to see residents notified in advance of changes, rather than just sending
them a letter to info,eh them staff is changing something. Welke stated Hillestad is talking about a picture
that stafffound stored away and put it up, residents did not approve of where it was hung and so it was
voted on at the Resident Council meeting and passed with a 38 in favor and one voted against it. E~qcson
again, stated this is an issue to be addressed at the resident council. Ericson requested either dindra or
P. 26
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 4 of 4
Ecklund give a report of the Resident Council meetings at all future HRA meetings. Jindra agT'eed.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Set Public Hearing for the 2005 Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan Review
Welke stated this item is to set a Public Hearing for the 2005 Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan
review, which is an annual plan, HUD requires a forty-five day review period to allow for public input,
the HRA could hold the Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 and wouM make final
modifications to the plan, and authorize staff to submit the final document to HUD electronically. A full
copy of the drafi plan will be available for review at City Hall, the Library and Resident Council.
Nawrocki asked what is &e Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan. ~Zelke stated this was all new to her
and Mark Nagel is worMng on it with he~; so she is learning as she goes. Nawrocki asked why they are
being asked to set a Public Hearing that she can't tell them what it is for. Streetar stated it is an annual
report required by HUD on Parlcview l/ills north, it looks at financial information, costs, operating
subsidy, and is something the board has to do on an annual basis.
Motion by Kelzenberg, second by Jinch'a, to set a Public Hearing date of Tuesday, October 19, 2004, at
7:00 pm at Parkview Villa for the purpose of receivhag public input on the 2005 Public Housing Authority
(PHA) Plma. All ayes. Motion Carried.
Approve Garage Proposal and Authorize Revision to Capital Fund Plan
Welke stated Parlcview had a Fire Inspection in May and was sited for the storage garage being in poor
condition. Staff determined that some of damage to the garage was caused by the dumpster not being on a
slab. Therefore, staff solicited bids fi'om three companies: 0 MJ ConsO'uction; 2)Lloyd's Home
Improvements; and 3) Greg Wills Exteriors. Staff recommends approval of the low bidde~; Lloyd's Home
Improvements at $3,960 for garage repairs and $1,207 for the cement area for the dumpster.
Nawrocki asked why the side door wash 't included in the bid. Welke stated staff detennined they could cut
down one of the extra doors fi'om the building, which she was advised that it was acceptable for a garage.
Ericson asked why the bid fi'om Greg Wills for the garage repairs was so much cheaper than the other
bidders. Welke stated that Greg ~Zills does not do roofing and the amount for the roofer is another $1,300
in addition to his bid of $3,380.
Nawrocki stated Lloyd's bid is for an 8 x 14 slab and Ashland 's is for an 8 x 12 slab and suggested staff
talk to Lloyd's to see if he could change the size of the slab to 8 x 12 and reduce the price of the bid.
and the con~act for repairs Mth Lloyd's Home hnprovements for ~ amount not to exceed $5,167.00 for
the garage repaks at Parl~ew Villa, subject to thek bid beNg reused to the approphate size of slab,
otherwise staff is directed to go M~ the next lower bidder and ~hennore, to authohze the Chair and
Executive Director to enter into an a~eement for ~e same. All ayes. Motion Carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair, Ericson adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
Cheryl B~akken
Recording Secretary
H:~IILadVlinutes 2004\7-20-2004
P. 27
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TRAFFIC COMMISSION
OCTOBER 4, 2004
NOT ~ROVE: ~'
Chairperson Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Carlson, Goodman, Stumpf, Stm'devant
Excused absence - Brace Kelzenberg, Council Liaison
Absent: Richard Anderson
Police Chief Johnson
Staff Present: Kathy Young, Assistant City Engineer
APPROVAL OF JUNE 28, 2004 MINUTES
Motion by Goo&nan, second by Smrdevant to approve the minutes of June 28,
2004. Motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
OTHER OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST TO DESIGNATE "NO PARKING" IN FRONT OF
700 39TM AVENUE.
Mr. Hugh Burhans, President of St. Paul Comtgating Company, has
requested expanding the yellow painted on-street parldng restrictions on
39m Avenue, specifically the section in front ofT00 39th Avenue.
Currently the curb and gutter in front of the business had been painted
yellow by others and has faded.
The business owner's concern is safety with heavy trucks and auto traffic,
business front loading docks, people walking in the street, and chilch'en on
scooters.
III.
Mo
P. 28
Official Proceedings
Coltm~bia Heights Traffic Commission
October 4, 2004
Page 2
In previous, years, City employees did paint the driveway and building
entrance areas yellow. The City stopped the practice in recent years
because the requests became overwhelming.
Mr. Burhans was infonued that only the City Council has the authority to
designate "no parking" areas and suggested that his request come before
the Traffic Commission.
Currently no one is allowed to paint a' curb yellow. Staff suggests a policy
be developed to allow businesses in an area zoned as industrial to submit a
request to the Public Works Director to paint the curb. The paint would be
purchased through the City so the color would match what the City uses.
Commission members were unsure how such a policy would be pursued.
Staff explained that the policy would direct a business to submit a plan
and get it approved before painting the curb. The Commissioners wanted
the plan to be approved by them and forwarded to the City Council.
Motion by Sturdevant, second by Goodman, to direct staffto develop a
policy to provide for businesses in the zoned industrial area to paint curbs
yellow. Roll call vote: Goodman-aye, Sturdevant-aye, Stumpf-aye and
Carlson-aye. Motion carded unanimously.
Staffwill b~hng a proposed policy to the next Traffic Commission
Meeting.
Staff recommended a public heating be called to designate the street in
front of 700 39th Avenue as "No Parking". Commissioner Carlson felt the
request should be tabled until the next meeting and didn't think a public
hearing was necessary. Commissioner Stumpf asked how many notices
would be sent out. Staff indicated that notices would be sent to those
within 300' of the "no parking" area. In this area, very few notices would
be necessary as the businesses are spread out.
Motion by Goodman, second by Sturdevant to call a Public Hearing to
designate "No Parking" in front of 700 39th Avem~e as "No Parking".
Roll Call vote: Carlson-nay, Goodman-aye, Stumpf-nay, Sturdevant-aye.
Motion failed.
Colmnissioners continued tcpi'~-~uss the request.
Official Proceedings
Colmrtbia Heights Traffic Commission
October 4, 2004
Page 3
VI.
Motion by Carlson, second by Goodman, to call for a Public Hearing on
November 1, 2004, to designate '2qo Parking" relating to 700 39th Avenue
and notify businesses within 300' of the designated area.
Roll Call vote: Carlson-aye, Goodman-aye, Stumpf-nay, Sturdevant-nay.
Motion failed.
Motion by Carlson, second by Stumpf, to table the request for "no
parking" in front of 700 39th Avenue.
Roll Call vote: Goodman-aye, Carlson-aye, Stumpf-aye, Sturdevant-aye.
Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO INSTALL "BLIND DRIVEWAY" SIGN AT 3949
JOHNSON STREET.
Ms. Rachel Buchberger, of PKT Enterprises, housing coordinator for a
group home serving developmentally disabled adults in Columbia Heights
has requested a hidden driveway sign at 3949 Jotmson Street. Ms.
Buchberger's concern is the difficulty in seeing the ch'iveway because of
the curve on Johnson Street.
Staff recommended denying the request and suggested removing some of
the pine trees to make the driveway more visible. Many drivers ignore
warning signs and installing the sign could create a false sense of safety.
Commission members wondered if they were boulevard trees. Staff
recalls that the trees were added as part of the reconstruction of Johnson
Street and believes they are on private property. Staff will confn'm
whether they are City trees or private trees. It was suggested that the trees
could be trimmed from the bottom up to allow better visibihty around that
CUl'Ve.
Motion by Sturdevant, second by Goodman to deny the request to install
blind driveway sign at 3949 Johnson Street. Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER NEW BUSINESS
None.
P. 30
Official Proceedings
Colmnbia Heights Traffic Comlnission
October 4, 2004
Page 4
VII. REPORTS
VIII.
A. CITY ENGINEER
Staff reported that a handicap parking sign was requested and installed at
3911 Tyler Street.
Staff stated that the permissive tums on Central Avenue going north or
soutlibound at 40th and 41st Avenues m'e going in. Commissioner
Goochnan asked for an UPdate on the request for a timing change of the
lights on 40th and Central from a blind resident at Parkview Villa. Yom~g
explained that she had met with the Mobility Specialist and it was turned
over to that person to work with Mn/DOT.
B. POLICE CBTEF
None.
C. COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Goodman asked if there was an update on the 37th and
Johnson request to modify the street striping in front of 1605 37th Ave.
N.E. Staff indicated that no decision has been made. The City Cotmcil
has tabled the item and the City Engineer is continuing to work with the
citY of Minneapolis regarding this request.
Comnfissioner Stumpf asked staff to check out a visibility issue in the
alley between 2nd and 2 ½ Streets approaching Edgemoor Place.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Goodman, second by Stmnpf, to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously
Jomme Baker
Traffic Commission Secretary
P. 31
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: 5-A-3 CITY MANAGER' S APPROVAL '~
ITEM: Establish Meeting Date to Canvass BY: Walt Fehst
2004 General Election Results
DA~t~:-
0
NO: DATE: October 20, 2004
It is necessat3, to establish a date to canvass the 2004 Genera/Election results.
It is recommended the canvass meeting be scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 2004
begimfing at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
MOTION: Move to establiSh the Canvass of the 2004 Genera/Election results for Wednesday,
November 3, 2004 begimfing at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 32
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
I
AGENDA SECTION: ORiGYNATYNG DEPARTMENT: CITY lviANAGERS
NO: ~' ~ - ~-q CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution No. 2004-70 BY: Walt Fehst BY:
Renewal of Joint Powers Agreement & DATE: October 15,2002
Values First/SACCC Coordinator
Services
NO:
Backffround:
Attached is a request to renew the Joint Powers Agreement and Values First/Southern Anoka County
Consortium (SACCC) Coordinator Services for fiscal year 2005-2006. The cost to Columbia Heights for
each year is $5,782. The effectiveness and accountability of this organization has improved greatly with
Barb Warren as its pm't-time coordinator. I would recommend that we continue with this coordinated
effort.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the renewal of the Joint Powers Agreement with the Southem Anoka County
Commnnity Consortium and the payment of the annual fees for FY 2005-2006.
Recommended Motion:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-70, there being ample copies available to the public.
Adopt Resolution No. 2004-'70, to extend the term of the Southern Anoka County Commmfity
Consortim Joint Powers Agreement for payment of the annual fees for FY 2005- and 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 33
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-70
EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE SOUTHERN ANOKA COUNTY
COr~,~I~4ITY CONSORTIUM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, in June of 1985, a Joint Powers Agreement established the Southern Anoka
County Community Consortium consisting of Anoka County, and the Cities of Columbia
Heights, Fridley, and Hilltop and Independent School Districts #13 and #14; and,
WHEREAS, the general pm~pose of this Joint Powers Agreement is to allow each party
to jointly and cooperatively coordinate the delivery of services, maximize the use of
resources, avoid redundancy, encourage public, private community partnerships, and to
develop and fmd programs to promote the general community health and safety in the
territory of the cities herein; and,
WHEREAS, a very successful example of this joint, cooperative effort is the
establishment of the commmfity values program known as Values First which has been
recognized throughout the country as a model for promoting core values consistently
across all sectors of the commrmity so that youth and adults have a common, inclusive
foundation upon which to operate.
NOW, TIIEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Columbia Heights supports
the efforts of the Southern Anoka County Community Consortium and does hereby
renew and enter into the aforesaid Southern Anoka County Community Consortium Joint
Powers Agreement (Contract #950154A) until December 31, 2006, unless earlier
terminated or extended under the terms hereof.
Dated this
__ day of October 2004.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Attest:
Mayor Julienne Wyckoff
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
P. 34
COUNTY OF
ANOKA
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
GOVERNMENT CENTER
2100 3RD AVENUE · ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303-2265
(763) 323-5700
TI1VI YANTOS
Deputy County Administrator
Direct #763-323-5692
June 23, 2004
P,,-~MO TO:
FROM:
~Oh~tWllSslUll,~ Jim Kordiak
Na_n, cy Kaldor, Superintendent, Columbia Heights Ind. School District #13 ~
00V~lter Fehst, City Manager, City of Columbia Heights '
Mark A. Robertson, Superintendent, Fridley Ind. School District #14
Dr. William W. Burns, Manager, City of Fridley
Ruth Nelson, City Clerk, City of Hilltop
Tim Yantos, Deputy County Administrator .a .. ~ ~t ~.d~?b_]
SUBJECT: Renewal of Joint Powers Agreement and Values First
and SACCC Coordinator Services for 2005-2006
At the May 6, 2004, meeting of the Southern Anoka County Community Consortium (SACCC),
the consortium addressed the subject that the participating SACCC members consider renewing
the current Joint Powers Agreement by extending the term to Dece _tuber 31, 2006. According to
Article 8 of the current Joint Powers Agreement, "This agreement may be renewed for an
additional term Of two years each by resolution of all of the governing bodies of the parties.
hereto, prior to the expiration date of this agreement:'.' ! have attached a sample resolution you
may wish to use to allow for this extension.
Anoka County has made a decision to continue financial support of SACCC/Values First through
2006 at the current 2004 level. We are hoping that the cities and schools are able to make a
similar commitment. At this level of commitment, the Values First SACCC coordinator position
could be continued at a 17-hour week level. This is a reduction from the current 20-hour week
contract, however my understanding from the Values First Executive Committee is that this
would be acceptable to Barbara Tuccitto Warren and that Values First would make attempts to
fund additional hours through grant requests.
We understand the consortium recommends the 17-hour work week be divided between Values
First and SACCC, with approximately 12 hours per week for Values First and the remaining 5
hours per week for SACCC. We would recommend that this contract position be for 2 years;
however, continued funding .of the position would be addressed annually by the consortium
P. 35
FAX: 763-323-5682 Affirmative Action / Equal~Opportunity Employer TDD/TTY: 763-323-5289
June 23, 2004
Page 2
members. We would like to be able to increase our financial commitment and maintain ~he
coordinators hours at the current level, but due to the financial stresses we are all currently
experiencing, the decision to maintain our financial commitment at the 2004 level seems
-appropriate.
The following table details a breakdown of member costs for 2005 and 2006 for the Values First
/SACCC coordinator contract:
· . 2005 2006
City of Fridley $5,782 $5~782
City of Columbia Heights (---~.782_ -- $5,782~
School District #13 "$4,262 : $4,262
School District #14 $4,262 $4,262
'city of Hilltop _ '$304 ' $304
Anoka CounB, $7,500 '$7,500
" $27,892 $27,892
The consortium requests each member governing body take action on .~he approval of the
extension for the Joint Powers. Agreement and funding of the coordinator by December 1, 2004.
Please address these matters with your governmental members and, once approved, forward a
sig-ned.copy of the Joint Powers Agreement to:
Tim Yantos, Deputy Administrator
Anoka County Government Center
2100 3rd Avenue
Anoka, MN 55303-2265
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not' hesitate to contact me at 763-323-5692.
TY:sky
Enclosures
cc: Barb Warren, sACCC Coordinator
'P. 36
RESOLUTION 2004 - ??
EXTENDING THE.TERMS OF THE SOUTHERN ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY
CONSORTIUM JOINT POWERS AGREEM~iNT
(CONTRACT #950154B)
WHEREAS, in June of 1985, a Joint Powers Agreement established the Southern Anoka
County Community Consortium consisting of Anoka County, the Cities of Columbia Heights,
Fridley, and Hilltop, and Independent School Districts #13 and #14; and,
WHEREAS, the general purpose of this Joint Powers Agreement is to' allow each party to
jointly and cooperatively coordinate the delivery of the services, maximize the Use of resources,
avoid redundancy, encourage public and private community partnership, and to develop and find
programs to promote the general comtmunity health and safety in .the territory of the cities herein;'
and,
WHEREAS, a very successful example of this joint, cooperative effort is the
establishment of the community values program know as .Values First which has been
recognized throughout the country as amodel for promoting-core values consistently. across all
sectors of the' community so that youth and adults have a common, inclusive foundation upon
which to operate:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that th6 [NAME OF SACCC MEMBER]
supports the efforts of the Southern Anoka County Community Consortium and does hereby
renew and'enter into the aforesaid Southern Anoka County Community Consortium Joint Powers
Agreement (Contract #950154B) until December 31, 2006, unless earlier terminated or extended
under the terms hereof.
'P. 37
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING CITY
NO: .~--. ,t~. '~- DEPARTMENT: Cormxqmzity MANAGER'S
Development APPROVAL
BY:
ITEM: Ad°pt Res°luti°n 2004-71' Appr°ving BY: Rmhdy Schumacher
Application to MN Dept. of Employment and DATE: October 20, 2004
Economic Development for a Contamination
Clean Up Grant
BACKGROUND: This is a request for approval ora resolution to submit ajoint Contamination
Clean Up application tl2'ough the Mhmesota Depm-tment of Employment mhd Economic Development
mhd the Metropolitan Council. In 2004, the City of Columbia Heights received $1,234,000 in Clean
Up funding fi:om the Mimhesota Depa~nent of Employment and Economic Development and
Metropolitan Council for Phase 1 of the Industrial Pm'k.
This application will address the clean up of Phase II in the Industrial Park which is comprised of the
old Mim~eapolis Electric Steel Casting building at 3800 5th Street.
The engineers estimate for building demolition and excavation of contmrdnated soil is $1,331,085. As
outlined in the Schafer Richardson Development Agreement the mrLfunded portion of the clean up, or
the 12% local match is the responsibility of the developer.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 2004-71, approving an
application to DEED for a Contamination Clean Up Grant for the h~dustrial Park.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-71, there being an
ample amount of copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-71, being a Resolution to approve
application to the IvE:,l ~¢pmunem _rw ..... , ..... .
Clean Up Grant.
Attaclunents
COUNCIL ACTION:
h:\Consent2004\CL2004-71 DEED Cont.and Clean Up Grant
P. 38
RESOLUTION 2004-71
CITY OF COLUMBIA HI~IGHTS, MINNESOTA
REsoLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTAMINATION CLEANUP GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") has given their support to a master
plan for redevelopment of industrial area properties; and
WllEREAS, the City has found that there exists conditions of deterioration, blight, substandard structures, and
enviromr~ental concerns, and there exists a need (due to blighting influences) for intervention by the City to prevent
further deterioration an promote redevelopment of the industa'ial area; and
WI~REAS, the City has identified and completed Phase I and Phase H assessments of all industrial properties
in the industrial planning area in which various potential contmrfinants were identified, with the City submitting a
Response Action Plan (RAP) to the MPCA for clealmp; and
WltEREAS, the DEED grant requires applicants to pay an amount equal to 12% of the cleanup costs from
un_restricted money; and
NOW, TI:[EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Columbia Heights acts as the legal sponsor for the
Contamination Cleanup Grant Program to be submitted on November 1, 2004, and that City Manager, is hereby
authorized to apply to DEED for funding on behalf of the City of Columbia Heights, Mhmesota; and
BE IT FURTIYER RESOLVED that the City of Colun~bia Heights has the legal authority to apply for
financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, m~d financial capability to ensure adequate project
administration; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the application
are conm-fitted to the project identified; and
BE IT FURTIYER RESOLVED that the City of Columbia Heights has not violated any Federal, State, or
Local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, ldckbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or malawful or con-apt practice;
and
BE IT FURTB-ER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the state, the City of Columbia
Heights, Minnesota may enter into an agreement with the State of Mi~mesota for the above-referenced project(s), and
that Columbia Heights certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in all contract
agreements; and
BE IT FURTI:P~R RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute such
agreements as are necessary to implement the project(s) on behalf of the applicant; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Colunabia Heights, Mixmesota
has approved the Contmrfination Cleanup Grant Application submitted to the Depa~nent of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED).
Passed this 25th day of October, 2004.
OFFERED BY:
SECONDED BY:
Julierme Wyckoff- Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Cleric/Council Secretary
P. 39
TA_BLE 9
COST ESTIMATE
Phase II Investigation/Focused Feasibility Study/Response Action Plan
Columbia HeigJxts Industrial Park
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
ProSource Project No.: 482-00
Item I Estimated Cost
{rnpacted Soil (Petroleum and Chlorinated Solvents)
Excavation (21,965 cubic yards) $128,495
Hauling (21,965 cubic yards) $342,65'4
Landfill Disposal (28,555 tons) $424,042
Laboratory Testing (using a 2X multiplier per sample for 24-hour turnaround t/me) $6,000
Backfill--Materials, Hauling,-& Placement (21,965 cubic yards) $142,773
Field Oversight, Equipment, and Expenses $10.723
Subtotal $1,054,686
Foundry Waste
Excavation (34,283 cubic yards) $200,556~
Hauling (34,283 cubic yards) $534,815
Lmactfill Disposal (44,568 tons) $661,835
Laboratory Testing (using a 2X multiplier per sample for 24-hour turnaround time) $14,190
Baclcfill--Mater/als, Hauling, & Placement (34,283 cubic yards) $222,840
Field Oversight, Equipment, mad Expenses $23,600
Slag Wall Removal mad Disposal $12.336
Subtotal $1,670,171
Building Demolition
Pre-demolition Surveys (Asbestos, Lead Based Paint, RegulatedfHaz. Materials etc.) $74,906
Asbestos Abatement $480,66C
Building Demolition $1,048,000
Field Oversight, Equipment, and Expenses $36,150
Subtotal 51,639,716
gupplernental Investigation
Shallow Investigation
Drilling Services $13,865
Analytical Serv/ces (Mobile and Fixed-Base Labs) $4,383!
Field Ove?sight,'Equipment, Expenses $9,774
Subtotal $28,022
~rater Table Investigation
Drilling Services $35,938
Field Oversight, Equipment, Expenses $16,523
Subtotal $52,461
Subtotal $80,483
Ground Water
Remediaton
Passive Free Product Recovery in Excavations $50C
ORC Treatment $56,742
· .Two Years of Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring and Reporting
Analytical Services $22,068
Field Oversight/Reporting $33,600
Subtotal $112,910
Other
Site survey (pre-, during, and post-excavation) $23,50C
Clearing and Grubbing of approximately 1.25 acres $6,15C
Abandonment of Water Supply Wells $7,150
UST sad Quench Tank Removal $7,350
_R_4_P Implementation Report $26,942
Project Close Out and Morfitoring Well Abandomment $11,500
General Project Management $12.100
.. Subtotal $94,692
P. 4 0 Total Projected Costs>>> S4.652.658 Ii
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: C1'1¥ MANAGER'S
NO: _~-- ~ -/o Cmmmmity Development APPROVAL ,_
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004-72, Authorizing BY: Randy Schumacher
Application to the Metropolitan Council for DATE: October 20, 2004
Tax Base Revitalization AccoUnt Funding
BACKGROUND: This is a request for approval of a resolution to submit an application for Tax
Base Revitalization Account Ftmding to the Metropolitan Council. In 2004, the City of Columbia
Heights received $1,234,000 in Clean Up funding fi'om the Mhmesota Department of Employment
trod Economic Development and Metropolitan Council for Phase 1 of the Industa'ial Pm'k.
This application will ad&'ess the clean up of Phase 11 in the Industrial Park which is comprised of the
old Minneapolis Electric Steel Casting building at 3800 5th Street.
The engineers esthuate for building demolition and excavation of contmninated soil is $1,331,085. As
outlined in the Schafer Richm'dson Development Agl'eement the unfunded portion of the clean up, or
the 12% local match is the responsibility of the developer.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffreconm~ends Approval of Resolution 2004-72, authorizing
application to the Metropolitan Council for Tax Base Revitalization Account Funding for the
Industrial Pm'k Redevelopment
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-72, there being
ample copies available to tlie public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-72, being a Resolution Authorizing
Application to the Meta'opolitan Council for Tax Base Revitalization Account Funding.
Attactnuents
C OU-NCFL ACTION:
h:\Consent2004\Ch2004-72 Appl. Met Council Tax Base Revitalization
P. 41
RESOLUTION 2004-72
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL FOR TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT FUNDING
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights is a participant in the Liveable Connmmities Act
Housing Incentives Progrmu for 2004 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is
therefore eligible to make application for fimds under the Tax Base Revitalization Accom~t; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a contamination clean-up project within the City that meet
the Tax Base Revitalization Account's pm-pose/s and criteria; m~d
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensm'e
adequate project ad~rfinistration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as
stated in the contract agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Columbia Heights, Milmesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for
the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization Account application submitted on November
1, 2004; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby aufl~orized to apply to the
Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Colmnbia Heights and to execute
such agreement as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
Passed this 25th day of October, 2004.
OFFERED BY:
SECOND BY:
ROLL CALL:
Julierme Wyckoff- Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
P. 42
TABLE 9
COST ESTI/VLtTE
Phase II Investigation/Focused Feasibility Study/Response Action Plan
Columbia Heights Industrial Park
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
ProSource Project No.: 482-00
Item I Estimated Cost
Impacted Soil (Petroleum and Chlorhzated Solvents)
Excavation (21,965 cubic yards) $128,495
Hauling (21,965 cubic yards) $342,654
Landfill Disposal (28,555 tons) $424,042
Laboratory Testing (using a 2X multiplier per sample for 24-hour turnaround t/me) $6,00(3
Backfill--Materials, Hauling,-& Placement (21,965 cubic yards) $142,773
Field Oversight, Equipment, and Expenses $10,723
Subtotal $1,054,686
Foundry Waste
Excavation (34,283 cubic yards) $200,556
Hauling (34,283 cubic yards) $534,815
LancLfill Disposal (44,568 tons) $661,835
Laboratory Testing (using a 2X multiplier per sample for 244our turnaround time) $14,19C
Backfill--Materials, Hauling, & Placement (34,283 cubic yards) $222,84(2
Field Oversight, Equipment, and Expenses $23,600
Slag Wall Removal and Disposal $12,336
Subtotal $1,670,171
Building Demolition
Pre-demoLition Sm-veys (Asbestos, Lead Based Paint, Regulated/Haz. Materials etc.) $74,906
Asbestos Abatement $480,660i
Building Demolition $1,048,00C
Field Oversight, Equipment, and Expenses $36,15(~
Subtotal $1,639,716
Supplemental Investigation
Shallow Investigation
Drilling Services $13,865
Analytical Services (Mobile and Fixed-Base Labs) $4,383
Field Oversight,'Equipment, Expenses $9,774
Subtotal $28,022
Water Table Investigation
Drilling Services $35,938
Field' Oversight, Equipment, Expenses $16,523
Subtotal $52,461
Subtotal $80,483
Ground Water
Remediaton
Passive Free Product P. ecovery in Excavations $50C
ORC Treatment $56,742
· .Two Years of Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring and Reporting
Analytical Services $22,068
F/eld Oversight/Reporting $33,600
Subtotali $112,910
Other
Site survey (pre-, during, mad post-~xcavafion) $23,500
Clearing and Grubbing of approximately 1.25 acres $ 6,1501
Abandonment of Water Supply Wells $7,15C
UST and Quench Tank Removal $7,35C
R_~_P Implementation Report $26,942
Project Close Out arid Moaitoring Well Abandonment $11,500
General Project Management $12,100
Subtotal $94,692
P. 4 3 Total Projected Costs>>> $4,652,658
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: Ordinance ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER
NO. ,.~- ~/--] POLICE APPROVA, L:
NO. 853-10.108(6) Ci~ Code of1977 DATE: October 14,200~
V L/L/
BACKGROUND
The Columbia Heights Police Department desires to use administrative tags for minor traffic violations committed in
our city. The Police Chief has met with the City Attorney to determine the most effective way to perform this task and
be within the guidelines as set by the opinion of the State Auditor and the State Attorney General. It was determined
that the best way to do this would be to use the State Statute on Public Nuisance 609.74 Subd. (2) ~vhich states in part:
Whoever by an act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of
maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor:
(2) Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public highway right-of-way, or waters
used by the public.
This Statute is incorporated into our City Ordinances.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
In order for us to use City Ordinance 10.108(6) which currently states:
Minnesota Statutes 609.74 and 609.745,.defining crimes constituting public nuisances, are incorporated
herein.
The City Attorney has recommended the following language be added to the Ordinance:
a)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, a violation of Minnesota statute 609.74 Subd. 2) shall
be a petty misdemeanor subject to the penalties as set forth by Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to ~vaive the reading of Ordinance No. 1477, there being ample copies available for the public.
Motion:
Move to adopt Ordinance No. 1477, being an ordinance amending Ordinance 853-10.108(6), City Code of 1977,
authorizing the ordinance violation of public nuisance under 10.108(6)(a) to be charged as a petty misdemeanor and
subject to the penalties set forth by resolution.
TMJ:mld
04-121
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 44
ORDINANCE 1477
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853, CITY CODE OF
1977, PERTAINING TO PUBLIC NUISANCES
WHEREAS Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 8, subdivision 6, which currently reads as
follows to-wit:
10.108(6)
Mim~esota Statutes 609.74 and 609.745, defilzing cringes constituting
public nuisances, are incorporated herein.
Is hereby amended to read as follows, to-Mt:
10.108(6)
Mim~esota Statutes 609.74 and 609.745, defiling crimes constituting
public nuisances, are incorporated herein.
(a)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, a violation of
Milmesota Statute 609.74 subd. (2) shall be a petty misdemeanor
subject to the penalties as set forth by Resolution.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty days (30) after its
passage.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Date of passage:
October 11, 2004
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll call:
Attest:
Mayor Julielme Wyckoff
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
P. 45
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: Consent .~_/2[_~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER
NO. POLICE APPROVAk]'
ITEM: Resolution 2004-69 establishing penalties for BY: Thomas M. Jobmson~,~ BY:: ~//h~~
adrninistrative offenses DATE: October 14, 2004~w,~ DAT/E:~"x/.~ ,,-,r'~
NO.
BACKGROUND
On October 13, 1997, the City of Colmnbia Heights City Council created the local e~zforcement of
achni~tistrative offenses. The ordinance allows the City Cotmcil to set penalties for any violation of
the City of Columbia Heights City Code and for these penalties to be paid by the administrative tag
system currently being used by the City. The Police Department would like to add the violation of
public nuism~ce with a penalty as listed in the attached Resolution.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
The Police Department woUld like the City Council to approve the attached resolution setting the
penalties for the violations listed and allowing these violations to be written on achni~tistrative tags,
thus allowing the funds to go directly into the General Fund.
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2004-59, being a Resolution mnending Resolution No. 2003-06
establislzing penalties for the violations listed and allowing for the use of adlni~tistrative tags
when citing for these violations.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample
copies available for the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-69, being a resolution mnending
Resolution 2003-06 establishing penalties for the violations listed amd allowing for the use of
admi~tistrative tags when citing for these violations.
TMJ:mld
04-129
Attacl~aent
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 46
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-69
BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFENSES WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AS AUTHORIZED BY
SECTION 8, CHAPTER 3 OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY CODE
Cun'ently Resolution No. 2003-06 reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1358 on October 13, 1997,
establishing Section 8, Chapter 3 of the Colmnbia Heights Code entitled "Achninistrative Offenses;" m~d,
WHEREAS, Subdivision 7 provides that penalties be fl~posed for violations of scheduled ach~zinistrative
offenses according to a schedule established and amended from time to time, by Resolution of the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, it is the deske of the Columbia Heights City Council to amend said administrative offense
penalty schedule.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the
admh~istrative offense penalty schedule is amended as follows:
OFFENSE DESCRIPTION
Overtime parking in public parldng areas
Illegally parldng in loading zone
Illegally parking in bus stop or taxi stand
Illegally parked in metered parking areas
Parked on boulevard
Violation of boulevard parldng pem~it
Handicap parldng
Telnporm3~ or emergency no pm'king (parades)
Six-hour minhnuln parking
Parldng in a traffic lane or in an alley
Fire lanes or other parking violations on private property
Jm~k vehicles
Obstruct traffic in a private parldng lot
Overtime parkh~g in a private parldng lot
No parldng 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.
No parking April 1 to May 1 when there is 3 ~A inches of
snow or more on the streets
No bicycle registration
No bicycle lights and reflectors
Miscellaneous bicycle violations
A2~imal violations, Chapter 8, Article 1, Sections 1-8
Unauthorized signs in public right of way
Bicycle impound
Parldng in a park 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.
STATE
CHAPTER/ PAYABLES
STATUTE LIST PENALTY
7.202(2) $27 $25
7.202(3) $27 $25
7.202(4) $27 $25
7.202(5) $27 $25
7.202(6) $27 $25
7.202(6)(c) (111) $27 $25
7.202(9)/169.346 $245 $100
7.203(1) $27 $25
7.205(1) $27 $25
7.205(2) $27 $25
7.205(4) $27 $30
7.205(7) Not listed $30
7.205(11) $27 $25
7.205(12) $27 $27
7.205(i3) $27 $25
7.205(14) $27 $25
7.401(1) $20 $15
7.402(2) $20 $!5
7.402(3)/169.222 $20 $15
not listed $25
8.203(3) $50 $20
7.401(3) $20 $20
10.201(1) $27 $25
P. 47
1
OFFENSE DESCRIPTION
STATE
CHAPTER/ PAYABLES
STATUTE LIST
PENALTY
Pets not on a leash in city park
Miscellaneous State parldng violations
False alarm response by police or fn'e
Tlfird in calendar year
Fourth in calendar year
Fifth and any subsequent in a calendar yeas'
Animal in motor vehicle
Animal cruelty
Exposure of unused refi'igerator (door not removed)
Land disposal of used oil
Abandoned motor velficle
Expired license plates
Parked on landscaped area
Parked more than 12" fi-Oln curb
Parked overweight (15,000)
Garbage and rubbish violations
Noise and odor violations
Outside storage of materials
Too many animals ¢o kemael license)
Parked wrong side of street
Speeding 1-15 over
Obstmctflag view of driver
Exhaust not muffled
Obey traffic control signs and signals
Driving roles
Turning and stm-th~g
Failure to yield
Vehicle equipment and safety
Passed this 10th day of March 2003
10.201 (12) Not listed
169.32-169.34 inclusive $27
10.313
$20
$25
Not listed $50
Not listed $75
Not listed $100
346.57(1) Not listed $25
343 Not listed $50
609.675 Not listed $25
115A.916 Not listed $50
168.03 $210 $35
168.09 $20 $25
873-5A.207(b)(i) Not listed $25
169.35(1) $25 $25
853.7.204 $700 $100
8.301(7) Not listed $25
8.203(10) Not listed $75
5A.207(1)(F) Not listed $50
9.103(34) Not listed $75
169.35 $27 $25
169.14 $40-50 $35
169.37 $40 $25
169.69 $30-$100 $50
169.06 $50 $30
169.18 $50 $30
169.19 $50 $30
169.201 $50 $30
169.46-169.65 $20-$50 $35
inclusive
Resolution 2003-06 is hereby amended to read:
RESOLUTION NO."
BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFENSES WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AS AUTHORIZED BY
SECTION 87 CHAPTER 3 OF THE COLUM~!A HEIGHTS CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the Colmnbia Heights City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1358 on October 13, 1997,
establisl~hag Section 8, Chapter 3 of the Columbia Heights Code entitled "Achninistrative Offenses;" and,
WHEREAS, Subdivision 7 provides that penalties be hnposed for violations of scheduled administrative
offenses according to a schedule established mhd amended fi'om time to thne, by Resolution of the City
Council; and,
P. 48 2
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Columbia Heights City Council to amend said achnhfistrative offense
penalty schedule.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Com~cil of the City of Columbia Heights that the
administrative offense penalty schedule is mnended as follows:
OFFENSE DESCRIPTION
Overtime parking in public parking areas
Illegally parking in loading zone
Illegally parking in bus stop or taxi stand
Illegally parked in metered parking areas
Parked on boulevard
Violation of boulevard pm-king permit
Handicap parking
Temporary or emergency no parldng (parades)
Six,horn' minimum parking
Parking in a traffic lane or in an alley
Fire lanes or other parlch~g violations on phvate property
Jtmk vehicles
Obstruct traffic in a private parking lot
Overtime parking in a private parldng lot
No parkh~g 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.
