HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 18, 2005 Work SessionCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Visit Our Website at: www. ci. coh#nbia-heights, mn.us
A DMINIS TRA T/ON
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
to be held in the
CITY' OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
as follo~4~s:
Mayor
Ga/y L. Peterson
Councilmembers
Robert ,4. ~Villiams
Bruce Nm~rocki
Tammera Ericson
Bruce Kelzenberg
City Mana.qer
~Yalt Fehst
Meeting of.'
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Purpose of Meeting:
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2004
7:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 1
WORK SESSION
AGENDA
1. Water quality complaint areas
2. Lead water services
3. Industrial Park condemnations
4. Street Rehab Zone 7B discussion
5. Plamfing Permit Fees modification.
6. Cormnunity Center Demand Analysis
7. Housing Maintenance License rates.
8. Purchase of 800 MHz radio from capitol fund.
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, acco~muodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped
persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at
706-3611, to make an'angements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only)
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City of Columbia Heights
Public Works Department
Work Session Discussion Item
Work Session Date: January 18, 2005 r, ~.--~ ~~
Prepared by: Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director/City Enginee
Item: Water Quality Complaint Areas
Background:
Columbia Heights has received complaints of discolored water at various locations and for many
years throughout the City. Two areas have recently generated more complaints than others:
Alley from 37th to 39th Avenue, between Polk and Tyler Streets.
Jefferson Street, from 49th to 51 st Avenues.
Water mains throughout the City vary in age, materials, construction and flow but they all have one
thing in common; that is, they are buried 6' to 12' in the ground. Therefore, City crews have to rely
on reports from residents, personal observation, maintenance records and test results to evaluate
water main problems. Various parts of the City experience rusty water from time to time and the
problem can normally be abated by flushing the water mains in the area by flowing water through
the fire hydrants. The areas described above have not responded to standard water main flushing or
unidirectional flushing operations that normally flush the iron deposits out of the water main.
Analysis/Conclusions:
At this time the City has determined that the rusty water is caused by encrusted iron scale deposits
sloughing off the inside of the water main into the water. To date, the problem originates only in
unlined cast iron pipe, which was common pi'ior to 1962. Although iron scale has a tendency to
turn the color of the water yellow or light brown, it is aesthetic in nature and not known to be a
health risk by federally regulated standards. City staff has taken many samples, and continues to test
the drinking water to ensure compliance with State and Federal requirements. The problem in
general is called 'tuberculation' and a picture of what the inside of a tuberculated and clean pipe
looks like is attached as figure 1. To resolve the rusty water problem, it is City staff's opinion that
the water main needs to be either cleaned and lined or excavated and completely replaced. The
following alternatives are presented for review and discussion:
1. Do Nothing, Continue Monitoring, Valving and Flushing.
Prior to 2004, rusty water complaints were resolved at least temporarily by flushing the fire hydrants
and exercising gate valves in the area. The water would typically remain clear for several months.
In 2004, flushing hydrants in the area only cleared the water for significantly shorter periods of time,
often times lasting only days in the subject areas. The cost for this alternative is minimal (staff
time), but the effectiveness for the subject areas is also now minimal.
Item: Water Quality Complaint Areas
Page 2
Staff also conducted C-Factor testing on the subject mains. C-Factor testing involves isolating water
main segments, flowing water and measuring pressures and flow rate. A C-Factor is then calculated
which can be used to determine the amount of tuberculation in-pipe. Another way to look at a C-
Factor is it is a measurement of resistance to flow in-pipe. New pipe will have a C-Factor of 135.
We would have expected the C-Factors in the areas tested (based on age) to be in a range of 95-100.
The measured C-Factors in the 39th alley water main was 52, and the Jefferson Area was 62 and 43.
Because the measurements were so low in the Jefferson area, the testing was extended south of the
49th to 51 st area, which also indicated severely tuberculated pipe.
2. Continuous Flushing / Flow Water.
Staff installed a continuous flushing system by plumbing a 2-½ inch pipe from the hydrant located
at the alley entrance on 37th Avenue between Tyler Street and Polk Street to a catch basin on 37th
Avenue. Continual flushing of the line began at this time. Water complaints turned into
compliments while the flushing system was in operation. The system was disconnected in the fall
with the onset of freezing temperatures resulting in discolored water complaints within 24 hours.
This short-term action was taken as more of an evaluation technique for steady directional flow,
improve circulation and a hypothesis for internal (chemical) coating of the main. It is wasteful of
City resources and not available in the winter. It is not recommended except in short term-localized
instances.
3. Individual On-Site Filtration.
Staff worked with Culligan to evaluate the problem in the water and developed a Pilot Program to
evaluate the effectiveness of providing individual filters designed for iron removal. Based upon the
eight homes in the program, the results were varied and inconsistent. At times the filters worked at
iron removal, while at other times the iron bypassed the filters. As a short-term and relatively
inexpensive solution, this could be a technique for homeowners to use. The installation cost is about
$250 - $300, with filter cartridges at about $18-20 each, with replacement about every 3 months.
4. Air Scouring.
This is a new method of cleaning water main lines that staff found while researching alternatives.
Air scouring is a technique developed in Australia and Great Britain. It is not a common practice in
the US, yet. Air scouring claims to be more effective than flushing mains. Air scouring is a process
where compressed air (dried, cleaned and filtered) is injected into the water main through a hydrant.
This process increases the velocity of the flow of water in-pipe. As the velocity increases, deposits
on the interior of the pipe walls are loosened and pushed forward, actually scouring the pipe walls.
The air, water, and deposits are removed from the main and forced out a controlled exit, such as
another hydrant. The advantage to this type of cleaning process is the time it takes compared to
conventional cleaning methods, and it does not require direct access to the main that conventional
cleaning does. The disadvantage is that it is ineffective on heavily tuberculated lines (as is our
situation). Staff has queried other Cities and consultants, and found no one who has used, and in
most cases heard of, this type of cleaning process. It also does not address the continued problem of
exposed iron pipe in the line after the cleaning process is complete. Due to the heavy tuberculation
found in the subject areas and unproven technique in the US, staff does not recommend this
alternative. The nearest company that does air scouring (we could find) is in Pennsylvania and
Item: Water Quality Complaint Areas
Page 3
after reviewing our C-Factor tests, they advised methods other than air scouring to clean the subject
pipes.
5. Mechanical Cleaning and Lining
Mechanical cleaning of the pipe involves shutting down the subject pipe segment, cutting open
and accessing (excavating and cutting open) the water main every 400 to 600 feet, and pulling or
pushing a mechanical cleaning device (sometimes called a 'pig') through the line to remove the
encrustation. Depending on the severity of the interior buildup, a water line may have to be "pigged"
repeatedly until the original interior diameter is restored. Since this process leaves the iron wall
exposed, lining the interior pipe is necessary to prevent water contact with the iron surface allowing
the tuberculation process to start all over. In-place lining of water mains can be accomplished by
two general methods: cement mortar and epoxy. Cement mortar lining is the current standard of the
industry and all new ductile iron pipe (DIP) is cement mortar lined. This involves applying lean
cement through a rotating head of a specific diameter. As the lining machine moves through the
pipe, it leaves a smooth troweled finish. Epoxy lining was developed in the UK in the late 1970's,
and has been used in the US since the early 1990's for water main. This process requires a cleaner
wall surface than cement mortar, so more thorough cleaning is required. The epoxy lining is then
applied with computer-controlled machinery to achieve the exact resin and hardener mix and
application thickness. In either case, lining of the pipe provides a smooth interior wall resistant to
mineral deposits and future tuberculation buildup. Next to complete pipe replacement, this is the
most expensive pipe rehabilitation technique. Costs for mechanical cleaning and cement mortar
lining can range from $45 to $65 per foot, depending on the pipe diameter and severity of buildup.
Epoxy costs may be slightly higher. Other factors, such as adequacy of the street surface and
frequency of water main breaks, should also be evaluated prior to using this method.
The City of Minneapolis currently has an annual water main cleaning and lining program for the
identical problems we experience. In 2004, they completed 50,000 lineal feet of pipe. Initial
discussions with their staff indicated they would be willing to add Columbia Heights under their
contracted program. The su~ect segment lengths are !,260 ft for 37th - 39th, Polk to Tyler and 1,300
ft for 49th to 51st, Jefferson. Based upon the estimate range obtained from the City of Minneapolis,
the respective costs would be $56,700 and $58,500, or a total of $115,200 using $45 per foot.
6. Complete Water Main Replacement
This technique involves excavating the street, removing the old water main, installing new water
main, reconnecting all water services, and then reconstructing that portion of the street disturbed.
This is the most costly of all alternatives due to the street restoration costs. The water main piping
costs range from $40 to $60 per foot, depending on the pipe diameter. Road restoration costs can
range from $120 to $150 per foot.
Item: Water Quality Complaint Areas
Page 3
7. Interconnect with Hilltop
Interconnection with the City of Hilltop has previously been presented to the City Council. One of
the recommendations of the 1999 Water Distribution Study was to interconnect with the City of
Hilltop at various locations. Accomplishing this would have two main benefits to Columbia
Heights. First, interconnection would provide an additional demand on our system that would
decrease residence times (time in pipe) which affects water quality in the areas around Hilltop,
including the Jefferson Street area. Second, interconnections would increase the fire flow to the
pipe networks surrounding Hilltop, which are mostly 6-inch. In our 4 and 5 Street Rehabilitation
Program, water main was extended to the Hilltop border at the recommended locations. The only
capital cost would be to then extend and connect the pipes inside of Hilltop. Hilltop has recently
conducted their own water distribution study that also supported this idea.
Potential Funding:
It should be noted that this is likely a system problem and not only isolated to the two segments
identified herein. The City of Columbia Heights is currently addressing this problem in our Street
Rehabilitation Program work when water mains are fully replaced. That work is paid for out of the
Water Construction fund, bonded for, with debt service paid through the utility rates. Similarly, this
work could be funded in the same manner. This work was not programmed in the 5-year utility rate
study costs. The subject areas could be funded in 2005 considering the following:
Delaying Street Rehabilitation Zone 7B until 2006 Construction.
Our new rates included rehabilitation of the water tower (structural and coatings) and
efficiency upgrades to one water pumping station. This work could be delayed one year.
Our new rates programmed $300,000 in capital expense for Zone 7B, the water tower and
water pumping station. Adjusting 2005 program work to include Huset Parkway water main
replacement ($185,000) and contracting with the City of Minneapolis under their mechanical
cleaning and lining program ($115,200) would maintain 2005 programmed expenses.
The consequence of the above funding scenario would delay programmed work. Zone 7B would be
delayed for one year until 2006, the water tower rehab could wait until 2006 construction (but not
further), and the water pumping station could be completed in a future year.
Requested Action:
Discussion and direction on the Alternative List.
Staff recommends consideration of one of two options: Alternative 1, do nothing and monitor; or
Alternative 6, clean and line under the Minneapolis program.
Attacbanents: Figure 1, Tuberculation picture.
Figure 1
Ci_ty of Columbia Heights
Public Works Department
Work Session Discussion Item
Work Session Date: January 18, 2005 x~,~[[~ /
Prepared by: Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director/City Engine
Item: Lead Water Service Replacement
Background:
A property owner in the Zone 7A construction area appeared at the Assessment Hearing in October
with concerns about the cost of replacing the lead water service from the stop box to the house. In
accordance with State and local regulations, lead water services must be replaced within one year of
discovery.
Council directed staff to present options for financing the replacement of these services.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Our work in the Street Rehabilitation Program indicates that the number of lead water services from
the stop box to the house is small. We had 5 in 2004, but fewer in each of the previous years since
street rehabilitation construction began in 1997.
Several cities were surveyed concerning this issue. During a street construction project, about half
of the surveyed cities allow the cost of replacing the service on the property taxes through an
assess_ment process.
Options lead service replacement are presented as follows:
1. No Change from past practice.
Homeowners would be responsible for hiring a contractor and paying for the work.
2. Private Financing Tools.
Homeowners would be responsible for hiring a contractor and paying for the work. A rebate could
be made available through Council's expansion of Housing Rebate Program. Also,
Community Development is working on a Tax Abatement program where property owners are
rebated a portion of their property taxes.
Public Conduct Work with Financing Options.
a. The City would conduct the work and assess the property owner over a period of time. Since
we would be working on private property we would need to arrange for access, in writing.
The work would then be done as part of the street reconstruction project.
Item: Lead Water Service Replacement
Page 2
b. The work could also be bid separately on an annual basis, similar to our Miscellaneous
Concrete Program. This would involve a public bidding process. After City approval of the
low-bid submitted by responsible bidders, the work could be conducted and assessed to the
property owner. An issue with this type of arrangement would be the requirements of the
429 process (public hearings). A Waiver of the 429 Process could be used when signed by
the affected property owners.
c. Interest rates and terms for the assessment period could be established exclusively for this
work.
Requested Action:
Consider the alternatives and establish a date to discuss these options with property owners.
Attachments: Survey
ROSEVILLE: In 1987 the City replaced the last section of lead pipe within City right-of- way. The City paid for
and replaced the portion from the main to the property line. It is unclear if the property owners ever replaced the
line from the property line to the house.
City code is that the water and sanitary service from the main to the house is the property owner's responsibility.
When we are reconstructing a street, and a homeowner wants to replace their service as a part of the project we will
provide assessment as a possible way to finance their improvement. The payoff time is t0 years. If they are doing it
outside of a City project, we will not offer them this option.
MAPLEWOOD: No longer owns our water system. We have an agreement that St. Paul Regional Water
Services (SPRWS) owns and operates our entire water system. Their program, which we experienced in one of our
reconstruction projects last year, provides for the utility to replace the service between the main and the stop box.
While we haven't incorporated any projects in the past five years, Maplewood would allow a property to replace
their lead water service between the stop box and the house on to have the cost assessed back to them over a 7-year
period. This is a SPRWS program that we would follow, we just haven't used it.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS: We only replace services when the watermain is replaced. The city pays for the
portion of the service from the main to the stop box. The portion from the stop box to the house is the homeowner's
responsibility.
PRIOR LAKE: When I worked in Prior Lake, we had a project where we gave residents the option of replacing
their services all the way into their house and we did add that amount to their assessments to be repaid over a 10
year period.
SOUTH ST. PAUL: In South St. Paul when we rebuild a street we investigate the condition of the water and
sewer service lines. If the water service is lead we replace it and assess 100% of the costs the homeowner. It is
spread over 10 years, but it is normally in addition to their street assessment. We have, on occasion, and with a
signed agreement, gone all the way up to the house with our contractor doing the work, but that is very rare.
We have no program for reimbursement of work homeowners do on their own or with their own contractor.
We have in the case of financial hardship done it for a homeowner on an emergency basis and charged it over three
years to their utility bill at 7% interest.
We are contemplating taking over the service lines from the property line to the main in the street. Currently the
owners are responsible for all costs all the way to the main in the street.
City Main to Stop Box Stop Box to House Assessment Term
Columbia Included in construction Homeowner is responsible 10 or 15 Years
Heights project-assessed to to hire plumber and pay for
property owner work
Minneapolis Homeowner is responsible Homeowner is responsible
to hire contractor and pay to hire contractor and pay
for work for work
St Paul - St. Paul SPRWS pays Homeowner is responsible 7 Years
Regional Water to hire plumber. City pays
Services for work and assesses
(SPRWS) property owner.
Maplewood Included in construction Option to include with 7 Years
(Owned and project- SPRWS pays construction project-
operated by assessed to property owner
SPRWS)
Mendota Heights Included in construction Homeowner is responsible
project-City pays to hire contractor and pay
for work
Prior Lake Included in construction Option to include with 10 Years
project-assessed to construction project-
property owner assessed to property owner
Roseville Last service was replaced Homeowner was
in 1987- City paid responsible to hire
contractor and pay for
work
Provide the option to Provide the option to 10 Years
include with construction include with construction
project-assessed to project-assessed to
property ovmer property ow~er
South St. Paul Included in construction Occasionally include with 10 Years
project-assessed to construction proj ect-
property owner assessed to property owner
In case of financial In case of financial 3 Years at 7%
hardship will add to utility hardship will add to utility interest
bill bill
The following cities reported no lead services in their system:
Bloomington
Crystal
Richfield
Roseville
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: January 24, 2005
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING CITY
NO: DEPARTMENT: Community MANAGER'S
Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2005-05, Authorizing BY: Randy Schumacher BY~~/.
and Directing the Condemnation of DATE: January 12, 2005
Certain Property for Redevelopment and
Road purposes
BACKGROUND: Bob Lindall, Kennedy and Graven, Chartered will be available at the
worksession to answer any questions on the attached documents.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Adoption of Resolution 2005-05, Authorizing mad
Directing the Condemnation of Certain Property for Redevelopment and road purposes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2005-05, there being
an ample amount of copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Adopt Resolution 2005-05, a Resolution Authorizing and
Directing the Condemnation of Certain Property for Redevelopment and road purposes.
Attachments
COUNCIL ACTION:
h: Consent2005~CL Res2005-05
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
January 12, 2005
Mayor and City Councilmembers
Randy Schumacher, Project Manager
Condemnation
The Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Columbia Heights Economic
Development Authority, the City of Columbia Heights and Huset Park Development
Corporation (Schafer Richardson the Developer), requires the developer to voluntarily acquire
each of the parcels in the redevelopment area.
I have attached a copy of the developer's letter that summarizes their efforts over the last couple
months to voluntarily acquire property in the redevelopment area.
Unfortunately, despite a good fair effort, they have been unable to acquire several of the
necessary properties. Therefore, the developer is requesting that the EDA and the City proceed
to acquire all such parcels by means of'negotiations or through its powers of eminent domain.
Staff is satisfied that the developer has met the intent and conditions of the development
agreement and recommend support for Resolution 2005-05.
In addition, I have attached the copy of the section of the development agreement that outlines
the required acquisition procedure. It also details the process in which the developer is required
to pay for the entire taking procedure.
Mr. Bob Lindall fi.om the !aw fi__rm of Ke_nmedy mud Graven, will be available at the worksessiofi
to answer any questions the Council may have.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-05
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT
AND ROAD PURPOSES
WI~REAS, the City of Columbia Heights ("City") is a charter city duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is the official governing body of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (as
successor to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights)
("Authoritf') have undertaken a program to promote redevelopment of land that is characterized
by blight and blighting factors within the City, and in this connection the Authority administers a
redevelopment project known as the Downtown CDB Redevelopment Project ("Project")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 ("the Act")
and the HRA Act, the Authority is authorized to acquire real estate by exercising the power
eminent domain under and pursuant to Minn. Stat., Ch. 117, and to undertake certain activities to
facilitate the redevelopment of real property by private enterprise; and
WHEREAS, within the Project, the City and Authority have created the Huset Park Area
Tax Increment Financing District ("TIF District") in order to facilitate redevelopment of certain
property in the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Huset Park Development Corporation; a Minnesota
Corporation, ("Redeveloper") have previously entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment
dated as of October 25, 2004, (the "Contract for Private' Redevelopment") regarding
redevelopment of the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and other property; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper, City and Authority have taken various actions in
furtherance of the Project, pursuant to the Preliminary Development Agreement and Contract for
Private Redevelopment, all of which indicate the Project is feasible and desirable, including, but
not limited to, environmental, blight and economic studies, determination of needed public
infrastructure, agreements to acquire and acquisition of property, relocation analysis and land use
planning; and
WHEREAS, the City and Authority believe that the redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property pursuant to the Contract for Private Redevelopment, and fulfillment generally of the
Contract for Private Redevelopment, are in the vital and best interests of the City and the health,
safety, morals, mad welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of
RJL-256336vl A- 1
CI~205-23
the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken
and is being assisted; and
WHEREAS, the real estate described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
(collectively, "Subject Property") is located within the Project, as presently constituted, and is
among the parcels which are to be redeveloped pursuant to the Contract for Phvate Redevelopment;
and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2004, by Resolution No. 2004-55, the City Council approved,
established and adopted a Modification (the "Project Plan Modification") to the Downtown CBD
Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area"), found that the
adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a
need to develop an area of the State of Minnesota which 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 development of the TIF District; and
WHEREAS, in said Resolution No. 2004-55, the City Council found that the TIF District
portion of the Project Area is a "blighted area" within the meaning of Minn. Stat., §469.02, Subd.