No parking April 1 to May 1 when there is 3 ½ inches of
snow or more on the streets
No bicycle registration
No bicycle lights and reflectors
Miscellaneous bicycle violations
Alzimal violations, Chapter 8, Article 1, Sections 1-8
Unauthorized signs in public right of way
Bicycle impound
Public Nuisance
STATE
CHAPTER/ PAYABLES
STATUTE LIST PENALTY
7.202(2) $27 $25
7.202(3) $27 $25
7.202(4) $27 $25
7.202(5) $27 $25
7.202(6) $27 $25
7.202(6)(c) (111) $27 $25
7.202(9)/169.346 $245 $100
7.203(1) $27 $25
7.205(1) $27 $25
7.205(2) $27 $25
7.205(4) $27 $30
7.205(7) Not listed $30
7.205(11) $27 $25
7.205(12) $27 $27
7.205(13) $27 $25
7.205(14) $27 $25
7.401(1) $20 $15
7.402(2) $20 $15
7.402(3)/169.222 $20 $15
Not listed $25
8.203(3) $50 $20
7.401(3) $20 $20
10.108(6) Not listed $45
Parking in a park 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.
Pets not on a leash in city park
Miscellaneous State parking violations
False alarm response by police or fire
Third in calendar year
Fourth in calendar year
Fifth and any subsequent in a calendar year
gmimal in motor vehicle
Animal cruelty
Exposure of unused refiSgerator (door not removed)
Land disposal of used oil
Abandoned motor vehicle
Expired license plates
Parked on landscaped area
Parked more than 12" from curb
Parked ove~wveight (15,000)
Garbage and rubbish violations
Noise and odor violations
P. 49
3
10.201(1) $27 $25
10.201(12) Not listed $20
169.32-169.34 inclusive $27 $25
10.313
Not listed $50
Not liste~i $75
Not listed $100
346.57(1) Not listed $25
343 Not listed $50
609.675 Not listed $25
115A.916 Not listed $50
168.03 $210 $35
168.09 $20 $25
873~5A.207(b)(i) Not listed $25
169.35(1) $25 $25
853.7.204 $700 $100
8.301(7) Not listed $25
8.203(10) Not listed $75
Outside storage of materials
Too many animals (no kmmel license)
Parked va-ong side of street
Speeding 1-15 over
Obstructing view of driver
Exhaust not muffled
Obey traffic control signs and signals
Driving roles
Turning and starting
Failm'e to yield
Vehicle equipment and safety
Passed this
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll call:
day of October 2004
5A.207(1)(F) Notlisted $50
9.103(34) Notlisted $75
169.35 $27 $25
169.14 $40-50 $35
169.37 $40 $25
169.69 $30-$100 $50
169.06 $50 $30
169.18 $50 $30
t69.19 $50 $30
169.201 $50 $30
169.46-169.65 $20-$50 $35
inclusive
Attest:
Mayor Juliem~e Wyckoff
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
P. 50
4
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25 2004
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY
CONSENT Achninistration MANAGER'S
NO: ~-- ~-q APPROV//gtL
ITEM: Refuse/Recycling contract BY: Jean Kuehn
with BFI Waste Systems DATE: October 15, 2004 D
NO:
Our current contract with BFI Waste Systems expires December 31, 2004. BFI Waste Systems has made a
proposal to continue to provide refuse/recycling/yard waste services for the next five years. Staff met and
negotiated with BFI and their competitors, comparing prices and service contracts throughout the
metropolitan area.
BFI has restructured their overall pricing to significantly reduce the costs to the City of Columbia Heights.
Attached are the proposed rates for 2005-2009, along with the current rates. There would be a significant
reduction in rates from 2004 to 2005. There would be no change in rates for 2006 over 2005, and an
increase to rates of 1.5% for 2007, 2008, and 2009.
will continue to offer to our residents three levels of service: 98 gallon cart with full service; 64 gallon
lhrtited service; and 39 gallon low-volume service. No change in service will occur. Therefore,
The 98-gallon service will continue to include bulky items at this level with no added fee.
Appliance pickup will continue for all levels of service.
BFI will continue to provide garbage carts to residents as well as recycling containers.
Walk-in service will continue for elderly or disabled residents who request it.
BFI will continue to service the Streetscape containers along Central Avenue.
BFI will continue to service the Recycling Center in the removal and marketing of materials
from that site.
Added features are:
An electronics event collection will be held in the spring/summer of 2005 for residents.
Pilot projects for single sort recycling will be implemented Within 18 months.
We will receive the state ftmded hauler rebate.
The rates proposed by BFI are the lowest rates for this level of service in the Twin City metropolitan area.
Also attached is a memo and chm-t from Finance Director, Bill Elrite, addressing refuse fund revenue,
expenses, and rese~es.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract
with BFI Waste Systems for refuse/recycling/yard waste removal effective January 1, 2005 - December 31,
2009.
COUNCIL 'ACTION:
P. 51
I COLUMBIA HEIGHTS J I
Refuse, Recycling & Yardwaste Monthly Rates 2004-2009 with BFI Waste Systems
~ERVICE LEVEL Current Year-2004 1st Year-200-~ 2nd Year-2006 3rd Year-200? 4th Year-2008 5th Year-2009
90 Gallon cart _ Full Service $11.67 $10,44 $10.44 $10.60 $10.76 $10.92
60 Gallon Cart _ No Extras $10.72 $10.40 $10.40 $10.56 $10.72 $10.88
32 Gallon Cart _ No Extras $9.20 $9.00 $9.00 $9.14 $9.28 $9.42'
Senior-32 Gall Includes extras $9.20 $9.00 $9.00 $9.14 $9.28 $9.42
VIULTIPLE DWELLING ACCOUNTS:
(1) - 1 yard_ with 1 pick up per week $31.54 $t2.00 $12.001 $12.181 $12.36 $12.55
(1) - 1 yard with 2 pick up per week $56.50 $26.00 , $26.00 $26.39 $26.79 $27.19!
(1) - 1 yard with 3 pick up per week $87.93 $39.00 $39.00 $39.591 $40.18 $40.78
(2) - 1 yard with 1 pick up per week $47.83 $26.00 $26.00 $26.39! $26.79 $27.19
(2) - 1 yard with 2 pick up per week $107.15 $55.00 $55.00 $55.83 $56,66 $57.51
(1) - 1 1/2 yd with 1 pick up per week $43.95 $20.00 $20.00 $20.30 $20.60 $20.91
(2) - 1 1/2 yd with 1 pick up per week $87.93 $40,00 $40.00 $40.60 $41.21 $41.83
m ~.q (1) - 2 yard wil:h I pick up perweek $66.04 $26.00 $26.00 $26.39 $26,79 $27.19
I,,a (1) - 2 yard with 2 pick up per week $142.10 $52.00 $52.00 $52.781 $53.57 $54.38
(2) - 2 yard with 1 pick up per week $138.88 $52.00 $52.00 $52.78i $53.57 $54.38
(2) - 2 yard with 2 pick up per week $258.35 $108.00 $108.00 $109.62 $111.26 $112.93
(1) - 3 yard with 1 pick up per week $97.17 $40.00 $40.00 $40.60 $41.21 $41.83
(1) 1 & (1) 2 yd with 2 pick up per week $202~23 $79.00 $79.00 $80.19 $81.39 $82.611
(1) - 4 yard with I pick up per week $96.99 $52.00 $52.00 $52.78 $53.57 $54.38
(1) -4 yard with 2 pick up per week $177.40 $108.00 $108.00 $109.62 $111.26 $112.93
(1) - 4 yard with 3 pick up per week $280.75 $161.00 $161.00 $163.42 $165.87 $168.35
(2) - 4 yard with 3 pick up per week $363.35 $330.00 $330.00 $334.95 $339.97 $345.07
(1 ) - 6 yard with 1 pick up per week $157.49 $79.00 $79. O0 $80.19 $81.39 $82.61
)THER FACILITIES: Current Year-2004 1st Year-2005 2nd Year-2006 3rd Year-2007 4th Year-2008 5th Year-2009
;OMPACTED GARBAGE:
Crestview Lutheran Home/The Boulevard
(less $10 for own vat) (1) - 2 yd wi6 pu/week $778.39 $650.00 $650.00 $659.75 $669.65 $679.69
~ION-COMPACTED GARBAGE:
Heights Manor/3850 Stinson Blvd (less $10 for own vat)
I (1) - 2 yd wi2 pu/wk $122.93! $122.93 $122.93 $124.77 $126.64 $128.54
Columbia Village (1) ~ 2 yd w/2 pu/wk $122.93 $122.93 $122.93 $124.77 $126.64 $128.54
Royce Place (less $10 for own vat) (1) - 2yd w/2 pu/wk $122.93 $122.93 $122.93 $124.77 $126.64 $128.54
CITY FACILITIES:
I.
Library 820 40 Avenue NE (1) ' 1 yd wi2 pu/week $103.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
JP Murzyn Hall 530 Mill Street NE (2) - 4 yd wi4 pu/week $436.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Top Valu Liquor 4340 Central Avenue NE (1) - 2 yd wi1 pu/week $69.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
T_.~o ~ ~lu Liquor II 2241 37TH Ave NE (1) - 1 yd wi1 pu/week $31.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
i Lo
Un,v. ,-,ve. Liquor 5225 Univ. Ave. hiE (1) - 5 yd wi1 pu/week $109.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Hall 590 40 Avenue NE (1) - 4 yd wi3 pu/week $261.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Huset Park (May - September) (1) ~ 4 yd wi5 pu/week $419.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00! $0.00
Municipal Serv. Ctr. 637 38th Ave. NE (1) - 20 yd wi1 pu/week $1,262.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00! $0.00
Parkview Villa 965 40th Avenue NE (3) - 2 yd wi3 pu/week $322.22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00i $0.00
Section Total $3,016.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
RECYCLING
Residential _ $2.40 $2.021 $2.02 $2.05 $2.08 $2.11
Multiple Dwelling $1.61 $1.61 $1.61 $1.63 $1.65 $1.67
YARDWASTE:
Residential $1.62 $1.62 $1.62 $1.64 $1.66 $1.68
Multiple Dwelling
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
OCTOBER 20, 2004
WALT FEHST
CITY MANAGER
WILLIAM ELRITE~J'~~
FINANCE DIRECTOR
REFUSE FUND REVENUE, EXPENSES, AND RESERVES
With the proposed new contract for refuse hauling and disposal services there has been some
discussion regarding reducing rates to customers. Based on these discussions, I have attached a
spreadsheet showing the revenue, expense and cash reserves in the Refuse Fund from 1999
through 2003 with a projection for 2004. As I am sure you recall, in February of 2000 the City
Council passed a resolution adopting new refuse rates, which was a significant reduction in rates
at that time. The main purpose for the reduction was that we had excess reserves in the Refuse
Fund. Our cash reserves in the Refuse Fund at the end of 2000 were $709,398. Since 2000 we
have continued to experience rate increases from the hauler; however, we did not pass these rate
increases on to the customers, they were absorbed by the Refuse Fund. This resulted in a
continued annual reduction in retained earnings and reserves. At the end of 2003 our operating
loss in the Refuse Fund was $179,916. This brought the cash reserves in the fund to $357,894.
Based on current revenue and expense projections for 2004, I am projecting that the 2004 loss in
the Refuse Fund will be approximately $196,000, bringing our cash reserves in the fund at the
end of 2004 to approximately $160,000. This is a very minimal amount for reserves in this type
of utility fund.
Had it not been for the new contract with the hauler, which siglfificantly reduces hauler charges
for 2005, it would have been necessary to look at a customer rate increase for 2005. However,
with the rate reductions by the hauler we should be able to maintain the customer rates that were
established in 2000 without an increase. In addition to this, we should see a slight increase in the
Refuse Fund reserves in 2005. At the same tim, e, because of the rate reduction in 2000 and
absorbing all increases without a rate increase since that date, it is not financially feasible to
hrtplement an additional rate decrease at this time. If you would like more infonuation regarding
this subject, please let me lo, ow.
WE:sms
0410203CM
Attachment: Income & Expense History
P. 54
City of Columbia Heights
Refuse Fund
Revenue, Expense and Reseves
For 1999 through 2004
Prepared 10/19/2004
Projected
_ 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Revenue 1,398,208 1,377,675 1,340,711 1,342,572 t,311,452 1,320,000
Expense 1,385,002 1,410,977 1,438,806 1,468,183 1,491,368 1,516,368
Operating Incorne (Loss)13,206 (33,302) (98,095) (125,611) (179,916) (196,368)
Transfer to Meter
Replacement Program 321,250
Increase (Decrease) to
Retained Earnings (308,044) (33,302) (98,095) (125,611) (179,916) (196,368)
ICash ReservesI 599,2511 709,3981 610,1251 605,23il 357,8941 161,5261
Net Assets (Retained
Earnings) _ 1,036,918 1,003,616 905,521 778,388 598,472 402,104
H:Utility billing Refusel&E.xls income & Expense 10/20/2004
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: Items for ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGERS~
NO: Consideration CITY MANAGER APPROV~ ~AL~,
ZI¥1.~_ r~
ITEM: Resolution 2004-67 an, ending BY: WaltFehst BY'~..~..L~o'~..,,,,
Charitable Gambling rental or lease DATE: October 19, 2004 DAT~)/i,(,
payment
NO: 5- A-l o
Backgn'ound:
At the October 11, 2004 City Cotmcil meeting, staff was directed to draft an amendment to the current
Charitable Gambling Resolution No. 2004-23.
The mnen&nent reflects reference to Mhmesota Statute 49.18 subdivision 1 regarding rental or lease
payments by organizations to the proprietor of a licensed premises.
The recommended mnendmem would change Item #5 from:
The organization wishing to gamble does not pay the proprietor of the licenses premises a
rental or lease payment in excess of ¢~ ann ...... +T, ..,h;~;, ........ · ~;,~n *.~ ;,.~.,~: .... ~ ....
to:
The orgmfization wishing to gamble does not pay the proprietor of the licenses premises a
rental or lease payment in excess of that allowed by MN Stat.349.18 sub. 1, and as amended.
Recmmnended Motions:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2004-67, there being ample copies available to the
public.
Move to adopt Resolution No. 2004-67, being a Resolution amending Resolution No. 2004-23
authorizing certain Charitable Gambling.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 56
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-67
BEING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN CHARITABLE GAMBLING
Currently, Resolution No. 2004-23 reads as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Columbia Heights that gmnbling, as described in Minnesota Statute
326 shall be prohibited in all bars and liquor establisltments within the City which are licensed
pursuant to Section 5.501, 5.503, 5.504, 5.505, 5.506, or 5.57 of the City Code mzless:
1. The orgmzization wishing to gamble obtains the permission of the Mim~esota Charitable
Gambling Control Board;
2. The orgaltization wishes to gamble obtains the permission of the Conncil of the city of
Columbia Heights;
3. The orgmtization wishing to gamble has been in existence in Colmr~bia Heights for not less
than ten years;
4. The orgmfization wishing to gamble is a bona fide club;
5. The organization wishing to gamble does not pay the proprietor of the licensed premises a
rental or lease payment in excess of $1,000 per month, which payment shall be inclusive of any
and all allowable expenses as defined and set forth in MN.STAT.349 et. Seq., as amended. No
other payment, set-off, or credit, of any ldnd, other than as set forth above, shall be paid to or
on behalf of the proprietor, or any company or vendor providing any service or goods to or on
behalf of the proprietor.
6. A license fee not subject to a waiver shall be paid to the City of Columbia Heights in the
amount of $250 for Class A and Class B licenses and $25 for Class C and Class D licenses.
License fees shall not be prorated or refundable. Not withstanding anything to the contrary
herein, an existing Class A or Class B licensee shall pay a license fee of $25 for any event, of
tl~'ee days or less, to be conducted at a location other than the established license location.
7. If the orgmtization is determined to be in violation of any of the terms or conditions of this
Resolution, any aUthorization hereunder previously granted to conduct said gambling activity
may be immediately suspended until such violation(s) is/are corrected. Any such determination
of violations(s) and any suspension heretmder shall be made as follows:
a. At a meeting open to the public; and
b. After a miltimmn of ten (10) days notice to the organization; and
c. After providing the organization with the opportmzity to present its position at said
meeting; and
d. By a sh=ple majority vote of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect on April 26, 2004, and
shall replace Resolution 1996-46.
Resolution 2004-23 is hereby amended to read:
REs~oLUTiON NO. 2004-67
BEING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN CHARITABLE GAMBLING
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Columbia Heights that gambling, as described in Minnesota Statute
326 shall be prolfibited in all bars and liquor establisltments within the City which are licensed
pursuant to Section 5.501, 5.503, 5.504, 5.505, 5.506, or 5.57 of the City Code unless:
1. The organization wishing to gmnble obtains the permission of the Minnesota Charitable
Gambling Control Bom'd; P. 5 7
2. The organization wishes to gmuble obtains the permission of the Council of the city of
Columbia Heights;
3. The organization wishing to gamble has been in existence in Cohm~bia Heights for not less
than ten years;
4. The orgmfization wishing to gamble is a bona fide club;
5. The orgaaization wishing to gamble does not pay the proprietor of the licensed premises a
rental or lease payment in excess of $1,000 ....... +~ ,,r~;~ ........... + o~, ,,~, ;,~,~,,~; .... ,' ....
~at allowed by ~ Stat.349.18 sub. 1, and as mnended. No other payment, set-off, or credit,
of any hnd, other thma as set fo~h above, shall be paid to or on behalf of the proprietor, or any
compm~y or vendor providNg ~y service or goods to or on behalf of ~e proprietor.
6. A license fee not subject to a waiver sh~l be paid to the CiV of Colmnbia. Heights in the
mnount of $250 for Class A ~d Class B licenses and $25 for Class C and Class D licenses.
License fees shall not be prorated or readable. Not withst~ding an~hing to the contr~y
herein, ~ existNg Class A or Class B licensee shall pay a license fee of $25 for any event, of
tlu'ee days or less, to be conducted at a location other th~ the established license location.
7. If ~e orgaNzation is dete~ned to be in violation of m~y of the te~s or conditions of tNs
ReSolution, m~y authorization hereunder previously D'~ted to Conduct said gmnbling activiV
may be ~ediately suspended m~til such violation(s) is/~e corrected. ~y such determNation
of violations(s) and ~y suspension heretmder shall be made as follows:
a. At a meeting open to the public; and
b. ~er a miNmm often (10) days notice to the orgmfization; and
c. ~er providNg the orgaNzation with the oppo~W to present its position at s~d
meeting; and
d. By a simple maj0riV vote of the CiV Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect on
shall replace Resolution 2004-23.
Passed this __ day of October 2004
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Mayor Juliem~e Wyckoff
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
P. 58
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA O._ o :- s ~.~4c ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER
SECTION: DEPARTMENT: APPROVAL
NO: Fire /.
ITEM: Establish Hearing Dates BY: Charlie ThompsonDA(~TE. i0'
License Revocation, Rental Properties
NO: ~- /3~ ~ ii DATE: October 19, 2004 .
Revocation or suspension of a license to operate a rental property within the City of Columbia Heights is
requested against the following owners regarding their rental propelty for failure to meet the requirements of
the Residential Maintenance Codes.
1 ................................................................................. Abullahi Elmi
1635 49th Avenue N.E.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of November 8, 2004 for Revocation or
Suspension ora License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Abullahi
Elmi at 1635 49th Avenue N.E.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 59
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
APPROVAL
NO: -.-~-~- I~ Fire
ITEM: Approval of Rental Housing License BY: Charlie Thompson B ': f//'
Applications
NO: DATE: October 20, 2004 /c'~
Approval of the attached list of rental housing license applications, in that they have met the
requirements of the Housing Maintenance Code.
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed fOr rental hoUsing license applications for October 25,
2004.
ICOUNCIL ACTION:
I
P. 60
Occupany I.D.
10033
10067
10500
10504
10508
20500
30003
30040
30502
30504
20208
10150
34012
30130
30158
20150
20009
12131
2O261
10098
10040
12082
12206
20204
12133
20144
20146
20152
20011
30124
20O06
2OO24
2O390
10122
?ngQQ
30007
30009
34O1O-
30023
12032
~-0315
Property Owner Name
Wyman, Veryl E.
Bryant, LLC.
Anoka County Community Action
Anoka County Community Action
Anoka County Community Action
Anoka County Community Action
Columbia Village
City of Columbia Heights E.D.A.
Anoka County Community Action
Anoka County Community Action
Ahmed Al-Beheary
Angeles Alvardo
Alan Avery
Haji Azam
Haji Azam
Steve Bethel
John Billings
Judith Brunsell
Charles Chen
Josh Chu
Bruce Ebner
Douglas Evans
William Farrey
Gerry Gerechi
Roger Gillespie
Bette Harlan
Bette Harlan
Bette Harlan
Bradley Hoag
Margaret Ingle
Marge Janson
Marge Janson
Marge Janson
Dave Johnson
Gerald -Johnson
Michael Juaire
Michael Juaire
Matt Kleinjan
Harvey Kowalzek
Dan Kdck
Larry Larson
P. 61
Property Address
1316 43rd Avenue
5075 Johnson Street
4349 5th Street
4304 5th Street
4411 Main Street
4641 Polk Street
1675 44th Avenue
965 40th Avenue
4641 Tyler Street
4647 Tyler Street
4916 Tyler Street
5159 7th Street
4201 Monroe Street
4622 Tyler Street
4616 Tyler Street
4555 Fillmore Street
4108 Madison Street
1401 42-1/2 Avenue
1207 43-1/2 Avenue
4213 3rd Street
3928 Central Avenue
4156 2nd Street
1110 43-1/2 Avenue
3742 3rd Street
1010 42nd Avenue
5146 Washington Street
5037 Jackson Street
5140 Wash ington Street
3861 Edgemoor Place
4347 University Avenue
1236 Circle Terrace
1266 Circle Terrace
1248 Circle Terrace
3808 Reservoir Blvd
,4 R/::;~ DnlL-
4417 University Avenue
4301 3rd Street
1731 37th Avenue
4226 4th Street
4333 Washington Street
1087 Polk Circle
OccupanyI.D.
10042
20034
20044
20243
12037
12208
12115
12136
2O247
2O188
30112
12173
12005
20020
12068
20072
10052
Property Owner Name
Howard Law
Rose Maciaszek
Edwin Matthes
Julio Orellana
W. Tarey Peterson
Timothy Quass
Linda Rogers
Patsy Sandsness
Nelia Schaff
Ronald Sch'loesser
Maumer Sekizovic
Martin Sieger
Bruce Smith
Leland Stauch'
Janene Unke-Hanson
Stanley Van Blaricom
Robert Zschokke
Property Address
1218 Borealis Lane
4401 Jackson Street
5229 7th Street
4628 Johnson Street
3963 Polk Street
3727 Reservoir Bird
1057 Polk Place
1214 ~43-1/2 Avenue
4228 Madison Street
4217 2nd Street
4357 Tyler Place
1237 43-1/2 Avenue
3800 Tyler Street
4545 Fillmore Street
4357 7th Street
4513 Taylor Street
3823 Polk Street
P. 62
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: k.e~-s=~,4 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
NO: License Department APPROVAL~
ITEM: License Agenda BY: Shelley Hanso~f-x D~~''~
NO:
BACKGROUND/ANALYS IS
Attached is the business license agenda for the October 25, 2004 City Cotmcil meeting. This agenda
consists of applications for Contractor licenses for 2004 and a license to sell Cln-ism~as Trees in the
Rainbow Parlcing Lot.
Also included on the agenda are the renewals for calendar year 2005 that have been received and
approved to date. These include renewals for fuel dispensing devices, and cigarette sales.
Also listed on the agenda is the renewal of a Cun'ency Exchange License for Kwik Cash at 4639 Central
Ave. and for Money Exchange at 4110 Central Ave. This type of business is actually licensed by the
State of MN. However, pm'suant to MN Statute 53A.04, the State is required to submit the application
to the govern/ng body of the mtmicipality in Milch the business operates. The law further requires the
govertrng body of the mmficipality to render a decision regarding the renewal of the license within 60
days. I forwarded tiffs application to the Police Department, and they see no reason to deny the renewal
of this license.
At the top of the license agenda you will notice a phi'ase stating *Signed Waiver Form Accompal~ied.
Application. This means that the data privacy fonn has been submitted as required. Il'not submitted,
certain infonnation cam~ot be released to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for October 25, 2004 as presented
regarding the new licenses for 2004 and the renewals for 2005.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 63
TO CITY COUNCIL October 25, 2004
*Signed Waiver Fonn Accompanied Application
2004 BUSINESS LICENSE AGENDA
BLDG
CONTRACTORS LICENSES
*LBP Mechanical 315 Royalston Ave No., Mpls
*Polar Plmnbing 6087 46t~' St No, Oakdale
$50.00
$50.00
POL, ZONING
CHRISTMAS TREE SALES
Rudolph's Trees 4300 Central Ave
(pending P & Z Approval)
$50.00
****LICENSES FOR 2005****
FIRE
GAS DISPENSING DEVICES
Lowell's Auto Repair 4457 University Ave
Speedway SA 5000 Central Ave
HolidaY Stationstore 4259 Central Ave
$100.00
$140.00
$18o.00
POLICE
CIGARETTE/TOBACCO SALES
City of Col. Hts. Liquor Stores (3)
Holiday Stationstores 4259 Central Ave
Fee waived
$3OO.OO
POLICE
CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE RENEWAL
*Kwik Cash
*Money Exchm~ge
4639 Central Ave NE
4110 Central Ave NE
STATE LIC.
STATE LIC.
P. 64
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING OF: ~)F_~~ 2~, ~)~
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Motion to approve payment of bills out of the proper funds, as listed in the attached
check register covering Check Number I1 0'2~t-~2 through II o o
in the amount ors qB2,~q-t'{-. ~.
These checks have been examined and found to be legal charges against the CITY OF
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, and are hereby, recommended for payment.
P. 65
ACS FIN~CI~ SYSTEM CITY OF COL~BIA HEIGHTS
10/21/2004 15:32:45 Check History GL050S-V06.60 CO~RPAGE
GL540R
* *** C 0 U N C I L *** .
* *** C 0 U N C I L *** .
* *** C O'g N C I L *** .
* *** C 0U N C I L *** .
Report Selection:
Optional Report Title ....... 10/25/04 COUNCIL LISTING
INCLUSIONS:
Fund & Account ..............
Check Date ..................
Source Codes ................
Journal Entry Dates .........
Journal Entry Ids ...........
Check Number ................
Project .....................
Vendor.
Invoice .....................
Purchase Order ..............
Bank ........................
v~]~cher ....................
[~ eased Date ...............
~o~ ared Date ................
thru
thru
thru
thru
110242 thru
thru
thru
thru
thru
thru
thru
thru
thru
thru
110410
Run Instructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI
J COUNCIL 02 P4 Y S 6
Lines CPI
066 10
CP SP
Y Y
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/21/2004 15 Check History GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 1
10/25/04 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
ACS
AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPAN
ARCTIC GLACIER
AUGUSTINE/EUGENE
BELLBOY CORPORATION
CDW-G
CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTI
CHOICE POINT SERVICES
COCA-COLA BOTTLING MIDWE
DEX MEDIA EAST LLC
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO
GO~/GARY
GRIGGS-COOPER & CO
GROSSE/PAUL
HAEG/J~JDY
HARVEY/ROBERT
HOHENSTEINS INC
JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO.
KEEP INC/THE
KEGLEY/JACQUELINE
KUETHER DIST. CO.
MARK VII DIST.
METROCALL - ATT MESSAGIN
MINNESOTA WINEGROWERS CO
MN REC & PK ASSOC - MRP
MOELLER/KAREN
NEEDHAM DISTRIBUTING CO
NEW FOGEY FOLLIES
0NVOY
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PROSOURCE TECHNOLOGIES I
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS
QWEST COMSUJNICATIONS
RIVER VALLEY RANCH
RUETTIMANN/ROBERT
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNES
SHI
SOUTHERN MN ENVRNMlqTL TE
STAR TRIBUNE
UNGER/DARLENE
VECTOR INTERNET SERVICES
WINDSCHITL/KEITH
WINE MERChaNTS
WELLS FARGO - PAYROLL AC
CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS POLICE
DUGDALE/MARY
110242 255.65
110243 176.31
110244 132.10
110245 133.06
110246 3,941.60
110247 579.33
110248 298.20
110249 160.00
110250 891.00
110251 163.80
110252 10.14
110253 27.99
110254 16,673.30
110255 29.95
110256 9.00
110257 29.12
110258 9,446.67
110259 7,767.83
110260 34.50
110261 227.52
110262 32,605.65
110263 14,387.61
110264 76.73
110265 137.90
110266 175.00
110267 133.13
110268 143.00
110269 780.00
110270 24.95
110271 631.51
110272 1,132.53
110273 29,480.49
110274 283.53
110275 1,080.00
110276 350.00
110277 355.00
110278 308.86
110279 70,176.50
110280 2,202.45
110281 15.89
110282 300.00
110283 11.36
110284 740.04
110285 220,016.81
110286 1,998.00
110287 1,075.00
110288 106.49
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/21/2004 15
Check History
10/25/04 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR
BAIqK CHECKING ACCOI/NT
FAUST/JIM
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO
GORDON/DENISE
KLOIBER, JOSEPH
LANGE, CAR, NAV
METROCALL - ATT MESSAGIN
MN DEPART OF ECONOMIC SE
MN REC & PK ASSOC MRP
MURRAY/ADREY
NOVA/MAGDALENA
PETTY CASH - KAREN MOELL
PLUNKETT' S, INC
PURTLE / DAVID
QWEST COMM]/NI CATIONS
SAM ' S CLUB
SHIVERS/TIM
TAYLOR/KEN
TOP-USA CORPORATION
WARSAME/ALI
XCEL ENERGY (N S P)
ACE HARDWARE
ADI -ADEMCO DISTRIBUTION
AID ELECTRIC SERVICE INC
· ~ AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC
~ AMERIPRIDE
00 ANOKA COUNTY ATTORNEY
ANOKA COUNTY LIBP~ARY
ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY RE
ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFFS DE
ANOKA CTY - CENTP~AL COMM
ASPEN MILLS, INC.
ATLAS AUTO BODY
BAKER & TAYLOR
BALDINGER/WENDY
BARNA GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTE
BOOK WHOLESALERS INC
BRODART
BUILDING FASTENERS
CAPITOL FURNITURE SALES
CARTE GP~APH SYSTEMS
CATCO PARTS SERVICE
CENTER POINT ENERGY
C I TY PAGE S
COLUMBIA HGTS-FRIDLEY KI
CSC CREDIT SERVICES
CULL I GAN
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 2
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
110289 13
110290 165
110291 70
110292 203
110293 80
110294 14
110295 3,856
110296 300
110297 120
110298 20
110299 196
110300 179
110301 1,242
110302 848
110303 78
110304 281
110305 7
110306 400
110307 20
110308 9,409
110309 20
110310 334
110311 125
110312 81
110313 106
110314 139
110315 2,698
110316 225
110317 106
110318 1,112
t10319 30
110320 1,000
110321 1,089
110322 185
110323 13,592
110324 63
110325 122
110326 225
110327 83
110328 398
110329 2,200
110330 378
110331 23
110332 900
110333 501
110334 25
110335 444
.00
.94
.00
.00
.97
.60
.69
.00
.96
.45
.47
.34
.00
.63
25
50
00
94
00
24
61
36
05
90
53
8O
64
00
50
00
00
00
83
00
00
59
42
40
99
31
00
45
12
00
34
00
O6
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/21/2004 15
Check History
10/25/04 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR
BANK CHECKING ACCOUAIT
CURTIS 1000
DAVES SPORT SHOP
DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT C
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS
DPMS
EASTMAN KODAK
EHLER & ASSOCIATE-PUBLIC
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO.
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
FRIDLEY-COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
G & K SERVICES
GALE GROUP/THE
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO
GILLUND ENTERPRISES
GIS RANGERS
GOLDSTEIN/J-JLIE
GOODIN CO.
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC
GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING
H.W. WILSON CO.
HACH COMPANY
HEINRICH ElCVELOPE CORP
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP
· ~ HONEYWELL INC
O~ HOUCHEN BINDERY LTD
%O HYDR3kNT SPECIALIST
IKON OFFICE SOLUTION
INSTRUMENT CONTROL SYSTE
INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH IN
INTOXIMETER INC
IPC PRINTING
JINDRA/PATRICIA
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
KROMER COMPAN~
MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT CO.
MAYER DISTRIBUTING, INC
MCCLELLAN SALES
MEDTOX LABORATORIES INC
MENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-F
METRO FIRE
METRO GARAGE DOOR
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WAS
MIDWAY FORD
MIDWEST ASPHALT CO.
MINITEX - ATTN MARY GARC
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
MINNEAPOLIS SAW CO.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 3
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
110336
110337
110338
110339
110340
110341
110342
110343
110344
110345
110346
110347
110348
110349
110350
110351
110352
110353
110354
110355
110356
110357
110358
110359
110360
110361
110362
110363
110364
110365
110366
110367
110368
110369
110370
110371
110372
110373
110374
110375
110376
110377
110378
110379
110380
110381
110382
450 90
123 01
722 18
51 26
1,111 18
963 00
3,737 50
151 98
221 95
501 35
1,140 98
2,068 93
291 31
64 16
7,339 50
165 00
385 81
110 00
655 29
378 00
397 90
111 30
337 50
17,355 50
213.65
85.00
238.47
21,617.41
731.65
42.60
26.63
35.00
6,779.74
263.54
44.12
294.41
31.95
115.50
458.74
91.60
274.50
63,721.47
864.05
213,154.83
734.00
70,849.44
63.76
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/21/2004 15
BANK VENDOR
B~2qK CHECKING ACCOUNT
Check History
10/25/04 COUNCIL LISTING
CHECKNI3qVfBER
MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRA~IO
MOORE MEDICAL CORP
MTI DISTRIBUTING
MYAS - MN/AAU
NFPA INTErnATIONAL
O'GARA/ANDREW
OFFICE DEPOT
ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY
PEPSI-COLA-7 UP
POLYLINE CORPORATION
POSITIVE PROMOTIONS
PREMIUM WATERS INC
ROT0-ROOTER
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP
STATE TREASURERS OFFICE
SUN PUBLICATION
SUPERIOR FORD INC.
SWEENEY BROTHERS
TIGER OA/~ PUBLICATIONS,
TOMARK SPORTS
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
UNITED RENTALS
VERIZON WIRELESS
WW GRAINGER, INC
XCEL ENERGY (N S P)
ZA~HL EQUIPMENT
ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS, INC
3M
110383
110384
110385
110386
110387
110388
110389
110390
110391
110392
110393
110394
110395
110396
110397
110398
110399
110400
110401
110402
110403
110404
110405
110406
110407
110408
110409
110410
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 4
AMOUNT
37.00
123.04
193.74
850.00
232.10
55.00
1,104.84
80.70
486.00
97.51
123.28
19.30
298.60
214 62
69 90
832 15
41,190 00
1,810 50
150 00
41 50
38 00
530 03
10 28
281 42
69 01
66 87
264 12
470 00
932,744.44 ***
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/21/2004 15 Check History GL540R-V06.60 PAGE 5
10/25/04 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR
REPORT TOTALS:
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
932,744.44
RECORDS PRINTED - 000743
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/21/2004 15:32:47
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION
101
201
240
250
261
265
276
415
420
431
601
602
603
604
609
652
701
720
884
885
rr'.~...~PAL J:~L FUNDS
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
GENERAL
COMMI/NITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
LIBP~ARY
COL HGHTS AFTER SCHOOL ENRI
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY GRANT
CONFISCATED/FORFEITED PROP
LOCAL LAW ENFORCE BLK GRANT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT -PIR
CAP IMPROVEMENT-DEVELOPMENT
CAP EQUIP REPLACE-GENERAL
WATER UTILITY
SEWER UTILITY
REFUSE FUND
STORM SEWER UTILITY
LIQUOR
SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
CENTRAL GAP, AGE
DATA PROCESSING
INSURANCE
ESCROW
TOTAL ALL BANKS
Check History
DISBURSEMENTS
56,932.41
2,134.68
10,673.43
7.00
1,435.00
544.06
1,!1t.18
214,486.73
82,375.25
43,000.50
74,016.33
64,425.10
655.29
35.10
122,214.04
21,617.41
7,199.63
1,661.26
t,000.00
227,220.04
932,744.44
DISBURSEMENTS
932,744.44
932,744.44
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL060S-V06.60 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINAT/NG DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: [9 A Colmnunity Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004-55, Adopting BY: Randy Schm-nacher BY:j~.
a Modification to the Downtown Central DATE: October 20, 2004
Business District (CBD) Revitalization Plan
for the CBD Redevelopment Project mad
/
Establishing the Huset Park Area TIF District
and TIF Plma
BACKGROUND:
Tlfis is a continuation of a public heating held on September 27, 2004. The purpose of this hearing is
to take public input on the proposed modification to the Dovcntown Revitalization Plan for the CBD
Redevelopment project and establistnnent of the Huset Park Tax hlcrement Financing Plan. The
increment created would be used for the purpose of encouraging the developlnent mad redevelopment
of certain designated areas within the City.