11, and that acquisition, clearance and related activities to redevelop the TIF District portion of the
Project Area in accordance with the Project Plan and the TIF Plan constitute a "redevelopment
project" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §469.002, Subd. 14; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Contract for Private Redevelopment, the
Redeveloper has notified the Authority in writing that (a) the Redeveloper has been unsuccessful in
accomplishing acquisition of the Subject Property voluntarily after commercially reasonable efforts
to do so; and (b) that such efforts included a written offer to owners of all such parcels to acquire
such parcels for a price approved by the Authority as reasonable and an offer to mediate; and
WHEREAS, the Authority found that the Redeveloper,s efforts to voluntarily acquire the
Subject Property were .reasonable and satisfy the requirements for doing so under the Contract for
Private Redevelopment; and
WI~P,_EAS, acquisition of the Subject Property by the Authority is essential in order to
eliminate blight and implement the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority has found (and this Council also
hereby finds) that redevelopment of the Subject Property consistent with the Project is necessary,
convenient, desirable, for a public purpose, in the best interests of the citizens of the City and will
promote the general health, welfare and safety of the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is also necessary, convenient, desirable, for a
public purpose, in the best intereSts of the City and will promote the general health, welfare and
safety of the community for the City to acquire portions of the Subject Property for street purposes;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority has found that it is in the best
interest of both the Authority and the City if the City proceeds to acquire all of the Subject Property
RJL-256336vl A-2
CL205-23
and then convey to the Authority the portions thereof not required by the City for street purposes
("Remainder") so that the Authority may redevelop the Remainder pursuant to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority has found that the funding and
construction schedule for the redevelopment pursuant to the Contract for Private Redevelopment
makes it necessary to acquire title to and possession of the Subject Property prior to the filing of the
final report of the condemnation commissioners to be appointed by the district court.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia
Heights, Minnesota that:
1. It is necessary that the Subject Property be acquired by the City in fee simple
absolute for the stated public purposes through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
2. The Authority's Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps
necessary to acquire the Subject Property on behalf of the City, including, if necessary, by
use of eminent domain proceedings, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §117.042, prior to issuance of
an award of damages by Court-Appointed Commissioners.
3. The amounts stated on Exhibit B attached hereto are hereby determined to be
just compensation for the various parcels of the Subject Property for the purpose of offers to
the owners pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.036 and for the purpose of deposit with the District
Court Administrator as the City's approved appraisal of value pursuant to Minn. Stat. §
117.042.
OFFERED BY:
SECOND BY:
UPON VOTE:
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota this __
,2005.
day of
ATTEST:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
RJL-256336vl
CL205-23
A-3
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions of Properties TO Be Acquired by Eminent Domain Proceedings
(collectively, "Subiect Prope~ _W")
Parcel E
The street addresses of Parcel E are 3755 University Avenue NE, 3700-5th Street NE and 317-37th
Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421.
The property identification numbers for Parcel E are: 35-30-24-34~0003 (3700 5th Street NE) and
35-30-24-34-0004 (317 - 37th Avenue NE)
The legal description of Parcel E is as follows:
Lots 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 50
Together with vacated and to be vacated streets and alleys accruing thereto upon vacation and
appurtenant easements if any.
According to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel F
The street address of Parcel F is 620 - 39th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421.
The property identification number for Parcel F is: 35-30-24-43-0047
The legal descriPtion of Parcel F is as follows:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, 2nd Subdivision of Block F, Columbia Heights Annex, together with
that portion of the North ½ of 38th ½ Avenue Northeast abutting said Lots, heretofore
vacated
Together with vacated and to be vacated streets and alleys accruing thereto upon vacation and
appurtenant easements if anY.
According to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Anoka County, Minnesota
RJL-256336vl A-4
CL205-23
Parcel G
The street address of Parcel G is 450 - 38th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421.
The property identification number for Parcel G is: 35-30-24-34-0002
The legal description of Parcel G is as follows:
That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 50, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying
9.00 feet Northwesterly of the vacated spur track once located on said Lot 3.
Together with vacated and to be vacated streets and alleys accruing thereto upon vacation and
appurtenant easements if any.
According to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Anoka County, Minnesota.
ILIL-256336vl
CL205-23
A-5
EXHIBIT B
Just Compensation Amounts
Parcel
E
F
G
· Property Address
3755 University Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN
620 - 39th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN
450 - 38th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN
Just Compensation Amotmt*
$1,405,100
$438,210
$320,000
*Includes real estate and fixtures, if any, for entire parcel.
RJL-256336vl
CL205-23
B-1
· Schafer
Richard. son
December 30, 2004
Mr. Randy Schumacher
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Ave NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3835
RE: Property Acquisitions
Dear Randy:
As specified in section 3.2 of the Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Contract") by~
and between the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority ("EDA'), the City
of Columbia Heights ("City."), and Huset Park Development Corporation ("HPD'), this
letter describes HPD's efforts to volUntarily acquire each of the parcels in the
redevelopment area. Table I below, and the notes' thereto, describe and summarize HPD's
efforts in this regard in recent months. Unfortunately however, despite its extensive,
good-faith efforts to do so, HPD has been unable to acquire several of the necessary
properties. Consequently, and as specified in section 3.2 of the Contract, this letter
constitutes I-[PD's formal request that the EDA (and City, for any parcels or portions
thereof needed for Parkway right of way) proceed to acquire all such parcels -whether
by means of negotiation or the exercise of its powers of eminent domain.
Table I
Address Property PIN See Note
550 39th Avenue NE CHC bldg 35-30-24-34-0040 1
CHC !and 35-30-24-43-0060 !
620 39th Avenue NE Buckles 35-30-24-43-0047 2
3801 5th Avenue NE Rayco bldg 35-30-24-34-0024 3
Rayco land 35-30-24-34-0039 3
515 38th Avenue NE Pearo 35-30-24-34-0014 4
517 38th Avenue NE Pearo 35-30-24-34-0013 4
3800 5th Street NE Foundry 35-30-24-34-0041 5
3901 5th Street NE Foundry 35-30-24-34-0035 5
450 38th Avenue NE Smith 35-30-24-34-0002 6
317 37th Avenue NE Greif 35-30-24-34-0004 7
.3700 5th Street NE Greif 35-30-24-34-0003 7
[] Real Estate Development ~ Construction
;00 Ban'ks Building 615 First Avenue NE Minneapolis, ND,~ 55413
W Investment
Phone 612.371.3000
:2¢t Leasing & Management
Fax 612.359.5858 www. sr-re.com
Mr. Randy Schumacher
City of Columbia Heights
December 30, 2004
Page 2
1. HPD, or its affiliates, owns this property. Efforts by the EDA and City are not
needed to acquire it.
2. HPD had this property appraised early in the fall and sent the owner a Purchase
Agreement based on its appraised value on October 13th. HPD followed up with a
second letter sent on November 10th ,which proposed mediation with a neutral
mediator. HPD met with Mr. Buckles on November 18th. Following that meeting,
HPD made numerous phone calls during this time and sent the owner an updated
Purchase Agreement incorporating the appraised value of fixtures and equipment
on December 23rd. The owner has not responded. HPD does not believe its efforts
to acquire this proper .ty will be successful, and requests' efforts to do so by the EDA
and City.
3. HPD owns this property. Efforts by the EDA and City are not needed to acquire it.
4. HPD and the owner reached a verbal agreement in principle for the acquisition of
the property in late September, and a Purchase Agreement based on that agreement
was sent on October 15th. HPD sent the owner a follow-up letter suggesting
mediation with a neutral mediator on December 20th. In the meantime, HPD and the
Owner have also had numerous phoneconversations but have not yet reached
agreement. Although we believe HPD's efforts to acquire this property voluntarily
will ultimately be successful, because no binding agreement has been reached to
date, we request that the EDA and Ci.ty begin efforts to acquire the Proper .ty.
5. HPD and the owner reached a verbal agreement in principle for the acquisition of
the property in late-September, and a Purchase Agreement based on that agreement
was sent on October 4th. HPD sent the owner a follow-up letter suggesting
mediation with a neutral mediator on December 20th. HPD and the Owner have also
had numerous phone conversations during this time. Although we believe HPD's
efforts to acquire this property, voluntarily will ultimately be successful, because no
binding agreement has been reached to date, we request that the EDA and City
begin ~ffu, ~ to acquire the Property.
6. I-tPD had this property appraised early in the fall and sent the owner a Purchase
Agreement based on its appraised value on October 13th. HPD followed up with a
second letter sent on November 10th, which proposed mediation with a neutral
mediator. Although HPD had hoped to send the owner an updated Purchase
Agreement incorporating the appraised value of fixtures and equipment, becaUse
the appraiser was not allowed access to the property we were Unable to do. I-LP_D
also made numerous phone calls during this time, but the owner has not been
responsive. HPD does not believe its efforts to acquire this property will be
successful, and requests efforts to do so by the EDA and City..
7. HPD has had repeated communication with the owner of this property and sent a
Purchase Agreement based on a verbal agreement in principle on October 15th. H_~D
Mr. Randy Schumacher
Ci~/of Columbia Heights
December g0, 2004
Page 3
followed up with a letter suggesting mediation with a neutral mediator sent on
December 20fl'. HPD and the owner have continued to have numerous phone
conversations, but an agreement has not yet been reached. Although we believe
HPD's efforts to acquire this proper _fy voluntarily will be successful, because no
binding agreement has been reached to date, we request that the EDA and Ci.ty
begin efforts to acquire the Property.
Randy, please let me know if I can answer any questions.
Sincerely,
David R. Frank
Project Manager
CC:
Steve Bubul
John Herman
Evan Rice
Mark Ruff
Brad Schafer
Section 3.2. Authority Parcels. (a) If the Redeveloper notifies the Authority in writing on or
after December 1, 2004 that it has been unsuccessful in accomplishing acquisition of Parcels D, E, F
and G voluntarily after commercially reasonable efforts (such notice to include ~a detailed description
of the Redeveloper's acquisition efforts), then the Authority (and.. City, for any Parcels or portions
thereof needed for Parkway right of way) will proceed to acquire all such Parcels (hereinafter referred
to as "Authority Parcels") through negotiation or the exercise of its powers of eminent domain to. the
extent permissible under law. The Authority and City will utilize so-called "quick take" powers under
Minnesota Statutes Ch. 117 to the extent needed or desirable to allow the redevelopment described in
this Agreement to proceed in accordance with the overall schedule. The parties will cooperate and
consult with one another on any condemnation actions and specifically on the final price to be paid in
settlement of any condemnation action.
(b) During the pendency of any Authority actions to acquire any Authority Parcel, the
Redeveloper shall be required to promptly pay all expenses incurred by the Authority in connection
with the prosecution thereof, including legal, survey, title, appraisal, relocation, process service, court
costs, and similar expenses (subject to reimbursement as a Public Redevelopment Cost in accordance
with Section 3.8). The Authority shall, not more often than monthly during the pendency of the
action, furnish the Redeveloper with a written itemized statement of all such expenditures.
Redeveloper shall have two weeks from the receipt of such statement to pay its share of the same.
(c) Not later than five days prior to any date on which the Authority is required to deposit
any amount into court to obtain title and possession to any Authority Parcel, Redeveloper shall deliver
to the Authority 100 percent of the amount of any such deposit or payment. The Authority shall then
have tthe right, mad subject to the terms and conditions hereof., the obligation to use such funds to make
such deposit or such payments. The Authority shall have no obligation to repay such funds received,
deposited or paid pursuant to this Agreement should the redevelopment covered by this Agreement not
be completed for any reason, except to the extent provided otherwise in Section 3.2(e) hereof.
Ci_ty of Columbia Heights
Public Works Department
Work Session Discussion Item
Work Session Date: January 18, 2005 \/'k~
Prepared by: Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director/City Engineer~-/'
Item: Review of Zone 7B Street Rehabilitation Project
Background:
The City has completed the street rehabilitation work in Zones 1-7A. Previously, rehabilitation
work in zones 6 and 7 were further split into smaller zones due to financial restraints. Zone 7B is
scheduled for rehabilitation work in 2005. The Zone 7B area includes all streets west of
University Avenue. Completing Zone 7B will complete an entire cycle of seven zones throughout
the City. The original program contemplated dividing the City into 7 zones, with one off year,
which would have been 2006, and then continuing the rehabilitation work in each zone on a
repetitive 8-year cycle.
Analysis/Conclusions:
For the past several years, the City of Columbia Heights utilizes State Aid funding to supplement
and maintain a positive cash flow in the street rehabilitation program. An updated 20-year
projection is attached for informational purposes. To maintain the original intent of an eight year
program, staff recommends adding that portion of Zone 1 south of 45th Avenue to Zone 7B. The
remainder of the Zone 1 will be added to the following program year in Zone 2.
The 2004 year-end balance in the City of Columbia Heights' State-Aid account was $-0-. Our
annual allotment is approximately $560,000. The calculation for all State-Aid allotments
considers two factors: construction needs and City population. By Rule, the City may only use
the population portion of the allotment for the Street Rehabilitation Program, which equates to
$270,000 annually. In addition, we use a percepXage of the annual allotment for local
maintenance of our state-aid system, which by rule can be 25% or 35%. Staff requested 25% in
2005.
Currently under design, the Huset Parkway will also place a demand on our State-Aid financial
resources. It is anticipated that an advance encumbrance will be necessary for state aid funding of
the Huset Parkway. This is the same process that was used to fund the Central Avenue project in
2002. But due to our current balance in the City's State Aid account, it will be necessary to take a
year off the City's Street Rehabilitation program (as previously reported to the City Council).
This will have to happen in program year 2005 or 2006.
Staff recommends delaying the Street Rehabilitation Program from 2005 until 2006 for the
following reasons:
Item: Review of Zone 7B Street Rehabilitation Project
Page 2
This year's remaining allotment can be used for the Huset Parkway project.
As it relates to the City's General Fund, delaying construction of Zone 7B will save
money in the Engineering Department. This can be accomplished by having City
Engineering staff perform construction inspection for the Huset Parkway, funded by the
project costs and not the 2005 Engineering Department budget. A consultant would
otherwise perform construction inspection for a project this large, estimated at
$3,000,000. It would also save on the project costs, as staff rates are less than consultant
rates.
· The Huset Parkway project also includes water main replacement. Our new water rates
and associated bonds were programmed for capital expenses typical in the annual Street
Rehabilitation Program and other water system needs such as water tower rehabilitation
and pumping station rehabilitation. Adding the Huset Parkway water main estimate of
$185,000 will exceed the 2005 programmed annual expense for programmed capital
expenses calculated in our rates. By not constructing Zone 7B, the Huset Parkway water
main replacement cost alone will be less than the annual programmed expense for 2005
of $300,000.
This action would essentially change our programmed off year from 2006 to 2005.
Requested Action:
Authorize the delay of the Street Rehabilitation Zone 7B until the 2006 construction year, and
add that segment of Zone 1 south of 45th Avenue to the 2006 construction program.
Attachments: 20-year Street Rehabilitation Program
Year Zone
1996
1997 1 & 2
1998 3
1999 ALLEY
2000 4
2001 5
2002 6A
2003 6B
2004 7A
2005
7B & lA
2006
2007 lB, 2 & 3
2008 ALLEY
2009 4
2010 5
2011 6
2012 7
2013 1
2014 2
2015 3
2016 ALLEY
2017 4
2018 5
2019 6
2020 7
TOTAL
St Rehab (Recon, Partial Reoon, Overlay)
Total Cost Assessment Citv Share
$1,092,854 $844,675 $248,179
$837,081 $530,092 $306,989
$557,734 $226,681 $331,053
$552,076 $298,391 $253,685
$704,837 $475,452 $229,385
$829,920 $414,960 $414,960
$750,277 $449,735 $300,542
$1,287,810 $758,705 $529,105
$983,809 $695,084 $288,725
$1,860,596 $1,316,043 $544,553
$170,000 $85,000 $85,000
$888,316 $578,547 $309,769
$538,247 $457,510 $80,737
$1,609,524 $989,456 $620,068
$82,744 $67,709 $15,035
$800,520 $653,947 $146,573
$893,683 $676,360 $217,323
$154,652 $131,454 $23,198
$170,000 $85,000 $85,000
$732,545 $622,663 $109,882
$662,587 $563,199 $99,388
$497,972 $423,276 $74,696
$1,106,124 $835,099 $2~1,0~5
$17,763,908 $12,179,038 $5,584,870
Seal coat
Total Cost Assessmen,t, Citv Share
$72,166 $72,166 $0
$24,452 $24,452 $0
$103,976 $103,976 $0
$98,909 $98,909 $0
$133,591 $133,591 $0
$0
$0
$133,584 $133,584 $0
(Zone 6)
$250,813 $172,933 $77,880
$365,952 $110,806 $255,146
$0 $0
$148,426 $95,325 $53,101
$139,654 $88,330 $51,324
$175,229 $62,566 $112,663
$217,083 $113,395 $103,688
$177,544 $90,270 $87,274
$204,316 $133,177 $71,139
$246,019 $222,805 $23,214
$0 $0
$157,467 $65,976 $91,491
$167,675 $67,616 $100,059
$400,420 $267,835 $132,585
$149,212 $135,346 $13,866
$3,366,488 $2,193,058 $1,173,430
Total Total Total Liquor Store Other
Constructio~ Assessment city Share Contrib City Contrib Cash, FIo~w
$883,381
$1,165,020 $916,841 $248,179 $160,000 $795,202
$861,533 $554,544 $306,989 $50,000 $194,882 $733,095
$66!,710 $330,657 $331,053 $50,000 $130,000 $582,042
$650,985 $397,300 $253,685 $50,000 $212,500 $590,857
$838,428 $609,043 $229,385 $50,000 $171,000 $582,472
$829,920 $414,960 $414,960 $50,000 $222,715 $440,227
$750,277 $449,735 $300,542 $50,000 $270,000 $459,685
$1,421,394 $892,289 $529,105 $50,000 $270,000 $250,580
$1,234,622 $868,017 $366,605 $50,000 $270,000 $203,975
$2,226,548 $1,426,849
$170,000 $85,000
$1,036,742 $673,872
$677,901 $545,840
$1,784,753 $1,052,022
$299,827 $181,104
$978,064 $744,217
$1,097,999 $809,537
$400,671 $354,259
$170,000 $85,000
$890,012 $688,639
$830,262 $630,815
$898,392 $691,111
$1 255 336 , $970 445
$21,130,396 814~372,096
$799,699
$85,000
$362,870
$132,061
$732,731
$118,723
$233,847
$288,462
$46,412
$85,OOO
$201,373
$199,447
$207,281
, ~284 891
$6,758,300
$50,000 $270,000 ($275,724)
$50,000 $85,000 ($225,724)
$50,000 $270,000 ($268,594)
$50,000 $270,000 ($80,655)
$50,000 $270,000 ($493,386)
$50,000 $270,000 ($292,109)
$50,000 $270,000 ($205,956)
$50,000 $270,000 ($174,418)
$50,000 $270,000 $99,170
$50,000 $85,000 $149,170
$50,000 $270,000 $267,797
$50,000 $270,000 $388,350
$50,000 $270,000 $501,069
$50,000 $270,000 $536,178
$5,311,097
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: January 24, 2005
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY
NO: Community Development MANAGER'S
APPROVAl_
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2005-04, BY: Robert Streetar BY:~~
Establishing Planning & Zoning Fee DATE: January 10, 2005
Schedule and First Reading of Ordinance
No. 1479
BACKGROUND
This memorandum recommends modifying the current planning permit fee structure to accurate
reflect and fairly allocate the cost of this service.
Current Fee Structure
Current permit fees do not accurately reflect or fairly allocate the cost of providing the service.
Subsequently the applicant is not paying the actual cost of the service, which results in the
residents, through the property tax, paying the balance. This in effect'is a subsidy paid by
residents who do not receive a direct benefit. For example, the cost to process the Aldi's
application was approximately $600, but the permits fees Aldi's paid under the current structure
were $400. The $200 balance not paid by Adli's is a subsidy paid by residents through property
tax. This will also occur with the application for the first phase of the industrial park
redevelopment. The developer will pay $600 to process the application, which will not nearly
cover the cost to provide the complicated and detailed planning, engineering and public safety
review and inspection of a $125 million dollar project Lastly, there may be few times when an
applicant pays more than it.cost to process tl~e application, resulting in over payment. Since the
benefit f[om granting a permit accrues primarily to the applicant, the applicant ought to assume
the cost of the permit. Planning fees have only been update twice in 24 years, 1981, and 1996.
Recommended Fee Structure
The recommended permit fee modifications accomplish two things:
It updates current permit fees to reflect the average cost of processing the application.
Please see Table 1 below that compares current and recommended planning permit
fees, as well as the recommended resolution.
It amends the Zoning Ordinance allowing the City to collect the actual cost of processing
the planning application. If the cost to process the application exceeds the average fee
the applicant must make up the difference as a condition of approval. If the cost to
process the application is less than the average fee the applicant receives a refund.
Please find attached the recommended Ordinance language.
Table 1 - Planning Permit Fee Com }arison
Application Fees 'Current Fee ~ Recommended Fee ~
Appeal $100 $185
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $500 $545
Conditional Use Permit $100 $220
Final Plat $250 $395
Interim Use $0 $255
Minor Subdivision $250 $275
Preliminary Plat $250 $670
Site Plan Review $150 $370
Vacation $0 $150
Variance $100 $235
Zoning Amendment $500 $545
1- Fee is fixed regardless of the amount of time to process the application.
2- If the cost to process the application exceeds the average fee, the applicant makes up the difference as a condition
of approval. If the cost to process the application is less than the average fee, the appficant receives a refund.
Also, please find attached a Table 2, a comparison of Columbia Heights' current, and
recommended permit fees, with eleven similar cities. As the table shows the recommended fees
fall within the midrange of these cities.
The Council is requested to make to motions, the first is to update the fees, and the second is to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow the City to collect the actual cost of processing the
application.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Waive the reading of resolution 2005-04 a resolution amending Planning and Zoning Fee
Schedule, there being ample copies available to the public.
Adopt resolution 2005 - 04, A Resolution Amending Planning and Zoning Fee Schedule.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Waive the reading of Ordinance 1479 Being and Ordinance Amending Ordinance 853, City Code
of !977, pertaining to Zoning .~na r~¢velopment Ordinance #1428 there being ample copies
available to the public.
Move to set February 14, 2004 for the Second Reading of Ordinance 1479 Being and Ordinance
Amending Ordinance 853, City Code of 1977, Pertaining to Zoning and Development Ordinance
#1428.
COUNCIL ACTION:
ITl
RESOLUTION 2005 - 04
RESOLUTION AMENDING PLANNING AND ZONING FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the planning and zoning permit fees have not been adjusted since 1996
and do not reflect the increased cost of processing planning and zoning permit
applications,
WHEREAS, City Ordinance 853, City Code of 1997 (as amended) provides for the City
Council to adjust the planning and zoning permit fees periodically,
NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Columbia
Heights hereby adopts the following planning and zoning permit application fees
schedule to be effective March 16, 2005.
Application Fee
Appeal $185
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $545
Conditional Use Permit $220
Final Plat $395
Interim Use $255
Minor Subdivision $275
Preliminary Plat $670
Site Plan Review $370
Vacation $150
Variance $235
Zoning Amendment $545
Offered by: Councilmember
Second by: Counciimember
Roll Call: Ayes:
Nayes:
Mayor, Gary Peterson
City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Patricia Muscovitz, CSM
Deputy City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 1479
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853,
CITY CODE OF 1977, PERTAINING TO ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE #1428
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1:
Section 9.405 (5) currently reads:
Section 9.405 (5) Application Fees. Fees for all applications for development or land use
approval shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Fees shall be payable at
the time applications are filed with the Zoning Administrator and are not refundable
unless application is withdrawn prior to referral to the Plmm/ng Commission. There shall
be no fee in the case of applications filed in the public interest by the City Council or
Planning Commission.
Is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 9.405 (5) Application Fees. Fees for all applications for development or land use
approval shall be established by resolution of the City Council. ~'~ ~" ~' ~' ...... ~'~ ~*
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
First Reading: January 24, 2005
Second Reading:
Date of Passage:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
Mayor, Gary L. Peterson
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Mayor and City Council Members
Robert Streetar, Community Development Director
January 13, 2005
Market Analysis for a Community and Recreation Center
Please find attached the report and well as the key findings produced by Maxfield
Research, Inc. regarding the Community Center. Mary Bujold from Maxfield will attend
the work session on January 18 to answer any questions Council Members may have.
axq
January 1~, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mr. Robert Streetar
City of Columbia Heights
FROM:
Ms. Mary Bujold
Maxfield Research Inc.
Key Findings of the Market Analysis for the Proposed Colnmunity Center in
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Draw Area
The majority of the potential demand for facilities at the cmmnunity center will come from
Columbia Heights and the immediate surrounding area including northeast Mimaeapolis and
Fridley. New Brighton and St. Anthony also have community centers. Some of the facilities
such as the gymnasiums and child care are more likely to have a higher proportion of their use
generated by groups and households that are from outside of the immediate draw area.
Demographic Analysis
Overall, the population and household base in Columbia Heights is aging. School enrollment is
declining as the initial edge of the echo boom generation is now moving into the workforce and
forming households of their own. The baby boom generation is generally now past its prime
child-bearing years. School enrolhnents may increase slightly in the future as housing units turn
over in Columbia Heights from older households to yotmg families with chilcken. At this thne,
we are uncertain of the timeframe for a general turnover that would bring a significant nmnber of
families into the area to reverse this trend.
New housing developed in Columbia Heights is targeted primarily to households that do not
have children.
615 1st Avenue NE, #400, Minneapolis, MN 55413
(612) 338-0012 (612) 904-7979 fax
www.maxfieldresearch.com
Mr. Bob Streetar
City of Columbia Heights
January 13, 2005
Page 2
More people are living alone, both younger and older ages. This fuels the delnand for facilities
that will provide fitness-related activities such as classes, weight-training, exercise machines, etc.
Household incomes in the Draw Area are generally modest. As such, it will be important to keep
melnbership fees moderate.
Market Competition
Within the Primary Market Area, there is only one privately-owned fitness facility in St.
Anthony and two public community centers, one in St. Anthony and one in New Brighton. We
exclude the women-only facilities.
There is only one pending facility in the Primary Market ga'ea, the proposal to develop the
Salvation Army I<h'oc Center. Five cities have applied for the $12.0 million to fund this facility.
The five Mim~esota cities are also competing against commulfities in other states. At this time,
there is no indication that the Kroc Center would be built in Milmesota.
Recommended Amenities
We recommend the following amenities for the colmmufity center:
Gyrm~asium: Two gylrmasiums, either built in one location or in two separate locations that
would serve the following groups:
Recreation center members and guests
School sports groups
Colmnunity recreation groups
We estimate that two gy~maasiums would achieve an 85% usage rate during the peak winter
months including usage by groups fi-om the School and COlrnnunity recreation. This usage rate
includes time allotted for family gym and some minirnat open gym tilne å the daytime
hours. There would be an increase in time available for open gym during the spring and sunm~er
months, but little availability during peak periods (5:00pm to 9pm) on weekdays during the
winter months. Our analysis found that excluding school use during the weekday daytime hours
reduces the projected Colnbined usage of the gymnasiums to roughly 60%.
We caution that an appropriate strategy must been implemented to ensure that members and their
guests are not excluded from using the gylm~asium at least some evenings during the winter
months when usage of the recreation components will be highest.
If the gyrm~asiums are built together, there are some s3mergies afforded with being able to use
both g3qns simultaneously for tournaments and sports camps. There would also be lower
construction costs associated with this option and a likely greater availability of parking.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mr. Bob Streetar
City of Columbia Heights
January 13, 2005
Page 3
Fitness Area: aerobics machines, weight machines, fi'ee weights, stretching area and TVs.
Aerobic studios: two studios, one larger and one smaller for fitness classes.
Childcare play area: children's play area that can also be rented out for birthday parties and
other events, similar to New Brighton's Eagle's Nest.
Child Care Center: Full on-site daycare center that would serve Columbia Heights and the
surrounding communities.
Senior Center: a space designated for activities and meals for senior groups, members m~d non-
members. We recormnend that the space be configured to allow for separation into smaller areas
for smaller group activities. Senior fitness classes would be held either in an aerobics studio or
in the gynmasium.
Teen Center: small activity room with a pool table, or foosball, air hockey or other amenities
that will appeal to teenagers.
Meeting Rooms: Two to three small meeting rooms that cm~ be rented out to connnunity groups
and other users. We recommend that one of the rooms be designed to incorporate sotmd balzier
dividers for separation into smaller spaces. We recolmnend that cormnunity groups be given
discounted rate.
Operating Costs
Our survey of public facilities identified that membership fees did not cover operating expenses
at most of the facilities. The average budget shortfall was 19%.
Projected Memberships
aitu lncmu.I sh~ps
We project that the recreation center will be able tv atuacL between ~7.~ 500
initially.
Projected Membership Fees
We recolmx~end that membership fees remain moderate to optimize the potential to attract the
largest number of members to the recreational facility. We recolmriend that melnberslfip fees
range from $15 per month for a single youth membership to $35 per month for a family
membership. Non-resident fees would be roughly $5 per month higher. We also recommend
that you also charge a modest enrolhrtent fee of between $30 and $75.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
A Market Potential Analysis For
A Community and Recreation Cemer in
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Prepared for:
City of Columbia Heights
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
November 2004
November 23, 2004
Mr. Robert Streetar
Conununity Development Director
City of Columbia Heights
590 - 40~ Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Dear Mr. Streetar:
Attached is the study A Market Potential Analysis for a Community and Recreation Center in
Columbia Heights, Minnesota. The study includes an analysis of the market conditions for a
new community recreational facility in Columbia Heights and provides an analysis of existing
private and publicly owned health clubs near Columbia Heights.
Detailed findings and recommendations regarding a new facility in Columbia Heights can be
found in the Conclusions and Recommendations section at the end of this report. We have
enjoyed perforating this study and are available if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
MA~LD RESEARCH INC.
Mary C. Bujoid
President
Merrie A. Sjogren
Research Analyst
Attachment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................
Study Impetus ............................................................................................................
Draw Areas ................................................................................................................
Demographic Trends ..................................................................................................
Market Area Community Centers and Health Clubs ...................................................
Demand S~ and Recommendations ..................................................................
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .......................................................................... Purpose and Scope of Study .......................................................................................
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS .....................................................................................
Market Area Definition ..............................................................................................
Population and Household Growth .............................................................................
Employmem ...............................................................................................................
Population Age Distribution .......................................................................................
School Enrollmem Trends ..........................................................................................
Household Type .........................................................................................................
Household Income .....................................................................................................
Annual Expenditures on Club Membership Dues/Fees ........................................... ....
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS ..............................................................................
Introduction ................................................................................................................
Public and Private Health and Fitness Clubs ...............................................................
Selected Metro Area Community Centers ...................................................................
Membership Dues and Daily Admission Prices ..........................................................
Pending Community Centers and HealtbJFitness Clubs ..............................................
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................
Demand Assessment ..................................................................................................
Conclusions ................................................................................................................
Page
1
1
1
1
3
5
8
8
9
9
9
13
14
16
20
22
24
26
26
26
31
32
34
36
36
38
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title
Page
1 Population and Household Growth Trends and Projections, Columbia Heights Market
Area, 1990 to 2015 .............................................................................................. 11
2 Employment Growth Trends and Projections, Columbia Heights Market Area,
1990 to 2015 ....................................................................................................... 13
3 Age Distribution, Columbia Heights Market Area, 1990 to 2015 ......................... 14
4 School Enrollment, Columbia Heights School District #13, 1990 to 2004 ............ 16
5 School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Columbia Heights Area School Districts,
1990 to 2004 ....................................................................................................... 18
6 Household Type, Columbia Heights Market Area, 1990 and 2000 ....................... 20
7 Household Income by Age of Householder, Columbia Heights Primary Market Area,
2004 .................................................................................................................... 22
8 Household Income by Age of Householder, Columbia Heights Primary Market Area,
2009 .................................................................................................................... 22
9 Annual Expenditures on Recreational Activities, Columbia Heights PMA and SMA,
2004 & 2009
....................................................................................................... 24
10 Features/Amenities Comparison, Competitive Health Clubs and Conm~unity Centers,
Columbia Heights Market Area ........................................................................... 27
11 Features/Amenities Comparison, Metro Area Community Centers, City of Columbia
Heights ................................................................................................................ 30
12 Membership Dues/Fee Comparison, Twin Cities Conmiunity Centers, City of Columbia
Heights ................................................................................................................ 32
13 Projected Annual Memberships and Total Usage, Columbia Heights Community Center
2010 & 2015 ....................................................................................................... 36
14 Recommended Fees for Potential Community Center, City of Columbia Heights,
November 2004 .................................................................................................. 39
15 Projected Gym Usage, Columbia Heights Commtmity Center, November 2004... 43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Study Impetus
Maxfield Research Inc. was engaged by the City of Columbia Heights to study the market
feasibility of developing a new community recreational facility in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
The scope of this study includes a review of demographic trends and characteristics of the local
household base as well as the existing supply of public and private recreational centers in the
Columbia Heights area. The analysis leads to conclusions about the potential market success of
a new community center including reconunendations for facilities and amenities, as well as
recommended membership fees and target markets. This report draws on both primary and
secondary data_ Secondary data is credited to the source when used, and in most cases, is U.S.
Census data. Data on existing recreational facilities was collected by Maxfield Research Inc. and
is accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Draw Areas
A new community/recreational center in Columbia Heights can expect to draw the majority of its
users from a primary draw area (Market Area) which includes the City of Columbia Heights, St.
Anthony, Hilltop, and portions of Northeast Minneapolis (mainly north of Lowry Avenue),
Fridley and New Brighton. We estimate that 75 percent of the demand for a community center
in Columbia Heights will come from this Primary Market Area, while an additional 25 percent of
the demand will come from outside of this area. We also delineated a Secondary Market Area,
as there are few recreational facilities within the Primary Market Area. The Secondary Market
Area includes a portion of Roseville, all of Fridley, Spring Lake Park, Mounds View, Arden
Hills and New Brighton. A map of the Columbia Heights Primary and Secondary Market Areas
is shown on the following page.
Demographic Trends
Population and Households
The Columbia Heights Primary Market Area had an overall population of about
68,600 people in 2000, which was a loss of over 140 people from 1990 (-0.2 percent).
The Primary Market Area is expected to reverse the declines of the 1990s by adding
just over 4,000 people by 2010 (+5.9 percent).
Despite population losses, between 1990 and 2000, the Primary Market Area added
over 1,000 households (+3.4 percent). This decade, the Primary Market Area is
expected to add about 2,200 households through 2010 (+7.3 percent).
Population Age Distribution
The age distribution of the population relates to recreational needs in a given
community. Health and fitness activities are becoming more popular, but especially
in areas with a large base of young- to middle-age adults,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The most significant population shift during the 1990s was seen in the 65 and over
age cohort with an increase of 3,147 people (+19.8 percent). By 2000 there were over
19,000 over the age of 65 in the Primary Market Area.
Also, the aging of the baby boom in the Primary Market Area is having a significant
impact on the age distribution of the population. During the 1990s, as the 25 to 34
age cohort declined by 20 percent, the 35 to 44 age cohort increased by 7 percent and
the 45 to 54 age cohort increased by 16 percent.
This decade the Primary Market Area is expected to see the biggest losses in the age
35 to 44 cohort (-3,146 people, - 15.0 percent), while the people age 55 and over
increases by 17.1 percent (+5,500 people).
Based on the demographics of the PMA alone, a community recreation center in
Columbia Heights should provide services and amenities that will appeal to the area's
aging population.
School Enrollment
Overall, student enrollment in Columbia Heights' public schools has mainly
decreased by an average of-34 students per year (-1.0 percent) since the 1990s. The
decline in student enrollment compared to household growth in the Primary Market
Area reveals that most of the households being added are aging households, as well as
some younger households without children. This trend is expected to continue this
decade, as an increasing portion of baby boomers age into their 50s and 60s.
Analyzing school enrollment data by student race and ethnicity reveals that the
student population is growing more diverse. While the White student population has
decreased every year since the 1990-91 school years, the Non-White student
population has increased every year except one.
Household Type
People living alone was the fastest growing household group during the 1990s in the
Total Market Area, increasing by 31.2 percent (+4,010 households). These
households comprise 30% of the overall households in the Total Market Area and
35% of Columbia Heights' households in 2000.
Household Income
Household income data helps ascertain the different types of households in an area.
Generally, households with higher incomes tend to be target markets for health and
community centers. According to IHRSA 20 percent of households that belong to a
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
health club earn an income of greater between $50,000 and $74,999, while 49 percent
of households with memberships earn an income of $75,000 and over.
The median household income in the Primary Market Area in 2004 is estimated to be
about $44,700, while the Secondary Market 3d'ea has a 2004 estimated median
income of about $57,500. According to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the 2004 median income for a household of four in the Twin Cities
Market is $76,400.
Household Expenditure on Recreation Activities
In 2004, Primary Market Area residents are expected to spend $3.3 million on club
membership dues or fees. This equates to an average of $530 per household annually
or about $44 per month. In the Secondary Market Area in 2004, residents will spend
about $3.7 million on membership fees or $700 per household annually ($58 per
month)..
Market Area Community Centers and Health Clubs
Excluding six women-only facilities, there is only one privately-owned health club in
the Primary Market Area that would be competitive with the proposed community
center in Columbia Heights. This facility, Fitness Crossroad, opened in St. Anthony
in 2001.
Other than Fitness Crossroad, there are two community centers in the Primary
Market Area, the New Brighton Family Service Center and the St. Anthony
Community Center.
The Family Service Center in New Brighton was built in 1995 and offers a fitness
area, gymnasium and a children's play area called Eagle's Nest. The gym is for
member use only and is not rented out or contracted out to local schools or other
groups.
The YMCA has a cor~m-mnity program site in Northeast Minneapolis. This site offers
educational programs and meeting space for community groups, but does not have a
fitness or recreation facility. This facility is affiliated with the YMCA in Coon
Rapids, which is located outside of both the Primary and Secondary Market Areas.
There are four competitive privately-owned facilities in the Secondary Market Area.
These facilities include a Bally's and Northwest in Fridley, a women-only Lifetime in
Roseville and The Gym, Inc. in Fridley. The only community center in the Secondary
Market Area is the Moundsview Community Center. We also included an analysis of
the Shoreview Community Center, as it is the nearest large community center.
Total Market Area Memberships
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following table summarizes the number of memberships in the PMA and SMA
by club type. The Shoreview Community Center, with 2,200 memberships, is outside
of the Market Area and is therefore, not included in the following table or in our
demand calculations for additional memberships in the Market Area.
Primary Secondary
Market Market
Area Area
Private Clubs 1,000 11,200
Community Centers 750 0
Curves/Women's Only Clubs
1,375 1,250
Total Memberships 3,125 12,450
Membership Fees
We profiled five Metro Area community centers to determine amenities at fees that are
typically offered. Membership fees among Metro Area community centers vary by each
center. Overall, the average membership fee for resident adults is about $37 per month
on a month to month payment plan or $315 per year annually ($26/per month).
On average, non-resident membership fees are 26 percent higher than resident
membership fees. Typically youth and senior rates are the same at the centers that offer
these rates.
Some centers do not charge enrollment fees. A representative at a local conmmnity
center indicated that enrollment fees are crucial for covering upfront costs related to the
· administrative tasks involved in enrolling new members and suggested that all new
community centers include them.
Memberships tend to be less expensive at the selected community centers compared to
the privately owned health and fitness clubs, especially for resident families. Of the
private health clubs, Northwest has the highest membership fees overall.
The median membership fee overall is between $34 and $45 per month for an adult,
which is comparable to the community centers profiled, but lower than the YMCA and
Northwest.
Pending Centers
Maxfield Research Inc. interviewed a staff member from each of the cities in the Primary
Market Area to determine if a community or recreation center is planned. The only
pending project is the Salvation Army Kroc Center. Five cities in Minnesota have
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
applied for $12 Million to fund the development of a community, recreation, education
and performing arts center. The five Minnesota cities are competing against communities
in other states in the Midwest; there is no indication at this point that a Kroc Center will
be built anywhere in Minnesota.
Demand Summary and Recommendations
The following table highlights the results of our demand analysis. We find sufficient demand to
support the development of a new community and recreational facility in Columbia Heights.
Our demand calculations were based on a facility with fitness areas and a gymnasium, excluding
a pool. While a pool attracts some members, people not interested in using it, will not want to
pay for it.
Target Markets'
We believe the main target markets for a new community facility are: older aduks,
younger immigrant families, young non-immigrant families, and single adults or
couples without children. Each of these target markets will desire different amenities
at a new community center, most will be very price sensitive.
Recommended Amenities
We recommend incorporating the following amenities and features to attract local
households to the new facility.
Gyrrmasium space: two full court gymnasiums that would provide additional court
practice time for youth and aduk basketball leagues, with additional availability for
tournaments, special events. The space should be prioritized and scheduled so that
sufficient time is allotted for open gym and family gym periods and not entirely
progranuned with-league or team play. A running/walking track should also be
:~.~,.~a ~:+u .... pan ~,~,u ..... · ........... a ~,-~,'~*~ r~,,,~ ~,,~ d d
above the gym floor. We present two options for the construction of the gymnasiums.