The City's financial consultant will be present to review the Tax lalcrement Financing Plan being
proposed and answer any questions of the City Council.
**NOTE: PLEASE USE THE TIF PLAN FROM YOUR EDA PACKET.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecormnends Adoption of Resolution 2004-55, Adopting a
Modification to the Downtown Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project and
Establishment of the Huset Park Area TIF District and TIF Plan.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-55, there being an
mnple mount of copies available to the pnbhc.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-55, Adopting a Modification to the
Downtown Central Business District [CBD) Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project
and Establishing the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District therein and Adopting a Tax
Increment Finmlcing Plan therefore.
COUNCIL ACTION:
h:~CL Consent2004\CL Res.2004-55 Huset Pk TIF and Plan
P. 73
CITY OF COLUMBIA I~EIGHTS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE DOWNTOWN
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR THE
CBD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ESTABLISHING TraP, HUSET PARK
AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING
A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN TH-EREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Cotmcil (the "Council") of the City of Columbia Heights,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Connazissioners (the "Board") of the Columbia Heights Economic
Development Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established the CBD Redevelopment Project (the
"Project Area") and adopted the DoWntown CBD Revitalization Plan therefor. It has been proposed by
the EDA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for
the Project (the "Project Plan Modification") and establish the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing
District (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the
Project Plan Modification mad the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant
to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047,
Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act")
all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans to be
prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
establisbanent of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not
limited to, notification of Anoka County and Independent School District No. 13 having taxing
jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and wTitten comment on the Plans
by the City Planning Connrfission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required
by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council
and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include data, information
and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in
tbfis resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, wl~ich are hereby
incorporated into and made as fully a part of tkis resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein.
SJB-253434vl P. 7 4
CL205-23
1.05 The City is not modifying the bom~dmfes of the Project, but makes specific findings as
further deschbed in this resolution regarding the conditions of the area within the Project that m-e the
boundaries of the proposed T[F District.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption of the Project Plan Modification.
2.01. The Council finds that the portion of the Project Area encompassed by the boundaries of
the T[F District constitute a "blighted area" within the meaning of Mirmesota Statues, Section 469.002,
Subd. 11.
2.02. The Council fm-ther finds that acquisition, clearance, and related activities to redevelop
the TIF District portion of the Project Area, all in accordance with the Project Plan and the TI:F Plan,
constitute a "redevelopment project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statues, Section 469.002, Subd.
14.
2.03. The Council fm-ther finds, declares and detem~ines that the City made the above £mdings
stated in this Section based on the supporting facts described in Exhibit B.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Huset Park ga'ea Tax Increment Financing District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment
district" under Mirmesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd 10(a)(1).
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable futm'e and that the increased market value of
the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be
less than the increase in the market value estimated to result fi'om the proposed development after
subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District
perm/Red by the TEF Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by
private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and detem~ines that the City made the above findings
stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. The City elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, which means the fiscal disparities contribution
would be taken from outside the District.
Section 4. Public Pm-pose
4.01. The Council finds that adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements
of the Act and will help fulfill a need to redevelop a portion of the Project Area that is characterized by
blight, occupied by substandard buildings, and contaminated with pollutants; and that the financial
assistance described in the TIF Plan will revitalize this area, significantly expand the amount and variety
of housing stock in the City, and expand the tax base; and that, because these benefits would not accrue
without the assistance provided, any benefits received by private redevelopers are incidental to the
broader benefits achieved by the overall redevelopment of the TIF Disttfct.
SJB~253434vl P. 7 5
CL205-23
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without li~rdtation the
findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and
adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the EDA.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to tlfis Council
for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this pm-pose.
5.03 The Auditor of Anoka County (the "Auditor") is requested to certify the original net tax
capacity of the District, as described in the TIF Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by
which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City is authorized and directed to
forthwith trans~rfit this request to the Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify,
together with a list of all properties within the District, for wlfich building permits have been issued
during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Executive Director of the EDA is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the
Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
469.175, Subd. 4a.
OFFERED BY:
SECOND BY:
ROLL CALL:
ATTESTED:
Dated: October 25, 2004
Julienne Wyckoff, Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
(Seal)
SJB-253434vl P. 7 6
CL205-23
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
Finding that the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. lO(a)(1).
The District consists of 12 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for a mixed-use development
consisting of housing and a neighborhood retail office development. At least 70 percent of the area
in the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots
or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including
outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance
(See Appendix F of the TIF Plan)
Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and
that the increased market value of the site that could reason, ably be expected to occur without the use
of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the marlcet vahte estimated to result
fi'om the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments
for the maximum duration of the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District pe~w~itted by the
TIF Plan:
The proposed development consists of a mixed-use development consisting of up to 559 units of
owner-occupied housing and a neighborhood retail office development in the City of Columbia
Heights. This area is occupied by 15 parcels, which requires acquisition, enviromnental remediation,
and demolition and relocation to permit the proposed development. Cun'ent estimates for
enviromnental clean-up of the area are over $4,650,000. It is not likely that any new development on
this site is feasible without significant enviromnental remediation. A grant of $1,300,000 of State
and Metropolitan funds has been secured for the project, but it is not known if future grants will be
awarded. The grant was awarded only because of a comprehensive redevelopment plan, which is
feasible only with fin'ther assistance of tax increment. In addition to the costs of remediation, the
land acquisition costs and site preparation is expected to be over $13,000,000. Without any public
assistance, the cost of raw land (prior to internal streets, utilities, SAC/WAC, lm~dscaping, etc) per
unit of housing is estimated to be over $31,000. The proposed sales prices of the units are expected
to be $200,000 to $275,000, which is too low to support significant raw land prices.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of
tax increment ftnancing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the
,~,.,~,,,~d development aft~.r sub_O'acting the present value of the orojected tax increments for the
maxi~num duration of the T£F District permitted by the TIF Plan:
It is not likely that any new development on this site is feasible without significant envh'onmental
remediation. Only small portions of the site are not affected by soil contamination and the new
development on the site would be sporadic and less thm~ $10,000,000. For taxes payable in 2005, the
County assessors has decreased the estimated market value on the parcels in the District by
approximately $2,300,000 due to the enviromnental conditions. The site had previously been in a
SJB-253434vl P. 7 7
CL205-23
TIF district since 1989 and has seen only one piece of property develop, even with public assistance.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is less than $10,000,000.
If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in
the District, the total increase in market value ~vould be up to $121,351,950. (See
Appendix G in the TIF Plan.)
The present value of tax increments fi'om the District for the maxilnUlrt duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $13,937,075. (See Appendix G in
the TIF Plan.)
Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds
that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$107,414,875 (the amount h~ clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance.
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing
DisO'ict conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a
whole.
The Plmming Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan confornas to the
general development plan, as amended by the City Council on August 9, 2004, of the City.
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing
District will afford maximum opportuni~, consistent with the sound needs of the Ci~ as a whole, for
the development °r redevelopment of the CBD Redevelopment Project by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax
base, the redevelopment of substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City.
SJB-253434vl P. 7 8
CL205-23
EXHI~IT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55
The findings described in Section 2 of the Resolution regarding blighted conditions are supported by the
following analysis and studies:
1. City of Columbia Heights Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan, November 2003. See especially
Chapter 8, describing blighted conditions.
2. Letter fi'om Rusty Fiefield, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. to City of Columbia Heights dated
September 21, 2004, summarizing blight findings.
Redevelopment Eligibility Assessments prepared by Short Elliot Hendrickson, summarized in
Appendix F of the TIF Plan. These reports conclude that 10 of 12 buildings in the enth'e TIF District
are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, for the pm-poses
of qualification of the area as a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The analysis ha the
SEH reports also supports the conclusion that most of the buildings in tkis portion of the Project Area
are dilapidated and obsolete, which are elements of blight.
SJB-253434vl P. 7 9
CL205-23
EHLERS
ASSOCIATES INC
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of Columbia Heights
The Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these
topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan.
Proposed action:
Elimination of "Knocked Down" parcels from the Columbia Heights Tlh 4
Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) TaX Increment Financing District
(County Identifier 1<22).
Establishment of the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District
(District) and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. (TIF Plan)
Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD)
Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project. (This modification
represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the
Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project.
Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the District.)
Type of TIF District: A redevelopment district
Parcel Numbers*: 35-30-24-34-0013
35-30-24-34-0014
35-30-24-34-0040
35-30-24-43-0060
35-30-24-43-0047
35-30-24-34-0035
35-30-24-34-0039
35-30-24-34-0024
35-30-24-34-0041
35-30-24-34-0003
35-30-24-34-0004
35-30-24-34-0002
*All - -~- "~--~'-o~ ..... ~ *'~; .......... a bom ColumJoia
Heights TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) TIF District
County Identifier K2.
P. 80
TIF District Overview
Proposed
Development:
The TIF District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the
Columbia Heights Industrial Park into a mixed use development consisting of
up to 559 units of owner-occupied housing and a neighborhood retail office
development in the City of Columbia Heights. In order to establish the
District for this project, certain parcels of land must be removed from
Columbia Heights TIF District County Identifier K2.
The City conducted a public participation planning process in 2003, led by
Hoisington Koegler. The study determined that there was more than adequate
demand and public acceptance of higher density owner-occupied housing as a
replacement for the fonuer industrial park uses. The redevelopment would
only be feasible with public assistance for both the significant envirmunental
costs and high costs of acquisition and demolition.
The City also conm~fissioned Pro-Source, an environn~ental engineering fim~,
to conduct an assessment of the cost of remediation of polluted soils,
buildings, and grom~dwater. The estimate from Pro Source is $4,652,000.
The City applied and received a grant of $1,300,000 in 2004 from the
Metropolitan Council and the State of Minnesota for the pollution clean'UP
associated with the first phase of development. The estimated cost of
environmental remediation for the first phase is $1,900,000.
The developer of the project is expected to be Schafer-Richardson, which
cm-rently owns one of the large conzrnercial buildings on site. Schafer-
Richardson is experienced in the construction of condominium buildings in
the Minneapolis area. Portion of the project may be sold to a townhome
developer and senior housing developer.
Maximum duration:
The duration of the District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the
first increment (26 years of increment). The date of receipt of the first tax
increment is expected to be 2007. Thus, it is estimated that the District,
including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other
changes, would terminate after 2032, or when the Tn~ Plan is satisfied
Estimated annual tax
increment: Up to $1,679,370
Proposed uses: The TIt; Plan contains the following budget:
Land/Building Acquisition ................................................. $5,400,000
Site huprovements/Preparation/Enviromuental .................. $6,000,000
Public Utilities .................................................................... $1,000,000
Streets and Sidewalks ......................................................... $1,000,000
Interest .............................................................................. $19,500,000
Administrative Costs (up to
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ........................................... $36.500.000
See Subsection 2-10, page 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized which include inter-
fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness.
Form of final~cing: The project will be financed primarily through a pay-as-you-go note where the
developer will up-front the costs and be reimbursed over time.
Parle 2
~"~; EHLERS
TIF District Overview
Fiscal Disparities The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a (outside the
Election: District).
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of armual increment, if costs are justified.
Interfund Loan If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax increment
Requ/rement: fund, it is recmrm~ended that a resolution authorizing a loan from another fund
be passed PR[OR to the issuance of the check.
3 Year Activity Rule
(~469. ! 76 Subd. la)
At least one of the following activities must take place in the District within 3
years from the date of certification:
· Bonds have been issued
The authority has acqn/red property within the district
· The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public
improvements within the dislrict
· The estimated date whereby tlzis activity must take place is October 2007.
4 Year Activity Rule
(3~ 469.176 Subd 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been conm~enced on each parcel in the District:
· Demolition
Rehabilitation
· Renovation
· Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
· If the activity has not been started by approximately October 2008, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the
commencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(3~ 469.1763 $ubd 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be
expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are considered to have
been expended on an activity within the District if one of the following
OCCurS:
The revenues are actually paid to a tlr/rd party with respect to the activity
Bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to £mance the activity, are
issued and sold to a th/rd pmx'y, the revenues are spent to repay the bonds,
and the proceeds of the bonds either are reasonably expected to be spent
before the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable
temporary period witltin the meaning of the use of that tem~ under §.
148(c)(1) of the la~ternal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably
required reserve or replacement fund
· Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the
activity and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation
· Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are spent to
reimburse for payment of the costs, including interest on unreimbursed
costs.
approxin~ately October 2009, will not be eligible Ibr repayment from tax
increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing Dis~-ict, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175,
Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit A of the resolution.
Page 3
P. 82
EHLERS_
TIF District Overview
MAPS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND THE HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Huset Park Area
Tax Increment Financing District
Central Business District Redevelopment Project
City of Columbia Heights
Anoka County, Minnesota
Legend
Central Business District Redevelopment Project
~ Huset Park Area
The boundaries of the Central Business
District Redevelopment Project are
coterminous With the corporate limits of
the City of Columbia Heights.
Page 4
P. 83
~ EHL_..E.RS.
TIF District Overview
SI:. NE
38th Ave. NE
37th Ave. NE
39th
38th Ave. NE
TIF Plan Boundaries
Industrial Park Redevelopment Area
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
N
0 300 Feet &
3O0
Page 5
~'~ EHLERS
MODIFICATION TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
and the
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
THE HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
within
THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
II
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing:
Public Hearing Continued:
Public Heating Continued:
Public Hearing Continued:
Adopted:
August 9, 2004
September 13, 2004
September 27, 2004
October 25, 2004
O LE RS
OCIATES lng
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I
MODIFICATION TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REVITALIZA TION
PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT... 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. '1-1
Overview ............................................................. '1-t
Findings ............................................................. 1-1
SECTION II
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ................. 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword .............................................. 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority .... .................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan Overview .................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District ................................ 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District .................................... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 2-5
Subsection 2-10.
Subsection 2-11.
Subsection 2-12.
Subsection 2-13.
Subsection 2-14.
Subsection 2-15.
Subsection 2-16.
Subsection 2-17.
Subsection 2-18.
Sdb~ection 2-19.
Subsection 2-20.
Subsection 2-21.
Subsection 2-22.
Subsection 2-23.
Subsection 2-24.
Subsection 2-25.
Subsigction 2-26.
Subsection 2-27.
Subsection 2-28.
Uses of Funds .......................................... 2-6
Fiscal Disparities Election ................................. 2-7
Business Subsidies ...................................... 2-7
County Road Costs ...................... ................ 2-8
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................ 2-9
Supporting Documentation ................................. 2-9
Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-!0
Modifications to the District ............................... 2-10
Administrative Expenses ................................. 2-11
Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-11
Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-12
Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13
Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-13
Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14
Administration of the District ............................... 2-14
Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14
Reasonable Expectations ................................ 2-14
Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2-14
Summary ............................................. 2-15
APPENDIX A
rr~k../dr'k.,~ I U~ogRIr I Igl~
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF THE CBD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND THE HUSET PARK AREA TIF DISTRICT ......... . ...................... B-1
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ............. C-1
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT .............................. D-1
APPENDlY~ E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ............................... E-1
APPENDIX F
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT .................... F-1
APPENDIX G
BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. G-1
SECTION I
MODIFICATION TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS D/STRICT REVITALIZA T/ON
PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS D/STRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Downtown Central Business District (CBD)
Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project. This modification represents a continuation of the
goals and objectives set forth in the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment
Project. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Huset Park Area Tax Increment
Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment
Project is recommended. It is available from the Comm]mity Development Director at the City of Columbia
Heights. Other relevant information is contained irt the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within the Central Bush/ess D/strict (CBD) Redevelopment Project.
Overview
The Central Business District ("CDB") Redevelopment Project is administered by the Columbia Heights
Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"). Previously, the CBD Redevelopment Project was
established and administered by the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") and the Columbia Heights
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA").
The CBD Redevelopment Project previously includedproperty in the downtown area. On July 18, 1994, the
Sheffield Neighborhood Redevelopment and Housing Development Project was consolidated with the CBD
Redevelopment Project by the HRA. On January 8, 1996, the HRA transferred its authority to the EDA,
which currently adm/nisters the CDB Redevelopment Project.
On May 27, 1997, the CBD Redevelopment Project was mod/fled to expand the project area to include the
entire City. Concurrently, Housing Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 ("District No.
1") within the CBD Redevelopment Project was established. As District No. 1 is a scattered site
redevelopment tax increment financing d/strict, the property to be included in District No. 1 is found
throughout the City, thus necessitating the expansion of the boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project.
The boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project are coterminous with the corporate limits of the City.
A map of the boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project can be found in Appendix B.
Findings,
Upon approval of this Modification, the EDA and City will find that the portion of the Redevelopment
Project to be designated as the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District is characterized by blight,
as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047.
Columbia Heights Economic Development AUthority Mod/ficat/on to the Downtown CBD Revitalizat/on Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project i-1
SECTION II
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
HUSET PARK AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The Cob]mhia Heights Economic Development Authority (the 'lEDA"), the City of Columbia Heights (the
"City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following in_formation to expedite the establishment of the
Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing
d/strict, located in the Central Business District Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
,gtamtes ("M.S.'9, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section conta/us the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the Huset Park Area Tax
Increment Financing District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Downtown
CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of 12 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way and abutting
roadways. The District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the Columbia Heights Industrial
Park into a mixed-use development consisting of up to 559 units of owner-occupied housing and a
neighborhood retail office development in the City of Columbia Heights. In order to establish the District
for this project, certain parcels of land must be eliminated from Columbia Heights MURP TIF Dish'-ict
County Identifier K2. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this TIF
Plan, but development is 1/kely to occur in the sphng of 2005. This TIF Plan is expected to ach/eve many
of the objectives outlined in the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan and the TIF Plan
do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities
are anticipated to occur over the life of the CBD Redevelopment Project and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further descn~bed in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other re!~ant state ~.d federal
o
Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment F/nancing Plan for the Huset Park Ama Tax lncremmt Financing District 2-1
The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the
District.
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent fights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels* listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District.
Parcel Numbers*
35-30-24-34-0013
35-30-24-34-0014
35-30-24-34-0040
35-30-24-43-0060
35-3 0-24-43-0047
35-30-24-34-0035
35-30-24-34-0039
35-30-24-34-0024
35-30-24-34-0041
35-30-24-34-0003
35-30-24-34-0004
35-30-24-34-0002
*All parcels are "Knocked Down" parcels being removed
from Columbia Heights TIF 4 Multi Plan Cargill (MURP)
TIF District County Identifier 1<22.
The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street fights of
way, or reimburse developers for the cost of such acquisition. Any properties identified for acquisition will
be acqu/red by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan.
The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, conde,,,ation or dkect purchase from willing
sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when
there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in detexmining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. lO(a)(1) as definedbelow:
"Redevelopment district"means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
parcels consisting of 7Opercent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
us~.d rai! yards, rail storage facilities or excessh,e or vacated ~,;~,,~a ~;,t,,~ ~r_ .......
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as
defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
Columbia He/ghts Economic Development AUthority Tax Increment Financ/ng Phm for the Huset Park Ama Tax lnormnont Financing District 2-2
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii,) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
12seal; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. lOb.
For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the buildingcode applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new s~ructure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipalityfinds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the
request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
the substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or
removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development
agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the
authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and
upon filing the request for cerafication of the tax capacity of the parcel as part ora district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by ~ 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (/).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
09
For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
[] The District consists of 12 parcels.
[] An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
[] An inspection of the buildings located with/n the District finds that more than 50 percent of the build/ngs
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified
under the provisions ofM. S 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five
calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District
Pursuant toM. S, Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the D/strict must
be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District
will be 25 years after rece/pt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment).
The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2007. Thus, it is est/mated that
the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would
terminate after 2032, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2006, the term of the
District will be 2031. The EDA or City reserves the right to decerfify the District prior to the legally required
date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e) and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. /,the Original Net Tax
Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by
the assessor for taxes payable in 2005.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2005) the amount by wkich the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. R,eduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in urh~t-h the cra-rent Net Tax Capacity ¢!TC) ,To~ .... ,' ~h~ r~;~, .~,:~.~ ,.o,~... ,~.~ ,-,N l ~.,
no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2005, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2005. The estimated ONTC and the estimated Original
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for thc Husot Park Area Tax Increment Financing Distr/c t 24
Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. (The Original Local Tax Rate shown is for Pay
2004, as the rate for Pay 2005 was unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepare&)
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
CapturedNet Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the CBD Redevelopment Project, upon completion
of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and
City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current
expenditures, be~nning in the tax year payable 2007. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate
of values when the project is completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)
$1,570,073
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
$42,345
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
$1,527,728
Original Local Tax Rate
1.09926 Pay2004
Estimated Annual Tax Increment(CTC x Local Tax Rate)
$1,679,370
Percent Retained by the EDA
100%
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
build/ng permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Planby the municipality pursuant toM. S, Section 469.175, Subd. 3..The County Auditor shallincrease
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of irr~ rovements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and determined that no building permits
have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TiF Plan by the City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness
All costs outlined in Subsection 2-10, the Uses of Funds, will be financed primarily through the annual
collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally ap-
plicable to the EDA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general
property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other
contn'butions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by primarily by a pay-as-you-go note where the
developer will up-front the costs and be reimbursed over time. The City and EDA may issue general
obligation (GO) TH Bonds or inter-fund loans for public improvements associated with the project.
Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal ammmt
,,x ou,~ucu -xuco,cuucss, atcmum~ a ~ T~' bond, pay-as-you-go note, or omer maeoreaness related to the
use of tax increment financing will not exceed $15,000,000 without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant
to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that $315,000 in interest income will be financed with
tax increment revenues.
Columbia tteights Ecrmomic Developmcmt Authority Tax Increment Financlag Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financiug District 2-5
This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur
other debt only upon the determ;nafion that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below.
' SOURCES OF FUNDS
Tax Increment
Interest
PROJECT REVENUES
TOTAL
$36,185,000
$315,000
$36?500?000
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of the Cob]mhia
Heights Industrial Park into a mixed-usc development consisting of up to 559 units of owner-occupied
housing and a neighborhood retail office development. The EDA and City have deteimined that it will be
necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the
development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and
development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing
to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated
with the District, and expected to be paid with tax increments, is outlined in the following table.
USES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition
Site Improvements/Preparation/Environmental
Public Utilities
Streets and Sidewalks
Interest
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
$5,400,000
$6,000, OOO
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$19,500,000
$3,60O,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $36,500,000
The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms.
It is estirr~, ted that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or
financed with tax increments, will equal $36,500,000 as is presented in the budget above.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to 3.~S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percee~ of the tax increment paid by prop ,ert-,y witk~ the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of the CBD Redevelopment Project, (including administrative costs, which are considered
to be spent outside of the D/strict) subject to the limitations as descn'bed in this TIF Plan.
Columbia Heights Bconomic Development AUthority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing Dishlct 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469. t 77, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
The original net tax capacity and 'the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the
application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Where the original net
tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax
capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than
the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current
net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which
the authority has designated, in its tax increment financingplan, to share with the local taxing
districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
The county auditor shall exclude the retainbd captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated
by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local
tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the
authority.
The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2.'12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $25~000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contam/nants as defined in M.S. Section 116J. 552, Subd. 3;
(si,_,Assistance prodded .v.~',,,' the sole pm-pose of r~ova~ng old ..... ,-,, a .... .v,~,~"~ ,..a.~,~,,~,~,~ ..... ot~,~- w~ u..:~.~o~,~,r=,~
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services ff the sole purpose of the assistance is
to provide those services;
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for thc Huset Park Area Tax Increment Fiatmciag Dis~ct 2-7
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement,/nclud/ng assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistdct as defined under M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
Assistance for energy conservation;
Tax reductions result/ng from conformity with federal tax lave,
Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
Benefits derived from regulation;
Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstand/ng bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization de. sm'bed in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Ass/stance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education iusfimfion and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S. Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's cu/rent year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature.
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repa/d to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharfb~mds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of ComJ:,erce, Economic
Development Admini.qtratiorr
The EDA will comply with M.S., Section 116J.993 to 116J. 994 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2.13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. Ia, the county board may requ/re the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road/mprovements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
developm ,e?t outlined in this TIF Plan will liave little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public heating.
Columbia Hclghts Economic Development AUthority Tax lncrmncnt Fiu~ncing Plan for tho Husct Park Area Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated h,,l,act on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the T1F
Plan would occur without the creation of the D/strict. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur '"out for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other tax/ng jurisdictions/s $0. The est/mated fiscal impact of the D/strict would be as
follows if the '"out for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Anoka County
City of Coh]mhia Heights
Columbia Heights ISD No. 13
2003/2004 Estimated Captured
Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC
Tax Capacity_ Upon Completion to Entity Total
200,134,542 1,527,728 0.7634%
9,231,547 1,527,728 16.5490%
13,316,873 1,527,728 11.4721%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Anoka County
City of Col~rmbia Heights
Columbia Heights ISD No. 13
Other (Met, ItRA, Rail, Radio)
Total
2003/2004 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC. Taxes
0.327220 29.770/0 1,527,728 499,903
0.478880 43.56% 1,527,728 731,598
0.229160 20.850/0 1,527,728 350,094
0.064000 5.82% !,527,728 97,775
1.099260 100.00% !~679~370
The est/mates l/sted above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual 2003/Pay 2004 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on actual Pay 2004 figures. The D/strict will be certified under the actual 2004/Pay 2005 rates, which
were unavailable at the t/me this TIF Plan was prepared.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant t,o M.S. Seca'on 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Seca'on 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2)
and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district. Following is a 1/st of reports and
studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings:
1. City of Columbia Heights Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan, Ho/sing, ton Koegler Group, Nov.
2003
2. Phase II Investigation Report/Focus Feasibility Study/Response Action Plan prepared by ProSource
and dated October 9, 2003
Columbia Heights Economic Deveiopmeat Authority Tax hcremeat Financing Plan for the Husct Park Area Tax hcremont Financing District 2-9
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the capturednet tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intanD'ole, purchased by the Authority
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax
increments; and
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M. S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4; any:
1. Reduction or enlargern~t of the geographic area of the CBD Redevelopment Project or the District,
if the reduction does not meet the requirements ofM. S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(0;
2. Increase in mount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the est/mate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that w/ll be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Pla~
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 409, the geographic area of the DisWict may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the orighal net tax capacity by the
county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination
that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 1 O, paragraph (a), clauses
(1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retaine& The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if
(1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the CBD Redevelopment Project or the District and
(2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax
capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that,
notwithst ~a~ding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than
the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District.
The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of the CBD Redevelopment Project or the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget
modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
Columbia Heights Economic Development AUthority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ltuset Park Ama Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance withM. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, admini.~trative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amgunts paid for the purchase oflancl;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
project;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
project; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligat/ons to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs descn"oed in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
administrative expenses also include mounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax
increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up
to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures anthorized by the TIF Plan
or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the D/strict,
whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. !1, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment d/sm"outed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor
for the cost of financial rq~orting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and
auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the
Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2.19. Limitation of Increment
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. Ia, no tax increment shall be paid to the EDA or City for the
District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the
taxable prbperty in the District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period:
(1) Bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the District pursuant to M.S., Section
469.178, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152
to 469.165, or
(2) The EDA or City has acquired property within the District, or
(3) The EDA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within
the D/strict.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ttuset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
The bonds rm].qt be issued, or the EDA or City must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately August, 2007 and report such actions to the County
Auditor.
The tax incremmt pledged to the payment of bonds and/nterest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be teiminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fired or other
escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity
or redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6'.
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment
financing districtpursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of
property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel
but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a
parcel located within a tax increment financihg district by the authority or by the owner of the
parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be
taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be exchtded from the
original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district, If the authority or the owner of the
parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation
on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance
with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the
activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the
tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision.
The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place
for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifih
year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes
of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of
a newstreet, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing
street
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately August,
2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the CBD Redevelopment Project pursuant
to theM. S, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other pmrposes as provided in.~S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of the CBD Redevelopment Project by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
Columbia Heights Ec onomio Development Authority Tax tncremmt Financing ?lan for the Huset park Area Tax hcrement Financing Dis~ct 2-12
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M. S., Sections 469.178; and
To acc-rm~late or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levY limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469. i76, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Anoka County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment fimds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent).and the costs of public improvement activities
outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TII~ Plan
in order to finance additional public costs in the CBD Redevelopment Project or the District.
Subsection 2=22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate th/s
effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction,
mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage
system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the
conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the
Agreements to address other issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
fromproperty acquiredis pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or Ci_ty concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property_ acquired and which
provides recourse for *~'~ ~' ^ City ~'~"'~ *~ ~ ~ ~'~-- * - "- ' ...... '~ ~'~
.~ ~ or ~umu u,w ucvw~upmem or leucve~opmen, l~ut uc COmlJ,Ctcu,
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority Tax lncremant Financing Plan for the Husct Park Ama Tax hcmmont Financing Dis~c~ 2-13
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreem~t
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minirr,~m market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the i,,l, rovements
to be constructed, review the market value Previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minirm~m market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director of the EDA.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and
School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an
annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S. Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distn~bution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the proposed
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market
value est/mated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the max/mum duration of the District permitted by the TI1~ Plan. The factual basis for this
fmding is sum~mrized in Appendix G, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the
proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent
the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments.
Subsect!on 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Pla~ The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the CBD
Redevelopment Project pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be
used to circumvent existing levy. limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
t;ul~u u~uu~ l~u~r*tuu-t~ uper~uu~ or ~u~en~J~e of a um~u~u~ ~u u~ us~u iJ~ -,,~,
al~u ~cg[iia~iy ~u~
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal govermnent. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
Columbia Heights Economic Development AUthority Tax Increment Fhaancing Plan for the Huset P a~k Area Tax hcrmnent Financing District 2-14
Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the D/strict or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or othenvise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the' D/strict.
Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increment.q. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been sat/stied; and beg/nning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M. S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
Redevelopment District. At least 90 percenf of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district mn~t be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment andrenewal andrenovafion districts under M.S., Section 469.176Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utihties, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance
the tax base, provide life-cycle housing~ redevelop substandard areas, and provide emplosamnt opportunities
in the City. The T[F Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe
Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
Columbia Heights Economic Development AUthority Tax lncremont Financing Plan for the Huset Park Area Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The TIY District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of the Columbia Heights Industrial Parkinto
a mixed-use.development consisting of up to 559 tm/ts of owner-occupied housing and a neighborhood retail
office development in the City of Columhia'Heights. In order to estabEsh the District for this project, certain
parcels of landmust be removed from Columbia Heights TIF District County Identifier K2.
The City did conduct a public participation planning process in 2003, led by the planning firm Hoisington
Koegler. The study detcn-mined that there was more than adequate demand and public acceptance of higher
density owner-occupied housing as a replacement for the former industrial park uses. The redevelopment
would only be feasl'ble with public assistance for both the significant environmental costs and high costs of
acquisition and demolition.
The City also comrrdssioned Pro-Source, an envir6nmental engineering firm, to conduct an assessment of
the cost of remediation of polluted softs, buildings, and groundwater. The estimate fi:om Pro Source is
$4,652,000. The City applied and did receive a grant of $1,300,000 in 2004 from the Metropolitan Council
and the State of Minnesota for the pollution clean-up associated with the first phase of development. The
estimated cost of environmental remediation for the first phase is $1,900,000.
The developer of the project is expected to be Schafer-Richardson, which currently owns one of the large
commercial buildings on site. Schafer-Richardson is experienced in the construction of condom/nium
buildings in the Minneapolis area. Portion of the project may be sold to a townhome developer and senior
housing developer. The project is expected to be financed with a pay-as-you-go note to be financed by the
developer. The City may cover a portion of adjacent public improvements with tax increments, depending
upon final cost estimates.
APPENDIX A-1
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF THE CBD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND THE HUSET PARK AREA TIF DISTRICT
APPENDIX B-1
Huset Park Area..
Tax Increment: Financing District
A,.~ka:C~Un~i .Minn'.e~ta
Cityof;
Legend
Central Business District Redevelopment ProjeCt
~ Huset Park Area
The boundaries of'the Central Business
DiStrict Redevelopment Project: are
coterminous'with the corporate limits of
the City of Columbia Heights.
38th Ave, NE
137th Ave. NE:
38{h Ave:
TIF Plan Boundariles
Industrial Park.Redevelopment:Area
ColumbiaHeights Minn(eSOta
N
300 0 300 Feet ~
June 29~ 2004
ssorv ar~'3 § § 18/Prpj'i .apr
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent fights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels* listed below.
P arc el Numb ers *
35-30-24-34-0013
35-30-24-34-0014
35-30-24-34-0040
35-30-24-43-0060
Address
519 38th Ave NE
515 38thAve NE
' 550 39thAveNE
600 39th Ave NE
35 -30-24-43-0047 620 39th Ave NE
35-30-24-34-0035 3901 5th St.