Option 1 constructs two gynmasiums in different locations, one near the school and
one at the community center. Option 2 would located both gymnasiums at the
community center.
Fitness Area: aerobic machines (step, jogging, elliptical), weight machines (Cybex or
similar), free weights, stretching area and TVs. The fitness area could potentially be
separated into two areas, one for aerobic machines and another for weight machines
and free weights.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aerobic studios: for group fitness classes. We suggest providing free classes for
members, as well as allowing non-members to take classes for a fee. Classes targeted
to different age groups: young adults (i.e. kickboxing, p/lares, yoga), older adults (i.e.
dancing classes, aeroNcs), children and parents with children. Also, consider
incorporating classes targeted to different ethnic groups.
Childcare play area: we suggest including an area that can be rented out for birthday
parties and other events, similar to New Brighton's Eagle's Nest. We recommend
offering ch/Id day care on site as a separate business. There should also be a child
care service as part of the center with weekend hours and some limited evening hours
to accommodate working families. A discount may be offered to members who want
to utilize full-time child care during the day although depending on the demand, this
may not be necessary.
Senior Center: a room/area for activities and meals for senior groups, members and
non-members.
Teen Center: small activity room with a pool table, or foosball, air hockey or other
amen/ties that will appeal to teenagers.
Concessions area: offering snacks and beverages to members and guests and for
special events and tournaments. The concessions area should also serve the meeting
room space for basic refreshments.
Other Recommendations
Most of the health clubs and community centers profiled in this study have programs
whereby they partner w/th health insurance providers to reimburse members a portion
of their monthly membership fee if the member uses the club a certain number of
times per month. This reimbursement can often be up to half of the membership fee
making it an attractive incentive for members. We recommend offering this as an
incentive for members, as many potential members will be attracted to join a health
club w/th a health insurance reimbursement.
Throughout our interviews with representatives of local community centers we found
that all Metro Area community centers had a budget shortfall that was covered by a
var/ety of funding mechanisms, for example: antenna fees, electric fund or other non-
operating revenues, building fund, or the general fund. Anywhere fi'om 2 percent to
41 percent of the community center's operating budget was not covered by
membership fees, while the average budget shortfall was 19 percent.
Our analysis found sufficient demand to develop a new community and recreational
facility in Columbia Heights. While we suggest that facility offerings focus on the
needs of the existing aging population in the Primary Market Area, we also recognize
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
that the area is becoming more diverse. Therefore, the facility should be designed to
meet the needs of a wide variety of users, including new households who will be
attracted to the redevelopment sites in Columbia Heights and St. Anthony. A new
facility will be supported by existing households, but should also serve as a
conmaunity amenity that will attract new households into Columbia Heights. A
community and recreational facility often serves as a marketing tool to attract new
households, as well as reinvestment in a community. The facility should be designed
for future flexibility and should allow for future expansion as the community center
space needs will change in the future.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 7
P~TRPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
Purpose and Scope of Study
Maxfield Research Inc. was retained by the City of Columbia Heights to prov/de research and
consuking services for the purpose of assessing demand (utilization potential) for a community
and recreation center located on a proposed site at the intersection of Central and 41st Avenues in
Columbia Heights, Minnesota. The scope of this study includes a demographic review of growth
trends and characteristics of the population and household base in an area determined to be the
primary draw or Market Area for a new cormnunity and recreation center in Columbia Heights.
We inventoried competitive health and fitness clubs in the Market Area and other community
centers in the Twin Cities Metro Area_ Our conclusions and recommendations focus on
projecting usage (memberships and annual admissions) for the facility and analyzing its market
positioning relative to its direct competition and other community centers in the Metro Area.
This report includes both primary and secondary research. Primary research includes interviews
with City staffand staffoflocal community centers. Secondary research is credited to the source
when used, and is usually data from the U.S. Census. Secondary research is always used as a
basis for analysis, and is carefully reviewed in light of other local factors. All of the information
on existing and pending competitive projects was gathered by Maxfield Research Inc. and is
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 8
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Market Area Definition
A new community/recreational center in Columbia Heights could expect to draw the majority of
its users from a primary draw area (Market Area) which includes the City of Columbia Heights,
St. Anthony, Hilltop, and portions of Northeast Minneapolis (mainly north of Lowry Avenue),
Fridley and New Brighton. This Market Area was determined based on geographic and man-
made boundaries, traffic patterns, and the location of health and fitness centers that would be
competitive with the subject community center. We estimate that 75 percent of the demand for a
community center in Columbia Heights will come from this Primary Market Area, while an
additional 25 percent of the demand will come from outside of this area. We also delineated a
Secondary Market Area, as there are few recreational facilities within the Primary Market Area.
The Secondary Market Area includes a portion of Roseville, all of Fridley, Spring Lake Park,
Mounds View, Arden Hills and NewBrighton. A map of the Columbia Heights Pr/mary and
Secondary Market Areas is shown on the following page.
Population and Household Growth
Population and household growth are the primary generators of demand for additional fitness
center space in an area, since some new residents who participate in fitness activities will choose
either a private health club or community center to participate in fitness and/or sports activities.
Employment growth is another indicator of demand, since job growth typically results in
population and household growth. In addition, some users will also choose to use a facility that
is close to their place of employment. When considering the potential demand for fitness
centers, it is also important to assess data on the age distribution of the population, since the
propensity to participate in fitness activities is different among various age cohorts, as well as
data on average annual expenditures for club membership dues/fees. The following paragraphs
review each of these demographic indicators for the Columbia Heights Primary Market Area and
the implications on market demand.
Table 1 presents population and household growth trends and projections for the Market Areas
from 1990 to 2015. The 1990 and 2000 population and household figures were obtained from
~h~ U.S. Census B ,ureau, while the 20!0 and 2015 projections are based on data from the
Metropolitan Council.
Population
During the 1990s, the population base in Columbia Heights declined by 2.1 percent (-
390 people). During the same time period, the Remainder of the Primary Market
Area (PMA) added 249 people for a 0.5 percent increase.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 9
DEMOGRAPHIC A3N. ALYSIS
COLL~,'~IA HF, IGHTS
COMML~TY CENTER NL.~F,T AREA
[--~ PRIMARY ~IARKET AREA
SECONDARY ~IC~T AREA
!
Max~oldRos~arch,
In total, the PMA lost -141 people between 1990 and 2000, decreasing its population
base by -0.2 percent. At the same time, Minneapolis and the Metro Area added
population. Minneapolis saw a 3.9 percent increase (+14,235 people), while the
Metro Area added over 350,000 new residents (+15.4 percent).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 10
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
While the PMA lost population, the Secondary Market Area (SMA) added 284 new
residents between 1990 and 2000 (+0.4 percent).
This decade the PMA is expected to reverse the population declines of the 1990s.
Columbia Heights is projected to add 1,880 new residents by 2010 (+10.2 percent), as
two significant redevelopment projects are pending in the City. The Remainder of the
Prinm~ Market Area is expected to increase its population base by about 2,190
people (+4.4 percent).
The SMA is also expected to add population this decade with about 800 new residents
(+1.2 percent). In total, the Columbia Heights Market Area is expected to add over
4,800 people be4:ween 2000 and 2010 (+3.6 percent).
Minneapolis is also projected to add more people this decade than during the 1990s
with a 5.1 percent increase (+19,382 people), while the Seven County Metro Area is
projected to add over 363,000 people this decade (+13.7 percent).
Between 2010 and 2015, Columbia Heights and the Remainder of the Market Area
communities will continue to experience population growth. By 2015, Columbia
Heights is expected to have 20,900 residents (+500 people, +2.5 percent), while the
Remainder of the PMA is projected to add 1,000 res/dents (+1.9 percent) and the
SMA is projected to add 1,300 people (+1.9 percent).
Households
Table 1 also shows the number of households in the Columbia Heights Market Area
communities from 1990 through 2015.
Despite population declines, Columbia Heights increased its household base during
the 1990s, adding about 270 new households (+3.4 percent) for a total of 8,033
households in 2000. The Remainder of the Pr/mary Market Area communities added
about 730 new households during the 1990s, an increase of 3.4 percent. During this
,-,,- auuuu aouut l,oov new llousellOlus
between 1990 and 2000 (+7.0 percent).
By 2010, Columbia Heights is projected to have 8,900 households, an increase of
10.8 percent from 2000 (+867 households). Household growth in Columbia Heights
and the Remainder of the Market Areas during this period will be a resuk ofinfill and
redevelopment projects.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 11
DEMOG ~RAPH'IC ANALYSIS
The largest redevelopment project in Columbia Heights is three blocks south or me
proposed site (at Central and 41~t Street) for the community center. This project, by
Schafer Richardson proposes to redevelop an existing industrial park into 560 for-sale
and senior housing units. According to the developer, this project is expected to be
completed by 2010. The second project is the redevelopment of the K-Mart five
blocks north of the proposed site. This project by Bruce Nedegaard is currently under
construction with 231 housing units called Grand Central Lofts. The largest
redevelopment project in the Reminder of the PMA is in St. Anthony with the
redevelopment of the Apache Plaza. This project, by Pratt-Ordway, is eight blocks
east of the proposed site and has about 700 pending housing units, including rental
and for-sale product.
The Remainder of the Primary Market Area is projected to add about 1,300 new
households between 2000 and 2010, a growth rate of 6.0 percent. In total, the PMA is
projected to have about 2,200 new households by 2010 (+7.3 percent).
The Secondary Market Area is projected to add the about same number of households
this decade as it did during the 1990s, with an additional 1,678 households (+6.6
percent). This compares to about 9,600 new households in Minneapolis (+5.9
percent).
While several significant redevelopment projects are pending in the Market Area,
growth continues to push outward into third-tier and outlying communities in and
beyond the Seven County Metropolitan Area, as developable land within the
Metropolitan Area's Urban Service Area becomes scarcer. The Metro Area is
projected to add more households this decade than during the 1990s, with an
additional 176,126 households (+17.2 percent).
Household growth is expected to continue to be strong after 2010. Columbia Heights
is projected to add 200 new households between 2010 and 2015 (+2.3 percent), while
the Reminder of the Primary Market gxea is projected to add 600 househo!~ dm'Lng
the same time period (+2.6 percent) and the Secondary Market Area is expected to
!,000 hm~seho!ds by 2015 (+3.7 percent).
Employment
Employment trends can also give an indication of recreational needs for a community, as
typically, households will use recreational facilities near home or work for convenience. Table 2
presents total employment growth trends and projections in the Columbia Heights Market Area
fi:om 1990 to 2015. Maxfield Research compiled the figures, based on data from the
Metropolitan Council. The following are key points concerning employment growth in the
Market Area.
MAXFl]gLD RESEARCH INC. 13
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Columbia Heights added over 1,800 jobs in the 1990s for a 41.5 percent increase.
During the same time period, the Remainder of the Primary Market Area added i,640
jobs (+5.3 percent) between 1990 and 2000. The Secondary Market Area added over
7,000 jobs during the 1990s for a 15.4 percent increase.
From 2000 to 2010, the PMA is forecast to add just over 3,000 jobs (7.8 percent). Of
the projected growth of jobs in the PMA during this decade, 2,850 of the new jobs (94
percent) are projected to be located outside of Columbia Heights.
TABLE 2
E1VIPLOYMENT GROWTtt TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MARKF~T AREA
1990 to 2015
i:~5;1J''& CENSUS ?} ?::t~.ST138~TI~:' 1990-2000 2000-2010
1990 2000 2010 2015 No. Pct. No. Pet.
Primary Market Area
Columbia Heights 4,536 6,419 6,600 6,675 1,883 41.5% 181 2.8%
Remainder of Market Area 30,760 32,400 35.250 37,900 1,640 5.3% 2,850 8.8%
Total.Primary Market Area 35?296 38,819 417850 44~575 3,52~ 10.0% 3~031 7.8%
Secondary Market Area 46,006 53,103 63,850 65,925 %097 15.4% 10,747 20~%
Minneapolis 278,438 301,826 317,000 324,750 23,388 8.4% 15,174 5.0%
Metro Arm 1.272,773 1,563.245 1,815,715 1,903,100 290,472 22.8% 252,470 16.2%
Sources: U.S. Census, Metropolitan Council; Maxfield Research Inc¢ Claritas, Inc.
The SMA is projected to add even more jobs this decade than during the 1990s with a
20.2 percent increase in its employment base (+10,747 jobs).
Minneapolis and the Metro Area as a whole are also expected to continue to add jobs
this decade. Between 2000 and 2010, Minneapolis is expected to add just over
15,100 jobs (+5.0 percent), while the Metro Area will add about 250,000 new jobs
(+16.2 percent).
Population Age Distribution
The age distribution of the population relates to recreational needs in a given community. Health
and fitness activities are becoming more popular, but especially in areas with a large base of
young- to middle-age adults. According to the 1990 International Health, Racquet and Sports
Club Association (IHRSA)/American Sports Data"Health Club Trend Report," 41 percent of
club members are between ages 18 and 34, while 38 percent are between ages 35 and 54. The
same report states that the average age of members is projected to increase in the coming decade,
due, in part, to the aging of the large baby boom generation, combined with the increasing
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 14
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
popularity of fitness among persons age 55 or older. This is expected to result in higher usage
rates at health/fitness clubs, since older adult members of health clubs typically visit their club
more frequently than younger members.
Table 3 presents the age distribution of the Columbia Heights Primary Market Area population
from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, and projected to 2015 by Maxfield Rescarc1~, 3ased on county
projections by the State Demographer. The table shows the number of people and the percent of
the population in seven age categories.
In 1990, people ages 20 to 34 comprised about 27 percent of the total PMA's adult
population, with about 37,000 people. This age group saw a decline during the
1990s, as the youngest of the baby-boom generation began moving out of this age
group during the decade (-5,953 people, -16.2 percent).
Older baby-boomers (those ages 35 to 44 in 1990) aged into their mid 40s to early 50s
during the 1990s, increasing the population of 45 to 54 year olds by 16.1 percent in
the PMA. During the coming decade and beyond, a large portion of the baby-boom
generation will age into their 50s and 60s. Between 2000 and 2010, the 55 to 64-age
cohort is expected to increase by about 22 percent to an estimated total of 15,700
people in 2000 (+2,808 people).
TABLE 3
AGE DISTRIBUTION
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PRIMARY MARKET AREA
1990 to 2015
~:c~~:~ , , 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2015
Age 1990 2000 2010 2015 No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pet.
Under 20 34,211 33,i81 33,000 33,050 -1,030 -3.1~ -181 -0.5 50 0.2
20 to 24 11,762 10,834 11,200 10,900 -928 -7.~ 366 3.4 -300 -2.7
:25 to 34 25,035 20,010 20,800 21,200 -5,025 -20.1 790 3.9 400 1.9
35 to 44 19,535 20,946 17,800 17,250 1,411 7.2 -3,146 -15.0 -550 -3.1
45 to 54 15,693 18,227 19,800 18,700 2,534 16.1 1,573 8.6 -1,100 -5.6
55 to 64 12,858 12,892 15,700 17,000 34 0.3 2,808 21.8 1,300 8.3
65 and over !5,892 !9,039 2!,700 24,700 3,!47 !9.8 23661 14.0 3~000 13.8
20 to 54 72,025 70,017 69,600 68,050 -2,008 -2.8 417 -0.6 -1,550 -2.2
55 and over 28,750 31,931 37,400 41,700 3,181 11.1 5,469 17.1 4,300 11.5
Sources: Bureau of the Census: U.S. Census of Population and Housing (1990, 2000)
MN Departr~nt of Administration
Maxfield Research Inc.
The PI~r~k had about 34,000 people under age 20 in 1990, or about 25 percent of the
population. This group is known as the echo-boom, the children of baby-boomers.
The first echo-boomers started aging into thek early 20s and forming their own
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 15
DEMOGRAP~C ANALYSIS
households during the late-1990s. Between 2000 and 2010, the 20 to 24-age cohort is
projected to increase to a total of 11,200 people (+366 people, +3.4 percent).
The International Health, Racquet, and Sports Club Association indicates that while
older adults are the fastest growing segment of the heakh/fitness club industry, the
core group of users will continue to be young- to middle-age adults. The population
in the Columbia Heights PMA is aging in place. While the 20 to 54-age cohort will
see significant decreases over time, the number of people age 55 and over will
increase by 31 percent between 2000 and 2015 (+9,769 people).
Based on the demographics of the PMA alone, a community recreation center in
Columbia Heights should provide services and amenities that will appeal to the area's
aging population.
School Enrollment Trends
Maxfield Research reviewed recent trends in the public school enrollment in the Columbia
Heights school district over the past decade. The Columbia Heights school district contains the
Cities of Columbia Heights, Hilltop and the southern one-third of Fridley. The enrollment d~a,
in Table 4, is from the Minnesota Department of Education. Enrollment trends are useful in that
they can serve as an indicator of potential need for various types of cormnunity services.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 16
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 4
SCHOOL ENROLLlVIENT
COLUlVIBIA HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT #13
1990-2004
Pre-K Elementary Secondary ANNUAL CHANGE
Year Kindergarten 1-6 7-12 TOTAL No. Pct.
~0-91 296 1,605 1,422 3,323
91-92 280 1,581 1,429 3,290 -33 -1.0%
92-93 307 1,539 1,398 3,244 --46 -1.4%
93-94 273 1,454 1,332 3,059 -185 -5.7%
34-95 263 1,384 1,357 3,004 -55 -1.8%
95 -96 266 1,407 1,343 3,016 12 0.4%
96-97 290 1,348 1,395 3,033 17 0.6%
97-98 269 1,358 1,375 3,002 -31 -1.0%
98-99 311 1,366 1,390 3,067 65 2.2%
39-00 242 1,373 1,401 3,016 -51 -1.7%
00-01 276 1,366 1,376 3,018 2 0.1%
01-02 279 1,364 1,517 3,160 142 4.7%
02-03 268 1,347 1,415 3,030 -130 -4.1%
034)4 261 1,332 1,378 2,971 -59 -1.9%
1990-2000 No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pct. No. Pet.
-20 45.8% -239 -14.9% -46 -3.2% -305 -9.2%
2000-2004 -15 -5.4% -34 -2.5% 2 0.1% 47 -1.6%
Source: MN Dept. of Education
Key trends identified from our review of school enrollment growth in the Columbia Heights
School District are:
Overall, enrollment in Columbia Heights' public schools has mainly decreased by an
average of-34 students per year (-1.0 percent) during the 1990s. The 1990-91 school
year had the highest student enrollment of 3,323 students.
The decline in student enrollment compared to the household growth in the Market
Area reveals that most of the households being added are aging households as well as
some younger households without children. This trend will continue this decade, as
an increasing portion of baby boomers age into their 50s and 60s.
Analyzing school enrollment data by student race and ethnicity reveals that the student
population is growing more diverse. Table 5, on the following page, shows student enrollment
by race and ethnicity. This data is from the Minnesota Department of Education.
Columbia Heights School District
[] While the White student population has decreased every year since the 1990-91
school year, the Non-White student population has increased every year except one.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 17
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Overall between the 1 oo0-~ and 2000-01 school years, the White student population
decreased by 25 percent (-740 students), while the Non-White student population
increased by 144 percent (+435 students).
Hispanic students are the fastest growing student population in the Columbia Heights
school district, accounting for 18 percent of the overall student population by the
2003-04 school year.
These school enrollment trends reveal that the population of Columbia Heights is also
growing more diverse, indicating that the facilities at a new community/recreation
must appeal to a wide variety of users to be successful.
Neighboring School Districts
The three neighboring school districts contained in Table 5, like Columbia Heights,
have also grown more diverse.
Moundsview, the largest school district analyzed, added about 370 students during
the 1990s (+3 percent), and yet has lost almost 1,000 students since 2000 (-8 percent).
St. Anthony's school district is the only one to have added students during the 1990s
and so far this year.
MAXFIELD RESEARCIt INC. 18
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 5
SCHOOL ENROLI2VIENT BY RACE/ETHNICITY
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AREA SCHOOL DISTRICTS
1990-2004
l¥c r ! N°- eot. I No. ect__. eot. No. eot. No. eot. No. Pct. ,
90-91 50 2% 112 3% 104 3% 37 1% 303 9% 3,020 91% 3,323
91-92 58 2% 114 3% 116 4% 45 1% 333 10% 2,957 90% 3,290
92-93 66 2% 111 3% 130 4% 55 2% 362 11% 2,882 89% 3,244
93-94 89 3% 114 4% 133 4% 79 3% 415 14% 2,644 86% 3,059
94-95 99 3% 118 4% 128 4% 76 3% 421 14% 2,583 86% 3,004
95-96 91 3% 103 3% 158 5% 103 3% 455 15% 2,561 85% 3,016
96-97 90 3% 135 4% 195 6% 105 3% 525 17% 2,508 83% 3,033
97-98 [. 82 3% 128 4% 217 7% 77 3% 504 17% 2,498 83% 3,002
98-99 95 3% 146 5% 262 9% 75 2% 578 19% 2,489 81% 3,067
99-00 106 4% 157 5% 268 9% 105 3% 636 21% 2,380 79% 3,016
00-01 115 4% 176 6% 301 10% 146 5% 738 24% 2,280 76% 3,018
01-02 113 4% 190 6% 409 13% 177 6% 889 28% 2,271 72% 3,160
02-03 111 4% 188 6% 470 16% 227 7% 996 33% 2,034 67% 3,030
03-04 98 3% 207 7% 526 18% 300 10% 1,131 38% 1,840 62% 2~971
90-91 32 1% 85 3% 35 1% 59 2% 211 8% 2,353 92% 2,564
00431 58 2% 109 4% 178 7% 57 2% 402 16% 2,152 84% 2,554
03434 69 3% 191 7% 347 13% 83 3% 690 27% 1~891 73% 2~581
90-91 88 1%0 493 4% 138 1% 104 1% 823 7% 10,544 93% 11,367
00-01 132 1% 718 6% 459 4% 250 2% 1,559 13% 10,177 87% 11,736
03-04 106 1%1 765 7% 547 5% 292 , ~% 1,710 16% 9,054 84% 107764
90-91 5 1% 43 4% 17 2% 15 2% 80 8°A 912 92% 992
00-01 27 2% 111 7% 70 5% 25 2% 233 15~A 1,309 85% 1,542
03-04 19 1% 131 8%i 81 5% 50 3% 281 17%' 1~364 83% 1~645
90-00 No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. ~4o. Pct.
65 130% 64 57% 197 189% 109 295% 435 144% -740 -25% -305 -9%
00434 -17 -15% 31 18% 225 75% 154 105% 393 53% -440 -19% -47 -2%
,Iglm -
90-00 No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.
26 81% 24 28% 143 409% -2 -3% 191 91% -201 -9% -10 0%
00-04 11 19% 82 75% 169 95% 26 46~ 288 72% -261 -12% 27 1%
~gll i~ll I fl&%l~mJ
90-00 No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. !No. Pct.
44 50% 225 46% 321 233% 146' 140% 73~ 89% -367 -3% 369 3%
00-04 -26 -20% 47 7% 88 19% 42 17% 151 10% -1~123 -11% -972 -8%
l~mimra~ ....
90-00 No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. ~o. Pct. No. Pct.
22 440% 68 158% 53 312% 10 67% 153 191% 397 44% 550 55%
00-04 -8 -30% 20 18% 11 16% 25 100% 48 21% 55 4% 103 7%
Source: MN Dept. ofEduc, ation
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 19
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Household Type
As with age distribution, the trends in types of households have an impact on the demand for
different community or recreational opportunities. Table 6 presents data on the types of
households in the Columbia Heights Market Area in 1990 and 2000. Family households include
married-couple families with children (so-called "traditional" families), married couples without
children (mostly empty nesters, but also young married couples without children), and other-
family households (single parents and unmarried couples with children). Non-family households
include people living alone and roommates (unrelated individuals living together, including
unmarried couples without children). The following are key findings from the table:
In 2000, there were a total of about 34,000 family households in the Total Market
Area, including 10,100 married couples with children, 15,634 married couples
without children, and 8,280 other families. Married couples without children include
empty nesters, who increasingly desire community and social programs, and younger
couples without children, who are also a primary market for recreational services.
Married couples w/th children and other families, which include single parents and
unmarried couples with children, are primary markets for programs targeted towards
parents and children. Community centers with swimming pools oiten attract a large
number of family users.
During the 1990s, the only growth among family households in the Total Market
Area was among other families, which grew by 11.5 percent (+855 households),
while manqed couples with children, declined by- 17.9 percent (-2,206 households)
and married couples without children declined by -711 households (-4.3 percent).
There were about 21,600 non-family households in the Total Market Area in 2000.
This includes 16,855 people living alone and 4,767 roommate households. People
living alone was the fastest growing household type during the 1990s, increasing by
31.2 percent (+4,010 households). These households comprise 30 percent of the
overall households in the Total Market Area and 35 percent of Columbia Heights'
households in 2000.
Of the total number of households living alone in Columbia Heights, 45 percent are
over age 65 (1,225 households). This represents 51 percent of Columbia Heights'
households 65 and over. Households 65 and over make up 30 percent of the total
households in Columbia Heights, indicating that a new community center should
provide programming targeted to older households who may be very pr/ce sensitive.
Roommate households consist of unrelated people living with each other to share
housing costs and also unmarried couples without children, among others. These
people also tend to be younger and are a target market for a recreational facility. As
these households tend to be price sensitive, a membership program with cost savings
should be targeted to students or roonmkqtes (like a dual membership).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 20
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Household Income
Household income data helps ascertain the different types of households in an area. Generally,
households with higher incomes tend to be target markets for health and community centers.
According to IHRSA 20 percent of households that belong to a health club earn an income of
greater between $50,000 and $74,999, while 49 percent of households with memberships earn an
income of $75,000 and over. Tables 7 and 8 show household income data for the Columbia
Heights Market Area in 2004 and 2009, respectively. Household income data was compiled by
Claritas, Inc. (a nationally recognized demographics firm) and adjusted by Maxfield Research
Inc., based on local household projections.
The median household income in the Primary Market Area in 2004 is estimated to be
about $44,700, while the Secondary Market Area has a 2004 estimated median income of
about $57,500. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
2004 median income for a household of four in the Twin Cities Market Area is $76,400.
Households ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 to 64 have the highest estimated median
incomes in each submarket. In the Primary Market Area in 2004, households age 35 to
44 have an income of about $52,000; households age 45 to 54 have an income of about
$57,000, while households age 55 to 64 have a median income of about $53,000.
Younger senior households typically have a higher median income than older senior
households, because a greater percentage of younger seniors are still working or are two-
person households). Seniors in the Primary Market Area have a median income of
$32,800 (age 65 to 74) and $24,500 (age 75 and over). Many of these households are on
fixed incomes and are very price sensitive. Therefore entrance fees and membership fees
should be discounted for area seniors.
The Primary Market Area's median household income is expected to increase to about
$48,000 in 2009, while the Secondary Market Area's 2009 median household income is
estimated to be $60,800.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 22
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 7
HOUSEItOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
COLUMBIA ItEIGItTS MARKET AREA
(~nmber of Households)
2OO4
Total 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Less than $15,000 3,400 356 341 458 354 427 501 963
$15,000 to $24,999 3,715 339 448 463 421 278 626 1,140
$25,000 to $34,999 4,738 335 939 917 663 542 661 681
$35,000 to $49,999 5,606 468 1,126 1,160 1,105 715 471 561
$50,000 to $74,999 6,248 278 1,365 1,519 1,174 943 506 463
$75,000 to $99,999 3,791 117 779 890 976 625 268 136
$100,000 or more 3,492 64 498 833 1,053 639 257 148
Total 30,990 1,957 5,496 6,240 5,746 4,169 3,290 4,092
Total 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-
Less than $15,000 1,93'8 153 283 268 263 184 :~72 515
$15,000 to $24,999 2,081 88 306 233 253 240 325 636
$25,000 to $34,999 2,863 288 456 44~. 386 383 464 442
$35,000 to $49,999 4,359 390 776 917 795 624 548 309
$50,000 to $74,999 6,211 361 1,151 1,417 1,332 1,043 611 296
$75,000 to $99,999 3,943 110 553 931 1,101 874 267 107
$100,000 or more 4,795 68 366 909 1,563 1,484 296 109
Total 26,190 1,458 3,891 5,119 5,693 4,832 2,783 2,414
Median Income
Total 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Less than $15,000 5,338 509 624 726 61'-'--'~ 611 773' 1,478
$15,000 to $24,999 5,796 427 754 696 674 518 951 1,776
$25,000 to $34,999 7,601 623 1,395 1,361 1,049 925 1,125 1,123
$35,000 to $49,999 9,965 858 1,902 2,077 1,900 1,339 1,019 870
$50,000 to $74,999 12,459 639 2,516 2,936 2,506 1,986 1,117 759
$75,000 to $99,999 7,734 227 1,332 1,821 2,077 1,499 535 243
$100,000 ormom 8,287 132 864 1,742 2,616 2,123 553 257
Total 57,180 3,415 9,387 11,359 11,439 9,001 6,073 6,506
Median Income
Source: Claritas, Inc.; Maxfield Research, Inc.
MAXI~ RESEARCH INC. 23
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 8
HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MARKET AREA
0N,,mher of Households)
2OO9
: ~ : : i ......~ ~e 0f Household~
Total 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Less than $15,000 3,136 344 293 390 327 402 '440 94C
$15,000 to $24,999 3,452 286 327 470 473 221 618 1,057
$25,000 to $34,999 4,434 291 864 677 597 462 587 956
$35,000 to $49,999 5,775 488 1,121 1,035 900 940 703 588
$50,000 to $74,999 6,209 384 1,2958 1,388 1,338 1,023 473 345
$75,000 to $99,999 4,427 133 1,005 1,067 928 840 275 179
$100,000 or more 4,647 111 716 1,011 1,421 879 331 178
Total 32,080 2,037 5,584 6,038 5,984 4,767 3,427 4,243
Median Income
Total 15-24 25-34 3544 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Less than $15,000
$15,000 to $24,999 1,926
$25,000 to $34,999 2,601
$35,000 to $49,999 4,575
$50,000 to $74,999 6,039
$75,000 to $99,999 4,402
$100,0130 or more 5,681
1,806 147
239 234 243 185 253 505
70 260 192 223 214 323 644
211 335 374 315 426 383 557
381 812 875 860 660 624 363
391 1,047 1,268 1,286 1,049 648 350
163 634 956 1,145 1,021 312 171
112 571 1,091 1,986 1,418 350 153
Total 27,030 1,475 3,898 4,990 6,058 4,973 2,893 2,743
Total
~ess than $15,000 4,942'
$15,000 to $24,999 5,378
$25,000 to $34,999 7,035
$35,000 to $49,999 10,350
$50,000 to $74,999 12,248
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
15-24. 25-34
3544 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
491 532 624 57~ 5~ '693' 1,445
356 587 662 696 435 941 1,701
502 1,199 1,051 912 888 970 1,513
869 1,933 1,910 1,760 1,600 1,327 951
775 2,305 2,656 2,624 2,072 1,121 695
8,829 296 1,639 2,023 2~073 !~861 587 350
10,328 223 1,287 2,102 3,407 2,297 681 3311
· 3,?i 6,3- 6,9861
Total
Median Income
Source: Claritas, Inc.; Maxfield Research, Inc.
Annual Expenditures on Club Membership Dues/Fees
Table 9 shows the annual expenditures on club memberships and recreational activities in the
Columbia Heights Market Area in 2004 and 2009. Ciaritas, inc., a nationally recognized
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 24
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
demographics/statistics fn'm, collected this data. The following points highlight the findings
from this data~
It is estimated that a total of $8.4 million will be spent during 2004 on club membership
dues/fees and recreational activities (excluding admissions to events) in the Primary
Mm'ket Area. This translates to an average of $1,348 annually per household ($112 per
month) or $595 per capita annually ($50 per month) in the Primary Market Area.
In the Secondary Market Area, it is estimated that $9.5 million will be spent during 2004
on memberships and recreational activities. This equates to an average of $1,809 per
household annually ($151 per month) or $709 per capita annually ($59 per month).
TABLE 9
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ON RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES*
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MARKET AREA
2004 & 2009
Total Per Capita Avg. Hrl Total Per Capita Avg. HH
Primary Market Area
Club Membership Dues/Foes $3,285,000 $234 $530 $4,598,000 $318 $717
Foes for Participant Sports $2,934,000 $209 $473 $3,166,000 $219 $493
Fees for Recreation L~ssons $2,137,000 $152 $345 $2,829,000 $196 $441
Subtotal $8,356,000 $595 $1,348 $10,593,000 $733 $1,651
Admission Fees to Sporting Events $4,040,000 $288 $652 $5,035,000 $348 $785
Secondary Market Area
Club Membership Dues/Fees $3,668,000 $274 $700 $5,160,000 $386 $954
!Fees for Participant Sports $3,018,000 $226 $576 $3,305,000 $247 $611
Fees for Recreation Lessons $2,790,000 $209 $533 $3,630,000 $272 $671
Subtotal $9,476,000 $709 $1,809 $12,095,000 $905 $2,237
Admission Fees to Sporting Events $4,330,000 $324 $827 $5,472,000 $409 $1,012
*Adjusted to include 20% of total households.
Sources: Claritas, Inc.; Maxfield Research, Inc.
By 2009, the tot~ expendit,~e on club mem3ership dues/fees o~ re~eationa! ~ti,~, lies
in the PMA is expected to increase to $10.6 million or an average of $1,651 per
household and $733 per capita annually. In the SMA, it is estimated that a total of $12.1
million will be spent on memberships/activities for an average of $2,237 per household
and $905 per capita annually.
In 2004, Primary Market Area residents are expected to spend $3.3 million on club
membership dues or fees. This equates to an average of $530 per household annually or
about $44 per month. In the Secondary Market Area in 2004, residents will spend about
$3.7 million on membership fees or $700 per household annually ($58 per month).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 25
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
Introduction
Maxfield Research Inc. analyzed the current market situation by surveying existing public and
~;L ate health and fitne'ss clubs in the Market Area and selected city-owned community centers
in the Twin Cities. The purpose of the survey was to assess usage, membership dues and fees,
and facilities and amenities at heakh and fitness clubs in the Market Area that would be
competitive with the proposed community center in Columbia Heights. The following tables
present information on Market Area health and fitness clubs as well as information on selected
community centers throughout the Metro Area. The following discussion summarizes
information from the tables and key points from our survey of these facilities. At the conclusion
of this section, we discuss the potential impact of these competitive developments on the current
market situation and a potential recreation center in Columbia Heights.
Public and Private Health and Fitness Clubs
There are six privately owned health and fitness clubs in the Primary Market Area. Of these,
five are either a Curves for Women or a Ladies Workout Express. These clubs are marketed at
30-minute circuit training facilities that are only for women. Typically, the clubs locate in
spaces of less than 2,000 square feet and have fewer than 400 members. These clubs would not
be directly competitive with a new community center in Columbia Heights, although their target
market does overlap with that of a community-owned recreation center. There are also three
Curves for Women in the Secondary Market Area, as well as an It Figures, another women-only
circu/t-training facility. These clubs are not contained in our Tables of competitive product,
although we do account for them in our demand calculations in the following section. The
following points highlight our analysis of the competitive facilities in the Primary and Secondary
Market Areas.
Private Clubs
Excluding the women-only facilities, there is only one health club in the Primary Market
Area that would be competitive with the proposed community center in Columbia
Heights. This facility, Fitness Crossroad, opened in 2001 and is privately owned by a St.
Anthony resident.
The YMCA has a community program site in Northeast Minneapolis. This site offers
educational programs and meeting space for community groups, but does not have a
fitness or recreation facility. This facility is affiliated with the YMCA in Coon Rapids,
which is located outside of the Secondary Market Area.
There are four competitive privately-owned facilities in the Secondary Market Area.
These facilities include a Bally's and Northwest in Fridley, a women-only Lifetime in
Roseville and The Gym, Inc. in Fridley. Members of Bally 's, Northwest, Lifetime, Yg4CA
and YWCA can access all of their respective facilities in the Twin cities and Nationwide.
[] The following shows the number of health clubs in the Twin Cities Metro Area by chain:
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 26
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
o Bally's: 8
o Lifetime: 14
o Northwext: 10
o YMC;L 19 (Including 2 in Hudson, River Falls, WI)
o YWCA: 3
Marketing coordinators at the clubs indicated that demand for fitness club memberships
is strong in the Secondary Market Area. The larger clubs believe that they have a draw
area of eight to ten miles for members. Also, the clubs with more than one location often
draw members from other clubs for different reasons. For instance, Lifetime in Roseville
draws women from clubs all over the Metro Area, as it is the sole women's only club in
the chain in the Metro.
Annual membership dues (based on quoted monthly rates) for adults range from $300 to
$720 per year. Family memberships average about $1,070 per year. Family
memberships at Northwest and Lifetime vary depending on the number of people and can
be more expensive (about $50 for each additional person).
Daily admission for walk-in users of competitive health and fitness clubs range from $5
to $30. Bally's and the YMCA's do not admit non-members unless they are with a club
member.
Most of the clubs require at least a one-year contract, while the YMCA requires a 15-day
notice on a month-to-month membership.
Three of the clubs have a pool. The Lifetime representative in Roseville indicated that
most members are not interested in having a pool, and if they are, they can go to any
other Metro Area club.
The Northwest in Fridley and the YMCA in Coon Rapids have the most amenities of all of
the facilities in Table 10. The YMCA is the only facility to offer a climbing wall, while
Northwest offers racquetball, tennis and squash courts. Other club representatives
indicated that rock-climbing walls are becoming a popular amenity at clubs throughout
the Twin Cities and many newer clubs are beginning to incorporate them
Other popular club features include the availability of personal trainers for one-on-one
instruction and assistance with fitness activities. Health education programs are also held
periodically at most of the clubs.
Lifetime, Northwest and the YMCA have partnerships with health insurance providers,
where members who use the facility a certain number of times a month receive a
reimbursement for a portion of their monthly membership fee. One representative of a
local health club indicated that this program has helped to increase member's monthly
attendance, as well as sell memberships, as potential members see this as a significant
cost savings.
MAXFIELO RESEARCH INC. 27
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
TABLE 10
FEATURES/AMENITIES COMPARISON
COMPETITIVE ItEALTH CLUBS AND COMMUNITY CENTERS
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MARKET AREA
Not in the MA
Competitio,,n~p Pool .4 .4
Therapeutic Pool
Children's Pool/Slides .4 .4
I~vi~6
Whirlpool .4 .4 .4 .4
Aerobics/Dance Area .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
Walk/Running Track .4 .4 .4 q .4
.4 .4 .4 .4
uash .4
FeesIHr. $55 $30 $55-$85
Health/Community Edue.
Rock Climbing Wall .4
Meeting Rooms .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
Non-Member Fees/Hr. $30 $25 $25 $20-$100
Children's/Youth Program Blast Teen Center .4 Eagle~s All day
Chad Car~ .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 Nest Pre-school
Fees/Hr. Free $3.50-$4.00 Frae $4.75 $3.25Par. i
Some: Maxfield Research~ Inc. ,
Market Area Community Centers
A new community/recreation center in Columbia Heights would likely be most similar to
existing community centers in the Market Area. These centers differ from most of the private
clubs profiled in Table 1 O, in that, they have one location, are not privately owned and are
typically run in conjunction with the community school or parks and recreation department.
These centers are outlined below in the following points.
[] There are two community centers in the Primary Market Area, the New Brighton
Family Service Center and the St. Anthony Community Center. The only community
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 28
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
center in the Secondary Market Area is the Moundsview Community Center. We also
included an analysis of the Shoreview Community Center, as it is the nearest large
community center.
The Family Service Center in New Brighton was built in 1995 and offers a fitness
area, gymnasium and a children's play area called Eagle's Nest. The gym is only for
use of members and is not rented out or contracted out to local schools.
The St. Anthony Community Center was built in about 1998/99 in conjunction with
the new city hall. This facility offers a gymnasium, day care, meeting rooms and
center for senior activities. The sports boosters offer games and sports activities, as
well as adult leagues, yoga classes and community education.
The Moundsview facility was built in 1998. This facility does not offer memberships
and is used during the day by school groups and other community groups. This
facility offers a gym with two full courts and bleachers, locker rooms, small weight
room with a few aerobic machines, a play area with a pool table and foosball. A
private day care is operated next to the facility.
None of the centers in the Market Area offer pools. Outside of the Market Area, the
Shoreview facility offers an indoor water park, Tropics. The Shoreview center was
originally built in !989; last May (2003), a fitness center, two aerobic rooms,.
additional banquet facilities and a boardroom were added. Up until that point,
according to a manager, the center had about 1,500 members. After adding the
fitness center, the memberships increased to about 2,200. The weekends are the
busiest times, as the indoor water park draws users l~om all of the Metro. According
to the manager, about 700 people use the facility every day during the week, and
about 1,300 come on the weekends.
Total Market Area Memberships
The following table summarizes the number of memberships in the PMA and SMA by club type.