35-30-24-34-0039 510 39th Ave NE
35-30-24-34-0024 3801 5th Street NE
35-30-24-34-0041 3800 5th St. NE
35-30-24-34-0003 3700 5th St. NE
35-30-24-34-0004
35-30-24-34-0002
317 37th Ave NE
450 38th Ave NE
*All parcels are "Knocked Down" parcels being removed from
Columbia Heights TIF 4 Multi Plan Cargill (MURP) TIF District
County Identifier K2.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT
APPENDIX D-1
81912004
O
EHLERS
Huset Park Area Redevelopment - Phase
Columbia Heights EDA
District Redevelopment
Distdct #
Inflaflon Rate * EvePy Year 1.0000%
Pay-As-You~Go Intsms{ Rate: 6,5000%
Note Issued Date (Present Value Date): 01-Aug-04
Local Tax Rate - Maximum 109.9260% Pay 2004
Fiscal Dlspadfles EJection (A- outs/de or B - inside) A
Year Distdnt was certified Pay 2004
Assumes First Tax Increment For District 2007
Year District was Modified
Development locatad in modified ama Yes
Assumes First Tax increment For Dev 2007
Yearn of Tax Jnc~rnent 26
Assumes Lost Year of Tax Incrament2032
Fiscal Disparities RaUo 20.9297% Pay 2004
Fiscal Dispadfles Msim Wide Tax Rate 137.t070% Pay 2004
Local Tax Rate - Current 109.9260% Pay 2004
Slate Wide Property Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 54.1090% Pay 2004 Estimate
Market Value Tax Rate (used for Iotal taxes) 0.1020% Pay 2004 Estimate
Commercial Industrial Class Rate 1,5%-2.0% Pay 2003
First 150,000 1.50%
Over 150,000 2.00%
Rental Class Rate 1.25% Pay 2004
Residental Class - Under $500,000 1.00%
Over $500,000 1.25%
I
Page I of 2
Class Rate
Map ID
Totals
Property Prelim. 05Values asA~ter Original
PID Description Estimates for MURP ConvemlonTax Capacity New 05
35-30-24-34-0013 Sl~~Av.N~ 0 100,700 75,100 1.00% 751 28,000
35-00-24-34-0014 51s 3~[h Ave NE 25,200 42,200 1.00% 422 100
35-30-24-34-0040 55039th Ave NE 1,939,000 see 0939 1,00% 0 1,742,000
35-30-24-43-0060 eoo ~m ^v. Ne 232,900 see 0039 1.00% 0 216,900
35-30-24-43-0047 62039ffi Ave NE 168,700 121,000 1.00% 1,210 100
35-30-24~34-0035 ~sm~ 273,900 241,300 0,00% 0 Future Pond 100
35-30-24-34-0038 SlO 39tfl Ava NE 153,800 1,914,3001.00% 19,143 138,900
35-30-24-34-0024 390~ ~ Slr,,~ NE 225,800 171,900 1.00% 1,719 82,700
35-30-24-34-0041 ~COSm St.N~ 1,153,700 975,500 1.00% 9,755 195,800
35-30-24-34-0003 37~ r~sL NE 555,900 630,200 1.00% 6,302 259,500
35-30-24-34-0004 317371h AVe NE 189,500 251,100 1.00% 2,511 100
35-30-2,~34-0002 45o 38thAve NE 127,800 53,200 1.00% 532 t50,300
0 5,156,900 4,475,800
Note: 42,345 2,814,500 I
Origiual values are not based upon payable 2005 values but am based upon original value as certified in the previous MURP district, pursuant to M.S. 409.175, subd. 4(el
· $~
Total Market Value Taxes Per To,al Market Class New
Use Phase
Sq. FtJUnitsSq. FL/Untts Sq. FtJUnitsTaxes
Towahomes 2005 I&ll 88
Townhomes 2006 I&ll 88
Cooperative 2005 I&ll 80
Flats 2005 l&ll 40
Commercial I&ll 11,650
Townhomes 2007 Ill 7
Fiats 2007 Ill 85
Flats 2008 I fl 85
Flats 2009 III 86
TOTAL 559
Value Rate Tax Capacity
230,000.00 2,597,54228,5~. 20,240,000 1.00% 202,400
230,000.00 2,597.54228,584 20,240,000 1.00% 202,400
120,000.00 1,177.14~4,171 9,000,000 1.00% 98,000
230,000.00 2,597.54103,902 9,200,000 1.00%
g2,000
135.00 4.72 54,991 1,572,750 2.00% 31,455
200,000.00 2,210.1615,471 1,400,000 1.00% 14,000
245,000.00 2,791.24237,255 20,825,000 1.00% 208,250
250,000.00 2,855.80242,743 21,250,000 1.00% 212,500
250,000.00 2,855.80245,599 21,500,000 1.00% 215,000
Note:
Assumes bufldou[ over five years (2005 to 2009)
Total Local Fiscal Local
Tax Tax DisparitiesTax
Use Rate
Townhomes 2005 202,400 202,400 0 1.09926
Townhom~s 2006 202,400 202,400 0 1.09926
Cooperative 2005 98,000 96,000 0 1.09926
Flats 2005 92,000 92,000 0 1.09926
Commercial 31,455 24,872 8,583 1.09926
Townhomes 2007 14,000 14,000 0 1.09926
Flats 2007 208,250 208,250 0 1.09926
Flats 2008 212,500 212,500 0 1.09926
Flats 2009 215,000 _215,000 0 1.09926
TOTAL -- 1,267,422 1.06928
Note:
1. Residential do not pay State-wide property tax or Fiscal Dispatities.
I 451,300129,827,750 1,__._.__274,005
Fiscal Local Fiscal state-wide MV Market
Disparities Property Taxes Disparities PropertyHomesteadValue
Tax Rate Tax Rate Taxes Taxes Credit Taxes
222,490 0 0 -14,555 20,649
222,490 0 0 -14,555 20,549
105,529 0 0 -21,152 9,794
1.37107 0,54100 27,340 9,026 t 7,020 1,605
15,390 0 0 -1,347 1,428
228,921 0 0 -12,912 21~246
233,593 0 0 -12,529 21,679
0 0 -12,678
1,393,225 9,026 t7,020
Prepared by Ehfers plan run 7 804 revised
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS EDA
Base Project Captured
Semi-Annual
PERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax
yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Capacity Increment
0.0 02-012005 42,345 42,345 0
0.0 08-012005 42,345 42,345 0 0
0.0 02-012006 42,345 42,345 0 0
0.0 08-012006 42,345 42,346 0 0
0.0 02-012007 42,345 421,855 379,510 0 208,580
0.5 08-012007 42,345 421,855 379,510 0 208,590
1.0 02-012008 42,345 624,255 58t,910 0 319,835
1~5 08-012000 °42,345 624,255 581,910 0 319,835
2.0 02.012009 42,345 846,505 804,160 0 441,090
2,5 08-O12009 42,345 846,505 804,180 0 441,900
3.0 02-012010 42,345 1,059,005 1,016,660 0 558,787
3.5 08-O12010 42,345 1,058,005 1,016,060 0 558,787
4.0 02-012011 42,345 t,274,006 1,231,600 0 676,857
4.5 08-0t2011 42,345 1.274,005 1,231,660 0 676,957
5.0 02-012012 42,345 1,286,745 1,244,400 0 603,960
5.5 08-612012 42,345 %296,745 1,244,400 0 953,960
8.0 02-012013 42,345 1,299,613 1,257,269 0 691,052
6.5 08-012013 42,345 1,299,613 1,257,208 0 691,032
7.0 02-012014 42,345 1,312,600 1.270,204 0 688,175
7~5 08-012014 42,345 1,312,609 1,270,264 6 090,175
8.0 02-012015 42,345 1,326,735 1,283,390 0 705,389
8.5 08-012015 42,345 1,325,735 1,283,386 0 705,389
9.0 02-012016 42,345 1,338,962 1,296,647 6 712,676
9.5 08-O12016 42,345 1,338,992 1,290,647 0 712,676
10.0 02-012017 42,345 1,962,362 1,310,037 0 720,036
10.5 98-012017 42,345 1,352,382 1,310,037 0 726,036
11.0 02-012018 42,345 1,365,906 1,323,561 0 727,409
11.5 08-O12018 42,345 1,365,906 1,323,861 0 727,469
12.0 02-012019 42,345 1,379,565 1,337,220 0 734,979
12.5 68-012019 42,345 1,370,565 1,337,220 0 734,976
13.0 02-012020 42,345 1,393,361 1,351,016 0 742,559
13.5 08-012020 42,345 1,303,361 1,351.016 0 742,559
14.0 02-012021 42,345 1,407,294 1,354,949 0 750,217
14.5 08-012021 42,345 1,407,294 1,364,940 0 750,217
15.0 02-012022 42,345 1,421,367 1,379,022. 0 757,952
15.5 08-012022 42,345 1,421,367 1,370,022 0 757,952
16.0 02-012023 42,345 1,435,581 1,393,236 0 765,764
16.5 68-O12023 42,345 1,435,581 1,393,230 0 705,764
17.0 02-012024 42,345 1,449,937 1,407,592 0 773,655
17.5 08-012024 42,345 1,449,937 1,407,592 0 773,065
18.0 02-0t2025 42,345 1,464,436 1,422,091 0 781,624
18.5 08-012025 42,345 1,464,435 1,422,091 0 781,624
10.0 02-012026 42,345 1,479,080 1,436,735 0 789,873
19.5 08-012026 42,345 1,479,080 1,438,735 0 789,673
20.0 02-012027 42,345 1,493,871 1,451,526 0 797,802
26.5 08-012027 42,345 1,493,871 1,451,626 0 797,802
21.0 02-012028 42,345 1,508,810 1,466,465 0 806,013
2%5 08-O12028 42,345 1,508,810 1,456,465 0 806,013
22-0 02-O12029 42,345 1,523,898 1,481,553 0 814,306
22.5 08-012029 42,345 1,523,898 1,481,553 0 8t4,306
23.0 02-0t2030 42,345 1,539,I37 1,498,792 0 822,682
23.6 08-012030 42,345 1,539,137 1,499,792 0 822,082
24.0 02-012031 42,345 1,554,528 1,512,183 0 831,141
24.5 08-012031 42,345 1,554,528 1,512,183 0 831,141
26.0 02-012032 42,345 1,570,073 1,527,728 0 839,965
25.5 08-0120..~32 ~__~__ I 527 728 o
Totals
Present._~Value 2]1/05
NOTES:
Page 2 of 2
State CoverageSemi-Annual SemI-Annua
Auditor at Net Tax Present
0.36% 25.00% ~.~=ment Value
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
(751) (51,960) 155,879 132,843
(751) (51.960)
(1.151)(79,071)
(1,151)(79,071)
(t,591)(110,t00)
(1,591)(1t0.100)
(2,012)(139,194}
(2,012)(139.194)
(2.437)(158,830)
(2.437)(168.83(
(2,482)(170.374
(2,462)(170.374
(2,488)(172,138
(2,488)(172,138
(2.513)(173,915
(2,513)(173,615
(2,539)(175,713
(2,539)(175,713
(2,506)(177,52~
(2,566)(177,52~
(2,592)(179,96~
(2,502)(179,361
(2,619)(181,216
(2,61c (181,216
(2,648 (183,08U
(2,646 (183,083
(2,673 (184,971
(2,673 (184,971
(2,701 (186,870
(2,761 (188,879
(2,72! (196,896)
(2,72! (t88,806)
(2,75; (190,752)
(2,75; (190,752)
(2,78-=(192,717)
(2,78."(192,717~
(2,814 (194,702)
155,879 201,504
230,013 452,574
239,013 637,629
330,299 885,312
330,299 1,125,199
4t7,581 1,4t8,831
417,581 1,703,417
505,890 2,037,218
506,890 2,396,968
511,123 2,676,883
511,123 2,983,260
516,408 3,283,081
516,408 3,573,485
521,746 3,857,615
52t,746 4,132,821
527,138 4,402,119
527,138 4,662,940
532,583 4,918,161
532,583 5,165,348
538,963 5.407,226
538,083 5.641.491
543.637 5,870,725
543,837 6,092,742
549,248 0,309,981
549,248 6,520.401
554,914 6,726,290
554,914 6,925,699
560,637 7,120,822
560,637 7,309,804
568,417 7,494,724
566,417 7,673,824
572,256 7,849,074
572,256 8,018,807
578,152 8,184,892
578,152 8,345.749
584,107 8,503,147
(2,814 (194,702)584,107 8,696.591
(2,843 (196,707)580,122 8,804,757
(2,843 (196,707)590,122 8,949,228
(2,872}(198,733)596,198 9,090,591
(2,872)(196,733)596,198 9,227,505
(2,902)(200,778)602,334 9,361,474
(2,902)(200,778)602,334 9,491,220
(2,932)(202,844)608,531 9,618,187
(2,932)(202,844)608,531 9.741.151
(2,992)(204,930)614,790 9,961,470
(2,962)(204,930)614,790 9,978,962
(2,992)(207,037)621,112 10,092,026
(2,992)(207,037)621,112 10,202,461
(3,023)(200,166)627,497 10,310,519
023 209 166 627 497 t0 415 170
0 36 305 890 130 70t9 043 78727 131 391
0 t3.937 07~ 50 173 3 47t 720t0 415 170
PAYMENT DATE
PERIOD ENDING
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1,5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.5
18.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
20,0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.5
26.0
08-01 2005
02-01 2006
08-01 2096
02-01 2967
08-01 2007
02-01 2008
08-01 2008
02-01 2009
08-01 2969
02-01 2010
08-01 2010
02-01 2011
08-01 2011
02-01 2012
08-01 2012
02-01 2013
08-01 2013
02-01 2014
~8-01 2014
02-01 2015
08-01 2016
02-O1 2018
08-01 2016
02-01 2017
0801 2017
02-01 2018
08-01 2018
02-01 2019
08-01 2019
02-01 2020
08-01 2020
02-01 2021
08-01 2021
02-01 2022
1. Stat~ Auditor paymeat ts based upoi3 1st half, pay 2002 actual and may increase over term of district.
2. Assumes development in cons~uctad iiq 2005, assessed in 2005 and first increment is paid in 2007.
3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market value, tax rates~ class rates, constr~cfion schedule and inflation on Nlarket Value.
4. Inflation on tax rates cam'rat be captured.
5. TIF does not captain state wide property taxes or market value property taxes.
6. ~f T~F is received in 2006, the district will be shortened by one year.
7. MV Homestead credit is assumed to be paid by the Stele in future years.
Current Market Va[~ - EsL 4,475,8OO
New Market Value - EsL 125 827 750
D~fera~ce 121 '351 '950
Pmsen{ Value of Tax I~c~ement 13 937 075
Diflerer~e 107~414,875
Prepared by Ehlers plan r~n 7 8 04 revised
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
APPENDIX E-!
Please ifil in date agreement signed (same as question 21)
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
The Minnesota Business Assistance Form 0VIBAF) is used to report each business subsidy and financial assistance
agreement signed from~!u~rust 1, 1999 through December 31, 2003 unless goals have been achieved and reported
in a MBAF per Minn. Stat. §116J.993 to §116J.995.
The following government agencies must submit a MBAF: 1) any local government/agency that signed a business
subsidy agreement since January 1, 1999, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government
agencies authorized to provide business subsidies.
[] If a local or state government agency that is required to report has not done so by April 1, DEED will mail a
warning. If it fails to report by June 1, it may not award any business subsidies until a report has been filed.
[] Questions? Ca11(651)296-0580. Information on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is onpage4.
Section 1 Grantor Information
I. Name of grantor (funding entity) 2. Name of person completing this form
3. Street address 4. City 5. ZIP code
6. County 7. Phone number 8. Fax number 9. E-mail address
10. Please indicate who in your organization should receive the MBAF if different from the person in Question 2.
Name/Title Phone number Street address City ZIP code
i 1. Classification of grantor (Mark one. If grantor is entity 12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and
created by gov't agency, please indicate affiliation. For adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies in
example, a city EDA would check "City government. ") compliance with Minn. Stat. § 116J.9947 (Mark one.)
El City government [] Yes, in 2004 (attach criteria)
[] Yes, in 2004 but have not yet adopted criteria
CI County government [] Yes, prior to 2004
[] Regional government If Yes:
Hearing Date: Year Criteria Submitted:
[] State government
[] No
[] Other (Please specify.) [] Other (Please attach explanation.)
13. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from August 1, 1999
through December 3 I, 2003 unless goals have been achieved and reported in a previous filed MBAF? (Mark one.) .
[] Yes (Complete the remainder of the form unless goals have been achieved and [] No (Stop here, go to section 5 on page 4.)
reported in a previously filed MBAF per Minn. Stat. ~116J..99 3 and :~116J. 994.)
Section 2 Recipient Information
14. Name of business or organization
receiving subsidy or financial assistance
15. Address where business subsidy or financial assistance
will be used
Street address City State ZIP code
16. Does the recipient have a parent corporation? (Mark one.)
[] Yes (Indicate name and address of parent corporation below. If more than one, indicate ultimate owner.)
[] No
Name of parent corporation Street address City State
ZIP code
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1/14/04) Page 1 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
17. Industry ofrecipient's facility (Mark one.):
[] Manufacturing [] Services
[] Retail Trade [] Wholesale Trade
[] Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
[] Construction Q Other (please specify)
18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one.))
[] Yes (Indicate city and state of previous address and reason recipient did not complete this project at that address.)
[] No (Go to Question 19.))
City/State of previous address Reason project not completed at previous address
19. Would the recipient have remained in previous location or relocated elsewhere if not awarded this business subsidy or
financial assistance? (Mark one.)
[] Remained at previous location [] Relocated to different Minnesota location [] Relocated outside Minnesota
Section 3 Agreement Information
20. Total dollar value ofbusinass subsidy or financial
assistance (Please separate value by type in Questions 24
and 25.)
21. Date agreement signed (In addition to the agreement
date, indicate any dates the agreement was amended.))
22. Benefit date (Indicate the date the recipient will benefit from the business subsidy or financial assistance. For example,
indicate the date improvements were finished, equipment was placed into service, or the recipient occupied the property,
whichever is earlier.))
23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see Question 25) required to
be reported? (Mark one.)
[] business subsidy [] financial assistance
24. If the agreement provided a business subsidy, please
indicate the type(s) and total dollar value for each type.
[] not applicable, agreement provided financial assistance
[] loan (only principal) $
CI grant (i.e., forgivable loan) $
[] tax abatement $
[] TIF or other tax reduction or deferral $
[] guarantee of payment $
[] contribution of property or infrastructure $ __
[] preferential use of governmental facilities $
gl land contribution $
[] other (Specify subsidy type.)) $ __
25. If the assistance was one of the four types of financiul
assistance, please indicate the type(s).
[] not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy
[] assistance for property polluted $~
by contaminants
[] assistance for renovating building $~
stock or bringing it up to code, and
assistance provided for designated
historic preservation districts, when
50% or less of total cost
[] assistance for pollution control or $
abatement
[] assistance for a TIF soils condition district $
26. If the assistance included tax increment financing, please
indicate the type of TIF district? (Mark one.)
[] not applicable, assistance was not in the form of TIF
[] redevelopment
[] renewal and renovation
[] soils condition
[] economic development
[] mined underground space
[] hazardous substance subdistrict
27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or
financial assistance to the same project? (Mark one.)
[] Yes (Specify each grantor and the value of their
assistance below; attach an additional sheet if necessary..)
[] No
Grantor(s) and value of the agreement(s):
Grantor Value ($)
Grantor Value ($)
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1/14/04) Page 2 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
Section 4 Goals and Public Purpose Identified in the Agreement
28. Minm Stat. § 116J.994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. Which
of the following public purposes were stated in the agreement? (Markall that apply.)
~ Enhancing economic diversity 13 Increasing tax base (cannot be only purpose)
13 Creating high-quality job growth Fi Other (please specify)
13 Job retention
[21 Stabilizing the community
29. Indicate whether the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals
at the time of this report. (Fill in the boxes and attainment date(s) for each goal.)
A) Specific wage and job goals to be attained within 2 years
B) Other job-creation and/or retention goals
C) Other wage goals
D) Other goals other than wage and job goals
Goals Target attainment All goals
established? dates (month & year) attained?
[21 Yes 121 No 121 Yes 121 No
D Yes [21 No 13 Yes D No
(21 Yes 121 No [21 Yes [3 No
[21 Yes [21 No D Yes 13 No
(Please attach descriptions of goals and progress toward
attainment if not documented in Questions 30 and 31.)
30. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and/or retention goals stated in the
agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance goals for those jobs. (Only indicate job
creation goals in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate goals by full- and part-time positions.)
Full-time Part-time/ FTE (only if goals not
Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FT/PT) Job Retention Hourly Value of
(excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance
no hourly wage-level goal
less than $7.00 S
$7.00 to $8.99
$9.00 to $10.99
$11.00 to $12.99 $.__
$13.00 to $14.99 $.__
$15.00 and higher $___
31.
For each of the following wage categories, indicate the number of actual jobs created and/or retained since the benefit
date and the actual hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation in
full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate job creation into full- and part-time positions.)
Full-time Part-time/ FTE (only if unable to
Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. separate FT/PT) Job Retention Hourly Value of
(excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance
less than $7.00
$7.00 to $8.99 s.__
$9.00 to $10.99 $.__
$11.00 to $12.99 s
$13.00 to $14.99
~ 1 ~.oo ana l~lgP~er
32.
Has the recipient achieved all goals (see Questions 29, 30 and 31) and fulfilled all obligations stipulated in the agreement?
(Mark one.)
El Yes CI No
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (I/14/04) Page 3 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
Section 5 Recipients Failing to Fulfffi Obligations
7)0 not complete this section if ?ou completed it on another MBAF submitted to DEED.)
33. During the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, did your organization have any recipients who failed to
report as required by Minn. Stat. § 116J.993 and § 116J. 9947 (Mark one.)
~1 Yes (Indicate the name of each recipient failing to report and the value of subsidy or financial assistance awarded to that
recipient.. Attach additional pages if necessary.)
n No
Name of recipient
Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 and 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance
34. Did your organization have any recipients who failed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an
agreement signed on or aRer August 1, 1999, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report? (Mark one.)
[] Yes (Complete the remainder of this section.) [21 No (Stop here and submit form to DEED .)
35. - 39. Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that
were to be attained by the time of reporting. (Attach additionalpages if necessary.)
35. Information on recipient and agreement:
Name of recipient in default
Type of subsidy or assistance
Initial value of
subsidy or assistance
Street address of recipient City/ZIP code of recipient Outstanding value of
subsidy Or assistance
36. Reason(s) for default (Mark all that apply.}:
[] recipient ceased operation [] recipient relocated to a different community
[] recipient was unable to fill vacant positions [] other (Specify reason.)
37. To date, has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one.)
[] Yes [] No, recipient has begun to repay the assistance. ..[] No, recipient has not begun to repay the assistance.
38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient's deadline for fulfilling its obligations? (Mark one.)
[] Yes [3 No
39. Describe the steps being taken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy:
Return your completed MBAF(s) by April 1, 2004, to:
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development - AEO
~uu M~uu o~tuoa~, ~1 r:as[ 7 mace
St. Paul, MN 55101-2146
Or fax to: (651) 215-3841
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (I/14/04) Page 4 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
APPENDIX F
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT
APPENDIX F-~
Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment
Proposed Columbia Heights Huset Park Area
TIF District
Columbia Heights, MN
September 9, 2004
Amended October 14, 2004
Prepared by:
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH)
Butler Square Building, Suite 710C
100 North 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55403
SEH No. A-COLHT0402.00
City of Columbia Heights
Proposed TIF District
September 9, 2004
October 14, 2004
PURPOSE
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) was hired by the City of Colmnbia Heights,
Mim~esota, to survey and evaluate the properties within the proposed Columbia Heights
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. The proposed district is generally located south
of 3 9th Avenue NE, north of 3 8th Avenue NE, east of University Avenue NE and west of
Jefferson Street. The pm-pose of our work was to independently ascertain whether the
qualification tests for tax increment eligibility, as required under Mi~mesota Statute,
could be met.
The findings and conclusions drawn herein are solely for the purpose of tax increment
eligibility and are not intended to be used outside the scope of this assessment.
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed district as of September 9th consisted of 12 parcels comprised of the
following types of improvements: 9 commercial structures on 7 parcels, and 5 vacant
parcels with only parking improvements. Within the district are also several accessory
structures- for the purposes of this assessment, these are considered 'outbuildings' and
are not included in the Condition of Buildings Test.
On October 9, 2004 SEH was able to obtain access to additional buildings located on
parcels 12 and 28. During the survey of these buildings it was determined that 3
additional structures are classified as buildings included in the proposal district and not
classified as "outbuildings". Thus the proposed district consists of 12 parcels comprised
of the following types of improvements: 12 commercial structures on 7 parcels, and 5
vacant parcels with only parking improvements.
EVALUATIONS
Interior inspections were completed for all buildings except 2Exterior assessments were
completed for all buildings.
FINDINGS
Coverage Test - 12 of the 12 properties met the coverage test with a 100% area
coverage. This exceeds the 70% area coverage requirement.
Condition of Buildings Test - 83.33 percent of the buildings - 10 of the 12 buildings -
were found to be "structurally substandard" when considering code deficiencies and other
deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance
(see definition of"structurally substandard" as follows). This exceeds the Condition of
Buildings Test whereby over 50% of buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found
"structurally substandard."
CONCLUSION
Our surveying and evaluating of the properties within this proposed Redevelopment
District render results that in our professional opinion qualify the district eligible under
the statutory criteria and formulas for a Redevelopment Tax h~crement Financing District
(State Statute 469.174 Subd. 10).
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
- Site Occupied/Building Substandard Determination table
- TIF Assessment maps: Buildings Under Study, Occupied Surfaces, Percent
Occupied
- Report on Building Condition (one per building)
- Individual Building Surmnary Report (one per building)
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
The properties were surveyed and evaluated in accordance with the following
requirements under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c) which
states:
Interior Inspection - "The municipality may not make such determination [that the
building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..."
Exterior Inspection and Other Means - "An interior inspection of the property is not
required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain
access to the property; and after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party
that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable
conclusion that the building is structurally substandard."
Documentation - "Written documentation of the building findings and reasons why an
interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, clause (1)." Refer to attached Exhibit A - Documentation of
Contacts/Evaluations for documentation for these purposes.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS
The City of Columbia Heights sent letters to all property owners located in the district
requesting that an inspection and evaluation be made of their property. SEH conducted
assessments between March and October 2004.
Requests for evaluation appointments were made with the building owner or building
tenants. An interior inspection and evaluation was completed if consented to by the
owner. An exterior inspection and evaluation was made where the owner refused interior
access to their property. In M1 cases, an exterior evaluation was completed.
For all subject buildings, SEH reviewed the information provided by the City of
Columbia Heights. This information provided a basic description of type of work
completed for each building (Building, Electrical, or Plumbing, scope of work) and, in
some cases, approximate value of work to be completed. Some buildings had no
available information. Additional building data was collected from public taxpayer
information available from Anoka County. Building data from these public records was
combined with and reviewed against information gathered in the field.
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The properties were surveyed and evaluated to ascertain whether the qualification tests
for tax increment eligibility for a redevelopment district, required under the following
Minnesota Statutes, could be met.
Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (a) (1) requires two tests for
occupied parcels:
1. Coverage Test- "parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or similar
structures..."
Note: The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined raider
Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (e) which states: "For
purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15% of the area of the
parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other
similar structures."
2. Condition of Buildings Test-"... and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not
including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation or clearance;"
The term 'structurally substandard', as used ha the preceding paragraph, is defined by
a two-step test:
Conditions Test: Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (b), a building is structurally
substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance."
Code Test: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law, specifically,
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c)also provides that
a building may not be considered structurally substandard if it: "... is in
compliance with building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified
to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of
constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site."
Based on the above requirements, the substandard determination of a particular
building is a two-step process; therefore, the findings of each step are independent of
each other and both steps must be satisfied in order for a building to be found
structurally substandard· It is not sufficient to conclude that a building is structurally
substandard solely because the Code Test is satisfied. It is theoretically possible for a
building to require extensive renovation in order to meet current building codes but
still not meet the main test of the Conditions Test.
Furthermore, deficiencies included in the Conditions Test may or may not include
specific code deficiencies as listed in the Code Test. In many cases, specific building
code deficiencies may well contribute to the data which supports satisfying the
Conditions Test; conversely, it is certainly possible that identified hazards or other
deficiencies which could be included in the Conditions Test do not necessarily
constitute current building code deficiencies. By definition, the nature of the two
steps is slightly different. The Conditions Test is more sz~bjective, whereas the Code
Test is an objective test. Conditions Test deficiencies are less technical and not
necessarily measurable to the same extent of the code deficiencies in the Code Test.
To the end that technical, measurable building code deficiencies support the
satisfaction of the less technical Conditions Test, the following code requirements are
defined in terms that go beyond the technical requirements of the code and
demonstrate their relevance in terms of".. · deficiencies in essential utilities and
facilities, light and ventilation, etc..."
International Building Code (IBC): The purpose of the IBC is to provide
minimum standards to safeguard public health, safety and general welfare through
structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light
and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and
other hazards attributed to the built environment (IBC 101.3). A deficiency in the
building code (insufficient number of building exits, insufficient door landing
area, etc.) adversely affects one or more of the above standards to safeguard
'public health...and safety to life'; therefore, a deficiency in the building code is
considered a deficiency in one or more "essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, etc.".
Minnesota Accessibili _ty Code, Chapter 1341: This chapter sets the requirements
for accessibility all building occupancies. The Mim~esota Accessibility Code
closely follows the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG), which sets the guidelines for accessibility to places of public
accommodations and commercial facilities as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is a federal anti-discrimination statute
designed to remove barriers that prevent qualified individuals with disabilities
from enjoying the same opportunities that are available to persons without
disabilities (ADA Handbook). Essentially, a deficiency in the accessibility code
(lack of handrail extension at stairs or ramp, lack of clearance at a toilet fixture,
etc.) results in a discrimination against disabled individuals; therefore, a
deficiency in the accessibility code is considered a deficiency in "essential
utilities and facilities".
Minnesota Food Code, Chapter 4626: This chapter is enforced by the Minnesota
Department of Health and is similar to the IBC in that it provides minimum
standards to safeguard public health in areas of public/commercial food
preparation. A deficiency in the food code (lack of non-absorbent wall or ceiling
finishes, lack of hand sink, etc.) causes a condition for potential contamination of
food; therefore, a deficiency in the food code is considered a deficiency in
"essential utilities and facilities".
National Electric Code (NEC): The purpose of the NEC is the practical
safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of
electricity. The NEC contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety
(NEC 90-1 (a) and (b)). A deficiency in the electric code (insufficient electrical
service capacity, improper wiring, etc.) causes a hazard from the use of
electricity; therefore, a deficiency in the electric code is considered a deficiency in
"essential utilities and facilities"·
International Mechanical Code (IMC): The purpose of the IMC is to provide
minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare
by regulating and controlling the design, construction, installation, quality of
materials, location, operation, and maintenance or use of mechanical systems
(IMC 101.3). The IMC sets specific requirements for building ventilation,
exhaust, intake and relief. These requirements translate into a specified number
of complete clean air exchanges for a building based on its occupancy type and
occupant load. A deficiency in the mechanical code adversely affects the 'health.
·. and public welfare' of a building's occupants; therefore, a deficiency in the
mechanical code is considered a deficiency in "light and ventilation".
Note: The above list represents some of the more common potential code
deficiencies considered in the assessment of the buildings in the proposed district.
This list does not necessarily include every factor included in the data used to
satisfy the conditions test for a particular building. Refer to individual building
reports for specific findings.
Finally, the tax increment law provides that the municipality may find that a building
is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the Code Test on the basis of
"reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the
average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable
evidence. Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is
structurally substandard] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property
appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar
reliable evidence."
MEASUREMENTS AGAINST TECHNICAL TEST REQUIREMENTS
Coverage Test
SEH utilized a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) system database, available
through Anoka County and the City of Columbia Heights, to obtain individual parcel
information. The GIS system contains graphic information (parcel shapes) and numerical
data based on county tax records. This information was used by SEH for the purposes of
this assessment.
The total square foot area of each property parcel was obtained from county records
(GIS) and general site verification.
The total extent of site improvements on each property parcel was digitized from recent
aerial photography (Spring, 2000). The total square footage of site improvements was
then digitally measured and confirmed by general site verification.
The total percentage of coverage of each property parcel was computed to determine if
the 15% requirement was met. Refer to attached maps: Occupied Surfaces map and
Percent Occupied map.
The total area of all qualifying property parcels was compared to the total area of all
parcels to determine if the 70% requirement was met. The area occupied by public
rights-of-way has not been considered in the coverage test calculations. All of the public
rights-of-way are improved. If all of the public rights-of-way were treated as a parcel for
the purpose of coverage test calculations, the 70% requirement of the coverage test would
still be met.
Condition of Building Test
Replacement Cost - the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type on
site:
R. S. Means Square Foot Costs (2004) was used as the industry standard for base
cost calculations. R. $. Means is a nationally published reference tool for
construction cost data. The book is updated yearly and establishes a "national
average" for materials and labor prices for all types of building construction. The
base costs derived from R. S. Means were reviewed, and modified if applicable,
against our professional judgment and experience.
A base cost was calculated by first establishing building type, building
construction type, and construction quality level (residential construction) to
obtain the appropriate Means cost per square foot. This cost was multiplied times
the building square footage to obtain the total replacement cost for an individual
building. Additionally, to account for regional/local pricing, a cost factor was
~"" "'-*' ...... ' ..... ": .....' '-' ' '-'~ gR S.
auueu tu tu~ tutat cost _~[eans,
accmumg tu ma. Means tau,vs. Usiii .
consideration is made for building occupancy, building size, and construction
type; therefore, the cost per square foot used to construct a new structure will vary
accordingly.
Building Deficiencies: Conditions Test (Condition Deficiencies) - determining the
combination of defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance.
On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing
available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior
evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. Deficiencies in
structural elements, essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire
protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or
similar factors, were noted by the evaluator. Condition Deficiencies may or may
not include Code Deficiencies as defmed below. Energy code compliance was
not considered for the purposes of determining Condition Deficiencies.
Deficiencies were combined and summarized for each building in order to
determine their total significance.
Building Deficiencies: Code Test (Code Deficiencies) - determining technical conditions
that are not in compliance with current building code applicable to new buildings and the
cost to correct the deficiencies:
On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing
available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior
evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. On-site evaluations
were completed using a standard checklist format. The standard checklist was
derived from several standard building code plan review checklists and was
intended to address the most common, easily identifiable code deficiencies.
Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, and Building Code Officials were
also consulted in the development of the checklist.
Deficiencies were generally grouped into the following categories (category
names are followed by its applicable building code):
· Building accessibility- Minnesota Accessibility Code
· Building egress, building construction - International Building Code
· Fire protection systems - International Building Code
· Food service - Minnesota Food Code
· HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) - International
Mechanical Code
· Electrical systems - National Electric Code and Minnesota Energy
Code
· Energy code compliance - Mim~esota Energy Code
For the purposes of determining the Code Test (Code Deficiencies), Energy code
compliance is relevant because its criteria' affect the design of integral parts of a
majority -
o~ a oulmmg s systems. ~ne intentm mcsc criteria is to prowcte a means
for assuring building durability, and permitting energy efficient operation
(7676.0100). The energy code addresses general building construction (all forms
of energy transmission in an exterior building envelope - walls, roofs, doors and
windows, etc.) and energy usage by lighting and mechanical systems. A
deficiency in the energy code (inadequate insulation, non-insulated window
systems, improper air infiltration protection, etc.) reduces energy efficient
operation and adversely affects building system durability; therefore, a deficiency
in the energy code is considered to contribute to a condition requiring substantial
renovation or clearance.
Office evaluations - Following the on-site evaluation, each building was then
reviewed, based on on-site data, age of construction, building usage and
occupancy, square footage, and known improvements (from building permit data),
and an assessment was made regarding compliance with current mechanical,
electrical, and energy codes. A basic code review was also completed regarding
the potential need for additional egress (basement stairways, for example),
sprinlder systems, or elevators.
Deficiency Cost - Costs to correct identified deficiencies were determined by
using R. $. Means Cost Data and our professional judgment and experience. In
general, where several items of varying quality were available for selection to
correct a deficiency, an item of average cost was used, as appropriate for typical
commercial or residential applications. Actual construction costs are affected by
many factors (bidding clin~ate, size of project, etc.). Due to the nature of this
assessment, we were only able to generalize the scope of work for each
correction; that is to say that detailed plans, quantities, and qualities of materials
were not possible to be known. Our approach to this matter was to determine a
preliminary cost projection suitable to the level of detail that is known. This
process was similar to our typical approach for a cost projection that may be given
to an owner during a schematic design stage of a project.
Costs to correct deficiencies were computed for each building and compared to
the building replacement cost to determine if the 15% requirement was met.
The total number of buildings determined to be "structurally substandard" by satisfying
both the Conditions Test and the Code Test in this manner was compared to the total
number of buildings in the proposed district to determine if the 50% requirement was
met.
Reports on Building Conditions and Individual Building Surmnary Reports are available
for review at the offices of SEH, the City of Columbia Heights.
Teclmical Conditions Resources - the following list represents the current building codes
applicable to new buildings used in the Building Deficiency review:
2003 Minnesota State Building Code
2000 International Building Code
2000 International Housing Code
~v[N i 34 i - Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter i 34 i (i 999)
2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Chapters 7672, 7674, or 7676
1999 National Electric Code
2000 International Mechanical Code
2000 NFPA 101 - Life Safety Code
PROJECT TEAM:
Leon A. Grothe, AIA, Project Architect
Jason P. Zernke, AIA, Project Architect
Nancy G. Schultz, AIA, Sr. Architect
Ron Seymour, Commmfity Development Manager
Debbie Zimmerman, Project Design Leader, Architectural Lighting Services
Greg Batcher, Mechanical Designer
10
11-1
Report on Building Condition
Building D/Business Name/Address: 3755 University Ave, Greif Inc
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
11-1
Y
Y
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to.justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records,
exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: cracks in exterior masom'y wall, near grade and in various locations;
broken/missing sections of brick and mortar in exterior walls; damaged wood coknnns in various
locations; cracks in concrete floor slab
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to
building, and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at
interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in toilet rooms.
· Installation of drinking fmmtain required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do
not provide sufficient number of air exchanges
Fire Protection/Egress
· Deficient exterior stairway: rise/mn dimensions, handrail height, terminations, extensions and
guardrails.
· Deficient exterior door: threshold
· Deficient interior stairway: rise/run dimensions, landing, handrail height, grip, terminations, extensions
and guardrails.
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Damaged, cracked and stained in several areas
Sinfilar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: damaged panels on east side of building; broken and/or missing
peeling paint on chipped or spalling brick in various locations; deteriorating wood/metal doors, door
and window fi'ames.
Environmental Factors
· Enviromnental clean up is required: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSource
Technologies, Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned up in the
following areas: 1) soil and/or gl'mind water impacted with petrolemu, 2) the presence of fotmdry
waste in soils or ground water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the foundry waste,
~,~,~,ent and/org,,~,~,~ ~,~,e, a,w,~c,cd vwth ~,l,~d,a,cd solventsa,~,~-~ -,~ ~ ~,,.M v~l,h~n buhdln~o
across the entire district. In 2003 the cost to clean up the district was estimated to be 4.65 million
dollars.
· Of the 4.65 million dollars to clean-up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean up
of Building 1D 11-1 and Parcel 11 is $317,865.
11-1
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered
structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be
modified to satisfy the current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of
the same square footage and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $4,917,477.50
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $1,208,229.00
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 24.57%
Refer to Individual Building Smmum~ Report for docmnentation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel No. 11 ($317,865) is included in the cost of correction of code
deficiencies, the Total Deficiency Cost is $1,526,094.00. That adjusted Total Deficiency Cost represents 31% of the
Total Replacement Cost. The high environmental costs further support the conclusion that this building is
structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
12-1
Report on Building Condition
Building ID/Business Name/Address: Action Plastics~ Building 12-1
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Smtcmrally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
12-1
Y
Y
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records,
exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: deteriorating steel structm'e; dmnaged steel coltnnns at interior of
building; cracks in concrete floor slab.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to
building, and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at
interior doors.
· Installation of drinking fomatain required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do
not provide sufficient nmnber of air exchanges
· Insufficient interior lighting
Fire Protection/Egress
· Deficient exterior door: thresholds
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Damaged, cracked and stained
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: damaged metal skin on southeast side of building; broken/chipped
concrete at base of building; deteriorating metal doors, overhead doors, and door fi'ames; deteriorating
metal panels at various locations on building exterior.
Enviromnental Factors
· Environmental clean up is required: A detailed Teclmical Report completed by ProSource
Technologies, Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned up in the
following areas: 1) soil and/or grotmd water impacted with petroleum, 2) the presence of foundry
waste in soils or ground water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the foundry waste,
3) soil, sediment and/or ground water impacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings
across the entire district. In 2003 the cost to clean up the district was estimated to be 4.65 million
dollars.
· Of the $4.65 million to clean up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean up of
Parcel 12 (which includes Building 12-!), is $904,585.
12-1
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a buildhug may not be considered structurally
substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be lnodified to satisfy the
current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of the same square footage
and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $778,886
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $169,313.20
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 21.74%
Refer to Individual Building Summary Report for docmnentation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel 12 as a whole ($904,585) is included in the aggregate cost of correction
of code deficiencies for all 6 buildings on Parcel No. 12 ($7,772,012.20), the aggregate Total Deficiency Cost for those
buildings is $8,676,597.20. That adjusted aggregate Total Deficiency Cost represents 46.1% of the aggregate Total
Replacement Cost ($18,811,261.75) for all six buildings. In other words, while it is not possible to allocate clean~up
costs to particular buildings, the high enviromnental costs on this parcel support the conclusion that all buildings on this
parcel are structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
12-2
Report on Building Condition
Building ID/Business Name/Address:
Satisfies Conditions Test for Smlcmrally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
Building 12-2
12-2
Y
Y
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records,
exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: deteriorating steel structure; damaged steel colmrms at exterior wall;
cracks in concrete floor slab.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to
building, and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at
interior doors.
· Installation of drimking fountain required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building constrtlction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do
not provide sufficient nmnber of air exchanges
Fire Protection/Egress
o Deficient exterior door: threshold and landing
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Damaged, cracked and stained in a few locations
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: damaged metal skin on east side of building; broken/chipped
concrete at base of building; deteriorating metal doors, door fi'alnes and window frames.
Environmental Factors
· Environmental clean tip is required: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSource
Technologies, Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned tip in the
following areas: 1) soil and/or ground water impacted with petroleum, 2) the presence of foundry
waste in soils or ground water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the fotmdry waste,
3) soil, sediment and/or ground water impacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within
buildings across the entire district. In 2003 the cost to clean tip the district was estimated to be 4.65
million dollars.
· Of the $4.65 million to clean up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean up of
Parcel 12 (which includes Building 12-2), is $904,585.
12-2
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered structurally
substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the
current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of consmtcting a new building of the same square footage
and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $415,840.00
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $77,889.80
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 18.73 %
Refer to Individual Building Smmnary Report for docm~entation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel 12 as a whole ($904,585) is included in the aggregate cost of correction
of code deficiencies for all 6 buildings on Parcel No. 12 ($7,772,012.20), the aggregate Total Deficiency Cost for those
buildings is $8,676,597.20. That adjusted aggregate Total Deficiency Cost represents 46.1% of the aggregate Total
Replacement Cost ($18,811,261.75) for all six buildings. In other words, while it is not possible to allocate clean-up
costs to particular buildings, the high enviromnental costs on this parcel support the conclusion that all buildings on this
parcel are structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
12-3
Report on Building Condition
Building iD/Business Name/Address:
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Smtcmrally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard BuiIding (Y/N):
Building 12-3
12-3
Y
Y
_
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building peri, it records,
exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: deteriorating steel structure; damaged steel colmm~s at exterior wall;
cracks in concrete floor slab.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to
building, and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at
interior doors.
· Installation of drinking fountain required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do
not provide sufficient nm=ber of air exchanges
Fire Protection/Egress
· Deficient exterior door: threshold and landing
· Deficient interior stairway: rise/run dimensions, handrail height, terminations, extensions and
guarch'ails.
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Damaged, cracked and stained in a few locations
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: damaged metal skin on east side of building; broken/chipped
concrete at base of building; deteriorating metal doors, door frames and window frames.
Environmental Factors
· Environmental clean up is reqnired: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSource
Technologies, Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned up in the
following areas: 1) soil and/or grotmd water impacted with petrolemn, 2) the presence of fomadry
waste in soils or ground water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the foundry waste,
3) soil, sediment and/or ground water impacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings
across the entire district. In 2003 the cost to clean up the district was estimated to be 4.65 million
dollars.
· Of the $4.65 million to clean up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean up of
Parcel !2 (which includes Building !2-3), is $904,585.
12-3
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered structurally
substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the
cmTent building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of the same square footage
and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $415,840.00
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $97,849.80
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 23.53 %
Refer to Individual Building Smmnary Report for doculnentation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of envkonlnental clean tip for Parcel 12 as a whole ($904,585) is included in the aggregate cost of correction
of code deficiencies for all 6 buildings on Parcel No. 12 ($7,772,012.20), the aggregate Total Deficiency Cost for those
buildings is $8,676,597.20. That adjusted aggregate Total Deficiency Cost represents 46.1% of the aggregate Total
Replacement Cost ($18,811,261.75) for all six buildings. In other words, while it is not possible to allocate clean-up
costs to particular buildings, the high environmental costs on this parcel support the conclusion that all buildings on this
parcel are structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
12~4
Report on Building Condition
Building 1D/Business Name/Address:
Satisfies Conditions Test for Strnctm'ally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Structnrally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
Buildin~ 12-4
12-4
Y
Y
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total sigmificance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records, exhibits
the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: deteriorating steel structure; damaged steel colunms at exterior wall;
cracks in concrete floor slab.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to building,
and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at interior doors.
· Installation of drinking fountain required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in lneeting Mechanical code: for building constrtlction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not
provide sufficient number of air exchanges
Fire Protection/Egress
· Deficient exterior door: threshold and landing
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Damaged, cracked and stained in a various locations
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: damaged metal skin on east side of building; broken/chipped concrete at
base of building; deteriorating metal doors, door fi'ames and window frames.
Environmental Factors
· Environmental clean up is required: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSource Technologies,
Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned up in the following areas:
1) soil and/or ground water impacted with petroleum, 2) the presence of foundry waste in soils or ground
water which has been impacted with metals leaching fi'om the foundry waste, 3) soil, sediment and/or
ground water hnpacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings across the entire district.
In 2003 the cost to clean tip the district was estimated to be 4.65 million dollars.
· Of the $4.65 million to clean up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean tip of Parcel
12 (which includes Building 12-4), is $904,585.
12-4
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered structurally
substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the
current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of the same square footage
and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $415,840.00
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $84274.80
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 20.27%
Refer to Individual Building Smmnary Report for docmnentation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel 12 as a whole ($904,585) is included in the aggregate cost of correction
of code deficiencies for all 6 buildings on Parcel No. 12 ($7,772,012.20), the aggregate Total Deficiency Cost for those
buildings is $8,676,597.20. That adjusted aggregate Total Deficiency Cost represents 46.1% of the aggregate Total
Replacement Cost ($18,811,261.75) for all six buildings. In other words, while it is not possible to allocate clean-up
costs to particular buildings, the high environmental costs on this parcel support the conclusion that all buildings on this
parcel are structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
12-5
Report on Building Condition
Building ID/Business Name/Address:
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
Building 12-5
12-5
Y
Y
__v
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records, exhibits
the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: deteriorating steel structure; damaged steel columns at interior of
building; cracks in concrete floor slab.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to building,
and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at interior doors.
· Installation of drinking fotmtain required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not
provide sufficient mm~ber of air exchanges
Fire Protection/Egress
· Deficient exterior door: threshold
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Damaged, cracked and stained
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: damaged metal skin on southeast side of building; broken/chipped
concrete at base of building; broken windows on southeast side of building; deteriorating metal doors,
door frames and window frames; deteriorating metal panels at various locations on building exterior.
Environmental Factors
· Environmental clean up is required: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSom'ce Technologies,
Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned up in the following areas: 1)
soil and/or ground water impacted with petroleum, 2) the presence of foundry waste in soils or ground
water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the foundry waste, 3) soil, sediment and/or
ground water impacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings across the entire district.
In 2003 the cost to clean up the district was estimated to be 4.65 million dollars.
· Of the $4.65 million to clean up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean up of Parcel
12 (which includes Building 12-5), is $904,585.
12-5
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered
structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be
modified to satisfy the cra'rent building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of
the same square footage and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $778,886.40
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $180,663.20
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 23.20%
Refer to Individual Building Smrnnary Report for documentation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel 12 as a whole ($904,585) is included in the aggregate cost of
correction of code deficiencies for all 6 buildings on Parcel No. 12 ($7,772,012.20), the aggregate Total Deficiency
Cost for those buildings is $8,676,597.20. That adjusted aggregate Total Deficiency Cost represents 46.1% of the
aggregate Total Replacement Cost ($18,811,261.75) for all six buildings. In other words, while it is not possible to
allocate clean-up costs to particular buildh~gs, the high enviromnental costs on this parcel support the conclusion
that all buildings on this parcel are structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, subd. 10.
12-6
Report on Building Condition
Building D/Business Name/Address:
3800 5th Streeh 3800 Building
12-6
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Y
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Y
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Mim~esota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records, exhibits
the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: cracks in exterior masomy wall, near grade and in various locations;
damaged steel colmmas in various locations; cracks in concrete floor slab, with sections of slab shifted
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to building,
and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at interior doors;
lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in toilet rooms.
· Installation of drinking fotmtain required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not
provide sufficient mm~ber of air exchanges
Fire ProtectimgEgress
Deficient exterior stair~vay: width, rise/nm dimensions, handrail height, terminations, extensions and
guardrails.
· Deficient exterior door: tbreshold and landing
· Deficient interior stairway: rise/mn dimensions, landing, handrail height, terminations, extensions and
gnardrails.
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Damaged, cracked and stained in several areas
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: damaged metal skin on rear of building; broken and/or missing sections
of panels at rear of building; deteriorating metal doors, door fi'ames and window frames.
Environmental Factors
· Environmental clean tip is required: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSom'ce Technologies,
Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned up in the following areas: 1)
soil and/or ground water impacted with petroleum, 2) the presence of founch2~ waste in soils or ground
water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the fotmdry waste, 3) soil, sediment and/or
ground water impacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings across the entire district.
In 2003 the cost to clean tip the district was estimated to be 4.65 million dollars.
~.~ thc
,,4.uo tllC pul 1.1Ull
=nt,,= p~uguseu at~,uutcu ,,~ ,he clean up of Parcel
12 (which h~cludes Building 12-6), is $904,585.
12-6
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered structurally
substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the
cmTent building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of the same square footage
and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $16,005,969.75
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $7,162,021.40
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 44.75%
Refer to Individual Building Smranary Report for documentation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of environmental clean tip for Parcel 12 as a whole ($904,585) is included in the aggregate cost of correction
of code deficiencies for all 6 buildings on Parcel No. 12 ($7,772,012.20), the aggregate Total Deficiency Cost for those
buildings is $8,676,597.20. That adjusted aggregate Total Deficiency Cost represents 46.1% of the aggregate Total
Replacement Cost ($18,811,261.75) for all six buildings. In other words, while it is not possible to allocate clean-up
costs to particular buildings, the high environmental costs on this parcel support the conclusion that all buildings on this
parcel are structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
13-1
Report on Building Condition
Building iD/Business Name/Address: 3801 5th Street~ Rayco Corporation
Satisfies Conditions Test for Stmctm'ally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
13-1
Y
Y
Y
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Mim~esota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structm'al elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records,
exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: dmnaged and deteriorating metal exterior skh~; cracks and missing
grout in brick wall; spalling of concrete block face in several areas; broken and/or missing bricks on
exterior wall at roof level.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to
building, and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at
interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in toilet room.
· Installation of drinking fountains required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building constrrlction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do
not provide sufficient mm~ber of air exchanges
Fire Protection/Egress
· Deficient exterior stailwvay: deficient rise/run dimensions, handrail heights, dialneter, terminations,
extensions and gnardrails.
· Deficient exterior door: threshold height.
· Deficient interior stairway: deficient rise/mn dimensions, handrail heights, terminations, extensions
and guardrails.
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Cracked and damaged drywall/plaster in several areas; deteriorating wood paneling on interior walls,
near floor level, in several locations.
· Installation of non-absorbent wall surface in toilet room required.
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: broken and/or missing bricks on interior bearing walls.
· Peeling paint on damaged and deteriorating bricks and concrete block walls.
Environmental Factors
· Enviromnental clean up is required: A detailed Teclmical Report completed by ProSource
Technologies, Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned up in the
following areas: 1) soil and/or ground water impacted with petroleum, 2) the presence of foundry
waste in soils or ground water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the foundry waste,
3) soil, sediment and/or ground water impacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings
across the entire district. In 2003 the cost to clean tip the district was esthnated to be 4.65 million
dollars.
· Of the 4.65 million dollars to clean-up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean up
of Building iD 13-1 and Parcel 13 is $143,117.
13-1
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered
structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be
modified to satisfy the current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of
the same square footage and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $2,653,244.52
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $674,165.96
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost:
Refer to Individual Building Smrnnary Report for docmnentation of specific code deficiencies.
25.41%
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel No. 13 ($143,117) is included in the cost of correction of code
deficiencies, the Total Deficiency Cost is $817,282.96. That adjusted Total Deficiency Cost represents 30.8% of the
Total Replacement Cost. The high environmental costs fm-ther support the conclusion that this building is
structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
Report on Building Condition
Building 1D/Business Name/Address:
450 38th Avenue~ Steel Tech
21-1
Satisfies Conditions Test for Smtctm'ally Substandard Building:
N
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
N
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Snbdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
We were unable to gain access to the above building/parcel. Based upon exterior evaluation only, there is
insufficient data to make a finding as to building condition.
Report on Building Condition
Building ID/Business Name/Address:
515-517 38th Ave NE~ JR Properties
24-1
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structm'ally Substandard Building:
N
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
N
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building
is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in stTuctural elements or a combination of deficiencies
in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and
condition of interior pm'titions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total
significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance."
We were unable to gain access to the above building/parcel. Based upon exterior evaluation only, there is
insufficient data to make a £mding as to building condition.
28-1
Report on Building Condition
550-600 39th Ave NE
Building ID/Business Name/Address: BP Video- Schafer Richardson
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
28-1
Y
Y
Y
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is
structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records,
exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structm'al Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: cracks in brick and concrete block walls, mainly along grout lines;
spalling of concrete block face at grade; settlement cracks on 50% of the wall height on south side of
building; cracks in concrete floor slab in several areas.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance to
building, and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance at
interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in toilet room.
· Installation of drinking fountains required.
· Installation of additional toilet fixtures required.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do
not provide sufficient nmnber of air exchanges
Fire Protection/Egress
· Deficient exterior stairway: rise/nm dimensions, handrail height, diameter, terminations and
extensions.
· Deficient exterior door: threshold height
· Deficient interior stairway: deficient in width, rise/run dimensions, landing dimension, handrail height,
diameter, terminations, extensions and guardrails.
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Broken and/or cracked drywall/plaster or concrete block in several areas.
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: peeling paint and mst stains on concrete block walls; deteriorating
door fi'ames and doors at grade.
· Defects in interior of building: broken and/or missing floor tile in several areas; mold and moisture
stains on interior concrete block walls in service areas; several damaged interior doors; chipped and
broken concrete floor slab in hallway, near rear entrance.
Enviromnental Factors
· Enviromnental clean up is required: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSource
Technologies, inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazm'dous materials to be cleaned up in thc
following areas: 1) soil and/or ground water impacted with petroleum, 2) the presence of ±bunds3,
waste in soils or ground water which has been impacted with metals leaching from the foundry waste,
3) soil, sediment and/or ground water impacted with chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings
across the entire district. In 2003 the cost to clean up the district was estimated to be 4.65 million
dollars.
28-1
Of the 4.65 million dollars to clean-up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the clean tip
of Building 1D 28-1 and Parcel 28 is $196,953.
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered
smtctxlrally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be
modified to satisfy the current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new building of
the same square footage and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $10,586,938.36
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $1,858,780.56
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost:
Refer to Individual Building Sununary Report for documentation of specific code deficiencies.
17.56%
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel No. 28 ($196,953) is included in the cost of correction of code
deficiencies, the Total Deficiency Cost is $2,055,733.56. That adjusted Total Deficiency Cost represents 19.4% of
the Total Replacement Cost. The high environmental costs fitrther support the conclusion that this building is
structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10.
31-1
Report on Building Condition
Building D/Business Name/Address: 620 39th Ave NE~ Region Truck Equipment
Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building:
Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N):
31-1
Y
Y
Conditions Test
Under the tax increment law, specifically, Mim~esota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building
is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies
in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and
condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total
significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance."
The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit
records, exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance:
Structural Elements
· Defects in exterior building shell: cracks in brick and block walls, along grout lines and
through blocks in various locations; cracks in concrete floor slab.
Essential Utilities & Facilities
· Deficient in facilities for disabled: deficient in disability parking, signage, accessible entrance
to building, and accessible hardware on exterior and interior doors; lack of maneuvering
clearance at interior doors; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in toilet
room.
· Addition of drinking fountain required to replace existing drinking fmmtain.
Light & Ventilation
· Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical
systems do not provide sufficient nmnber of air exchanges
Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions
· Cracks and dents in chTwall/plaster; hole in wall above toilet tank in toilet room.
· Installation of non-absorbent wall surface in toilet room required.
Similar Factors
· Defects in exterior building shell: peeling paint and face of concrete block spalling on interior
face of exterior wall in changing room; damaged and deteriorating exterior and interior doors
and door frames.
Environmental Factors
· Enviromnental clean up is required: A detailed Technical Report completed by ProSource
Technologies, Inc. in October 2003, identifies the need for hazardous materials to be cleaned
up in the following areas: 1) soil and/or ground water impacted with petroleum, 2) the
presence of foundry waste in soils or grotmd water which has been impacted with metals
leaching from the foundry waste, 3) soil, sediment and/or ground water impacted with
chlorinated solvents and 4) ACM within buildings across the entire district. In 2003 the cost
to clean up the district was estimated to be 4.65 million dollars.
· Of the 4.65 million dollars to clean-up the entire proposed district, the portion attributed to the
clean up of Building ID 31-1 and Parcel 31 is $313,906.
31-1
Code Test
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered
smtcturally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could
be modified to satisfy the current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of consmtcting a new
building of the same square footage and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $530,226.51
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $176,551.56
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 33.30 %
Refer to Individual Building Sununary Report for docmnentation of specific code deficiencies.
If the cost of environmental clean up for Parcel No. 31 ($313,906) is included in the cost of correction of
code deficiencies, the Total Deficiency Cost is $490,457.56. That adjusted Total Deficiency Cost
represents 92.5% of the Total Replacement Cost. The high enviromnental costs fin-ther support the
conclusion that this building is structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, subd. 10.
CITY OF
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
INDUSTRIAL PARK
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Redevelopment Eligibility
'Assessment
OCCUPIED SURFACES
150
300
i Feet
Project Boundary
Parcels
Yes
Coordinate System:
UTM, NAD 83
Soume;Cify of Columbia Hgts,
Anoka Couniy, USGS FSA,
a~d SEH, - Aerials 2003
x
CITY OF
L;_'ULU~!A HI-!LS_'H ! _~
INDUSTRIAL PARK
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Redevelopment Eligibility
Assessment
BUILDINGS ASSESSMENT
150
300
~Feet
Legend
~PmjectBounda~
Buildings
Coordinate Sys[em:
UTM, NAD 83 (m~
Source:Ci~, of Columbia Hg~s,
Anol~a County, USGS FSA,
and SEH. - Aerials 2003
CITY OF
INDUSTRIAL PARK
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Redevelopment Eligibility
Assessment
PERCENT OCCUPIED
0 150 300
~ Feet
Legend
~ Project Boundary
Par(e_is
Percent Occupied
0 % Occupied
[~ 1 - 15 % Occupied
Coordinate Sysiem:
UTM, NAD 83 (m)
Source:C~ty of Columbia Hgts,
Anoka County, USGS FSA,
and SEH. - ~iais 2C~33
~ITE E]OP-UPIED/BUlLDINB c~UBSTANDAI~D DETERMINATli-iN
P-ITY ~iF E:EILLIMBIA HEIE~HT~
I~EDEVELE3PMENT ELIBIBILITY ASSE=~MENT
MaP TYPE OF SITE AREA COVERAGE SITE COVERAGE TOTAL # #
ID FULL NAME OCCUPATION (s.f,) % COVERAGE (s.f,) QUANTITY BUILDINGS SUBSTANDARD
11 3755 UNIVERCITY AVE BUILDING/PAVED 75,396 98.51 74269 75,396 I 1
12 3800 5TH STREET BUILDINGS/PAVED 353,818 90.90 321636 353,818 6 6
13 3801 5TH STREET BUILDING/PAVED 43,218 99.93 43188 43,218 I 1
14 Not given in data set PAVED 106,621 71.80 76551 106,621 0 0
15 Not given in data set PAVED 169,111 71.17 120361 169,111 0 0
21 450 38TH AVE BUILDING/PAVED 11,385 100.00 11385 11,383 1 1
23 Not given in data set PAVED 6,480 99.94 6476 6,480 0 0
24 515-517 38TH AVE BUILDING/PAVED 14,175 99.93 14165 14,175 1 1
27 Not given in data set PAVED 33,029 99.93 33006 33,029 0 0
28 550-600 39TH AVE BUILDING/PAVED 260,684 74.76 194877 260,684 I 1
30 Not given in data set PAVED 104,162 84.88 88409 104,162 1 1
31 3900 JEFFERSON ST BUILDING/PAVED 27,203 99.93 27184 27,203
MAP iD #
P[D #
Parcel Name
53024340003
3755 UN];VER51'T"/AVE, 6RE];F 1'NC.
INDIV'rDUAL BUI'LDZN6 5UAAAAARY REPORT
Znspector LAG
Znspection Date 7/9/2004
Survey Method ZNTERZOR
Bid9 Occupancy B/Z
Bldg Type BUS/ZNDUST
Wall Construction /~ASONRY
Roof Construction STEEL/WOOD
# Stories 1
Basement (Y/N) N
5tory-Height 30
Floor Area 50000
Building Area 65000
Year Built 1925
5prinklered N
Elevator Y
Exterior wan And FrameI $66.g51 65,000.00I
Story Height Adjustment (Add or Dtduct) J J 0.00J
Basement*I I o,ooo.ool
Location Factor** add (7°) I °'131
Total Replacement Cost
Total ~fi:i~n:y CostI I I
Percentag~ of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost
Satisfies Step ~ Test (469.~74 ~O (c)) for Structurally Substandard Buildin9 (Y/N)
*Residential Basement - Calculate Percentage of Finished vs. Unfinished
**Location Factor varies by location ~nd building type (commercial or residential)
$4,351,750.00
$o.oo
$o.oo
$565,727.5o
$4,917,477.50
$1,208,229.00
24.57Y.
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cost
$124,085.00
$195,000.00
$499,144.00
$0.00
$3§0,000.00
$0.00
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessiblity Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add stdping for one stall plus signsge
Ne van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0428; add signage each stall
No exterior accessible mute (that does not require use of stairs) from silo access to building entrance - MN
1341~0422; remove accessibility barriem, provide new sidewalk
Non-compliant or no curb cut provided for exterior accessible route - MN 1341.0430; remove existing walk and
curb, provide new pedestrian curb ramp
Exterior entrance door on an accessible mule less than 32" width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing door.
enlarge opening, provide new door
Exterior enlrance door on an accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or min.
48" between sets ef doom - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341.0442;
replace existing door hardware
Accessibility (Interior) - 1999 Minnesota Access[bifity Code, Ch. 1341
Building occupancy of floor (greater than 30 occupants) above or below level of access requires installation of
an elevator- MN 1341.0405; provide new elevator
Door en an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width ~ MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Door on an interior accessible mule without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Toilet mom door opening less than 32" min. clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing door, enlarge opening
and provide new door
Toilet mom door without required maneuvering clearance at (interior) door approach ~ MN 1341.0442; remove
existing bardem or wall framing, patch walls
Toilet room without unobstructed 5'-0" turning radius within room - MN 1341.0460; remove barriers or wall
flaming, enlarge toilet room and palch walls
Toilet room without 30"x48" clear space for forward approach at lavatory - MN 1341.0454; remove barriers or
wall framing or modify base cabinet
Toilet room without lavatory at 34" max. height and 29" min. clear knee space below - MN 1341.0454;
relocate/adjust height of lavatory and plumbing
Toilet room without lever or similar faucet controls for lavatory - MN 1341.0454; replace existing lavatory faucet
Toilet mom without plumbing insulation/covering for lavatory - MN 1341.0454; provide plumbing
insulafion/covedng
Toilet mom accessories (soap dispenser, towel dispenser, etc.) that are mounted higher than 40" max. above
the floor- MN 1341.0470; relocale existing toilet accessories
Toilet mom without clear space for side transfer water closet/Ioilet stall - MN 1341.0448; remove barriers or wall
framing, enlarge toilet mom and patch walls
Toilet mom without toilet seat at 17"-19" above the floor - MN 1341.0448; replace existing toilet fixture
Toilet mom without horizontal and vedical grab barn for water closet/toilet stall - MN 1341.0448; provide new
grab bars (18", 36". 42") Page 2
Ama/NumberUnit Cost
of Req'd.
improvements
N $240.00
N $250.00
$80.00
N $700.00
N $500~00
N $1,350,00
N $500.00
N $200.00
$52,725.00
3 $250.00
8 $175.00
2 $0.00
2 $9.00
2 $0.00
$0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
Deficiency Cost
1
$240.00
$250.00
$80.00
$700.00
$500.00
$1,350.00
$500.00
$200.00
1
$52,725.00
$750.00
$1,400.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Toilet room wflhout urinal rim mounled at 17" max. above the floor- MN 1341 0452; relocale/adjust height of
urinal and plumbing
Toilet room without 30"x42" clear space for forward approach at urinal - MN 1341.0452; remove existing
barriers or wal~ framing, pa[ch walls
Toilet room accessibility improvments due to noncompl[ant clearances at fixtures or doors, and heights of
5xtures - MN 1341.0454; major remodeling: remove barriers or wall framing, enlarge toilet room by relocating
one or more walls (affect one or more adjacent spaces)
Less than 5% of public/common use sales/service countedwindow at 36" max. above the floor or 36" min. width
- MN 1341.0720; relocate/adjust height of counter and base cabinet
Drinking fountain without 30"x48" clear floor space for side or forward approach - MN 1341.0446; remove
existing barriers or wall flaming, patch waits
Drinking fountain without spout at 36" max. height and 27" min. knee clearance - MN 1341.0446;
relocate/adjust height of fountain and plumbing
Building Egress -2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Extedor flight of slairs with noncompliant dso/run (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential exception: 7.75" max.
dso/lO" min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; remove existing stairs, provide new slairs (assume 3 treads total)
Exterior flight of stairs with less lhan two handrails (residential except[on = 1 h.r. min.) - ~BC 1003.3.3.11;
provide new handrail (assume 3 treads total}
Exterior stair handreiis are not located at 34"-38" above the tread- IBC 1003.3.3.11; relocate/modify existing
handrail
Extedor stair handrail ends do not return to wal~s or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003~3.3.11; modify existing
handrail end
Extedor slair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom riser
- IBC 1003.3.3.11; mod[fy existing handrail end
Exterior stair flight or landing with noncompliant guardrail (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between
intermediate rails) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 5
lin. feet)
Exterior door w/Ih greater than W' threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of extedor
stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Extedor door landing less than 44" min. in direction of travel (residential exception = 36") or greater than 7" rise
for non-accessible exterior doom in groups F, H, R. S, and U - IBC 1003.3.1.5, IBC 1003.3.1.4; assume
replacement of extedor sloop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Interior stair less than 36" min. clear width - IBC 1003.3.3.1; widen stairs, modify railings and adjacent walls
Flight of stairs with noncompliant rise/run (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential exception: 7.75" max. rise/lO"
min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; replace stairs, modify railings and adjacent wails
Stair handrails are not located at 34"-38" above the tread - IBC 1003.3.3.11; relocate/modify existing handrail
Stair handrails do net provide between 1-1/4" - 1-1/2" gdpping sur[ace (non-accessible/residenflal exception =
2" max. grip) - IBC 1003.3.3.11; remove existing handrail, provide new handrail (assume 9' floor to floor)
Stair handrail ends do not return 1o wails er terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
end
Stair handrail ends do not exlend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom riser- IBC
1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Stair handrails are net continuous - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
Stair flight er landing with noncompliant guardrail (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between intermediate
rails) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 3'-6" lin. Feet)
Stairway improvements required due to noncompliant dso/run, width, headroom, landings, and height - IBC
1003.3.3; major remodeling: replace slairs, modify railings, landings, and adjacent walls
Page 3
2 $0.00 $0.00
I $0.00 $0.00
2 $15,000.00 $30,000.00
$400.00
$500.00
$250.00
$70O.OO
Calculated $250.00
1 $150.00
2 $150.00
2 $370.00
2 $300.00
3 $500.00
2 $500.00
$0.00
$0.00
2 $50.00
2 $400.00
2 $50.00
2 $50.00
2 $50.00
$300.00
1 $5,000.00
$400.00
$500.00
$250.00
1
$700.00
$0.00
$150.00
$300.00
$740.00
$600.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
$800.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$300.00
$5,000.00
Calculated occupancy
# Exst, Baths/Tit. Rms.
flExst. TIt,-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Ftn.
Building occupancy of basement or stories other than the first story requires installation of an additional egress
stairway - IBC 1005.2.1; major remodeling: modify floor structure and adjacent walls, provide new stairway and
handrails
Building Construction - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional toilet fixture(s) or additional bathroom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet room by relocating one or more walls and fixtures, or construct new bathroom
wails, door, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional drinking fountain - IBC Chap. 29; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Bathroom not provided with means of mechanical ventilation - IBC 1202.4.2.1; provide ceiling exhaust fan,
electric hook-up, and ductwork
Fire Protection Systems - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy, area, and construction type of building require installation of fire sprinkler system - IBC Chap. 5,
UBC 903; provide new sprinkler system
Energy Code Compltanqe - 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch. 7672, 7674, or 7676
Window exceeds thermal transmittance standards (window glazing is non-insulated) - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, replace interior and exterior trim
For building construction pdor to 1976, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0760; excavate foundation wall at perimeter of building, assume add insulation depth to 4' below finished
floor (I.f. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.28 (insulation + excavation))
For building construction prior to 1976, exterior wall area wilh less lhan R-11 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price far new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS ar interior wall furring and insulafion is.f. wall surface x
$7.00)
For building construction pdor to 1976, attic/roof area wilh less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement ~ assume tolal rereof required, 'fiat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. roof x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construction pdor to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $600/len)
For building construction prior to 1989, building electrical systems are not su~cient to handle addifienal
mechanical units associated with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
65O
2
2
1
1
1
0
Calculated loads
3
4
4
4
4
1
I $5,000.00
I $15,000.00
1.00 $1,950.00
2 $4OO.OO
65OOO $3.0O
22 $700.00
4800 $3~28
24000 $7.00
50000 $6.00
81250
162.5
65000
$2.00
$600.00
$2.00
$5,000.00
1
$15,000.00
$1,950.00
$800.00
1
$195,000~00
1
$15,400~00
$15,744.00
$168,000.00
$300,000.00
1
$162,500.00
$97,500.00
$130,000.00
Page 4
MAP ID #
PID #
Parcel Name
Action Plastics
INDIVIDUAL BUILDINS SUMMARY REPORT
Inspector
Inspection Date
Survey Method
Bldg Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
5tory-Height
Floor Area
Building Area
Year Built
Sprinklered
Elevator
R5
10/8/2004
Interior
B
BUSINE55
METAL
METAL
1
N
24
8000
8000
1954
N
N
Exterior Wall And Frame $78.ooj 8,ooo.ooJ $624,ooo.oc
Story Height Adjustment (Add or Deduct)[ $8.16J 8,000.OOJ $65,2B0.0C
Basement*I [ [
Location Factor** add (%) I o.13[ $B9,606.40
Total R~pbc~ment Cost $778,886.4~
Total Deficiency CostI I I $169,313.2~
PercentaBe of Code Deficiency To Replacement Co~? 21.74%
Satisfies Step ~ Test (469,174 10 (c)) for 5tPuctupdlJy Substandard Building (Y/N)
*Residential Basement - Calculate Percentage of Finished vs. Unfinished
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cost
$21,670.00
$24,000.00
$70,643.20
$0,00
$48,000.00
$5,000.00
Page I
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessibltty Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341,0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0428; add signage each stall
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route less than 32" width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing door,
enlarge opening, provide new door
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341.0442;
replace existing door hardware
Accessibility (Interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch, 1341
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Door on an interior accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Building Egress -2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Extedor door with greater than Y=" threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exlerior
stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Exterior door landing less than 44" min. in direction of travel (residential exception = 36") or greater than 7" rise
for non-accessible extedor doors in groups F, H, R. S, and U - IBC 1003.3.1.5, IBC 1003.3.1.4; assume
replacement of exterior stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Stair handrail ends do not return to walls or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
end
Stair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom riser- IBC
1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Stair flight or landing with noncompliant guardrail (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between intermediate
roils) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 3'-6" lin. Feet)
Building Construction -2000 Interoational Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional toilet fixture(s) or additional bathroom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet room by relocating one or more walls and fixtures, or construct new bathroom
walls, door, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional drinking fountain - IBC Chap. 29; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Fire Protection Systems -2000 International Building Code (IBC}
Occupancy, aroa, and construction type of buirding require installation of fire sprinkler system - IBC Chap. 5,
UBC 903; provide new sprinkler system
Energy Code Compliance - 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch. 7672, 7674, or 7676
For building construction prior to 1976, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundation wall at perimeter of building, assume add insulation depth to 4' below finished
floor (I.fi perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.28 (insulation + excavation))
Area/Number Unit CostDeficiency Cost
of Req'd.