The Shorevicw Community Center, with 2,200 memberships, is outside of the Market Area and
is theremre, not included in this '-'-'-
· r L~UIU or in our ~--"-~~.1~..1..1--~ 4~_~ ....1.4~+~.--..~,-~1 ~,-*~.n~a~-oh~o
in the Market Area.
Primary Secondary
Market Market
Area Area
Private Clubs
1,000 11,200
Community Cemers
750 0
Curves/Women's Only Clubs
. Total Memberships
1,375 1,250
3,125 12,450
MAXFHgLD RESEARCH INC. 29
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
Selected Metro Area Community Centers
Maxfield Research Inc. also inventoried selected community centers in the Metro Area. These
facilities were analyzed for comparison purposes only. Because they are located outside the
geographic Market Area, they would not be competitive with a new facility in Columbia Heights.
The information gathered on the selected community centers is meant to illustrate the range of
facilities available in other communities, as well as typical membership fees. Table 11 contains
information on five Twin Cities' community centers including Shoreview.
The following points highlight our analysis of the selected community centers.
Of the five community centers, The Grove in Inver Grove Heights is the largest. It offers
an indoor water park and full aquatic center, as well as an ice arena and a skate park.
[] The Eagan Community Center is the only facility without a pool.
[] The facilities in Chaska and Maplewood offer performing arts theaters.
All of the facilities offer gymnasium space, fitness areas and walking/running tracks.
TABLE 11
FEATURES/AMENITIES COMPARISON
METRO AREA COMMUNIlW/CENTERS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
b [Vool ........
Children's Pool/Shdes
Sam~Ste~oom
~u~b~l
~eater
Source: Ma~eld Research,
[] The community centers shown in Table 11 tend to have an equal amount or sometimes
more features and amenities compared to the private health and fitness clubs shown in
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 31
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
Table 10. While the fitness and court areas are similar at the corrauunity centers and the
heaklv' fitness clubs, what differentiates the community centers fi.om the private
health/fitness clubs/s their aquatic facilities. Communky center pools tend to emphasize
family swimming facil/ties and often include a variety of unique amen/ties such as
waterslides, mushroom showers, and water-walks.
Other amenities at cornmunky centers that are not typically found at private health clubs
include banquet and meeting spaces. Some of the private clubs have meeting rooms, but
they are typically reserved only for members.
Maplewood and Chaska Conmiun/ty Centers also have performing arts theaters, where
community events such as concerts and plays are held regularly throughout the year.
The Shorev/ew Community Center has an outdoor skateboard and inline skating park.
Passes are $2.00 for a youth and $3.00 for an adult.
All of the facilities also offer childcare. According to a representative in Inver Grove
Heights, their full-time day care facility has helped to attract members. Members receive
a discount on childcare at the facility. The Shoreview facility only offers childcare for
members while they are using the club. According to a representative, the childcare does
not pay for itself, as they only charge members $3.00 per hour.
Membership Dues and Daily Admission Prices
Tables 12 show the annual membership dues and daily admission prices at the public and private
health clubs, as well as the selected community centers. The following points highlight this
analysis.
For the Family Service Center in New Brighton, the annual mernbership fees range fi.om
$130 for a resident youth to $435 for resident families. Non-res/dent membership dues
range fi.om approximately 20% to 60% more than res/dent dues. Memberships are not
available at the Moundsview center.
Daily fees are ar>om $5.00 per pc, son at New Brighton and are the same for residents and
non-residents. At Moundsv/ew, residents pay either $1.00 (youth) or $2.00, while non-
residents pay $3.00 and $5.00 per visit.
As shown in Table 12, membership fees among Metro Area community centers vary by
each center. Overall, the average membership fee for resident aduks is $37 per month on
a month to month payment plan or $315 per year annually ($26/per month).
" On average, non-resident membership fees are 26 percent higher than resident
membership fees.
MAXFllgLD RESEARCH INC. 32
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
Membership dues and walk-in admissions at the Chaska Community Center are
substantially less expensive compared to the other community centers shown. The Grove
at Inver Grove Heights has the highest membership fees, while Maplewood tends to have
the highest walk-in admissions among the centers.
Typically youth and senior rates are the same at the centers that offer these rates.
Chaska and Shoreview do not charge enrollment fees. A representative at a local
community center indicated that enrollment fees are crucial for covering upfront costs
related to the administrative tasks involved in enrolling new members and suggested that
all new community centers include them
Memberships tend to be less expensive at the selected community centers compared to
the privately owned health and fitness clubs, especially for resident families. Of the
private health clubs, Northwest has the highest membership fees overall.
The median membership fee overall is between $34 and $45 per month for an adult,
which is comparable to the community centers profiled, but lower than the YMCA and
Northwest.
Pending Community Centers and Health/Fitness Clubs
Maxfield Research Inc. interv/ewed a staff member from the cities in the Pr/mary Market Area to
determine if a community or recreation center is planned. The only pending project is the
Salvation Army Kroc Center. Five cities in Minnesota have applied for $12 Million to fund the
development of a community, recreation, education and performing arts center. The five
Minnesota cities are competing against communities in other states in the Midwest; there is no
indication at this point that a Kroc Center will be built anywhere in Minnesota.
Components of a Salvation Army/Kroc Center:
Family Service Center
Head Start/Child Development Center
Holiday Food/Toy Distribution Center
[] Recreation Field: Soccer, Flag Football, Lacrosse, Walking Track
[] Challenge Course: High/Low Rope Elements, 30-foot tall Climbing Tower
[] Gymnasiurrr Basketball, Volleyball, Badminton, Youth/Adult Sports Leagues
Fitness Area: Kickboxing, Personal Training, Weight Training, Aerobics, Pilates,
Yoga Conditioning
[] Recreation Room: Air Hockey, Billiards, Table Tennis, Foosball, Board Games
~ Ice Area: Public Skate, Youth/Adult Hockey Leagues, Skating Lessons, Freestyle
Skating
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 34
CURRENT MARKET ANALYSIS
Aquatics: 25-meter Competkion Pool, Recreation Pool, Therapy Pool, Lap Swim,
Swim Lessons, Aquatic Exercise, Adult Water Polo Leagues
' Performing Arts Center: 600-seat Theater, Vocal/Instrumental Practice Rooms, Dance
Studio, V/sual Art Studio
[] Education Training Center: Intemet-based Library, Fireside Reading Room,
Computer Lab, Classrooms
Minneapolis was among the five cities that submitted an application for the project. According
to the public relations firm who submitted the application on behalf of Minneapolis, potential
sites for the center are in North and Northeast Minneapolis. A decision on the five applications
from Minnesota is expected in April of 2005. If the Kroc Center was built in Minneapolis, it
would be directly competitive with a new conmiunity/recreation center in Columbia Heights.
Other than the pending Salvation Army/Kroc Center, there are no pending or planned conmiunity
or recreational facilities in the Columbia Heights Market Area.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 35
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
Demand Assessment
In this section, we calculate demand for health/fitness club memberships in the Columbia
Heights Primary Market Area and project membership and usage (including members and walk-
in users) for a potential new center in Columbia Heights. Table 13 shows our demand
calculations for 2005, 2010 and 2015, based on the estimated Market Area population, the
propensity of people to join health/fitness clubs and average annual usage per member, derived
from industry statistics compiled by the International Health and Racquet Sportsclub Association
(IHRSA). The following points summarize our demand methodology shown in Table 13.
2005 calculations would indicate existing or pent-up demand for a new community center in
the area, while demand for 2010 and 2015 indicate future demand. The following
discussion prov/des an analysis of the future demand, as a new community center is likely to
be built after 2005.
In 2010, the Pr/mary Market Area is estimated to have 72,700 residents. According to the
IHRSA/American Sports Data Health Club Trend Report, 12 percent of the Nation's
population is members of health/fitness facilities. A local community center interv/ewed for
this study indicated that they estimate that 13 percent of local residents join a health center.
Applying 13 percent to the local resident base, there are an estimated 9,440 potential
members in the Primary Market Area.
Next we subtract the number of members at the Curves and Ladies Workout Express clubs
in the Primary Market Area (less 15 percent to account for transfer of memberships). This
results in an estimated 8,300 potential members of health centers in the PMA in 2010.
Next, we adjust the estimated number of members to reflect memberships, since nearly all
facilities offer family memberships. Based on the current membership base at selected
community centers throughout the Metro Area, we estimate an average of 2.3 members per
membership. This results in about 3,600 potential memberships in the Primary Market
Area.
Char reqearr,h r~xr~alecl 9 fret91 rn~rnh~-'oh~n base '-~'
in the Primary Market Area. Subtracting these memberships (less 15 percent to account for
transfer of memberships from competitive facilities) resuk in excess demand for about 2,100
memberships in the PMA in 2010. We should note that this demand calculation may
underestimate some potential members, as some people who are currently members of other
facilities in the area (especially Columbia Heights residents) would choose to purchase
memberships at a new facility in Columbia Heights for a variety of reasons -- it may be
closer to their home or work, the facility would be newer and/or preferable to their current
club, and/or the membership rates are less expensive.
~LD RESEARCH INC. 36
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
TABLE 13
PROJECTED ANNUAL 1VIEMBERSHEPS AND I~TAL USAGE
COLUMBIA BEIGItTS COMMUNIrY CEBFrER
2010 & 2915
Prinmry Mail,et Area Population 70,700 72,700 74,200
(limm) Pe~ent that join health/illness faofliti~ ~ 13% x 13% 13% 13%
(equals) Estimated potential memben in thc PMA = 9,191 9,451 9,646
(minus) Existing memberships at Curves/LWE in PMA 1 ? 169 1 r169 1 ~ 169
(equals) Estimated potential members in PMA = 8,022 8,282 8,477
(divided by) Eaimated 2.3 membevdmember~hip at conmamity centerPacalth club /' 2.3 2.3 2.3
(equals) Estimated potential memberships for eonnmm/ty center/health club = 3,488 3,601 3,686
(minus) Existing memberships at eommanity eentergaealth clubs in PMA 1,488 1~488 1~488
(equals) Excess demand for memberships fur community centerfhealth club in PMA = 2?000 27113 2r198
[plus) Demand from Housel~lcls outside of the PMA + i 25% 25%
(equals) Demand fur new health center in PMA = 2,501 2,642 2,748
[times} Estimated eaptme ~ato for new eeaterin Columb/a Heights x 15% - 20% 15% - 20% 15% - 20%
(times) Average number of member visits mmually x 92 92 92
(equals) Estimated mmmfl visits by membtas = 34,500 - 46,000 36,800 - 48,760 37,720 - 50,560
(plus) Walk-in users ~ 75 (,W. l~to95(},r. 5)pur&[x360da[sp~r~,e~r + 27?000 27,000 34~00
Somme: Max~eld Rcsemch~ Inc.
We believe that a new facility in Columbia Heights (without a pool) could capture 15 to 20
percent of the demand for health/fitness club memberships in the PMA. This resuks in a
projected annual membership at a new center in Columbia Heights of 400 to 530
memberships in 2010.
Following this same calculation for 2005 results in existing demand for 375 to 500,
indicating that a new community center must be designed to meet the needs of existing
PMA households.
Following this same calculation for 2015, results in demand for 410 to 550 memberships in
Columbia Heights.
According to IHRSA statistics, health club members visit their facility an average of 92
days per year. In 2010, this corresponds with an estimated 36,800 to 48,760 annual visits by
potential members in Columbia Heights. We add an estimated 27,000 walk-in users in year
one, an average of 75 per day, for a total projected usage of 63,800 to 75,760 in 2010.
Applying the same methodology in 2015 results in 37,720 to 50,560 visits by members and
34,200 walk-in users, for a total projected usage of 71,920 to 84,760 visits in 2015. For
2015, we have estimated an average of 95 walk-in users per day, compared to 75 per day in
MAX17IELD RESEARCH INC. 37
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
2010. We believe an increase in usage by walk-in users will occur as the facility has
marketed for a longer period of time.
Conclusions
Based on our demand calculation, we believe that sufficient demand exists to support a new
community/recreational facility in Columbia Heights. Because there is a significant supply of
privately owned health clubs in the Secondary Market Area, we recommend developing a
community center concept that is targeted to local households' needs.
Demographic Indicators
Some notable demographic shifts are occurrhig in Columbia Heights and the surrounding area~
First, the majority of the population is aging in place. This is happening in most inner-ring
communities in the Metro Area. Communities like Columbia Heights want to continue to attract
younger families and see reinvestment in their existing housing stock. As shown in the school
enrollment data, the area is attracting a diverse younger population, which illustrates the second
demographic shift. These shifts are creating an opportunity for a new community and
recreational facility to provide programs and amenities that will appeal to a wide variety of
community users such as:
' Older adults: will be price sensitive and desire a friendly environment exercise in.
Younger immigrant families: Different ethnic groups value exercise differently.
Some groups do not allow women to exercise in the same facility/room as men, while
others do not hold exercise as an important activity.
Young non-immigrant families: As housing options become available for older
households, their existing single-family homes can become available for young
families, who are either buying an entry-level home or moving up into something
larger as their housing needs change. These families are price sensitive and will be
attracted to the relatively affordable home values in Columbia Heights.
Single aduks or couples without children: These people will be attracted to the new
housing product that is pending in Columbia Heights, as well as the Apache Plaza site
in St. Anthony. This group will also be price sensitive regarding membership fees,
but will primarily value the convenience of a health club nearby.
MAXleIELD RESEARCH INC. 3 8
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
Recommended Amenities
We recommend incorporating the following amenities and features to attract local households to
the new facility.
Gymnasium space: two full court gymnasiums that will be used for youth and adult
league basketball, in addition to other groups; A walking/nmning track should be
included either level with the gymnasium area or we recommend that an elevated
track be built above the gym floor.
Fitness Area: including aerobic machines (jogging, steps or elliptical), weight
machines, free weights, stretching area and TVs.
Aerobic studios: for group fitness classes. We suggest providing flee classes for
members, as well as allowing non-members to take classes for a fee. Classes targeted
to different age groups: young adults (i.e. kickboxing, pilates, yoga), older adults (i.e.
dancing classes, games), children and parents .with children. Also, cons/der
incorporating classes targeted to different ethnic groups.
Childcare play area: we suggest including an area that can be rented out for birthday
parties and other events, similar to New Brighton's Eagle's Nest. If possible, also
include full day care on the Site, either as part of the center or separate and offer a
discount for members.
[] Senior Center: a room/area for activities and meals for senior groups, members and
non-members.
Teen Cemer: small activity room with a pool table, or foosball, air hockey or other
amenities that will appeal to teenagers.
Concessions area: We recommend a centrally located concessions area that would be
available to members and to guests attending special events. The concessions area
could serve snacks and beverages, but would not serve meals unless pre-prepared.
Concessions would also service small meetings at the community center with limited
refreshments.
Some examples of unique amenities included in facilities throughout the country are:
A golf practice room or simulator,
A police precinct;
· Arts and cratts area with kilns; and
[] Performing arts stage.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 39
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
We do not recommend including an aquatic center. Our demand calculations were based on a
facility with fitness areas and gymnasium space, excluding a pool. While a pool attracts some
members, people not interested in using it, will not want to pay for it. Therefore a facility
without a pool and with a lower annual membership fee, will attract potential members who are
price-sensitive. As the incomes in the Market Area tend to be lower than the incomes of people
attracted to large facilities with a wider variety of amenities, we believe that the potential
members in the Market Area will be concerned that they are getting the most value for their
money at a new facility.
Health Care Partnership
Most of the health clubs and conm~unity centers profiled in this study have parmered with health
insurance providers to reimburse members a portion of their monthly membership fee if the
member Uses the club a certain number of times per month. This reimbursement can often be up
to half of the membership fee making it an attractive incentive for members. One representative
from a Metro Area community center indicated that the partnership helped to sell more
memberships; while another pointed out that it increased member usage of the facility
significantly. We recommend providing this incentive for members if possible, as many
potent/al members will choose to join a health club with a health insurance reimbursement.
Recommended Fee Structure
Based on our recommended amenities and features, we have developed a recommended fee
structure for the potential community center which is shown in Table 14 below. To attract
members who may not be familiar with a health club, we recommend providing free one-week
trial memberships so that potential members can become familiar with the facility before joining.
TABLE 14
RECOMMENDED FEES FOR POTENTIAL COMMUNITY CENTER
CITY OF COLUMBIA H~EIGHTS
NOVEMBER 2004
Monthly Fee for
Annual Membership Annual Membership Enrollment Fee Walk-in Admission
Resident Non Res. Resident Non Res. Resident Non Res. Resident Non Res.
Adult $240 - $300 $20 - $25 $50 ~ $75 $6.00 - $8.00
Couple $375 - $425 $31 - $35 $60 - $85 $10.00 - $14.00
Family $425 - $475 $35 - $40 $75 - $100 $18.00 - $22.00
Senior $175 - $200 $15 - $17 $30 - $40 $5.00 - $6.00
Youth $175 - $200 $15 - $17 $30 - $40 $5.00 - $6.00
Source: Maxfield Research, Inc.
Throughout our interviews with representatives of local community centers we found that all
Metro Area community centers had a budget shortfall that was covered by a variety of funding
mechanisms, for example: antenna fees, electric fund or other non-operating revenues, building
fund, or the general fund. Anywhere from 2 percent to 41 percent of the community center's
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 40
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
operating budget was not covered by membership fees, while the average budget shortfall was 19
percent.
We believe that there is sufficient demand to develop a new community and recreational facility
in Columbia Heights. While we recormnend that the facility be designed to meet the needs of the
existing aging population in the Primary Market Area, we also recognize that the area is
becoming more diverse. Therefore, the facility should be designed as such to meet the needs of a
wide variety of users, including new households who will be attracted to the redevelopment sites
in Columbia Heights and St. Anthony. A new facility will be supported by existing households,
but should also serve as a community amenity that will attract new households into Columbia
Heights. A conm~unity and recreational facility often serves as a marketing tool to attract new
households, as well as reinvestment in a conanunity. The facility should be designed for future
flexibility and should allow for future expansion as the community center space needs will
change in the future.
Projected Gym Usage
Table 15 shows an estimate of gym usage from school groups and other users, both recreational
gym users and organized sports groups for Columbia Heights. The table was developed to
reflect peak usage during the winter months. Usage during the summer months would be less.
In discussions with staff from the High School and from the Columbia Heights Recreation
Department, both concurred that there is no additional gym space currently available in the area
and that many groups could be using more time if facilities were available. Elementary and
Middle School gyms are being used where poss~le to provide some gym time for youth leagues
and youth traveling teams although these facilities are small and often place the teams at a
disadvantage when competing against teams that are able to have more hours of practice and at
facilities where there are full courts available.
Option 1 allows for two gyms to be constructed, one at a location near the school and a second
gym at the community center. The only benefit to this option is that they school would not have
to bus students to utilize the gym space for school classes and school-related activities. If the
facility is located away from the school, it is likely that school usage would be limited to only the
late afternoon and evening hours, leaving a second gym space available for Open Gym for most
of the daytime hours.
The disadvantage of this option is that it limits the amount of tournament play that could be
attracted to the facility (a potential revenue generator), because tournaments typically prefer to
have more than one court. Constructing two separate facilities would also increase costs.
With Option 1, we estimate an average usage rate of 85% to 90% for both facilities including
school usage.
Option 2 would combine the facilities into one location, at the proposed community center. We
estimate that the average usage rate for both gyms combined would drop to 60% because we
assume that the school would not use the gym during the day for class and sports overflow as it
would be too difficuk to bus students back and forth. However, we believe that the school would
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 41
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
utilize gym space at the community center if necessary during after school hours during the
winter months when it reaches its capacity for practice space and meet space (games) among
various sports groups.
At this time, the users that would generate revenue to the facility would be some special events,
sports camps, and outside tournament play that would pay to use the facilities. These events
would also generate additional revenue to the concessions area.
Most of the usage planned for the gyms will come from school groups and from recreational
sports users who will not be paying directly to use the facilities. Once these groups are in the
facility, they will be using the facility, but not paying additional fees. This may be somewhat
problematic for those who will be paying a membership fee yet may not be able to use the gym
space when they want to.
Note: We acknowledge that there will be a significant amount ofusage of two gyms during
the peak winter months. It will be necessary to develop and maintain a priority strategy so
that both gyms do not become "over-programmed" during the peak hours of 5pm to 10pm
and during the daytime on weekends, thereby excluding a sufficient amount of usage from
the general membership who are paying additional fees to use the facility.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 42
DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
TABLE 15
PROJECTED GYM USAGE
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTER
November 2004
Projected Peak Usage - Winter Season (October through Mid-March)
,Option 1 - Two Gyms (Two locations) Option 2 - Two Gyms (One Location)
7:00am
8:00am
9:00am
Senior Am'. S~nior Aer. Senior Aer.