Improvements
1
N $240.00 $240.00
N $250.00 $250.00
I $80.00 $80.00
n $1,350.00 $1,350.00
n $200.00 $200.00
1
I $250.00 $250.00
2 $175.00 $350.00
1
2 $500.00 $1,000.00
I $500.00 $500.00
2 $50.00 $100.00
2 $50.00 $100.00
1 $300.00 $300.00
1
1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
1.00 $1,950.00 $1,950~00
1
8000 $3.00 $24,000.00
1
1440 $3.28 $4,723.20
Page 2
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. Baths/Tit. Rms.
#Exst. TIt.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Ftn.
For building construction prior to 1976, exterior wall area with less than R-11 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS or interior wall furring and insulation (s.f. wall surface x
$7.00)
For building construclion prior to 1976, aSic/raef area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0500, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement - assume total reraof required, 'fiat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. roof x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1959, mechanical syslems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling unils (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construction prior to 1988, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for addJ6onal air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required} x $600/I0n)
For building construction prior to 1989, building eleclrical systems are not sufficient to handle addiSonal
mechanical units associated with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
Electrical Systems - Commercial deficiencies
Upgrade egress and emergency lighting for NFPA Life Safety Code
MJsceganeous
Secondary Egress exterior obstructed by vegetative growth
80
Calculated loads
8640
8000
10000
20
8000
$7.00
$0.88
$2.00
$800.00
$2.00
$2,500.00
$60,480.00
$5,440.00
1
$20,000.00
$12,000.00
$16,000.00
1
$5,000.00
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Page 3
MAP ID #
PIg #
Parcel Nome
12-2 INDZVIDUAL BUILDTNG SUMMARY REPORT
BUZLDZNG :12-2
Exterior Wall And Frame $108.00 3,200.00 $345,600.00
Story Height Adjustment (Add or Deduct) $7.00 3,2aa.a0 $22,400.00
Besement* o.oo $o.oo
Location Factor** add (%) 0]3 $47,840.00
Total Replacement Cost $415,840.00
Total Deficiency CostJ J J $77.s99.~o
Percentage of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost Y 18.73%
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469.:174 JO (c)) for Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N)
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
R5
10/8/2004
ZNTERIOR
B
BUSZNE55
METAL
METAL
!
N
16
3200
32001
1958i
N
N
Inspector
Inspection Date
Survey Method
Bldg Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
5tory-Height
Floor Area
Building Areo
Year Built
SprinkJered
Elevator
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
De§ciency Cast
$19,995.00
$0.00
$32,204.80
$0.00
$23,200.00
$2,500.00
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessiblity Code, Ch. 1341
Ne disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbilfiy parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0420; add signage each stall
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or min.
48" between sets of doom - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route wfiheut lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341.0442;
replace existing door hardware
Accessibility (interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accesstb0ity Code, Ch. 1341
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove exisfing barriers or wall flaming, patch walls
Door on an interior accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Building Egress - 2000 International Building Code (IBC}
Extedor door with greater than ~" threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exterior
stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Building Construction - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional toilet fixture(s) er additional bathroom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet room by relocating one or more walls and fixtures, or construct new bathroom
walls, door, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional drinking fountain - IBC Chap. 29; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Energy Code Compliance - 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch. 7672, 7674, or 7676
Window exceeds thermal transmittance standards (window glazing is non-insulated) - MN 7672.0600, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, replace interior and exterior trim
For building construclion prior to 1976, foundalion wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0~00, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundation wall at perimeter of building, assume add insulation depth to 4' below finished
floor (l.f. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.26 (insulation + excavation))
Far building construction pdor to 1976, exterior wall area with less than R-11 insulation - MN 7672.0600, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS or interior wall furdng and insulation (s.f. wall sur[ace x
$7.o0)
For building construction pdor 1o 1976, a~tic/roof area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7878.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blowmin
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement - assume total reroof required, 'fiat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. roof x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/a.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
Page 2
Area/Number Unit CostDeficiency Cost
of Req'd.
Improvements
1
N $240.00 $240.00
N $250.00 $250.00
I $80.00 $80.00
N $500.00 $500.00
N $200.00 $200.00
1
1 $250.00 $250.00
3 $175.00 $525.00
1
2 $500.00 $1,000.00
1
I $15,000.00 $15,000.00
1.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00
1
0 $700.00 $0.00
960 $3.26 $3,140.80
3840 $7.00 $26,890.00
3200 $0.68 $2,176.00
0 1
4000 $2.00 $8,000.00
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. Baths/Tit. Rms.
#Exst. TIt.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Fin.
For building construction pdor to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $600/ton)
For building construction prior to 1989, building electrical systems are not sufficient to handle additional
mechanical units associated with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing eleclrical
system (s.[ x $2.00/s.[)
For buildings where vehicles are being repaired, slored or washed that are 1000 s.f. and larger must install a
flammable waste intercepter per MN Plumbing Code 4715.1120
For buildings where vehicles are being repaired, stored or washed that are 1000 s.f. and larger must install a
flammable waste interceptor per MN Plumbing Code 4715.1120
Electrical Systems - Commercial deficiencies
Upgrade ogress and emergency lighting for NFPA Life Safety Code (NFPA 101)
32 Calculated loads
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
8
3200
$600.00
$2.00
$4,000.00
$2,500.00
$4,800.00
$6,400.00
$4,000.00
1
$2,500.00
Page 3
MAP ZD #
PID #
Parcel Nome
12-3 INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT
BUILDING 12-3
Exterior Wall And Frame $108.00 3,200.00 $345,600.00
Story Height Adjustment (Add or Deduct) $7.00 3,200.00 $22,400.00
Basement* 0.00 $0.00
Location Factor** add (%) o.13 $47,84o.oo
Total Replacement Cost $415,840.00
Total Deficiency costI I I $97,849.80
Percentage of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost J 23.53%
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469.174 10 (c)) for Structura y Substandard Bui ding (Y/N)
I
y
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
LAG
7/9/2004
INTERIOR
B
BUSINE55
METAL
METAL
1
N
16
3200
3200
1958
N
N
Inspector
Inspection Date
Survey Method
Bldg Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
5tory-Height
Floor Area
Building Area
Year Built
Sprinklered
Elevator
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cost
$27,545.00
$0.00
$33,604.80
$0.00
$34,200.00
$2,500.00
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessiblity Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one slall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0428; add signage each slall
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or min.
48" between sets of doors - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341.0442;
replace existing door hardware
Accessibility (interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch, 1341
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Door on an interior accessible roule without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
exisfing door hardware
Building Egress - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Exterior stair less than 36" mtn. clear width - IBC 1003.3.3.1; remove existing stairs, provide new stairs (assume
3 treads total)
Exterior flight of stairs with noncompiiant rise/run (7" max. rise/11" mtn. run) (residenlial exception: 7.75" max.
rise/10" min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; remove existing stairs, provide new stairs (assume 3 treads tolal}
Extedor flight of stairs with [ess than two handrails (residential exception = 1 h.r. min.} - IBC 1003.3.3.11;
provide new handrail (assume 3 treads total)
Exterior door with greater than ~" threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exterior
stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Flight of stairs wilh noncompliant dso/run (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential e×cepfion: 7.75" max. rise/10"
mtn. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; rep[ace stairs, modify railings and adjacent walls
Stair handrails are not located at 34"-38" above the tread ~ iBC 1003.3.3.11; re]ocate/modiry existing handrail
Stair handrail ends do not return to wails or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
end
Stair handrail ends do not exlend 12" beyond the lop riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom riser- IBC
1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Slair flight or landing with noncompliant guardrail (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing bob,Yeah intermediate
rails) (residential exception = 34"- 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 3'-6" lin. Feet)
Stairway improvements required due to noncompliant rise/run, width, headroom, landings, and height - IBC
1003.3.3; major remodeling: replace stairs, modify railings, landings, and adjacent walls
Building Construction - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional toilet fixture(s) or additional bathroom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge lei[et room by relocating one or more walls and fixtures, or construct new bathroom
wails, door, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional drinking fountain - IBC Chap. 29; provide new
accessible drinking founlain and plumbing
Energy Code Compliance - 2000 Minnesota Energy~.~J~, ~;h. 7672, 7674, or 7676
Area/Number Unit CostDeficiency Cost
of Req'd.
improvements
1
N $240.00 $240.00
N $250.00 $250.00
1 $80.00 $80.00
N $500.00 $500.00
N $200.00 $200.00
1
1 $250.00 $250.00
3 $175.00 $525.00
1
0 $700.00 $0.00
0 $700.00 $0.00
Calculated $250.00 $0.00
2 $500.00 $1,000.00
1 $0.00 $0.00
I $50.00 $50.00
I $50.00 $50.00
1 $50.00 $50.00
9 $300.00 $2,400.00
1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
1
1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
1.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00
1
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. BathsfTIt. Rms.
#Exst. TS.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Fin.
Window exceeds thermal transmiltance standards (window glazing is non-insulated) - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, replace inlerior and exledor lrim
For building constroclion prior to 1976, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation ~ MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundalion wall at perimeter of building, assume add insulation depth to 4' below finished
floor (Lf. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.28 (insulation + excavation))
For building construction prior to 1976, exterior wall area wilh less than R-11 insulalion - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.5D), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS er intedor wall furring and insulation (s.f. wall surface x
$7.00)
For building construction prior to 1976, aflic/roof area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) er R-23
insulatian (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6~5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement - assume total mmof required, 'fiat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. roof x $6.60}
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems de not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2~00/cfm)
For building construction prior to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrada condensing unit for addilional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $600/ton)
For building construction prior to 1989, building electrical systems are nat sufficient to handle additional
mechanical units associated wilh increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing elecldcal
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
For building construction prior to 1989, repair garage occupancy, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient
number of air exchanges for exhaust fumes; provide new engine/tailpipe exhaust system including fans,
adapters, and tubing ($4000,00) and new CO detector system including sensor and panel ($3,000.00)
For buildings where vehicles are being repaired, stored or washed lhat are 1000 s.f. and larger must install a
flammable wasle interceptor per MN Plumbing Code 4715.1120
Electrical Systems - Commercial deficiencies
Upgrade egress and emergency lighting for NFPA Life Safety Code
32 Calculaled loads
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 I
2
960
3840
3200
0
4000
8
3200
1
$700.00
$3.28
$7.00
$o.66
$2.00
$800.00
$2.00
$7,O0O.OO
$4,000.00
$2,500.00
$1,400.00
$3,148.80
$26,880.00
$2,176.00
1
$8,000.00
$4,800.00
$6,400.00
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
1
$2,500.00
Page 3
MAP ID #
PTD #
Parcel Name
12-4 INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT
BUILDING 1;~-4
Exterior Wall And Frame $108.00 3,200.00 $345,600.00
Story Height Adjustment (Add or Deduct) $7.00 3,200.00 $22,400.00
Basement* o.oo $0.00
Location Factor** odd (%) 0.13 $47,840.00
Total Replacement dost $4]5,840.00
Total Deficiency CostI J J $B4,274.80
Percentage of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost y 20.27%
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469.174 tO (c)) for Structura y Substandard Building (Y/N)
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
10.8.04
INTERIOR
B
BUSINESS
METAL
METAL
1
N
3200
3200
1958
N
N
Inspector
Inspection Date
Survey Method
Bid9 Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
Story-Height
Floor Area
Building Area
Year Built
SprinkJered
Elevator
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cost
$22,370.00
to.co
$32,204.80
$0.00
$27,200.00
$2,500.00
Page I
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessiblity Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Ne van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0428; add signags each stall
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or min.
48" between sets of doors - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341.0442;
replace existing door hardware
Accessibility (Interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch. 1341
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriem or wall framing, palch walls
Door on an intedor accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Building Egress - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Exterior stair less than 36" min. clear width - IBC 1003.3.3~1; remove existing stalin, provide new stairs (assume
3 treads total)
Exterior flight of stairs wilh nencompiiant rise/run (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residenfial exception: 7.75" max.
rise/10" min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; remove existing stairs, provide new stairs (assume 3 treads total)
Extedor flight of stairs with less than two handrails (residential exception = 1 h.r. min.) - IBC 1003.3.3.11;
provide new handrail (assume 3 treads total)
Exterior dour with greater than ~" threshold (accessible} - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exterior
stoop required: remove exisfing stoop, provide new stoop
Flight of stairs with noncompliant rise/mn (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential exception: 7.75" max. rise/lO"
min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; replace stairs, modify railings and adjacent walls
Stair handrails are not located at 34"-38" above the tread - IBC 1003.3.3.11; relecale/modify existing handrail
Stair handrail ends do not return to walls or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
end
Slair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bogom riser- iBC
1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Slair flight or landing with noncompliant guardrail (42" min. height, 4" or 21" rain. spacing between intermediate
rails) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 3'-6" lin. Feet)
Building Construction - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires inslallation of additional toilet fixture(s) or additional bathroom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet room by relocating one or more walls and fixtures, or construct new bathroom
walls, door, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires inslallation of additional ddnking fountain - IBC Chap. 29; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Energy Code Compliance - 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch, 7672, 7674, or 7676
Page 2
Area/Number Unit Cost
of Req'd.
Improvements
N $240.00
N $250.00
$80.00
N $500.00
N $200.00
I $250.00
2 $175.00
0 $700.00
0 $700.00
Calculated $250.00
2 $500.00
1 $0.00
1 $50.00
I $50.00
1 $50.00
8 $300.00
1 $15,000.00
1.00 $1,950.00
Deficiency Cost
1
$240.00
$250.00
$80.00
$500.00
$200.00
1
$250.0O
$350.00
1
$o.oo
$o.oo
$o.oo
$1,ooo.oo
$o.oo
$5o.00
$50.00
$50.00
$2,400.00
1
$15,000.O0
$1,950.00
1
Calculated occupancy
#Exst. TIt.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exet. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Ddnking Ftn.
For building construction prior 1o 1978, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; excavale foundation wall at perimeler of building, assume add insulation depth to 4' below finished
floor (I.f. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.28 (insulation + excavation))
For building construction prior to 1976, exterior wall area wilh less than R-11 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume pdce for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS or interior wall furring and insulation (s.f. wall surface x
$7.00}
For building construction prior to 1976, attic/roof area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5' blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement - assume total reroef required, 'fiat' roof, built-up meting and
roof edge (s.f. root x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1969, repair garage occupancy, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient
number of air exchanges for exhaust fumes; provide new engine/tailpipe exhaust system including fans,
adapters, and tubing ($4000,00) and new CO deteclor syslem including sensor and panel ($3,000.00)
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construction prior to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $600/ton)
For building construction prior to 1989, building electrical systems are not sufficient to handle additional
mechanical units associated with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
For buildings where vehicles are being repaired, stored or washed that are 1000 s.f. and larger must install a
flammable waste interceptor per MN Plumbing Code 4715.1120
Electrical Systems - Commercial deficiencies
Upgrade egress and emergency lighting for NFPA Life Safety Code
32
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
960
3840
3200
0
1
4000
8
3200
2
1
$3.28
$7.OO
$0.68
$7,000.00
$2.00
$600.00
$2.00
$4,000.00
$2,500.00
$3,148.80
$26,880.00
$2,176.00
1
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
$4,800.00
$6,400.00
$8,000.00
1
$2,500.00
Page 3
MAP ZD #
P[D #
Parcel Nome
12-5
BUILDING 12-5
INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT
Inspector
Inspection Date
Survey Method
Bldg Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
Story-Height
Floor Area
Building Area
Year Built
Sprinklered
Elevator
LAG
7/9/2004
INTERIOR
B
BUSINE55
METAL
N
24
8000
8000
1954
N
N
Exterior Wall And Frame $78.ooI s,ooo.ooI
5tory Height Adjustment (Add or beduct)] $8.161 s.ooo.ooI
Location Factor** add (%) ] 0.13I
Total Replacement Cost
Total Deficiency CostI I I
Percentage of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469]74 10 (c)) for Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N)
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
$624,000.00
$65,280.00
$o.oo
$89,606.40
$778,886.40
$180,663.20
23.20%
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cost
$18,320.00
$24,0OO.OO
$85,343.20
$0.00
$48,000.00
$5,000.00
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessiblity Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add sldping for one stall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341~0428; add signage each stall
Extedor entrance door en an accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341.0442;
replace existing door hardware
Accessibility (interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch. 1341
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch wails
Door on an interior accessible mute without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Building Construction - 2090 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional toilet fixture(s) or additional bathroom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet mom by relocating one or mom walls and fixtures, or censlruct new bathreem
wails, door, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires inslallation of additional drinking fountain - IBC Chap~ 29; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Fire Protection Systems -2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy, area, and construction type of building require installation of fire sprinkler system - IBC Chap. 5,
UBC 903; provide new sprinkler system
Energy Code Compliance - 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch. 7672, 7674, or 7676
Window exceeds thermal transmittance standards (window glazing is nen-insulaled) - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, rep]ace intedar and exterior trim
For building construction prior to 1976, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0900, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundation wall at perimeter of building, assume add insulation depth 1o 4' below finished
floor (Lf. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.20 (insulation + excavation))
For building construcfion prior to 1976, exterior wall area with less than R-11 insulafion - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS or interior wall furring and insulafion (s.f. wail surface x
$7.00)
For building construction prior to 1976, attic/reef area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0600, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.98), commereial improvement - assume total reroof required, 'fiat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. roof x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1999, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + conirels) for increased air exchanges (ts.fi area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construclion prior 1o 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((add[fional cfm required/500 ion/cfm =
addifional ton cooling required) x $600/ton)
Page 2
Area/Number Unit CostDeficiency Cost
of Req'd.
Improvements
1
N $240.00 $240.00
N $250,00 $250.00
I $80.00 $80.00
N $200.00 $200.00
1
1 $250.00 $250.00
2 $175.00 $350.00
1
1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
1.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00
1
8000 $3.00 $24,000.00
1
21 $700.00 $14,700.00
1440 $3.28 $4,723.20
8840 $7.00 $60,480.00
8000 $0.68 $5,440.00
10000 $2.00
20 $600.00
1
$20,000.00
$12,000.00
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. Baths/Tit. Rms.
#Exst. TIt.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Ftn.
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
For building construction pdor to 1989, building electrical systems are not sufficient to handle additional
mechanical units associalad with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity 1o existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
Electrical Systems - Commercial deficiencies
Upgrade egress and emergency lighting for NFPA Life Safety Code
Calculated loads
1
1
1
0
0
1
8000
2
$2.00
$2,500.00
$16,000.00
1
$5,000.00
Page 3
MAP ID #
PID #
Parcel Name
12-6 INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT
353024340041
3800 BUILDING, 3800 5TH STREET
Exterior Wall And Frame $66.95 211,ooo.oc
5tory Height Adjustment (Add or Deduct) $2.50 15,250.00 $38,1z5.0o
Basement* $o.oo
Location Factor** add (%) 0.I3 $1,841,394.7§
Total RepJacement Cost $16,005,959.75
Total Deficiency CostI I I $7,16z,0~1.4C
Percentage of Code Deficiency To I~eplacement Cost y 44.75%
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469.174 10 (c)) for Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N)
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
LAG/RS
7/1/2004
INTERIOR
B/I
BUS/INDUST
MASONRY
STEEL
N
3O
211,000
211,000
Inspector
Inspection Date
Survey Method
Bldg Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
5tory-Height
Floor Area
Building Area
Year Built
5prinklered
Elevator
1950
N
N
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cost
$1,833,651.00
$1,719,300.00
$2,174,070.40
$o.oo
$1,285,ooo.oo
$15o,ooo.oo
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessiblity Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add slriping for one stall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341~0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0425; add signage each stall
Exterior accessible route steeper than 1:20 slope or cross-slope steeper lhan 1:50 - MN 1341.0422; remove
existing walk, provide new sidewalk
Non-compliant or no curb cut provided for exterior accessible route - MN 1341.0430; remove existing walk and
curb, provide new pedestrian curb ramp
Accessibility (Interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch, 1341
Door on an interior accessible roule without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing borders or wall framing, patch walls
Door on an interior accessible route wilhoul lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Toilet room door opening less than 32" min. clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing door, enlarge opening
and provide new door
Toilel rooro door wilhout required maneuvering clearance at (interior) door approach - MN 1341.0442; remove
existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Toilet room without unobstructed 5'-0" turning radius within room ~ MN 1341.0480; reroove barriers or wall
framing, enlarge toilet room and patch walls
Toilet room wilhout 30"x48" clear space for forward approach at lavatory - MN 1341.0454; remove barriers or
wall framing or modify base cabinet
Toilet room wilhout lavatory at 34" max. height and 29" min. clear knee space below - MN 1341.0454;
relocate/adjust height of lavatory and plumbing
Toilet room wilhout lever or similar faucet controls for lavatory - MN 1341.0454; replace existing lavatory faucet
Toilet room without plumbing insulation/covering for lavalory - MN 1341.0454; provide plumbing
insulation/covering
Toilet room accessories (soap dispenser, towel dispenser, elc.) that are mounted higher lhan 40" max. above
the floor- MN 1341.0470; relocate existing loller accessories
Toilet room without clear space for side transfer water closet/toilet stall - MN 1341.0448; remove bardero or wall
fraroing, enlarge toilet rooro and patch walls
Toilet room without toilet seat at 17"-19" above lhe floor- MN 1341.0448; replace existing toilet fixluro
Toilet room without horizontal and vedical grab bars for water closet/toilet stall - MN 1341.0448; provide new
grab bars (18", 36", 42")
Toilet room without urinal rim mounted at 17" max. above the floor- MN 1341 0452; relocate/adjust height of
urinal and plumbing
Toilet room without 30"x42" clear space for forward approach at urinal - MN 1341.0452; remove exisling
barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Bathroom without required maneuvering clearance for front or side approach at tub/shower - MN 1341.0456,
MN 1341.0458; remove barriers or wall framing, elarge toilet room and patch walls
Bathroom without tub/shower seat at 17"-19" above the floor- MN 1341.0456, MN 1341.0458; provide new
tub/shower seat or relocate existing
Page 2
Area/Number Unit Cost
of Req'd.
improvements
N $240~00
N $250.00
$80.00
N $700.00
N $500.00
5 $250.00
12 $175.00
2 $0.00
5 $0.00
5 $0.00
5 $0.00
5 $0~00
4 $0.00
5 $0.00
4 $0.00
5 $0.00
5 $0.00
5 $0.00
2 $0.00
3 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
Deficiency Cost
1
$240.00
$250.00
$80.00
$700.00
$500,00
1
$1,250.00
$2,100.00
$0,00
$0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
$o,oo
$o,oo
$o.oo
$0,00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Bathroom without horizontal and vertical grab bars for tub/shower- MN 1341.0456, MN 1341.0458; provide new
grab bars (18", 36", 42")
Bathroom without lever or similar faucet control and/or without adjustible bar and 60" hose - MN 1341.0456, MN
1341.0458; replace existing tub/shower faucet and head
Toilet room accessibility improvments due to noncompliant clearances at fixtures or doors, and heights of
fixtures - M N 1341.0454; major remodeling: remove barriers or wall framing, enlarge toilet room by relocating
one or more wails (affect one or more adjacent spaces)
Public/common use room without 30"x48" clear space for forward approach at a sink - MN 1341.0464; remove
barriers or wall framing or modify base cabinet
Public/common use room without sink at 34" max. height and 29" min. clear knee space below - MN
1341.0464; relocate/adjust height of sink and plumbing
Public/common use room without lever or similar faucet controls for a sink - MN 1341.0464; replace existing
sink faucet
Public/common use rooms without plumbing insula6on/covering for a sink - MN 1341.0454; provide plumbing
insulagon/covedng
Bugdtng Egress -2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Exterior stair less than 36" min. clear width -IBC 1003.3.3.1; remove existing stairs, provide new stairs (assume
3 treads total)
Exterior flight of stairs with noncompliant rise/run (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential excep6on: 7.75" max.
rise/10" min. run) ~ IBC 1003.3.3.3; remove existing stairs, provide new stairs (assume 3 treads total)
Exterior flight of stairs with less than two handrails (residential exception = 1 h.r. min.) - IBC 1003.3.3.11;
provide new handrail (assume 3 treads total)
Extedor stair handrails are not located at 34"-38" above the tread - IBC 1003.3.3.11; relocate/modify existing
handrail
Exterior stair handrail ends do not return to walls or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003~3.3.11; modify existing
handrail end
Exterior stair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom riser
- IBC 1003~3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Exterior stair handrails are not continuous - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modi[y existing handrail
Exterior stair flight or landing with noncompliant guardreil (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between
intermediate rails) (residenlial exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 5
lin. feet)
Exterior door with greater than W' threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exterior
stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Exterior door landing less than 44" min. in direction of travel (residential exception = 36") or greater than 7" rise
for non-accessible extedor doom in groups F, H, R. S, and U - IBC 1003.3.1.5, IBC 1003.3.1.4; assume
replacement of exterior stoop required: remove exisling stoop, provide new sloop
Flight of stairs with noncompliant rise/ren (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential exception: 7.75" max. dse/lO"
min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; replace stairs, modify railings and adjacent walls
Stairway landing does not extend 36" in direction of travel at top or foot of stairs - IBC 1003.3.3.4;
reconfigure/remodel adjacent walls
Stair handrails are net located at 34"-38" above the tread - IBC 1003.3.3.11; relocate/modify existing handrail
Stair handrail ends do not return to walls or lerminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
end
Stair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond lhe bottom riser ~ IBC
1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Stair flight or landing with noncompliant guardreil (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between intermediate
rails) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardreil (estimate 3'-6" lin. Feet)
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
5 $15,000.00 $75,000.00
$500.00
$500.00
$100.00
$50.00
2 $700.00
2 $700.00
Calculated $250.00
4 $150.00
4 $150.00
4 $370.00
2 $150.00
4 $300.00
2 $500.00
2 $500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$100.00
$50.00
1
$1,400.00
$1,400.00
$0.00
$600.00
$600.00
$1,480.00
$300.00
$1,200.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
1 $0.00 $0.00
2 $50.00 $100.00
2 $50.00 $100~0g
2 $50.00 $100.00
4 $300.00 $1,200~00
Page 3
Stairway improvements mquried due to noncompliant rise/run, headroom, and landings - IBC 1003.3.3; minor
remodeling: replace stairs, modi[y railings, landings, and adjacent walls (considered minimum commercial
remodel cost, maximum residential remodel cost)
Building Construction - 2000 International Bu6ding Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires installa6on of additional toilet fixture(s) or additional bathroom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet room by relocating one or more walls and fixtures, or construct new bathroom
walls, door, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires installation of additional drinking fountain - IBC Chap. 29; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Bathroom not provided with means of mechanical ventilation - IBC 1202.4.2.1; provide ceiling exhaust fan,
electric hook-up, and ductwork
Fire Protection Systems -2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Smoke detectoddetecflon system not provided on each floor (including basement) - IBC 907.2.10; provide a
new hardwired smoke detector
Smoke detectofldetection system not provided in each sleeping room - IBC 907.2.10; provide a new hardwired
smoke detector
Fire Seperaflon required for occupancies
Occupancy, area, and construction type of building require installation of fire sprinkler system - IBC Chap. 5,
UBC 903; provide new sprinkler system
Energy Code Compliance -2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch. 7672, 7674, or 7676
Window exceeds thermal tmnsmiflance slandards (window glazing is non-insulated) - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, replace intedor and exterior trim
Stomfront window/door exceeds thermal transmittance standards (glazing is non-insulated) - MN 7676.0700;
remove existing window/door assembly, provide new thermally broken aluminum window/door assembly
(estimated s.f. of assembly to be replaced x $32.50)
For building construction prior to 1976, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundation wall at perimeter of building, assume add insulation depth lo 4' below finished
floor (I.f. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.26 (insulation + excavation))
For building construction pdor to 1976, exterior wall area with less than R-11 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS or interior wall furring and insulation (s.f. wall sur[ace x
$7.00)
For building construction pdor to 1976, attic/mol area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement - assume lotal retool required, 'flat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. mol x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construction prior to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $600/ton)
For building construcflen prior to 1989, building electrical systems are not sufficient to handle additional
mechanical units associated with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
For building construction prior to 1989, repair garage occupancy, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient
number of air exchanges for exhaust fumes; provide new engine/tailpipe exhaust syslem including fans,
adapters, and tubing ($4000,00) and new CO detector system including sensor and panel ($3,000.00)
For buildings where vehicles are being repaired, stored or washed that are 1000 s.f. and larger must install a
flammable waste interceptor per MN Plumbing Code 4715.1120
Page 4
1
1
2.00
3
95,400
191,500
8
280
17580
119340
211000
263,750
527.5
211000
1
$2,500.00
$15,000.00
$1,950.00
$400.00
$125.00
$125.00
$12.00
$3.00
$700.00
$32.50
$3.28
$7.00
$6.00
$2.00
$600.00
$2.00
$7,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,500.00
1
$15,000.00
$3,900.00
$1,200.00
1
$0.00
$0.00
$1,144,800.00
$574,500.00
1
$5,600.00
$9,100.00
$57,990.40
$835,380.00
$1,266,000.00
3
$527,5OO.OO
$316,500.00
$422,000.00
$7,000.00
$12,000.00
Electrical Systems - Commercial deficiencies
Upgrade egress and emergency lighting for NFPA Life Safety Cede (NFPA 101)
60 $2,500.00
1
$150,000.00
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. Baths/Tit. Rms.
#Exst. TIt.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Ftn.
2110
5
5
4
1
1
0
Calculated loads
6
8
8
8
8
2
Page 5
MAP ID #
PID #
Parcel Nome
13-1
353024340024
RAYCO CORPORATT. ON, 3801 5TH STREET
INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT
Inspector LAG
Inspection Date 3/10/2004
Survey Method INTERIOR
Bldg Occupancy B
Bldg Type BUSZNE55
Woll Construction MASRONRY
Roof Construction WOOD FRAMED
# Stories 2
Basement (Y/N) N
5tory-Height 14
Floor Area 21094
Buildin~ Area 24144
Yeor Built 1952
5prinklered N
Elevator N
Exterior Wall And FrameI $97.251 24?44.00I
Story Height Adjustment (Add or ~educt)I I °'°°1
Basement o.oo
Location Factor** add (%) J o.13J
Total Replacement Cost
Total Deficiency CostI J I
Percentage of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469.174 :t0 (c)) for 5tructuraUy Substandard Building (Y/N)
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
$2,348,004.00
$o.oo
$o.oo
$305,240,52
$2,653,244.52
$674,165.96
25.41%
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Intedor)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cost
$234,125.00
$72,432.00
$222,744.96
$0.00
$144,864.00
$0.00
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accesstblity Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN I341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add slriping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0428; add signage each stall
No exterior accessible route (that does not require use of stairs) from site access to building enlrance - MN
1341.0422; remove accessibility barriers, provide new sidewalk
Exterior accessible route steeper than 1:20 slope or crcss-slope steeper than 1:50 - MN 1341.0422; remove
exisfing walk, provide new sidewalk
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or min.
48" between sets of doors - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341.0442;
replace exisling door hardware
Accessibility (Interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch. 1341
Building occupancy of floor (greater than 30 occupants) above or below level of access requires instal]etlon of
an elevator- MN 1341.0405; provide new elevator
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Door on an intedor accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Intedor door with greater than Yf' threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6
Toilet room door opening less than 32" min. clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing door, enlarge opening
and provide new door
Toilet room door without required maneuvering clearance at (interior) door approach - MN 1341.0442; remove
existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Toilet room without unobstructed 5'-0" turning radius within room - MN 1341.0480; remove barriers or wall
framing, enlarge toilet room and patch walls
Toilet room without 30"x48" clear space for forward approach at lavatory - MN 1341.0454; remove barriers or
wall framing or modify base cabinet
Toilet room without lavatory at 34" max. height and 29" min. dear knee space below - MN 1341.0454;
relocate/adjust height of lavalory and plumbing
Toilet room without lever or similar faucet controls for lavatory - MN 1341.0454; replace existing lavatory faucet
Toilet room without plumbing insulafion/covering for lavatory - MN 1341.0454; provide plumbing
insulafion/covedng
Toilet room accessories (soap dispenser, towel dispenser, etc.) that are mounted higher than 40" max. abgve
the floor- MN 1341.0470; relocate existing toilet accessories
Toilet room without clear space for side transfer water c[esel/toilet stall ~ MN 1341.0448; remove barriers or wall
framing, enlarge toilet room and patch walls
Toilet room without toilet seat at 17"-19" above the floor- MN 1341.0448; replace existing toilet fixture
Toilet room without horizontal and vertical grab bars for water closel/toilet stall - MN 1341.0448; provide new
grab bars (18", 36", 42")
Toilet room without urinal rim mounted at 17" max. above the floor- MN 1341 0452; relocate/adjust height of
urinal and plumbing Page 2
Aroa/Number Unit Cost
of Req'd.
Improvemenle
$240.00
$250.00
$80.00
$700.00
$700.00
$500.00
N $200.08
$52,725.00
8 $250.00
12 $175.00
8 $500.00
2 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0.00
4 $0,00
4 $0.00
Deficiency Cost
1
$240.00
$250.00
$80.00
$700.00
$700.00
$500.00
$200.00
1
$52,725.00
$2,000.00
$2,100.00
$4,000.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
;0.00
$0.00
Toilet room accessibility improvments due to noncompliant clearances at fixtures or doors, and heights of
fixtures - MN 1341.0454; major remodeling: remove barriers or wall framing, enlarge toilet room by relocating
one or more wails (affect one or more adjacent spaces)
Publidcommon use room without 30"x48" clear space for forward approach at a sink - MN 1341.0464; remove
barriers or wall flaming or modify base cabinet
Public/common use room without sink at 34" max. height and 29" min. clear knee space below - MN
1341.0464; relocate/adjust height of sink and plumbing
Public/common use room without lever or similar faucet controls for a sink - MN 1341.0484; replace existing
sink faucet
Public/common use rooms without plumbing insulation/covering for a sink - MN 1341.0454; provide plumbing
insulalion/covedng
Building Egress - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Exterior stair less than 36" min. clear widlh * IBC 1003.3.3.1; remove existing stairs, provide new stairs (assume
3 treads total)
Exterior flight of stalin with noncompliant dse/run (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential exception: 7.75" max.
rise/10" min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; remove existing stairs, provide new staim (assume 3 treads total)
Exterior stair handrails am not located at 34"-38" above the tread - IBC 1003.3.3.11; relocate/modify existing
handrail
Exterior stair handrails do net provide between 1-1/4" - 1-1/2" gripping surface (non-accessible/residential
except[on = 2" max. grip}- iBC 1003.3.3.11; remove exis6ng handrail, provide new handrail (assume 3 treads
total)
Extedor stair handrail ends do not return to walls or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing
handrail end
Extedor stair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom dser
- IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Exterior stair handrails are not continuous - IBC 1003.3.3.11; mod}fy existing handrail
Exterior stair flight or landing wilh noncompliant guardrai} (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between
intermediate mils) (res[den6al exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 5
lin. feet)
Exterior door with greater than '~" threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exlerior
stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Extedor door landing less than 44" min. in direction of travel (residential exception = 36") or greater than 7" rise
for non-accessible exterior doors in groups F, H, R. S, and U - IBC 1003.3.1.5, IBC 1003.3.1.4; assume
replacement of exterior stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Interior stair less than 36" min. clear width - IBC 1003.3.3.1; widen stalin, modify railings and adjacent walls
Flight of stalin with noncompliant rise/run (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential exception: 7.75" max. dso/10"
min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; replace slairs, modify railings and adjacent walls
Stairway landing does not extend 36" in direction of travel at lop or foot of stairs - IBC 1003.3~3.4;
reconflgura/remodel adjacent walls
Stair flight exceeds 12'-0" max. vedical rise between landings - IBC 1003.3.3.6; replace stairs, modify railings,
landings, and adjacent walls
Stair handrails are not located at 34"-38" above the tread - IBC 1003.3.3.11; relocate/modify existing handrail
Slair handrails do not provide between 1-1/4" - 1-1/2" gripping surface (non*accessible/residential exceplion =
2" max. gdp) - IBC 1003.3.3.11; remove existing handrail, provide new handrail (assume 9' goof to floor)
Stair handrail ends do not return 1o walls or terminate in newel posts - iBC 1003.3.3.11; modify exis6ng handrail
end
Stair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom riser-
1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Stair handrails are not continuous - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
Page 3
4 $15,000.00
6
6
3
32
$500.00
$500.00
$100.00
$50.00
$700.00
3 $700.00
$150.00
$160.00
$150.00
$370.00
$150.00
$300.00
$500.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$50.00
$400.00
$50.00
$50.00
$50.00
$60,000.00
$500.00
$500.00
$100.00
$50.00
1
$700.00
$2,100.00
$900.00
$960~00
$900.00
$2,220.00
$450.00
$9,600.00
$3,000.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$200.00
$2,400.00
$300.00
$300.00
$100.00
Stair flight or landing with noncompliant guardrail (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between inlermediate
rails) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 3'-6" lin. Feet)
Stairway improvements requried due to noncompliant rise/run, headroom, and landings - IBC 1003.3.3; minor
remodeling: replace stairs, modify railings, landings, and adjacent walls (considered minimum commercial
remodel cost, maximum residential remodel cost)
Stairway improvements required due to noncompliant rise/run, width, headroom, landings, and height - IBC
1003.3.3; major remodeling: replace stairs, modify railings, landings, and adjacent walls
Building Construction -2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy of building requires inslallation ef additional toilel fixture(s) or additional balhmom - IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet room by relocating one or more walls and fixtures, or construct new bathroom
walls, door, fixlures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires instaflafion of additional drinking fountain - iBC Chap. 2§; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Bathroom not provided with means of mechanical ventilation - IBC 1202.4.2.1; provide ceiling exhaust fan,
electric hook-up, and duc[work
Toilet room/shawer rooms without non-absorbent floor surface (concrete, ceramic file, sheet vinyl, etc.) and wall
base - IBC 1209.1; Assume 50 s.f. space, remove existing flooring, provide new flooring
Urinals or water closet without adjacent non-absorbent wall surface - IBC 1209.2; assume 20 s.f. wall surface,
provide new fiberglass reinforced wall paneling adjacent to existing fixture
Fire Protection Systems - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy, area, and construction type of building require installation of fire sprinkler system - IBC Chap. 5,
USC 903; provide new sprinkler system
Energy Code Compliance - 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch. 7672, 7674, or 7676
Window exceeds thermal transmittance slandards (window glazing is non-insulated) - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, replace interior and exterior trim
For building construction prior lo 1976, foundalion wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundation wall at perimeter of building, assume add insulation deplh to 4' below finished
floor (I.f. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.28 (insulation + excavation))
For building construction prior to 1976, exterior wall area with ]ess than R-11 insulaflon - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume pdce for EIFS or intedor wall furdng and insulalion (s.f. wall surface x
$7.00)
For building construction pdor to 1976, attic/roof area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement- assume total reroof required, 'fiat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge is.f. roof x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construction prior to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $600/ton)
For building construction pdor to 1989, building electrical systems are not sufficient to handle additional
mechanical units associated with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
Electrical Systems - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction pdor 1o 1980, existing fighting systems do not conform to maximum allowable energy
use (lights consume too much energy in terms of watts/s.f,) - MN 7676; Replace light fixtures (cost varies by
occupancy type)
Upgrade egress and emergency lighting for NFPA Life Safety Code Page 4
3.00
2
1
4
24144
29
2732
9560
21094
30180
60.36
24144
6 $300.00
2 $2,500.00
2 $5,000.00
4 $15,000.00
$1,950.00
$400.00
$500.00
$100.00
$3.00
$700.00
$3.28
$7.OO
$6.00
$2.00
$600.00
$2.00
$1,800.00
$5,000.00
$10,000.00
1
$60,000.00
$5,850.00
$800.00
$500.00
$400.00
1
$72,432.00
1
$20,300.00
$8,960.96
$66,920.00
$126,564.00
1
$60,360.00
$36,216.00
$48,288.00
1
$o.oo
$o.oo
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. Baths/TIL Rms.
#Exst. TIL-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. TIt. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Fin.
241
4
2
2
2
2
0
Upgrade fire alarm system for UFC, NFPA and ADA requirements
Calculated loads
4
5
3
5
3
3
$0.00
Page 5
MAP ID #
PZD #
Parcel Name
28-! INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT
353024340040
550-600 39TH AVENUE NE, 8.P. VIDEO LLC, 5CHAFER RICHARDSON
Exterior Wall And Frame $98.60 95,o2o.oo $9,368,972.00
Story Height Adjustment (Add or Deduct) o.oo $o.oo
Basement 0.00 $0.00
Location Factor** add (%) 0.13 $1,217,966.36
Total Replacement Cost $10,586,938.36
Total Deficiency CostI I I $~,5...z5o..6
Percentage of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost Y 17.56%
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469.174 :tO (c)) for Structurally Substandard 8uilding (Y/N)
**Location Factor varies by location and building ~pe (commercial o~ residential)
LAG
3/8/2004
INTERIOR
B
BUSINESS
MASONRY
STEEL
1
N
16
95020
9502(:]
1960
N
Inspector
Inspection Date
Survey Method
Bldg Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
Story-Height
Floor Area
Building Area
Year Built
Sprinklered
Elevator
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies)
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction
Fire Protection Systems
Energy Code Compliance
Food Service Areas
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC)
Electrical Systems
Deficiency Cosl
$424,090.00
$0.00
$862,320.56
$2,250.00
$570,120.00
$0.00
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accessibgty Code, Ch. 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0428; add signage each stall
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or min.
48" between sets of doors - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Accessibility (Interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch. 1341
Building occupancy of floor (greater lhan 30 occupants) above or below level of access requires installation of
an elevator- MN 1341.0405; provide new elevator
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barders or wall framing, patch walls
Door on an intedor accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Toilet room door opening less than 32" min. clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing door, enlarge opening
and provide new door
Toilet room deer without required maneuvering clearance at (interior) door approach - MN 1341.0442; remove
existing barriers or wall framing, patch wails
Toilet room without unobstructed 5'-0" turning radius within room - MN 1341.0460; remove barriers or wall
framing, enlarge toilet room and patch walls
Toilet room withoQt lavatory at 34" max. height and 29" min. clear knee space below - MN 1341.0454;
relocate/adjust height of lavatory and plumbing
Toilet room without lever or similar faucet controls for lavatory - MN 1341.0454; replace existing lavatory faucet
Toilet room without plumbing insulation/covering for lavatory, - MN 1341.0454; provide plumbing
insulation/covering
Toilet room accessories (soap dispenser, towel dispenser, etc.) that are mounted higher than 40" max. above
the floor- MN 1341.0470; relocate existing toilet accessories
Toilet room without clear space for side lransfer water closel/toile[ slall - MN 1341.0448; remove barriers or wall
framing, enlarge toilet room and patch walls
Toilet room without toilet seat at 17"-19" above the floor- MN 1341.0448; replace existing toilet fixture
Toilet room without horizontal and vedical grab bars for water closet/toilet stall - MN 1341.0448; provide new
grab bare (19", 36", 42")
Toilet room without udnal rim mounted at 17" max. above the floor- MN 1341 0452; relocate/adjust height of
urinal and plumbing
Bathroom without required maneuvering clearance for front or side approach at tub/shower- MN 1341.0456,
MN 1341.0458; remove barriers or wall framing, elarge loilet room and patch walls
Bathroom without tub/shower seat at 17"-19" above the floor- MN 1341.0456, MN 1341.0455; provide new
lub/shower seat or relocate existing
Bathroom without horizontal and vertical grab bars for tub/shower- MN 1341.0456, MN 1341.0458; provide new
grab bars (16", 36", 42")
Bathroom without lever or similar faucet control and/or without adjustible bar and 60" hose - MN 1341.0456, MN
1341.0458; replace existing tub/shower faucet and head
Page 2
Area/Number Unit Cost
of Req'd.
Improvements
N $240.00
N $250.00
$80.00
N $500.00
0 $52,725.00
10 $250.00
42 $175.00
2 $0.00
4 $0.00
5 $0.00
2 $0,00
2 $0.00
5 $0.00
5 $0.00
5 $0.00
2 $0.00
5 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0.00
2 $0,00
Deficiency Cost
1
$240.00
$250.00
$80.00
$500.00
1
$0.00
$2,500.00
$7,350.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$o.oo
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Toilet room accessibility improvmenls due to noncomplianl clearances at fixluros or doors, and heights of
fixtures - MN 1341.0454; major remodeling: remove barriers or wall framing, enlarge toilet room by relocating
one or more wails (affect one or moro adjacent spaces)
Public/common use room without 30"x48" clear space for forward approach at a sink - MN 1341.0464; remove
barriers or wall framing or modify base cabinet
Public/common use room without sink at 34" max. height and 29" min. clear knee space below- MN
1341.0464; relocate/adjust height of sink and plumbing
Public/common use rooms without plumbing insula6on/covering for a sink - MN 1341.0454; provide plumbing
insulalion/covering
Public/common use accessories (vending machine, condiments, etc.) that are mounted higher than 54" max.
above the floor- MN 1341.0470; rolocale accessories
Less than 5% of public/common use sales/service counter/window at 38" max. above the floor or 36" min. widlh
- MN 1341.0720; relocate/adjust height of counter and base cabinet
Bu6ding Egress -2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Exterior stair less lhan 36" min. clear widlh - IBC 1003.3.3.1; remove existing stalin, provide new stairs (assume
3 lroads tolal)
Exterior flight of stairs with noncompliant dse/run (7" max. dse/11" min. run) (rosiden6al exception: 7,75" max.
dse/10" min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; remove existing stairs, provide new stairs (assume 3 treads total)
Exledor flight of stairs with less than two handrails (residential exception = 1 h.r. min.) - IBC 1003.3.3.11;
provide new handrail (assume 3 treads tolal)
Exterior stair handrails are nol located at 34"-38" above the Iroad - IBC 1003.3~3.11; relocate/modify existing
handrail
Exterior stair handrails do not provide between 1-1/4" - 1-1/2" gripping surface (non-accessible/rssidential
exception = 2" max. grip) - IBC 1003.3.3.11; remove existing handrail, provide new handrail (assume 3 treads
total)
Exterior stair handrail ends do not rolurn to walls or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing
handrail end
Extedor stair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond the bottom riser
- IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail end
Exterior stair handrails are nol continuous - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify exisling handrail
Extedor stair flight or landing with noncompliant guardrsil (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between
intermediate rails) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 5
lin. feet)
Exledor door with greater than ~,~" threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exterior
sloop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Exterior door landing less than 44" min. in direction of travel (residential exception = 36") or greater than 7" dse
for non-accessible exterior doom in groups F, H, R. S, and U - IBC 1003.3.1.5, IBC 1003.3.1.4; assume
replacement of exterior stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Interior stair less than 36" min. clear width - IBC 1003.3.3.1; widen slairs, modify railings and adjacent walls
Flight of stairs with noncomplisnt rise/ron (7" max. rise/11" min. run) (residential exception: 7.75" max. dse/10"
min. run) - IBC 1003.3.3.3; replace stairs, modify railings and adjacent walls
Stairway landing does not extend 36" in direction of travel al top or foot of stairs - IBC 1003.3.3.4;
reconflguro/remodel adjacent wails
Stair flight exceeds 12'-0" max. vertical rise between landings - IBC 1003.3.3.6; replace stalin, modify railings,
landings, and adjacent walls
Stair handrails are not located at 34"-38" above the tread - IBC 1003.3.3.11; relocate/modify exisflng handrail
Stair handrails do not provide between 1-1/4" - 1-1/2" gdpping surface (non-accessible/residential exception =
2" max. grip) - IBC 1003.3.3.11; remove existing handrail, provide new handrail (assume 9' floor to floor)
Page 3
5 $15,000.00
Calculated
6
4
6
12
2
8
2 $500.00
2 $500.00
2 $50.00
2 $20.00
$400.00
$700.00
$700.00
$250.00
$150.00
$160.00
$150.00
$370.00
$150.00
$300.00
$500.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$50.00
$400.00
$75,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$100.00
$40.00
$400,00
1
$700.00
$1,400.00
$0.00
$900.00
$640.00
$900.00
$4,440.00
$300.00
$2,400.00
$3,000.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$50.00
$800.00
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. Baths/Tit. Rms.
950
5
Stair handrail ends do not return to walls or terminate in newel posts - IBC 1003.3.3.11; modify existing handrail
end
Stair handrail ends do not extend 12" beyond the top riser or 12" plus one tread beyond lhe bottom dser- IBC
1003.3.3.11; modify exisfing handrail end
Stair Sight or landing with noncomplianl guardrail (42" min. height, 4" or 21" min. spacing between intermediate
rails) (residential exception = 34" - 38" height) - IBC 1003.2.12; provide new guardrail (estimate 3'-6" lin. Feet)
Stairway improvements required due to noncompliant rise/run, width, headroom, landings, and height - IBC
1003.3.3; major remodeling: replace stairs, modify railings, landings, and adjacent walls
Building Construction -2000 international Building Code (IBC}
Occupancy of building mquiras installation of additional toilet fixture(s) or additional bathroom ~ IBC Chap. 29;
major remodeling: enlarge toilet room by relocating one or more wails and fixtures, or conslruct new bathroom
walls, doer, fixtures, and remodel adjacent areas
Occupancy of building requires installation ef additional drinking fountain - IBC Chap. 29; provide new
accessible drinking fountain and plumbing
Bathroom not provided with means of mechanical ventilation - iBC 1202.4.2.1; provide ceiling exhaust fan,
electric hook-up, and ductwork
Fire Protection Systems - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Occupancy, area, and construclion type of building require installation of fire sprinkler system - IBC Chap. 5,
UBC 903; provide new sprinkler system
Energy Code Compliance - 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch, 7672, 7674, or 7676
Window exceeds thermal transmffiance standards (window glazing is non-insulated) - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, replace interior and exterior trim
For building construction prior to 1976, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation ~ MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundation wall at perimeter of building, assume add [nsulalion depth to 4' below finished
floor (l.f. perimeter x 4'-0" x $3.28 (insulation + excavation))
For building construction prior to 1976, exterior wall area with less than R-11 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.L wall surface x
$5.50), commemial improvement: assume price for EIFS or interior wall furring and insulation (s.f. wall surface x
$7.00)
For building construction prior to 1976, atticJreof area wilh less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement ~ assume total rereof required, 'fiat' roof, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. roof x $6.00)
Food Service Areas - 1998 Minnesota Food Code, Ch. 4626
Food prep area without non-absorbent wall surfaces - MN 4626; assume 60 I.f. wall x 8'-0" high, provide new
fiberglass reinforced wail paneling
Food prep area without non-absorbent ceiling surface - MN 4626; assume 400 s.f. space, provide new
suspended ceiling for clean room
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction pdor to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil +contre[s) for increased air exchanges ((s.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construction prior to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient cooling for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $TOO/ton)
For building construction prior to 1989, building electrical systems are not sufficient to handle additional
mechanical units associated wilh increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
Calculated loads
6
Page 4
8 $50.00
8 $50.00
6 $300.00
2 $5,000.O0
19 $15,000.00
10.00 $1,950.00
5 $400.00
0 $3.00
42 $700.00
8402 $3.28
33806 $7.00
95020
1
1
118775
237.55
95020
$6.00
$1,250.00
$1,000.00
$2.00
$600.00
$2.00
$400.00
$400.00
$1,800.00
$10,000.00
1
$285,000.00
$19,500.00
$2,000.00
1
$0.00
1
$29,400.00
$27,558.56
$235,242.00
$570,120.00
1
$1,250.00
$1,000.00
1
$237,550.00
$142,530.00
$190,040.00
#ExsI, TIt.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst, Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Drinking Ftn.
9
6
0
19
12
19
12
10
Page 5
MAP ID #
PID #
Parcel Name
Inspector
Inspection Dote
Survey Method
Bldg Occupancy
Bldg Type
Wall Construction
Roof Construction
# Stories
Basement (Y/N)
Story-Height
Floor Area
Building Area
Year Built
Sprinklered
Elevator
31-1
353024430047
620 39TH AVENUE NE, REGION TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC.
INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SUMMARY REPORT
LAG
3/8/2004
INTERIOR
B
BUSINE55
MASONRY
STEEL
N
16
4820
4820
1962
N
N
Exterior Wall And Frame $9§.35J 4,~zo.o
Story Height Adjustment (Add or Oeduct) J $2.ooj 4,820.0
Basement o.o
Location Factor** add (%) J o.1
Total Replacement Cost
Total Deficiency CastJ J I
Percentage of Code Deficiency To Replacement Cost
Satisfies Step 2 Test (469.174 10 (c)) for Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N)
**Location Factor varies by location and building type (commercial or residential)
$459,587.ooj
$9,64o.ooI
SO.COl
$60,999.51
$530,226.51
$176,551.56
33.30%
Summary of Building Deficiencies (Code Deficiencies) Deficiency Cost
Accessibility (Exterior and Interior)/Building Egress/Building Construction $35;321~oo
Fire Protection Systems $o.oo
Energy Code Compliance $11o,8o4.96
Food Service Areas $0.oo
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) $30,425.80
Electrical Systems $o.oo
Page 1
Deficiency
Accessibility (Exterior) - 1999 Minneosta Accesslblity Code, Ch, 1341
No disability parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
No van accessible parking available - MN 1341.0403; add striping for one stall plus signage
Disbility parking space without required signage - MN 1341.0428; add signage each slall
Exterior accessible route less than 48" wide - MN 1341.0422; remove existing walk, provide new sidewalk
Non-compliant or no curb cut provided for extedor accessible route - MN 1341.0430; remove existing walk and
curb, provide new pedestrian curb ramp
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or min.
48" between sols of doors - MN 1341 ~0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, patch wails
Exterior entrance door on an accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware; MN 1341 ~0442;
replace existing door hardware
Accessibility (Interior) - 1999 Minnesota Accessibility Code, Ch. 1341
Door on an interior accessible route without required maneuvering clearance at door approach or door opening
is less than 32" clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing barriers or wall framing, palch walls
Door on an interior accessible route without lever handle or loop-style hardware - MN 1341.0442; replace
existing door hardware
Toilet room door opening less than 32" min. clear width - MN 1341.0442; remove existing door, enlarge opening
and provide new door
Toilet room door without required maneuvering clearance at (interior) door approach - MN 1341.0442; remove
existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Toilet room without unobstructed 5'-0" turning radius within room - MN 1341.0460; remove barders ar wall
framing, enlarge toilet room and patch walls
Toilet room without lavatory at 34" max. height and 29" min. clear knee space below - MN 1341.0454;
relocate/adjust height of lavatory and plumbing
Toilet room without lever or similar faucet controls for lavatory - MN 1341.0454; replace existing lavatory faucet
Toilet room without plumbing insulation/covering for lavatory - MN 1341~0454; provide plumbing
insulafion/covering
Toilet room accessories (soap dispenser, lowel dispenser, etc.) that are mounted higher than 40" max. above
the floor- MN 1341.0470; relocate existing loilet accessories
Toilet room without clear space for side transfer water closet/toilet stall - MN 1341.0448; remove barriers or wall
framing, enlarge toilet room and patch walls
Toilet room without toilet seat at 17"-19" above the floor- MN 1341.0448; replace existing toilet fixture
Toilet room without horizontal and vedical grab bars for water closet/toilet stall - MN 1341.0449; provide new
grab bars (18", 36", 42")
Toilet room without urinal rim mounted at 17" max. above the floor- MN 1341 0452; relocate/adjust height of
urinal and plumbing
Toilet room without 30"x42" clear space for forward approach at urinal - MN 1341.0452; remove existing
barriers or wall framing, patch wails
Toilet room accessibility improvments due to noncompliant clearances at fixtures or doors, and heights of
fixtures - MN 1341.0454; major remodeling: remove barriers or wail framing, enlarge toilet room by relocating
one or more walls (affect one or more adjacent spl~,%~.
2
Area/Number Unit Cost
of Req'd.
Improvemenls
N $240~00
N $250.00
$80.00
N $500.00
N $500.00
N $500.00
N $200.00
2 $250.00
Deficiency Cost
1
$240.00
$250.00
$80.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$200.00
1
$500.00
4 $175.00 $700,00
1 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0,0O $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00
2 $15,000.00 $30,000.00
Drinking fountain without 30"x48" dear floor space for side or forward approach - MN 1341.0446; remove
existing barriers or wall framing, patch walls
Drinking fountain without spout at 36" max. height and 27" min. knee clearance - MN 1341.0446;
relocate/adjust height of fountain and plumbing
Building Egress - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Exterior door with grealer than ~" threshold (accessible) - IBC 1003.3.1.6; assume replacement of exterior
stoop required: remove existing stoop, provide new stoop
Building Construction - 2000 International Building Code (IBC)
Urinals or waier closet without adjacent non-absorbent wall surface - iBC 1209.2; assume 20 s.f. wall surface,
provide new fiberglass reinforced wall paneling adjacent to existing fixture
Energy Code Compgance -2600 Minnesota Energy Code, Ch. 7672, 7674, or 7676
Window exceeds thermal transmittance standards (window g~azing is non-insulated) - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; remove existing window assembly, provide new window assembly, replace interior and exterior trim
For building construction prior to 1976, foundation wall with less than R-5 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; excavate foundation wall at perimeler of building, assume add insulation depth to 4' below finished
floor (Lf. perimeier x 4'-0" x $3.28 (insulation + excavation))
For building construction prior to 1976, exterior wall area with less than R-11 insulation - MN 7672.0800, MN
7676.0700; residential improvement: assume price for new insulate 2x4 wall w/vinyl siding (s.f. wall surface x
$5.50), commercial improvement: assume price for EIFS or interior wall furring and insulation (s.f. wall surface x
$7.00)
For building construction prior to 1976, attic/reef area with less than R-38 insulation (residential) or R-23
insulation (commercial) - MN 7672.0800, MN 7676.0700; residential improvement - assume add 6.5" blown-in
cellulose (s.f. x $0.68), commercial improvement - assume total rerecf required, '0at' reef, built-up roofing and
roof edge (s.f. roof x $6.00)
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Systems (HVAC) - Commercial deficiencies
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges;
upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls) for increased air exchanges ((a.f. area x 1.25
cfm/s.f. = additional cfm required) x $2.00/cfm)
For building construction prior to 1989, condensing unit does not provide sufficient coating for increased air
exchanges above; upgrade condensing unit for additional air exchanges ((additional cfm required/500 ton/cfm =
additional ton cooling required) x $600/ton)
For building construction prior to 1989, building electrical systems are not sufficient to handle additional
mechanical unils associated with increased air exchanges; provide increased capacity to existing electrical
system (s.f. x $2.00/s.f.)
For building construction prior to 1969, warehouse or repair garage occupancy, mechanical systems do not
provide sufficient number of air exchanges; upgrade air handling units (cooling and heating coil + controls,
condensing unit) for increased air exchanges (1 ton additional cooling required for every 6 people x
$2,000.00/ton)
For building construction prior to 1989, repair garage occupancy, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient
number of air exchanges for exhaust fumes; provide new engine/tailpipe exhaust system including fans,
adapters, and tubing ($4000,00) and new CO delector system including sensor and panel ($3,000.00)
Hazardous exhaust system required for the paint booth per IMC section 510.
1
1
2
1
14
11857
4742
4820
1808
3.616
4820
4
1
900
$500.00
$250.00
$500.00
$100.00
$700.00
$3.28
$7.00
$6.00
$2.00
$600.00
$2.00
$2,000.00
$7,000.00
$2.00
$500.00
$250.00
1
$1,000.00
1
$100.00
1
$9,800.00
$38,890.96
$33,194.00
$28,920.00
1
$3,616.00
$2,169.60
$9,640.00
$8,000.00
$7,000.00
$1,800.00
Calculated occupancy
# Exst. BathsfT[t. Rms.
#Exst. TIt.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Lav.-M/Unisex
#Exst. Tit. -F
#Exst. Lav.-F
#Exst. Ddnking Ftn.
48
2
2
1
0
0
1
Page 3
Calculated loads
1
1
1
0
0
1
DOCUMENTATION OF CONTACTS/EVALUATIONS I .__EXHIBIT A
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENTS
MAP BUSINESS/PARCEL OWNER/CONTACT SUBSTANDARD
ID NAME NAME/NUMBER DOCUMENTATION OF CONTACTS/ATTEMPTS; COMMENTS DETERM NAT ON
21-1 450 38TH AVE NE, Scott Smith, 763-788-7971 City of Columbia Heights sent letter of request; 7/6 & 7/8 - called to Y
STEEL TECH schedule apppointment to walk through building - no answer; 7/8 -
called Randi Schumacher about contacting owner - He said owner
!will not allow access to building interior; 7/9 - exterior evaluation
completed
-24-1 515-517 38TH AVE Dick Pearo, 763-571-9103 City of Columbia Heights sent letter of request; 3/8 - called to Y
NE, JR schedule apppointment to walk through building - appt scheduled
PROPERTIES for 3/10; 3/10 - arrived at building to do assessment, but no answer
- called owner and representative said owner will not allow access
to building interior; 3/10 -exterior evaluation completed
APPENDIX G
BUT/FOR QUALI~ICATIONS
Current Market Value - Est.
New Market Value - Est.
Difference
Present Value of Tax Increment
Difference
Value Likely to Occur Without Tax Increment is Less Than:
4,475,800
125,827,750
121,351,950
13~937,075
107,414,875
107,414,875
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur
solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market
value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would
be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after
subtracting the present vah~e of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Huset Park
Area TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan:
The proposed development consists of a mixed-use development consisting of up to 559 units of owner-
occupied housing and a neighborhood retail office development in the City of Columbia Heights. This area
is occupied by 15 parcels, which requires acquisition, environmental remediation, and demol/tion and
relocation to permit the proposed development. Current est/mates for environmental clean-up of the area are
over $4,650,000. It is not likely that any new development on this site is feasible without significant
environmental remediation. A grant orS 1,300,000 of State and Metropolitan fimds has been secured for the
project, but it is not known if future grants will be awarded. The grant was awarded only because of a
comprehensive redevelopment plan, which is feasl~01e only with further assistance of tax increment. In
addition to the costs of remediation, the land acquisition costs and site preparation is expected to be over
$13,000,000. Without any public assistance, the cost of raw land (prior to internal streets, utilitibs,
SAC/WAC, landscaping, etc) per unit of housing is estimated to be over $31,000. The proposed sales prices
of the units are expected to be $200,000 to $275,000, which is too low to support significant raw land prices.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the TIF, District permitted by the TIF Plan:
It is not likely that any new development on this site is feasl~ble without significant environmental
remediation~ Only small portions of the site are not affected by soft contamination and the new development
on the site would be sporadic and less than $10,000,000. For taxes payable in 2005, the County assessors
has decreased the estimated market value on the parcels in the District by approximately $2,300,000 due to
m .... ¢'a.~.~.ma~ ~.uumuu~. ~u~ ~tc nau p~cvtuu~/y been in a ~ tr district since i989 and has seen only
one piece of property develop, even with public assistance.
APPENDIX 04
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
ao
The City's estimate of the mount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is less than $10,000,000.
bo
If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the
District, the total increase in market value would be up to $121,351,950 (see table on
previous page).
The present value of tax incrermmts t~om the District for the rnaxirn~ma duration of the district
permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $13,937,075. (see table on previous page).
Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no
altta-native would occur that would produce a market value/ncrease greater than $107,414,875 (the amount in
clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax/ncren~.-mt assistance.
APPENDIX
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: (_o
Colmmmity Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004-54, BY: Randy SchmnacherBY~~BY'
Approving the Elimination of Parcels from DATE: October 20, 2004
the TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project ~/,tX ~,Q .~[~& .
(MURP) K2 TIF District
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of tltis Resolution is to eliminate 12 parcels that are presently located in a previously
established Tax h~crement Financing District (MURP) IC2, thereby, qualifying them to be desigmated
in a new Tax h~crement Financing District. The original net tax capacity of the Tax h~crement
Financing District will be reduced by no more than the cra-rent net tax capacity of the parcels.
The City's financial consultant will be present to review the Tax hmrement Financing Plan being
proposed and answer any questions of the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Adoption of Resolution 2004-54, a resolution removing
parcels from the TIF 4 Multi Plan Cargill (MURP) K2 TIF District.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-54, there being an
ample amount of copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-54, a Resolution Approving the
Elimination of Parcels from the TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) IC2 Tax Increment
Financing District witkin the Central Business District Redevelopment Project in the City of
Co!mnbia Heights.
Attachments
/"~/"'AT TNT/~Tr A /'~'-PT["YN.T
h:~CL Consent2004\CL Res.2004-54 Elim. Parcels in K2 TIF
P. 85
CITY OF COLUMBIA I:W~IGHTS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-54
RESOLUTION APPROVING TffE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM THE TIF
4 M-ULTI USE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MURP) K2 TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN TH]~ CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
WHEREAS, on September 28, 1989, the City of Columbia Heights City Council (the "City)
established TIF 4 Multi Use Redevelopment Project (MURP) K2 Tax Increment Financing District (the
"TIF District") withha its Central Business District Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") is the
administrative authority for the TIF District; and
WHEREAS, the TIF District, in part, included the following parcel numbers, which were
previously certified in the TII~ District (the "Parcels"):
35-30-24-34-0013
35-30-24-34-0014
35-30-24-34-0040
35-30-24-43-0060
35-30-24-43-0047
35-30-24-34-0035
35-30-24-34-0039
35-30-24-34-0024
35-30-24-34-0041
35-30-24-34-0003
35-30-24-34-0004
35-30-24-34-0002
WHEREAS, the Parcels have been excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District
pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Section 469.176, Subd. 6 (the so-called "knock-down rule"); and
WHEREAS, the City des/a-es by this resolution to cause the elimination of the Parcels from the
District thereby reducing the size of the TIF District; and
WHEREAS, the City and EDA are authorized to modify the TIF DisMct by elimLnating one or
more parcels without the notice and hearing required for approval of an initial plan if they agree that,
notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity of the
District will be reduced by no more than the cun'ent net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated from the
TIF District; and
WHEREAS, while the Parcels have been "knocked down," their current net tax capacity is less
than the original net tax capacity of those Parcels when originally certified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. The tax increment financing plan ("TI~ Plan") for the TIF District is hereby modified to
remove the Parcels from the TIF District, effective for taxes payable in 2005.
2. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e)(2)(B), the City elects
that the original net tax capacity of the TIF District will be reduced by no more than the cun'ent net
SJB-253421vl P. 8 6 '
CL205-23
capacity of the Parcels.
3. Upon approval of a similm' resolution by the EDA, staff are authorized and dkected to
attach a copy of this resolution to the TIF Plan for the TIF District in City files, file a copy of tlzis
resolution with the County Auditor of Anoka County along with instructions to adjust the records for the
TIF District accordingly, and file a copy of the resolution with the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue.
DATED: October 25, 2004
OFFERED BY:
SECOND BY:
ROLL CALL:
ATTESTED:
Juliem~e Wyckoff, Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
(Seal)
sm-253421vl P. 8 7
CL205-23
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions/Ordinances ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
Fire APPROVAL
NO: LoC-
ITEM: Adopt Resolution For Revocation BY: Charlie Thompson
DATE: October 19, 2004 D~TE:/~
NO: 2004-75
Revocation of the license to operate a rental unit within the City of Columbia Heights is requested against
Edward Fra~ale regarding rental property at 1324-26 Circle Terrace Blvd. N.E. for failure to meet the
requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to -waive the reading of Resolution No.2004-75, there being ample
copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2004-75, Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Columbia Heights Approving Revocation Pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of
the Rental License held by Edward Fragale Regarding Rental ProPerty at 1324-26 Circle Terrace Blvd.
N.E.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 88
RESOLUTION 2004~75
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
APPROVING REVOCATION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION
5A.408(1) OF THAT CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL RENTAL LICENSE HELD BY
EDWARD FRAGALE (HEREINAFTER "LICENSE HOLDER").
WHEREAS, LICENSE HOLDER IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1324-26 CIRCLE TERRACE BLVD. NE, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA,
AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE SECTION 5.104(1)(A),
WRITTEN NOTICE SETTING FORTH THE CAUSES AND REASONS FOR THE
PROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS GIVEN TO THE
LICENSE HOLDER ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD
ON OCTOBER 25, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, AND ALL
ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MAKES THE FOLLOWING:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That on July 1, 2004, Matt Field, inspector for the City of Columbia Heights,
inspected the propenT and noted two violations. Compliance orders listing the
violation were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental
Housing License Application.
2. That on August 12, 2004, Matt Field, inspector for the City of Columbia Heights,
reinspected the property and noted two violations. Compliance orders listing the
violation were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental
Housing License Application.
3. That on September 8, 2004, Matt Field, inspector for the City of Columbia Heights,
reinspected the property and noted one violation. Compliance orders listing the
violation were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental
HouSing License APplication.
4. That on October 5, 2004, Matt Field inspected the property and noted one violation.
Compliance orders and a Statement of CaUse were mailed by certified mail to the
owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application.
5. That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the x%llowing conditions
and violations of the City's Residential Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-
wit:
a.
FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL
M3~rN, TEN32q, CE
i. Shall cut/trim/remove ail/any scrub growth from the north side of the
house.
FAILURE TO SUBMIT REINSPECTION FEES OF $500.00 '
6. That all parties, including the License Holder and any occupants or tenants, have
been given the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the
P. 89
City Code Section 5A.306(1) and 5A.303(1)(d).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by
license number F6493 is hereby revoked/suspended (cross out one);
2. The City will post for the purpose of preventing occupancy a copy of this order on the
buildings covered by the license held by License Holder;
3. All tenants shall remove themselves from the premises within 60 days from the first
day of posting of this Order revoking the license as held by License Holder.
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
That the building located at 1324-26 Circle Terrace Blvd. N.E. is in violation of the
provisions of the Colmnbia Heights City Code as set fm~h in the Compliance Order
attached hereto,
That all relevant parties and parties in intereSt have been duly served notice of this
hearing and any other hearings relevant to the revocation or suspension of the license
held by License Holder.
That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the license holder,
owner, occupant Or tenant as the case may be, have expired or such rights have been
exercised and completed.
Passed this
day of October 2004
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
Attest:
Mayor Julie~me Wyckoff
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
De. nntv C. itv C. lerk/C, nm~cil SecretaLw
P. 90
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of October 25, 2004
AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
SECTION: /0 /~ Fire APPROVAL
NO: ~
ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Charlie Thompson ·
Rental License Rev°cati°n ~TE.. i ~ ~?._~19~
DATE: OCtober 21, 2004
NO:
The matter of the revocation o£the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Colmr~bia Heights against
Edward Fragale regarding rental property at 1308-10 Circle Terrace Blvd N.E. for failure to meet the
requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Council
meeting of October 25, 2004.