10:00am
1 l:00am
12:00am
,Tom
Floor Con~s/
Men's BB
7:00am School Uso School Use School Use School Use School Use
8:00am School Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
9:00am School Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
lO:OOam School Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
School Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
School Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
School Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
School Use School Use School Use School Use School Use
Games/
Band Cone.
Sources: Columbia Heights Park and Recreation; Columbia Heights Schools; Maxfield Research Inc.
MAXFIE~ RESEARCH INC. 43
'7
CI'TY OF COLUMBTA HETGHTS FTRE DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
SUB3ECT:
DATE:
WALT FEHST
ASSTSTANT CHTEF GARY GORMAN
HOUSTNG MATNTNANCE PROGRAM
/ /2oo5
Part of my duties when I became Assistant Fire Chief was to look at all
aspects of the Residential Maintenance Program. The program is very beneficial
to the City but through the years has become very inefficient in the way it has
evolved through code, policy, and legal changes.
Enclosed is my proposal of an overall policy that will cover licensing and
inspections for all property. The goal with this policy is to have one department
in charge of all property licensing and maintenance. The only exception would
be property that is under a building permit. Once a building permit has expired or
is signed off, the property will be maintained by this policy.
The one part of our inspection program that is above all others is our
inspectors and office staff. The fact that most of our inspectors and staff grew up
in this City and some still call Columbia Heights home, shows a true dedication to
making this community a better place to live. The inspectors also feel very
frustrated with the "system" that is currently in place and all have given valuable
input into this document. Policies and procedures on paper are meaningless
unless you have a good staff to make it work. We have that good staff.
The first part of this change is to look at the cost of running this program. I
have gone through our 2004 adopted budget to use as a base. The information
provided in regards to time, number of inspections, etc is based off of the year-
end totals for 2003. Any changes to our program in the future will cause some of
these totals to change. I have mentioned these in the separate budget line item
explanations.
H:\HMC RMC Final Final Proposal.doc
RESIDENTIAL MAINTENANCE CODE
OPERATING EXPENSE
1010 Rental Licensing Clerk - $46252.00 $46,252.00
1 OO%
1010 Asst. Fire Chief - 40% $79998.00 $31,999.00
1010 Inspectors - pro-rated $500,300.00 $45,816.00
2000 Office supplies - 50% $500.00 $250.00
2011 Computer Equip. - pro-rated $6000.00 $500.00
2020 Computer Supplies - 40% $800.00 $320.00
2030 Printing - 60% $500.00 $300.00
3210 Telephone 12.5% $4142,00 $518:00
3220 Postage - 80% $3150.00 $2520.00
4000 Copy Machine - 80% $1544.00 $1235.00 ~
TOTAL $645 ;190!00 $129 ;710 !00
1010 -The Clerk Typist duties include: licensing, appointments, phone calls,
complaints, inspection paperwork, counsel resolutions, revocations for all
residential property under the Residential Maintenance Code.
The Assistant Fire Chief oversees the Residential Maintenance Program. Up
until the year 2002 this position dedicated at least 80% of their time to this
program. In 2003 John Crelly was attempting to reduce this to 50%. It is my
goal to have this program run at a level so the Asst. Chief's time is below 50%.
The Firefighters time is based on a formula that 2 inspectors on a shift costs
$57.27 per hour. There are approximately 209 inspection days a year based on
inspections only being performed Monday thru Thursday each week. Less
holidays the number is in the 200 to 203 day range. 7 hours of a shift is
dedicated to inspections. 4 of the 7 hours statistically are for Residential
Maintenance inspections. 4 hours x 200 shifts equals 800 hours. 800 hours x
$57.27 per hour equals $45,816.00. With the elimination of many follow-up
inspections and a different policy for owner occupied single-family homes the
time per shift dedicated to RMC inspections could be reduced.
2011 - The cost of computers, printers, and software are charged to the
department. The life of this equipment is pro-rated over 4 years.
The other line items are based on a percentage of use that is attributed to the
Residential Maintenance Program.
As can be seen, the total cost to the City for the Residential Maintenance
Program is $111,706.00. This total cost should be divided among the Rental
Property owners and the rest of the City is some fashion. In 2003, one third of
inspections made were rental property. The other two thirds were owner
occupied single-family homes. Based on time involved, rental property
consumes closer to 70% of our time due to the fact the inspections take longer
and the licensing process also takes time. Inspections of owner occupied single
family homes has pumped 1500 to 1800 inspections into our system each spring
causing the office to be 3 to 5 weeks behind by the end of the summer. This is
not acceptable in order to maintain our scheduled time frames and the quality of
our work. Quadrant type inspections cannot continue as in the past, but we may
be able modify this system to not overwhelm our office.
The current license fee schedule for residential rental properties does not cover
the cost of doing business nor is the fee schedule fair. Below is the current fee
schedule, and based on current properties, what the total license fees should be
for 2004.
CURRENT LICENSE FEE SCHEDULE
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY
Rental License - 1 or 2
rental units
Rental License - 3 or 4
rental units
Rental License - 5 or
more rental units
Reinspection Fee
No Show Fee
License reinstatement after
revocation or suspension.
$22.50 per unit
$75.00 per building
$75.00 for the first 4 rental
units, plus $10.00 per unit
over 4.
$100.00 for 1st and 2nd
reinspections. $300.00 for
3rd and subsequent
reinspections.
$100.00 per no-show event.
10 times the annual license
fee
Current property totals as of October 2004:
1 242 242 $ 22.50 $ 5,445.00
2 217 434 $ 45.00 $ 9,765.00
3 14 42 $ 75.00 $ 1,050.00
4 38 152 $ 75.00 $ 2,850.00
5 ~, 20 $ 85.00 $ 340.00
6 8 48 $ 95.00 $ 760.00
7 15 105 $ 105.00 $ 1,575.00
8 ~ 48 $ 115.00 $ 690,00
11 29 319 $ 145.00 $ 4,205.00
12 !2 24 $ 155.00 $ 310.00
14 2 28 $ 175.00 $ 350.00
17 9 153 $ 205.00 $ 1,845.00
20 4 ~0 $ 235.00 $ 940.00
22 2 ¢4 $ 255.00 $ 510.00
34 1 34 $ 375.00 $ 375.00
35 2 !70 $ 385.00 $ 770.00
40 1 40 $ 435.00 $ 435.00
75 1 75 $ 785.00 $ 785.00
77 1 77 $ 805.00 $ 805.00
85 1 85 $ 885.00 $ 885.00
146 1 146 $ 1,495.00 $ 1,495.00
As can be seen we have a very diverse group of rental property buildings. The
highest percentage is single and duplexes. These two types are also the most
time consuming in regards to inspections, problems found, and the number of
revocations. Most of our larger buildings have only elderly populations with on
site caretakers or maintenance staffs.
The fee schedule is unfair in regards to some of the smaller buildings. One or
two units are $22.50 a unit. Three units would be $25.00 a unit. Four units
would be $18.75 a unit with five units only costing $17.00 a unit. This is too
much of a variation per unit. My proposal would be a straight fee per unit.
Larger buildings would pay less per unit but all the units would be the same. As
you can see by the chart above, our buildings naturally fall into three size ranges:
1 thru 10 units, 11 thru 30 units, and 31or more units.
One last item on the current fee schedule would be the re-inspection fees. Later
when we get into the proposed inspection schedule, there will not be 1st, 2nd, or
3rd re-inspections. This will eliminate all re-inspection fees. Fees were very hard
to enforce and consumed a large amount of office staff time for billing and
handling. We are proposing to continue the No Show Fee and the License
Reinstatement Fee. No-shows at scheduled inspections continue to be a
problem but not as often since we enacted the no-show fee. Revocations will be
used for enforcement most of the time. To reinstate a revocated license will cost
10 times the annual license fees. This will cover the cost of the revocation
process. This is in our current policy but hasn't been enforced due to the
ordinance language was never changed to allow it. We are planning to change
the ordinance language when we update the ordinance.
LICENSE FEE PROPOSALS
Attached are 6 license fee proposals. The proposals cover 55% to 90% of the
costs of the program.
No. of No. of TOtal# COst pet Cost per COst/unit TOtal
units BUildings of units Unit BUilding /Month
1 242 242 $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ 2.92 $ 8,470.00
2 217 434 $ 35.00 $ 70.00 $ 2.92 $15,190.00
3 14 42 $ 35.00 $ 105.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,470.00
4 38 152 $ 35.00 $ 140.00 $ 2.92 $ 5,320.00
5 4 20 $ 35.00 $ 175.00 $ 2.92 $ 700.00
6 8 48 $ 35.00 $ 210.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,680.00
7 15 105 $ 35.00 $ 245.00 $ 2.92 $ 3,675.00
8 6 48 $35.00 $ 280.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,680.00
11 29 319 $ 30.00 $ 330.00 $ 2.50 $ 9,570.00
12 2 24 $ 30.00 $ 360.00 $2.50 $ 720.00
14 2 28 $ 30.00 $ 420.00 $ 2.50 $ 840.00
17 9 153 $ 30.00 $ 510.00 $ 2.50 $ 4.590.00
20 4 80 $ 30.00 $ 600.00 $ 2.50 $ 2,400.00
22 ~ 44 $ 30.00 $ 660.00 $ 2.50 $ 1,320.00
34 1 34 $ 25.00 $ 850.00 $ 2.08 $ 850.00
35 2 70 $ 25.00 $ 875.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,750.00
40 1 40 $ 25.00 $1,000.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,000.00
75 1 75 $ 25.00 $1,875.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,875.00
77 1 77 $ 25.00 $1,925.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,925.00
85 1 95 $ 25.00 $2,125.00 $ 2.08 $ 2,125,00
146 1 146 $ 25.00 $3,650.00 $ 2.08 $ 3,650.00
600 226 $70,800
No. of No. of Total # COSt Per Cost per Cost/Unit TOtal
units BUildings of units unit Building /Month
1 242 242 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 3.75 $10,890.00
2 217 434 $ 45.OO $ 90.00i $ 3.75 $19,530.00
3 14 42 $ 45.00 $ 135.00 $ 3.75 $ 1,890.00
4 38 152 $ 45.00 $ 180.00 $ 3.75 $ 6,840.00
5 4 20 $ 45.00 $ 225.00 $ 3.75 $ 900.00
6 8 48 $ 45.00 $ 270.00 $ 3.75 $ 2,160.00
7 15 105 $ 45.00 $ 315.00 $ 3.75 $ 4,725.00
8 6 48 $ 45.00 $ 360.00 $ 3.75 $ 2,160.00
11 29 319 $ 40.00 $ 440.00 $ 3.33 $12,760.00
12 2 24 $ 40.00 $ 480.00 $ 3.33 $ 960.00
14 2 28 $ 40.00 $ 560.00 $ 3.33 $ 1,120.00
17 9 i153 $ 40.00 $ 680.00 $ 3.33 $ 6,120.00
20 4 80 $ 40.00 $ 800.00 $ 3.33 $ 3,200.00
22 2 44 $ 40.00 $ 880.00 $ 3.33 $ 1,760.00
34 1 34 $ 35.00 $1,190.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,190.00
35 2 70 $ 35.00i$1,225.00 $ 2.92 $ 2,450.00
40 1 40 $ 35.00$1,400.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,400.00
75 1 75 $ 35.00 $2,625.00 $ 2.92 $ 2,625.00
77 1 77 $ 35.00 $2,695.00 $ 2.92 $ 2,695.00
85 1 85 $ 35.00 $2,975.00 $ 2.92 $ 2,975.00
146 1 146 $ 35.00 $5,110.00 $ 2.92 $ 5,110.00
TOTAL 600 2266 $93,460;00
NO, of No. of Total # CoSt per CoSt Per COSt/unit Total
UnitS BUildings of units unit BUilding /Month
1 242 242 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 8.33 $24,200.00
_~ 217 434 $ 75.00 $ 150.00 $ 6.25 $32,550.00
3 14 42 $ 50.00 $ 150.00 $ 4.17 $ 2,100.00
4 38 152 $ 30.00 $ 120.00 $ 2.50 $ 4,560.00
5 4 20 $ 30.00 $ 150.00 $ 2.50 $ 600.00
6 8 48 $ 30.00 $ 180.00 5 2.50 $ 1,440.00
7 15 105 $ 30.00 $ 210.00 $ 2.50 $ 3,150.00
8 6 48 $ 30.00 $ 240.00 $ 2.50 $ 1.440_00
11 29 319 $ 25.00 $ 275.00 $ 2.08 $ 7,975.00
12 2 24 $ 25.00 $ 300.00 $ 2.08 $ 600.00
14 2 28 $ 25.00 $ 350.00 $ 2.08 $ 700.00
17 9 153 $ 25.00 $ 425.00 $ 2.08 $ 3,825.00
20 4 80 $ 25.00 $ 500.00 $ 2.08 $ 2,000.00
22 2 44 $ 25.00 $ 550.00 $ 2.08 $ 1.100.00 i
34 1 34 $ 20.00 $ 680.00 $ 1.67 $ 680.00
35 2 70 $ 20.00 $ 700.00 $ 1.67 $ 1,400.00
40 1 40 $ 20.00 $ 800.00 $ 1.67 $ 800.00
75 1 75 $ 20.00 $1.500.00 $ 1.67 $ 1,500.00
77 1 77 $ 20.00 $1,540.00 $ 1.67 $ 1,540.00
85 1 85 $ 20.00 $1,700.00 $ 1.67 $ 1,700.00
146 1 146 $ 20.00 $2,920.00 $ 1.67 $ 2,920.00
T 600 226 $96,780.00
No. of No. of TOtal # Cost Per CoSt per Cost/unit Total
units BUildings °fUnits Unit BUilding /MOnth
1 242 242 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 12.50 $36,300.00
2 217 434 $ 75.00 $ 150.00 $ 6.25 $32,550.00
3 14 42 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,050.00
4 38 152 : $ 25.00 $ 100.00 $ 2.08 $ 3,800.00
5 4 20 $ 25.00 $ 125.00 $ 2.08 $ 500.00
6 8 48 $ 25.00 $ 150.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,200.00
7 15 105 $ 25.00 $ 175.00 $ 2.08 $ 2,625.00
8 6 48 $ 25.00 $ 200.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,200.00
11 29 319 $ 20.00 $ 220.00 $ 1.67 $ 6,380.00
12 2 24 $ 20.00 $ 240.00 $ 1.67 $ 480.00
14 2 28 $ 20.00 $ 280.00 $ 1.67 $ 560.00
17 9 153 $ 20.00 $ 340.00 $ 1.67 $ 3,060.00
20 4 80 $ 20.00 $ 400.00 $ 1.67 $ 1,600.00
2
2 2 44 $ 20.00 $ 440.00 $ 1.67 $ 880.00
34 1 34 $ 15.00 $ 510.00 $ 1.25 $ 510.00
35 2 70 $ 15.00 $ 525.00 $ 1.25 $ 1,050.00
40 1 40 $ 15.00 $ 600.00 $ 1.25 $ 600.00
75 1 75 $ 15.00 $1,125.00 $ 125 $ 1,125.00
77 1 77 $ 15.00 $1,155.00 $ 1.25 $ 1,155.00
85 1 85 $ 15.00 $1,275.00 $ 1.25 $ 1,275.00
146 1 146 $ 15.00 $2,190.00 $ 1.25 $ 2,190.00
TOTAL 600 2266 :. $100,090.00
No. of No. of Total # Cost per COSt Per CoSt/unit Total
units BUildings of units Unit Building /Month
1 242 242 $ 90.00 $ 90.00 $ 7.50 $21,780.00
2 217 434 $ 75.00 $ t50.00 $ 6.25 $32,550.00
3 14 42 $ 35.00 $ 105.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,470.00
4. 38 152 $ 35.00 $ 140.00 $ 2.92 $ 5,320.00
5 4 20 $ 35.00 $ 175.00 $ 2.92 $ 700.00
6 8 48 $ 35.00 $ 210.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,680.00
7 15 105 $ 35.00 $ 245.00 $ 2.92 $ 3,675.00
8 8 48 $ 35.00 $ 280.00 $ 2.92 $ 1,680.00
11 29 319 $ 30.00 $ 330.00 $ 2.50 $ 9,570.00
t2 2 24 $ 30.00 $ 360.00 $ 2.50 $ 720.00
14 2 28 $ 30.00 $ 420.00 $ 2.50 $ 840.00
17 9 153 $ 30.00 $ 510.00 $ 2.50 $ 4,590.00
20 4 80 $ 30.00 $ 600.00 $ 2.50 $ 2,400.00
22 2 44 $ 30.00 $ 660.00 $ 2.50 $ 1,320.00
34 1 34 $ 25.00 $ 850.00 $ 2.08 $ 850.00
35 2 70 $ 25.00 $ 875.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,750.00
40 1 40 $ 25.00 $1,000.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,000.00
75 I 75 $ 25.00 $1,875.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,875.00
77 1 77 $ 25.00 $1,925.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,925.00
85 1 _85 $ 25.00 $2,125.00 $ 2.08 $ 2,125.00
146 1 146 $ 25.00 $3,650.00 $ 2.08 $ 3,650.00
TOTAL 600 2266 $101,470.00
NO. of No. of total # Cost per CoSt Per COSt/unit TOtal
units BUildings ~funits unit BUilding /MOnth
1 242 242 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 $ 4.58 $13,310.00
2 217 434 $ 55.00 $ 110.00 $ 4.58 $23,870.00
3 14 42 $ 55.00 $ 165.00 $ 4.58 $ 2,310.00
4 38 152 $ 55.00 $ 220.00 $ 4.58 $ 8,360.00
5 4 20 $ 55.00 $ 275.00 $ 4.58 $ 1,100.00
6 8 48 $ 55.00 $ 330.00 $ 4.58 $ 2,640.00
7 15 105 $ 55.00 $ 385.00 $ 4.58 $ 5,775.00
8 6 48 $ 55.00 $ 440.00 $ 4.58 $ 2,640.00
11 29 319 $ 50.00 $ 550.00 $ 4.17 $15,950.00
12 2 24 $ 50.00 $ 600.00 $ 4.17 $ 1,200.00
14 2 28 $ 50.00 $ 700.00 $ 4.17 $ 1,400.00
17 9 153 $ 50.00 $ 850.00 $ 4.17 $ 7,650.00
20 4 80 $ 50.00 $1,000.00 $ 4.17 $ 4,000.00
22 2 44 $ 50.00 $1,100.00 $ 4.17 $ 2,200.00
34 1 34 $ 45.00 $1,530.00 $ 3.75 $ 1,530.00
35 2 70 $ 45.00 $1,575.00 $ 3.75 $ 3,150.00
40 1 40 $ 45.00 $1,800.00 $ 3.75 $ 1,800.00
75 1 75 $ 4500 $3,375.00 $ 3.75 $ 3,375.00
77 1 77 $ 45.00 $3,465.00 $ 3.75 $ 3,465.00
85 1 85 $ 45.00 $3,825.00 $ 3.75 $ 3,825.00
146 1 146 $ 45.00 $6,570.00 $ 3.75 $ 6,570.00
TOTAL 600 2266 - : $116,120.00
1 242 242 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 6.25 $18,150.00
$ ; 6000 $ 120!00 $ ;5!00; $26;04.0!00 ;; ;
3 14 42 $ 55.00 $ 165.00 $ 4.58 $ 2,310.00
152 ; $ 5500 I $ 220L00; $; 4;58
5 4 20 $ 55.00 $ 275.00 $ 4.58 $ 1,100.00
;$;;5500 ;$;33000;
7 15 105 $ 55.00 $ 385.00 $ 4.58 $ 5,775.00
4.8 : ; $ ;55!00 $ 4.4000 $ ;;4.:58: ;;$ ;2;64.0!00;:;
11 29 319 $ 45.00 $ 495.00 $ 3.75 $14,355.00
12 2 24 $; ; 4.5!00 $ 54.0:00 $ :3:~5:
14 2 28 $ 45.00 $ 630.00 $ 3.75 $ 1,260.00
9; ; 153 : ; $ 4500 ;$ 56500 $ :3i~5 $ 6;885~00 ; :
20 4 80 $ 45.00 $ 900.00 $ 3.75 $ 3,600.00
22 ;;: $ $; ;;990:00:
34 1 34 $ 40.00 $1,360.00 $ 3.33 $ 1,360.00
40 1 40 $ 40.00 $1,600.00 $ 3.33 $ 1,600.00
$3;000:00 $ ;3;000:00
77 1 77 $ 40.00 $3,080.00 $ 3.33 $ 3,080.00
85 1 85 $ 40:00 :$314.00:00 $ 3!33 $ 31400!00
146 !1 146 $ 40.00 $5,840.00 $ 3.33 $ 5,840.00
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
LICENSING PROCEDURE
One of the bigger changes will be in our licensing procedure. The chart on the
next page shows our current system and our proposed system. The current
system allows over 60 days to complete applications, submit fees, and schedule
inspections. This is way to long. Our proposal gives the owner/tenant more time
before their re-licensing date to meet their requirements. Only one reminder
letter will go out prior to their re-licensing date. We will require that the initial,
scheduled, interior inspections must be made prior to the re-licensing date. We
have had problems in the past with owners waiting until the last day to come in
and submit paperwork and then schedule their inspection 2-3 weeks out when
the building is past its re-licensing date. Commercial inspections and exterior
inspections are given to the inspectors the first of each month so the initial
inspections are completed prior to the re-licensing date. We are also eliminating
the late fee follow-up letters. Again, it is time consuming for the office to chase
late fees. We will go straight to revocation at the first of each month if any one or
all requirements are not met. On the next page is a chart to compare our current
and proposed licensing procedures.