The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the violations on the property have been corrected.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the
Rental License held by Edward Fragale regarding rental property at 1308-10 Circle Terrace Blvd N.E. in that the
violations on the property have been corrected.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 91
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: (.O ~ Fire APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolmion For Abatement BY: Charlie Thompson
DATE: October 20, 2004
NO: 2004-73
Delcaration of a nuism~ce and abatement of violations within the City of Columbia Heights is requested
against Donald Woods regm-ding property at 4901 5th Street NE. for failure to meet the requirements of
the Residential Maintenance Code..
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No.2004-73, there being ample
copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2004-73, Resolution of the City Comacil of the
City of Columbia Heights Declaring the Property at 4901 5th Street NE a Nuism~ce m~d Approving the
Abatement of Violations from the Property Pursuant to City Code Section 8.602.
COUNCIL ACTION:
P. 92
RESOLUTION 2004-73
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
APPROVING ABATEMENT OF ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8,
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 1 OF CITY CODE, ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS EXIST ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY DONALD WOODS (HEREINAFTER "OWNER OF RECORD").
WHEREAS, OWNER OF RECORD IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4901 5TM STREET N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO coLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE SECTION 8.602(1)(B),
WRITTEN NOTICE SETTING FORTH THE CAUSES AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED
COUNCIL ACTION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS SENT VIA CERTIFIED AND REGULAR
MAI1. TO THE OWNER OF RECORD ON OCTOBER 14, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, AND ALL ORDINANCES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MAKES THE FOLLOWING:
FINDINGS OF FACT
That on September 9, 2004 an inspection 'was conducted and three violations were noted,
one violation was of a serious safety concern and an hmnediate compliance order was sent.
This order stated that the violation should be corrected immediately. A compliance order
was sent by regular mail to the owner of record.
2. That on September 30, 2004 a reinspection was performed a reinspection and noted the
violation was not corrected.
3. That on October 14, 2004. A abatement letter detailing the violations mad nofication of the
abatement hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner of record.
4. That based upon said records of the Fire Department, the following conditions and violations
of City Ordinance(s) were found to exist, to-wit:
l)
Shall IMMEADIATELY remove the illegal structure being built on to
the garage. The framing that is up is a danger and must be removed.
complete all/any exterior work on the house. This work requires a
building permit. (Chapter 5A, section SA.205(1)(a), Section
5^.205(1)(g)).
That all parties, including .the O-W-N-ER OF RECORD mad may occupants or tenants, have
been given the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code
Section 8.602(1)(a) and 8.602(1)(b).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
That the property located at 4901 5th Street is in Violation of the provisions of the Columbia
Heights City Code as set forth in the Notice of Abatement attached hereto;
P. 93
2. That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing,
and any other hearings relevant to the abatement of violations on the property listed above.
That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the owner of record, occupant,
or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and
completed.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The property located at 4901 5th Street constitutes a nuisance pursuant to City Code.
2. That a copy of this resolution/order shall be served upon all relevant pm'ties and parties in
h~terest.
3. That any motion for summary enforcement shall be served upon all relevant parties and
parties in interest.
4. That all service provided for herein shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statute 483.17,
subd. 2
Passed this
day of October 2004
Offered by
Second by:
Roll Call:
Attest:
Mayor Julielme Wyckoff
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Cotmcil Secretary
P. 94
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration, Other ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
Ordinances and Resolutions Conm~unity Development APPROVAL
No:
ITEM: Resolution 2004- 68, Lot Split BY: Patrick Smith
Case #: 2004-1002, 1600 41~t Ave NE and 4050 Tyler DATE: October 19, 2004
Ave ·
BACKGROUND: An application has been made by Steve Jolmson and Anthony Palacino, the owners of 1600 4 l~t
Avenue NE, for a lot split of two parcels to create three single-family lots. The lot at 4050 Tyler Ave. is owned by Beunet
Nelson, who has signed the lot split application. The two existing residences will remain. The proposed split would allow
for the resulting parcels to be in conformance with all City requirements including setbacks, lot coverage and lot size.
These requh'ements are detailed in the attached Council planning report. Section 9.410(4) of the Columbia Heights Zoning
Ordinance requires that. an application for a lot split be reviewed by the Plmming and Zoning Cmmrfission which shall
provide a report to the City Council either recormnending approval or denial of the proposed lot split.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing for the request on October 5, 2004
and voted four ayes to recommend City Council approval of the lot split.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-68, there being ample copies available to the public.
Move to adopt Resolution 2004-68, a resolution approving a lot split of the propen'y at 1600 41st Avenue NE/4050 Tyler
Street NE, subject to the following conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public interest mad
ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance:
The applicant shall provide required utility and drainage easements for all newly created lots and be responsible for
the cost of filing and recording written easements with the gmoka Cotmty Recorder's Office.
The applicant shall pay a parldand dedication fee in the amount of $3,667 for the one newly created lot. This fee is
payable at the time of building permit.
The property owner of 1600 41st Avenue NE shall be responsible for relocating the water line that currently runs
fi'om the rear of the house to the alley. The line shall be rerouted out to 41~t Avenue. The property owner shall be
responsible for the cost of this relocation. All applicable City requirements regarding street excavation shall be met.
~ ~ ~ .... ~-~4, '~'- +~ .....4- o o ~, ........ 4h~ ,'~,,- r,~,,, +h~ subdi;dsion smwey,.~dth the
Upon approval ,,f,~ m2n,,~ oU~,~, ma,,n, ~ .... vvL,~ant oh,,ll ..... v ................. ~ ....
A2mka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County
Recorder within one (1) year of the date of the City Council action.
Attachments: Resohttion 2004-68, Planning Report to Council, Location Map, Certificate of Survey
P. 95
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-68
SUBDIVISION REQUEST
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 - 40TH AVENUE N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
I, Steven Johnson, and I, Anthony Palacino, hereby request a split of
PIN 36-30-24-31-0007 Legally described as:
Lot 2, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PIN 36-30-24-31-0006 Legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota.
THE DESCRIPTIONS HENCEFORTH TO BE:
Northeasterly Parcel:
The East 87 feet of at part of Lot 4, Block 17, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County,
Minnesota.
Southerly Parcel:
Lot 2, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, except that part of
the North 13 feet thereof which lies west of-the East 87 feet thereof.
Northwesterly Parcel:
That part of Lot 1, Block 21, Auditor's Subdivision of Walton's 2nd Subdivision, Anoka County, Minnesota, which
lies west of the East 87 feet thereof and that part of the North 13 feet of Lot 2 in said Block 21, which ties west of
the East 87 feet thereof.
Be it further resolved that special assessments of record in the office of the City of Columbia Heights as of this day,
against the above described property, are paid.
Any pending or future assessments will be levied according to the new split as approved this day.
Any lot split given approval shall become invalid if the resolution, motion or other Council action appreving the said
lot split is not filed with the County Recorder within one (I) year of the date of the Council action.
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ACTION:
This 5th day of October 2004
Offered by: Schmitt
Seconded by: Baker
Roll Call: All Ayes
Zoning Officer
Signature of Owner, Notarized
Owner's Address
Telephone No.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this __. day of ,2004
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Notary Public
This 25~h day of October 2004.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Secretary to the Council p, 9'~lienne Wyckoff, Mayor
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CASE NUMBER:
DATE:
TO:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
PREPARED BY:
2004-1002
October 25, 2004
Columbia Heights City Council
Steve Johnson and Anthony Palacino
1600 41st Avenue NE/4050 Tyler Street NE
R1 Single Family Residential District
Lot Split
Patrick Smith, AICP, City Planner
Planning Considerations
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Iow density residential development.
The proposed lot split will create three residential lots from two lots. All three lots are consistent
with the Iow density residential designation.
Consistency with Zoning Ordinance
The two properties involved in the lot split are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The parcel
is surrounded on all sides by properties zoned R-1.
The lot split meets all of the lot area, setback and lot coverage requirements for the R-1 Zoning
District. Section 9.903 of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance regulates lot area, setback,
height and lot coverage requirements, and Section 9.603 regulates accessory structures and lot
coverages. Applicable requirements are as follows:
· Minimum iot size shaii be 8,400 sq. ft. for a single family home. Currently, "--u [u ,ut'-' at 1600
41st Av. NE contains 18,941 sq. ft. and the lot at 4050 Tyler St. NE contains 18,946 sq. ft.
After the proposed lot split, 1600 41st Av. NE would contain 8,699 sq. ft., 4050 Tyler St. NE
would contain 14,902 sq. ft. and the new, third lot would contain 8,452 sq. ft.
· Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. After the lot split, each of the lots exceed this
requirement.
· Yard setbacks shall be as follows: Front yard - 25 ft; side yard - 7 ft.; rear yard - 20% of lot
depth; detached accessory structures - 3 ft. from side and rear property lines. All of the
setbacks of existing structures on both properties will continue to meet these requirements.
Any new structures that may be built subsequent to the lot split must also meet these
requirements.
· Lots greater than 6,500 sq. ft. in area may have a lot coverage of up to 30 percent: After the
P. 97
City of Columbia Heights City Council October 25, 2004
Lot Split, 1600 41st Ave. NE/4050 Tyler St. NE
Case #2004-1002
proposed lot split, 1600 41st Av. NE will have a lot coverage of 15.4 percent and 4050 Tyler
St. NE would have a lot coverage of 7.9 percent. Any new structures that may be built
subsequent to the lot split must also meet the lot coverage requirement.
Findings of Fact
1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed
subdivision will create a total of three lots.
2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. The
proposed subdivision does not involve vacating existing easements.
All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width
requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. As detailed
above, the lots conform to the minimum requirements of the R-f Zoning District.
The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights-of-way for the
purpose of gaining access to the property. The proposed subdivision does not require any
dedication of pubfic right-of-way.
The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of
this Ordinance. City records do not show that there have been any previous minor
subdivisions of the property.
6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. The proposed
subdivision will not prohibit the conveyance of land.
The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of
records related to assessments. As long as the appricant records the lot sprit with Anoka
County in accordance with afl City and County requirements, this finding will be met.
The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the Section 14
(Subdivision Regulations). The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations.
Recommendation
On a vote of four ayes, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the lot split, subject to conditions of approval outlined below.
and be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka
County Recorder's Office.
2. The applicant shall pay a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $3,667 for the one newly
created lot. This fee is payable at the time of building permit.
P. 9 8 Page 2
City of Columbia Heights City Council October 25, 2004
Lot Split, 1600 41~t Ave. NE/4050 Tyler St. NE
Case #2004-1002
The property owner of 1600 41st Avenue NE shall be responsible for relocating the water line
that currently runs from the rear of the house to the alley. The line shall be rerouted out to
41st Avenue. The property owner shall be responsible for the cost of this relocation. All
applicable City requirements regarding street excavation shall be met.
Upon approval of a minor subdivision, the applicant shall be responsible for filing the
subdivision survey with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. The minor subdivision shall
become invalid if not filed with the Anoka County Recorder within one (1) year of the date of
the City Council action.
Attachments
· Location Map
· Certificate of Survey
1~. 9 9 Page 3
~lllllllllllllll
FI I/i/llli IilillllllU Iii/Ii/I/ii
J~~ ~lllllllllllll IIIIIIIII IJ I I IIIII I[I I III 'UIIIIIIII I
'1 I I IIIIlllllql~llllllllllll..l'l IIIIIIit111 I'11!1 IIIIIII. II I IIIIII I II1 IIIIII I I ~1 II IIII II--
~~[~j]~ ~J IIIIIIIlllllllJIIII I IIIIIIIJI II IIII IIIII I'1 II II
, IIII III IIIll'll.t I IIIII1!?1 I111 IIII II111 LI tl I I I.J. lllllllltllll
j~~ ~ I IIIIIIIllllllll I I IIIIIIII1~1 III III III IIIIIIII
I IIIIIIIIIIlll?llllll[l.lllltllllllllll !11 III[! IIIIIIIIIIIII II I~11 t1111,.11 IIIIIIIIII
lP. 100
AD FAArCE ,.,eUR MEYING &ENG. LTNEE. I-LDVG CO.
SL~RVEYFDR: ANTHOAqr PALACLNO & oeTEI/'E JOZ-EArSON
SURVEWED: Jul)' 2(1114 DR--\F'I'ED: July 2*q. 21i04
REVISED: Jul)' 3 I. 2a04 lu .~how cli~:nt's proposal tu divide lot.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL:
Lol J. Block 2J. Auditor% Subdivision or Wahon's Secnnd Subdivision. Anuka Cum]tv.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASTERLY PARCEL:
The emit 76~5 Ii:m el'Lot 1. Block 21. Audbo~s Subdivision o£Wuhon'5 Second Subdivision.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WESTERLY PARCEL:
Tbm Fan u[' Lot I. Bluck 21. Auditor's Subdiviaiun or Walton% Sc~:ond Subdivislan. Anuka
SCOPE OF WORJ~
1. Slmwing Iht Icngtb and diruadon dj'boundary, lions o['llm above I,:gul duscriptiun. Tim
Pleas= clucck tile legal description with your rucurds or consult with compalent legal counsel.
2. We show n proposed division of dm pmpercy mad a proposed locution For u po~ibJe
ii it wlmt ylm intend and .,mbmit lo those governmental ag. cnci~ tbm Imvcjurisdiction o
obtain tlmir approvals, if you can. bcrun~ makhu! any d=cisions rcunrdin~ Ibc prupcriv.
3. Sbawing clavatiolm un th= aim at selected lot:ut-iaaa m give samu-indic~tlun ul-fl~c '
topugrdphy urd~c site. Thc ~lavations shown relate only lo tim benchmark provided an t bi.,;
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
EERTIFICATI¢)N:
I hereby cert ~, flt Ihi.', survey ~va-'~ prepared hy me or undur my dimcl ~upcrvisiun and thai 1
am a Pml'u.'k'iitma} Engineer and u P~anul Surveyor under tile Lawa'urllm State al'
GRAPHIC SCAT,F, /
/
/
/ '
/
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT HYBRANT
ELEV=103.2 (ASSUMED)
IOS,E
SANITARY
MANHDLE
POSSIBLE FUTURE HOME
Xma/:
S
/ 99.E
99,5
/
FOUND 1/2"
99,6
98,8
9a.~ X
XIOL7
CONCRETE STOOP
31 SQ. FT.
XlO3.o
/
/
/
/ DWG NO. 040840
7,625
sq. ft.
lOL9
Xlo~.O
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: October 25, 2004
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: '-'~ '-'~ -\ Co~m~mfity Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2004-74, BY: Randy Schmnacher BY:~~~Z./ L~
Accepting the bid for Building Demolition DATE: October 20, 2004 /~ ~
and Excavation of Contaminated soil in the
Industrial Park (Phase I)
BACKGROUND: In October of 2003, the City of Colmnbia Heights applied for cleanup ftmds for
the redevelopment of Phase I of its industrial Park. The State of Mirmesota and the Metropolitan
Cotmcil awarded a grant to the City in the amount of $1,233,000 for this project.
The City has entered into a redevelopment agreement with Schafer Richardson thus allowing the City
to move ahead with expenditure of the cleanup grant.
The City's Envh'omrtental Consultant, ProSom'ce Technologies, prepared a bid request for building
demolition and excavation of contan~inated soil for Phase I of the Industrial Park. The bids were
advertised and at the bid opening, held on October 19, 2004, five companies submitted bids. The bids
ranged fi'om a low of $694,662 to a kigh of $790,060. Due to the timing of this project the low bid
fi'om J.M. Frattalone Company is approxhnately 30% below the engineers estimate.
RECOlVIMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 2004-74, accepting the bid fi'om
J.M. Frattalone for the building demolition and excavation of contan~inated soil in the Industrial Park
Phase I at'ea.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-74, there being an
mnple mount of copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2004-74, a Resolution accepting the bid
for building demolition and excavation of contarninated soil in the h~dustfial Park (Phase i), Colm~bia
Heights, MN.
Attacl2r~ents
COUNCIL ACTION:
h:\Consent2OO4\CL Res. 2004-74 Accept Bid for Demo P. 102
RESOLUTION 2004-74
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR BUILDING DEMOLITION AND
EXCAVATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK
(PHASE I), COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN
WHEREAS, pm'suant to an advertisement for bids for the demolition of buildings at 3801 5th
Street, 510 39th Street (Rayco Corp) and 550 & 600 39th Avenue (Honeywell) and Excavation of
Contamh~ated Soil identified in Phase I of the h~dustrial Park Redevelopment Plan; bids were
received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received
complying with the advertisement: (See attached bid spread sheet)
AND 11rItEREAS, it appears that J.M. Frattalone Company is the lowest responsible bidder,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA:
The mayor and clerk are hereby authohzed and directed to enter into the attached contract
with J.M. Frattalone Company in the bid amount of $694,662 for the building demolition
and excavation of contaminated soil in the Industhal Park Phase I area according to the
plans and specifications as outline in the bid request dated October 13, 2004 and on file
in the office of Cormnunity Development.
The City staff is hereby authorized and directed to retm-n forthwith to all bidders the
deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been sigmed.
Adopted this 25th day of October, 2004.
OFFERED BY:
SECONDED,_,,.r~v'
ROLL CALL:
Juliem~e Wyckoff, Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
Deputy City Clerk/Council Secretary
P. 103
Bid Opening for Demolition and
Excavation of Contaminated Soil
Columbia Heights Industrial Park
(Phase I)
2:00 pm October 19, 2004
2200 Old Hwy 8
NW YES
Belair New Brighton, MN $750,808
55321
P.O. Box 1086
Landwehr St. Cloud, MN $734,343 YES
56302
23801 Industrial
Veit &Companv Blvd. $742,527 YES
Rogers, MN
Five E:_mpire Drive
Bay West St. Paul, MN 55163- N/A N/A
1867
Carl Bolander 251 Starkey
St. Paul, MN 55107 $790,060 NO
J. M. Frattalone3205 Spruce Street
Little ,Canada, MN $694,662 YES
Company 55117
BUILDING DEMOLITION & EXCAVATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK, PHASE 1
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
WORK AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this 25th day of October 2004, by and between the City of Cohimbia Heights
("the City") and J.M. Frattalone Company (the "Contractor") for Building Demolition and Excavation of
Contaminated Soil as detailed in the bid request.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City desires to have perfonned or constructed the services or facilities deschbed in the Contract
Documents (the "work");
WHEREAS, Contractor represents that it has the necessmy personnel, experience, competence, and legal right to
perform the Work;
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Resolution authorizing the City staff to enter a contract for the
completion of the Work specified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of
them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. WORK TO BE COMPLETED... The Work shall be performed in strict accordance with the Contract
Documents. The Contractor shall carefully review all of the Contract Documents before performing the Work and
shall promptly call to the attention of the City any discrepancy or inconsistency which may exist between any two
or more documents or between any parts of the same document. The City shall have discretion as to how to
address any such discrepancy or inconsistency and shall modify, interpret, or adjust the Contract Documents
accordingly as the case may be.
2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ... The Contract Documents shall consist of the Work Agreement, the
Scope of Work and Specifications, the plans and drawings prepared by or on behalf of the City in connection with
the Work (where specified), all Amendment Request Certificates approved by the City, all Change Orders issued
by the City, the Notice to Proceed, the Sworn Construction Statement, the Colnpletion Certificate, and written
interpretations of the Contract Documents issued by the City. The Contract Docmnents shall, insofar as is possible,
be interpreted to be consistent with one another. Any inconsistencies shall be addressed in accordance with
paragraph 1 of this Agreement.
3. PERMITS AND REGULATIONS ... Prior to cmmnencing the Work, the Contractor shall secure all
necessary building permits and licenses as may be required, and before and during the progress of the Work, give
all notices and comply with all the laws, ordinances, roles, and regulations of every kind and nature now or
hereafter in effect that are promulgated by any federal, state, county, or other govermnental authority, relating to
the performance of the Work.,~T~'*~-~w~ Contractor's performance is con~ary to any such ~.,~w, .... ordinance, ~,-'~ or
regulation, it shall bear all costs arising there from. Contractor specifically agrees to abide by and observe all
standards and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Achninistration, which are apphcable to the Work.
4. PROSECUTION OF THE WORK ... The Contractor shall at all times prosecute the Work diligently so
as to insure its completion in full accordance with the Contract Documents and shall at all trues furnish sufficient
numbers and mnounts of properly skilled Workers, acceptable materials and equipment, adequate services,
construction tools, and equipment. The Work shall be nerformed in a good and Workananlike manner. Contractor
P. 105
shall keep the Work site clean and orderly during the course of the Work and remove all debris at the completion of
the Work. If the Contractor is negligent in these areas, the City reserves the right to perform this work with its own
forces at overthr~e rates. The costs of such work shall be charged to the Contractor. The Contractor will
adequately protect the Work from dan~age, will protect the prope~V from injury or loss, and will take all necessary
precautions during the progress of the Work to protect all persons and the property of others fi'om injury or dmnage.
The Contractor will assume full responsibility for all its tools and equipn~ent and all materials to be used in
connection with the Work. Materials and equipment that have been removed and replaced, as pax of the Work
shall belong to the Contractor unless agreed otherwise.
5. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK; LIQUIDATED DAMAGES... The Work is
anticipated to co~nnence on November 2004 and be satisfactorily completed in the opinion of the City within 60
days of the Authorization to Proceed. In the event the Work is not connnenced within ten (10) days of the date
specified, the City may dismiss the Contractor without any compensation whatsoever and appoint a substitute
Contractor(s). If the Contractor is unable to co~mnence the Work by the specified date, it must promptly notify the
City. In the event the Work is not completed by the specified date, the Contractor and its sureties shall be assessed
liquidated dmnages of one percent (1%) of the total Contract Price or fifty dollars ($50.00), whichever is greater,
per day for each calendar day of delay excluding Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays. This sum shall be deducted
frO1Tl the Contract Price at the time of payment. This provision for liquidated damages represents the best estinuate
by the City and the Contractor of loss suffered by the City due to failure to complete the Work on time, and shall
not be, or is deemed to be, a penalty or forfeiture. This provision for hquidated damages is in addition to any and
all other rights and remedies to which the City may be entitled at law or in equity in connection with tiffs
Agreement.
6. EXCUSABLE DELAYS ... The following circumstances, and only these circumstances, will, at the
City's discretion, be considered legitimate cause for a change in the commencement and/or completion dates
specified in paragraph 5 of this Agreement:
Material delay -- material delays that are beyond the control of the Contractor, which can be
shown to have directly caused the overall late completion.
Adverse weather conditions -- weather conditions that directly affect the scheduling of exterior
work over a significant portion of the tem~ of this Agreement.
Strikes -- Contractors who face union work stoppage in the case where they have to rely on such
a work force in order to complete the Work.
Amenchnents -- significant an~endments in the original scope of work, which can be reasonably
shown to requh'e an extension of the true, allowed for completion.
Emergencies -- accidents, death or ilh~ess in the inzmediate family of the Contractor, which
necessitates a significant leave of absence fi'om the job.
Proven lack of cooperation fi'om persons in possession of the property resulting in significant
delays.
g. Proven lack of cooperation from the Contractor's agents resulting m significant delays.
7. AMENDMENT REQUEST CERTIFICATE ... Changes in the scope, specifications, or cost of the
Work that are proposed by the Contractor subsequent to the execution of tiffs Agreement shall be considered
.gauendments. No such Amendments shall be made without prior written approval by the City. Any gauendment
proposed by the Contractor shall be submitted via an gdnendment Request Certificate. The gnuendment Request
Certificate must: (a) be signed and dated by the Contractor; (b) specify how the Work is to be amended and the cost
for such Amendments; and (c) specify the reason for any cost increase/decrease resulting from the An~endment(s).
P. 106
The City will approve or disapprove the Amendment Request Certificate after appropriate review and property
inspection. If approved, a copy of the signed Amendment Request Certificate will be forwarded to the Contractor.
Upon receipt by the Contractor of the approved Annendment Request Certificate, the approved Amenchnent(s) may
be implemented. All Adnendments made before receipt of an approved Amendment Request Certificate will not be
compensable by the City. No such Adnendment Request Certificate shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any
remaining covenant, agreement, term, or condition contained in the Contract Documents.
8. CHANGE ORDER ... The City shall have the right, within the general scope of the Work and without
notice to any surety or sureties of the Contractor, to make changes in the Work, either by altering the nature of the
same or by adding to or deducting from it. All changes shall, except in the case of emergencies endangering the
safety of persons or property be made by written Change Order. The Contractor shall promptly comply with any
and all written Change Orders. No such Change Order shall be deemed to invalidate the remaining terms and
conditions contained in the Contract Docmnents.
9. GENERAL GUARANTY... The Contractor hereby guarantees to the City that all of the Work shall be
done in competent, worhnan-like manner and that such Work shall be and remain free of defects in workmanship
and materials for a period of one (1) year from the date that the City executes the Completion Certificate pursuant
to paragraph 17 of this Agreement. The Contractor wmTants that all materials and equipment furnished in
connection with the Work will be new, unless otherwise specified, and be of good quality and free from faults and
defects. The Contractor shall assign to the City (if assignable) or enforce for the benefit of the City (if not
assignable) any guarantees provided by manufacturers or sellers of machinery materials or equipment that are to be
incorporated into the Work. The City's acceptance of the Work shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any of the
City's rights under this paragraph.
10. WAIVER OF LIABILITY... It is agreed that the Work is undertaken at the sole risk of the Contractor.
The Contractor does expressly forever release the City of Columbia Heights from any clahns, demands, injuries,
damage actions, or causes of action whatsoever, arising out of or connected with the Work.
11. INDEMNIFICATION ... Any and all claims that arise or may arise as a consequence of any act or
omission on the part of the Contractor, its agents, servants, or employees while engaged in the performance of the
Work shall in no way be the obligation or responsibihty of the City of Columbia Heights. The Contractor shall
indemnify, hold hanuless, and defend the City of Colmnbia Heights, council members, officers, employees,
successors, and assigns against any and all hability, loss, cost, damages, expenses, claims, or actions, including
attorney's fees which the City of Colmubia Heights, council members, officers, or employees may hereinafter incur
or be required to pay on account of injm3~ to or death of any person or persons or dmnage to any property arising
out of or by reason of any act or omission office Contractor, its agents, servants, or employees in the execution,
perfonmnce, or failure to adequately perform its obligations under this Agreement, whatever the cause of such
injuries or dmnage.
12. INSURANCE... The Contractor agrees that in order to protect itself, the City of Colmnbia Heights under
the indemnity provisions set forth in paragraph 11 of this Agreement, it will at all trines during the term of this
Agreement, maintain, at a minimmn, the following insurance policies:
Workers Compensation Insurance. The Contractor shall maintain worker's compensation
insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes including Chapter 176 of the Minnesota
Statutes. Such policy shall include Employer's Liability Coverage and at least such amount(s) as
are customarily provided in worker's compensation policies issued in Minnesota. Contractor
further agrees to require all subcontractors and independent contractors to maintain worker's
compensation insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes and to monitor the compliance
of such subcontractors and independent contractors with the applicable statutes.
1'.107
Commercial General Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall maintain OccmTence Based
Co~rnnercial General Liability Insurance ("CGL"), providing coverage on an "occurrence", rather
than on a "claims made" basis, which policy shall include coverage for the Completed Operations
Hazard, and which shall also include a Broad Form General Liability Endorsement, IS0 number
GL 0404, or an equivalent form (or forms), so long as such an equivalent form (or forms) affords
coverage which is in all material respects at least as broad. Any equivalent form (or fonus) of
coverage, shall be approved by the City.
The Contractor agrees to maintain total liability policy limits of at least One Million Dollars
($1,000,000), applying to liability for Bodily Injury, Personal Injury, and Property Damage,
which total limits may be satisfied by the lhnits afforded under its Occurrence Based CGL policy
as specified above, or by such policy in combination with the lhuits afforded by an Umbrella
Liability Policy (or policies) provided, however, that the coverage afforded under any such
Umbrella Liability Policy shall be at least as broad as that afforded by the underlying occurrence
based CGL Policy as specified above.
Automobile Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance
covering liability for Bodily Injury and Property Dmuage arising out of the ownership, use,
maintenance, or operation of all owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles and other motor
vehicles. Such policy shah provide total liability limits for combined Bodily Injury and/or
Property Dmuage in the mnount of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, wkich
total lin~its may be satisfied by the lhuits afforded under such policy, or by such policy in
combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella Liability Policy (or policies) provided,
however, that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella Liability Policy shall be at least as
broad as that afforded by the underlying automobile liability insurance policy.
The City of Columbia Heights shall be nmued as "additional insured" parties with respect to the insurance policies
specified in (b) and (c) above. The Contractor shall not commence work until a Certificate of Insurance evidencing
all of the insurance policies required above is approved and a written Notice to Proceed is issued by an authorized
representative of the City. The City shall, at any time during the tenu of this agreement, have the right to require
that the Contractor secure any additional insurance, or additional feature to existing insurance, as the City may
reasonably require for the protection of its interests or those of the public. It is expressly understood that the City
does not in any way represent that the minhmuu insurance coverage set forth in this paragraph is sufficient or
adequate to protect the interest or liabilities of the Contractor.
13. BOND... The Contractor shall furnish payment and performance bonds, issued by a surety acceptable to
the City, at least equal to the Contract Price as that amount may be amended from tinge to time=and including, but
not be lhnited to coverage for liquidated dmnages provided for in paragraph 5 of this Agreement, and the period of
coverage by any wan'anty required by the Work. The bonds shall remain in effect for one year after the date the
Completion Certificate is executed by the City and for any wan'anty period requ/red by the Work, wlfichever date is
later. The premiums for such bonds shall be deemed to be included in the Contract Price, and no additional
compensation shall be payable to the Contractor with respect to such bonds. No Change Order, approval or
disapproval of an Pdnendment Request Certificate, changes in the corma~encement and/or completion dates
pursuant to paragraph 5, failure to enforce any rights arising under the Contract Docmnents, or other act or
forbearance of the City shall, unless specifically agreed to otherwise by the City, operate to release or discharge any
surety or sureties under any such bond.
14. LIEN WAIVER ... Neither the Contractor nor any subcontractor or other person or entity furnishing
labor, equipment, or materials in connection with the Work shall file any mechanic's lien against the City's
buildings., structures or land or any part thereof. The Contractor shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City of Columbia Heights from any and all claims, demands, or actions of whatever natm'e arising out
of work, labor, equipment, or materials furnished by the Contractor or its subcontractors in connection with the
Work. Payment of the Contract Price shall not be due until the Contractor has delivered to the City lien waivers
acceptable to the City, which release the City from all liens that may arise in connection with the Work. The
P. 108
Contractor shall list below the names of all suppliers and/or subcontractors that will provide nlaterials, services, or
labor in connection with the Work. The Contractor will notify the City of any changes in this list prior to the
cmxnnencement of the Work.
15. CONTRACT PRICE ... The Contractor agrees to furtfish all work, labor, materials, and equipment
necessary to complete the Work as set forth in the Contract Documents for the sum of $694,662 (the "Contract
Price"), to be paid by the City in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Contract Price
shall constitute the sole compensation payable to the Contractor for its perfom~ance of the Work or anything done
in connection therewith including expenditures by the Contractor for all taxes, permits, hcenses, and bonds
required to perform the Work. The Contractor shall indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any
liability for any such taxes, fees, premitm~s, contributions, etc. that the Contractor incurs in connection with the
Work.
16. EXAMINATION OF WORK SITE... Contractor agrees that the Contract Price specified in paragraph
15 of this Agreement is based upon Contractors examination of the work site and that it will make no claim for
additional compensation or the extension of time for performance if the conditions encountered differ from those
anticipated by such examination, unless such a claim is based upon conditions at the work site, or omissions,
ambiguities, or conflicts in the Contract Docmnents, which Contractor can show could not have been discovered in
the exercise of reasonable care prior to the submission of the Contract Price.
17. PAYMENT OF CONTRACT PRICE... The Contractor agrees to provide the City with the following
documentation as a condition to receiving payment of the Contract Price: (a) an itemized bill for the completed
Work; (b) a properly executed Completion Certificate; (c) a Sworn Construction Statement; and (d) all lien waivers
as required by paragraph 14 of this Agreement. The City may withhold payment of the Contract Price to the
Contractor to such extent as maybe necessary to protect the City from loss on account of: (a) defective work not
remedied; (b) claims or actions fried or evidence reasonably indicating the probable filing of the stone against the
City with respect to the Work perforated; (c) the failure of the Contractor to make payments properly to
subcontractors and/or suppliers for equipment, material, or labor, or to provide evidence that such payments have
been made; (d) any cost for which the Contractor is liable under the Contract Documents; or (e) a breach by
Contractor of any tem~, condition, or provision contained in the Contract Documents.
18. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ... The Contractor shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations conce~xfing non-discrin~_nation
in employment, including the Equal Opportunity Clause of Section 202, Executive Order 11246, as amended,
which is hereby incorporated by reference.
19. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS ... Contractor is and shall remain an independent
contractor in the performm~ce of the Work, maintaining complete control of its workers and operations. Neither
Contractor nor anyone employed or engaged by Contractor shall become an agent, representative, servant, or
employee of the City in the performance of the Work or any pm~t thereof.
P. 109
20. CONTRACT REPRESENTATIVES; ADDRESSES ... The City's representative with respect to this
Agreement shall be Randy Schumacher, Project Director, City of Columbia Heights. The Contractor's
representative with respect to this Agreement shall be Jim Wntzke, Project Manager. All notices, requestS, and
instructions, or other co~r~nunications given or received by either party under the terms of this Agreement shall,
unless otherwise specifically provided herein, be made in writing signed by the designated representative of the
party making such con~unication and be delivered or addressed to the designated representative of the other party
at the following address:
CITY ADDRESS:
City of Columbia Heights
Attn: Randy Schumacher
590 40th Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
CONTRACTOR ADDRESS:
J.M. Frattalone Company
3205 Spruce Street
Little Canada, MN 55117
21. SUBCONTRACTORS ... Contractor agrees to bind every subcontractor by the terms, conditions, and
provisions set forth in the Contract Documents that m'e applicable to the subcontractor's work, unless otherwise
specifically agreed otherwise in writing by the City.
22. ASSIGNMENT... This Agreement shall be binding upon and in order to the benefit of the Contractor, its
legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. No assigm~ent or attempted assignment of this Agreement or
any rights hereunder shall be effective unless the written consent of the City is first obtained. No such assigmnent,
even if consented to by the City, shall relieve the Contractor from liability under this Agreement for the
performance and completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT... The Contract Documents contain all the terms, conditions, and provisions
pertaining to the Work to be completed bY the Contractor, there being no other understandings, agreements, or
warranties, express or implied. All prior negotiations and dealings regarding the subject matter of the Contract
Docmnents are superseded by and merged into the Contract Documents.
24. APPLICABLE LAW... This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws
of the state of Minnesota.
25. AMENDMENT... This Agreement may be modified or mrtended only with the written approval of the
City and the Contractor.
26. CONSTRUCTION ... In the event that any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, or any
application thereof, shall be fbund to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable, the validity, legality, and
enforceability of the remaining provisions or any application thereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
27. AUTHORITY ... Each of the undersigned parties warrants that it has the full authority to execute this
Agreement, and each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of a corporation hereby win-rants that he or she
has full authority to sign on behalf of the corporation and that he or she represents and binds such corporation
thereby.
P. 110
28. WAIVER ... No failure by the City to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant, duty,
agreement, or condition contained in this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach
thereof shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or any other covenant, agreement, term, or condition, nor does
it imply that such covenant, agreement, tema, or condition may be waived again.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands this 25th day of October, 2004.
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
It's Mayor- Julie~me Wyckoff
It's City Manager-Walter R. Fehst
J.M. Frattalone Company
Its~
Witness
H:\Industrial Park 2004~Demolition Contract
P. 111