(R:ESIDEN!IAL) (R~SIDENTIAE)
30 days prior to 45 days prior to 45 days prior to 45 days prior to
license date, license date, license license date, license license date,
license and application and application and license application
inspection request inspection request inspection request and inspection
sent out. are mailed out. are mailed out. request are mailed
out.
After 15 days, if After 30 days, if After 15 days if no After 15 days if no
inspection not license application & inspection inspection
scheduled, 2® fees are not in & appointment is appointment is
notice sent out. initial inspection is requested the requested the
not completed a address is given to address is given to
reminder letter is inspectors, inspectors.
sent.
After 30 days, final After 45 days, license After 30 days, if After 30 days, if
notice sent to application & fees license application license application
schedule must be in and initial and fees are not in, and fees are not in,
inspection and 2® inspection must a reminder letter is a reminder letter is
notice for late completed. If one or sent. sent.
license and fees all are not done the
+25%. property is scheduled
for a revocation
hearing.
After 45 days, late After 45 days, if the After 45 days, if the
license final notice license application license application
sent + 50%. and fees are not in and fees are not in
the property is and an inspection
scheduled for a could not be made,
revocation hearing the property is
scheduled for a
revocation hearing
After 60 days, final
notice for
inspection sent
out.
Revocation
process.
The other major change will be our actual inspection process. This process is
where most of the time is taken due to the many different time frames and 2®
and 3rd inspections offered. Below I have printed our current system and our
proposed system. Our plan is to eliminate the extra inspections. We feel that 30
days is enough time to make most repairs and there are extension provisions for
those larger jobs.
CURRENT INSPECTION PROCESS
TYPE OF VIOLATION Time to 1st Time to 2nd Time to
Re- Re- Final Re-
Inspection Inspection Inspection
Heating Problems 24 hours Citation
Missing or Inoperable Smoke 24 hours Citation*
Detector
Standard Violations** 30 days 15 days 10 days
Priority Violations (Significant life 10 days Citation
safety violations)
Outside Storage Violations*** 30 days Citation
Notes:
*Citation for missing or inoperable smoke detectors shall be given to tenant if owner has
provided proper evidence to our office that smoke detector was provided by property owner
and was present and operational prior to our inspection.
**Extensions may be granted by the Rental Licensing office upon request of property owner.
***Outside storage refers to '5A.207(1 )(f).
PROPOSED INSPECTION PROCESS
TYPE OF VIOLATION TIME TO FIRST DISPOSITION
REINSPECTION
Priority Violations Citation,
(Significant life safety 10 days Abatement or
violations) License
Revocation*
Citation,
All Other Violations 30 days Abatement or
License
Revocation*
*License revocation does not apply to non-licensed properties, i.e.
owner occupied single-family homes.
There still will be provisions for extensions. It is still our goal to have the work
done in a timely manner. The problem we have had in the past is that property
owners were asking for extensions after their 3rd inspection or just before a
revocation hearing. This would buy them time after they did no work for the last
60 days or more. This has dragged out the process. Extensions will only be
granted if requested during their initial 30-day compliance time. The council
could still grant an extension during a revocation or abatement hearing.
The new policy will give us an option for which way we want to pursue
compliance. The original violation letter will warn of the possibility of license
revocation, abatement, or a county citation. This will meet the notice
requirements for revocation or abatement. If violations are not completed the
next letter sent will notify the owner of which method we are going to use and will
also include the hearing date for either revocation or abatement. The tenant will
also be notified at this point of any hearings.
Without a 2nd re-inspection and a final inspection, and the office time to generate
them, this will cut approximately 30 days off of the process.
If we decide to use the revocation process, we have shortened this process up
by approximately 15 days. In the past we would notify the tenants and owner
during the final inspection of the possible hearing date, which would be at least a
month away. We would go to the next council meeting to set a hearing date for
the following council meeting 2 weeks away. Our proposal would allow us to set
the hearing date with the Council Secretary. On the next page is our current and
proposed revocation process.
REVOCATION PROCESS
CURRENT PROCESS
2nd (final) re-inspection notice, owner
and tenant are notified of revocation
hearing date. Notice sent to tenant
certified mail.
Add Set Hearing Date resolution to
City Council agenda.
At next Council meeting, set hearing
date for revocation. (2 weeks out).
After 3rd re-inspection, if violations are
not corrected, owner is sent Statement
of Cause for revocation hearing and
final inspection date.
Pre-revocation (final)inspection
Revocation Hearing in front of City
Council
If license is revoked, post building with
Notice to Vacate posting and Council
order. Notify owner and tenants by
certified mail. Posting gives 60 days to
vacate.
After 60 days an Unlawful to Occupy
posting is put up. The City may ticket
occupants and/or owners, or go
through Anoka County Court to have
occupants removed
PRoPOSED PROCESS
After 10/30-day re-inspection, owner
and tenant will be notified, by regular
and certified mail, of the revocation
hearing date. The owner's notification
will include the Statement of Cause.
Set hearing date with Council
Secretary.
Pre-revocation (final)inspection.
Revocation Hearing in front of City
Council.
If license is revoked, post building with
Notice to Vacate posting and Council
order. Notify owner and tenants by
certified mail. Posting gives 60 days to
vacate.
After 60 days an Unlawful to Occupy
posting is put up. The City may ticket
occupants and/or owners, or go
through Anoka County Court to have
occupants removed
One note regarding this new policy is that we have not written in any provisions,
other then what we do now, for long grass and weed inspections. At this time
Public Works is in charge of this program but it would be very easy to include it
into this policy. It would be very efficient to include the long grass inspections
under this policy and our department but we would have to look into the program
further to see if we have adequate staffing levels.
With this letter is a copy of our proposed policy for our inspection program. I
have given some explanations here for the changes made, but I should sit down
with you and go over the whole process before we meet with the council. I
believe that the new process will meet our goals:
- significantly speed up the process
- allow some flexibility for staff
- more cost effective program
- more user friendly for the citizens (one department doing all
inspections)
licensed property fees will cover their costs
significantly reduce the number .of re-inspections and follow-up paper
work.
Our next step in this process will be to make changes to City Ordinance #1395
so it will fit with this policy. The ordinance changes for residential properties
should not be drastic but there are areas that are very gray and hard to enforce.
There are also other areas that are outdated. The only big change is to add non-
residential properties to our licensing and inspection process. Our goal is to have
the ordinance changes by early spring. The first licenses for 2005, under the
proposed policy, would be sent out on January 15, 2005.
CI'TY OF COLUMBI'A HEI'GHTS Fl'RE DEPARTMENT
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INSPECTION POLICY
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2005
PURPOSE
This policy is intended to guide the administration of all property maintenance, licensing
and inspections.
POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City of Columbia Heights to conduct property maintenance
licensing and inspections according to the procedures outlined in this document, City
Ordinances, State Fire Code and the State Building Code.
The Fire Department will administer this policy under the name of the Property
Maintenance Inspection Office. This policy will cover the maintenance of all property,
public and private, that is not under the control of an active Building Permit. This
includes maintenance of all property improvements, structures, vegetation,
parking/driving areas, infrastructure, outside storage, and vehicles (Police to handle
junk vehicle ordinance)
PROCEDURE
Inspection Hours. Hours for conducting non-scheduled inspections shall be Monday
through Friday, 8:00 am - 4:45 pm. Inspections may be performed outside this time
frame if needed. Scheduled inspections shall be Monday through Thursday, 9:00 am-
11:00 am and 1:30 pm-4:00 pm.
Property Identification. All properties will be assigned an occupancy identification
number. The specific occupancy type of the property/space will determine the occupancy
ID number. See the chart below for numbering system.
OCCUPANCY ID TYPE OF OCCUPANCY
NUMBER RANGE
10000 - 10999 Single Family Rental
12000 - 12999 Owner Occupied Two Family Dwelling
20000 - 29999 Two Family Rental
30000 - 34999 Multi Family (3 or more units) Rental
35000 - 35999 Owner Occupied Condominiums
40000 - 49999 Commercial Property
50000 - 59999 Industrial Property
60000 - 69999 Churches and School Property
70000 - 79999 City Owned Property
80000 - 89999 Vacant Property
90000 - 99999 Owner Occupied Single Family Homes
LICENSING
All property, except Owner Occupied Single Family Homes, shall be licensed. Licenses
are not transferable. Non-residential properties with multiple tenant spaces shall have a
license for each individual tenant space. New property owners or non-residential
tenants must submit a new application within 30 days. Any change in occupancy
classification shall be approved prior to occupation of the space or property.
Licensing procedure is as follows:
Residential Rental Property. Every property will be given a licensing date. The date
is always the 1st day of a month. The license will run for one year from that date thru
the last day of the 12th month.
License applications will be sent out to the owner 45 days prior to their licensing date.
The application will require that a signed, updated application be returned along with
required fees prior to the re-licensing date.
A reminder letter will be sent out 15 days prior to the re-licensing date reminding the
owner to return their application and fees.
On the first of the month, the re-licensing date, all properties that have not submitted
their application and fees will be placed on the agenda of a City Council meeting for
revocation of license.
Non-Residential Properties. Every property will be given a licensing date. The date is
always the 1st day of a month. The license will run for one year from that date thru the
last day of the 12th month.
License applications will be sent out to the owner/tenant 45 days prior to their licensing
date. The application will require that a signed, updated application be returned along
with required fees prior to the re-licensing date.
A reminder letter will be sent out 15 days prior to the re-licensing date reminding the
owner to return their application and fees.
On the first of the month, the re-licensing date, all properties that have not submitted
their application and fees will be placed on the agenda of a City Council meeting for
revocation of license.
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
LICENSING PROCEDURE
TABLE FORM
RESIDENTIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL NON,RESIDENTIAL
INTERIOR WITHOUT
INSPECTION INTERIOR
INSPECTION
45 days prior to 45 days prior to 45 days prior to
license date, license license date, license license date, license
application and application and application and
inspection request inspection request inspection request
are mailed out. are mailed out. are mailed out.
After 30 days, if After 15 days if no After 15 days if no
license application, inspection inspection
fees, and initial appointment is appointment is
inspection are not in, requested the requested the
a reminder letter is address is given to address is given to
sent. inspectors, inspectors.
After 45 days, all 3 After 30 days, if After 30 days, if
items: license license application license application
application, fees, and and fees are not in, a and fees are not in, a
initial inspection must reminder letter is reminder letter is
be in and completed, sent. sent.
If one or all are not
done the property is
scheduled for a
revocation hearing.
After 45 days, if the After 45 days, if the
license application license application
and fees are not in and fees are not in
the property is and an inspection
scheduled for a could not be made,
revocation hearing, the property is
scheduled for a
revocation hearing.
LICENSE FEES
All licensed properties will be assessed a license fee. The fee will cover the length of
time of the license only. As with the license, the license fee is not transferable. The
license fee may be prorated for a specific length of time for the remainder of a licensing
year. Proposed Licensing fees are as follows:
RESIDENTIAL
ITEM 2005
Rental License- 1 TBD
thru 10 rental units
Rental License- 11 TBD
thru 30 rental units
Rental LiCense - 31 TBD
or more rental units
No Show Fee $100.00 per
no-show event
License reinstatement 10 times the annual
after revocation or license fee
suspension
NON-RESIDENTIAL
At this time we are proposing that during the first year, 2005, we will charge a flat fee of
$20.00 per property/tenant space. The applications will ask for the square footage of
each property or tenant space. Starting in 2006, we will charge a licensing fee based
on the size of the space. The rationale is that we have commercial office space that
has tenants renting a few hundred square feet and large spaces of 10,000 square feet
and more. They should not have to pay the same amount. Currently the Fire
Department has 521 known occupancies/tenants considered non-residential. This does
include all commercial, industrial, government, churches, and school occupancies.
INSPECTIONS
All licensed properties are required to have periodic inspections as per this chart:
OcCUpancy ID Interior Required Exterior Required
Number
10000 - 35999 Every other year Every year
40000 - 89999 Every year Every year
90000 - 99999 None By complaint*
*The Fire department has the right to make systematic inspections of properties as individuals, blocks, or
areas of the City.
45 days prior to their re-licensing date, along with the license application, the
owner/commercial tenant will be requested to schedule an inspection if required.
Residential rental properties that require inspections of the individual tenant units are
required to schedule an inspection with the Fire Department. Tenants shall be notified,
by the owner, of the inspection at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled inspection. The
Fire Department will not inspect individual units that have not met the minimum 24
hours notice. It is the right of the tenant to refuse to let us conduct an inspection of their
individual tenant space. The Fire Department may acquire an administrative search
warrant to conduct the inspection. The Fire Department reserves the right to inspect a
randomly picked sampling of units based on the size of the building and past inspection
history.
The occupancy identification number will be used to determine the year in which
residential rental properties receive inspections of the individual rental units. Properties,
which have an even occupancy ID number, will have unit inspections during even
numbered years. Properties, which have an odd occupancy ID number, will have unit
inspections during odd numbered years. Rental property owners desiring to change the
year of inspection for a property may do so one time by contacting the fire department
Inspection office.
All licensed residential properties are required to have an inspection of the exterior and
common areas every year.
Non-residential properties/tenant spaces are required to have interior and exterior
inspections every year. This will include the annual fire inspection as mandated by the
State Fire Code.
Residential rental properties that do not require inspections of the individual units, and
all other properties, will have the opportunity to schedule an inspection until 30 days
prior to their re-licensing date. After this date the inspections will be made during
regular inspection hours without prior notice. Properties/tenants that are not open during
regular business hours are required to set up an appointment for their inspection.
The initial inspection must be made prior to the property's re-licensing date for all
properties. On the first of the month, the re-licensing date, all properties that have not
had their initial inspection will be placed on the agenda of the next City Council meeting
for revocation of license
COMPLAINT INSPECTION. The Fire Department shall respond to all complaints.
Complaints will be accepted either verbally or in writing. A written record of the
complaint will be made.
Complainants are encouraged to identify themselves however it is not required.
Information regarding the identity of any complainant is private data and will not be
released to public.
Complaints will be included as a scheduled inspection unless it is determined that it is a
Priority Inspection. Priority Inspections will be responded to as soon as feasible.
Complaints of individual residential rental units will follow the above policy with some
differences. Complaints must originate from a tenant of the unit. Except for Priority
Violations, complaint inspections will not be made for tenants that are under an unlawful
detainer or part of an eviction process.
If a complaint is in regards to the exterior of a property the inspectors may, based on the
type of violations and the condition of neighboring properties, inspect those neighboring
properties that have similar violations or are of similar condition.
Violation Correction
When violations are found by inspectors, the owner of residential properties or the
owner/tenant of non-residential properties shall be given reasonable time to correct the
violations. Following is the schedule to be used by the Property Maintenance office:
TYPE OF VIOLATION TIME TO FIRST DISPOSITION
REINSPECTION
Priority Violations Citation,
(Significant life safety 10 days Abatement or
violations) License
Revocation*
Citation,
All Other Violations 30 days Abatement or
License
Revocation*
*License revocation does not apply to non-licensed
properties, i.e. owner occupied single-family homes.
The property owner or commercial tenant will be mailed a violation notice. The notice
will contain the date of the inspection, any violations found, and the date/time of the re-
inspection. The notice will also contain the process/penalties if the violations are not
corrected by the re-inspection date.
If violations are not corrected, the property may be put on the agenda of a City Council
meeting for a possible license revocation hearing or abatement hearing.
EXTENSION PROCEDURE
Extensions to the violation correction schedule above may be granted by the inspection
staff, office staff or the Property Maintenance Enforcement Officer subject to the
following guidelines.
Extensions will only be granted if requested during the initial 30-day time to the first
reinspection.
Requests for extensions received for non-priority violations can be granted routinely by
inspection staff or office staff for up to a maximum of 14 days. Any length of time longer
than this requires the approval of the Property Maintenance Enforcement Officer.
Seasonal extensions for exterior work, which cannot be completed due to cold weather,
may be granted to no later than June 1 of the following year. Examples include exterior
painting, siding replacement, roofing, concrete, or asphalt work, retaining walls,
landscaping or other work with soil that is frozen.
Special extensions may be granted for large projects that require more time or are a
financial hardship. Requests for these extensions are to be in writing with an
explanation as to the hardship. The request must include a completion date. Only one
special extension will be granted for a violation.
Extensions involving heating violations require the approval of the Property
Maintenance Officer. Generally, the property owner will be granted reasonable
extensions provided that significant efforts are being made by the property owner to
comply and circumstances beyond the control of the property owner exist.
A re-inspection of extension items will be made to verify compliance. If the violation is
not completed the property may be given a citation or the property will be put on the
agenda of a City Council meeting for a license revocation hearing or abatement hearing.
SPECIAL SITUATIONS
There may be times that deadlines cannot be made due to special situations beyond the
control of the City and its staff. An example may be a missed inspection due to an
emergency call. The inspection office has the right to deviate from this policy as long as
the intent of the policy is met.
REVOCATION PROCESS
When the property has not met the above requirements, licensed properties may have
their license revoked. The license can only be revoked by the City Council as part of a
revocation hearing. Property owners and tenants are to be notified of the revocation
hearing by regular and certified mail. The owner's notification will also include the
Statement of Cause.
The revocation hearing will be set by staff with the City Council Secretary. Staff will
schedule the hearing to give the owner and tenants at least 14 days notice.
A final pre-revocation inspection will be performed, if needed, prior to the hearing. If
violations are corrected and all other requirements are met, the hearing will be closed.
At the revocation hearing, the owner and all tenants will be given an opportunity to be
heard by the City Council.
The City Council has the right to revoke or suspend the license, grant an extension,
table the motion, or refuse revocation.
If the license is revoked, the owner and tenants will be notified be regular and certified
mail of the revocation. The property will also be posted. The posting gives 60 days to
vacate.
Sixty days after the original posting of the property, an Unlawful to Occupy posting will
be put on the building. The Fire Department may write the owner and/or occupants a
County Citation or begin the process with Anoka County Courts to have the occupants
removed.
To re-license a revoked property, all requirements of this policy and the Property
Maintenance Code ordinance shall be met. This includes all outstanding fees.
ABATEMENT PROCEDURE
City ordinance #1461 allows for the abatement of Property Maintenance violations that
the City Council deems a nuisance affecting public safety. The Property Maintenance
Office will follow the procedures outlined in the ordinance.
The violation letter sent to property owners/tenants will advise that abatement may be
one of the options used if the violations are not completed by the re-inspection date.
If the violations are not completed by the re-inspection date, and the Property
Maintenance Office decides to use this option, the property owner/tenant will be
scheduled for an abatement hearing at a City Council Meeting.
COUNTY CITATION
The Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief are allowed, by City ordinance, to write County
Citations. The Property Maintenance Office will follow the procedures outlined in the
ordinance.
The violation letter sent to property owners/tenants will advise that a County Citation
may be one of the options used if the violations are not completed by the re-inspection
date.
If the violations are not completed by the re-inspection date, and the Property
Maintenance Office decides to use this option, the property owner/tenant will be given a
County Citation.
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
APPROVAL
NO: Fire
ITEM: 800 MHZ Equipment Purchase BY: Charles Thompson BY:~2/~~~'~
DATE: January 12, 2005 DATE: ~'~
NO:
BACKGROUND:
In the fall of 2004, Anoka County Central Communications began to migrate to the 800 MHZ systems. This
migration involved all Anoka County Police and Fire agencies. The fzre departments were given hand held radios,
base stations, and mobile radios based on the population of the city. Unfortm~ately, this disbursement of radios
was a significant shortfall from what was standard for the Columbia Heights Fire Department. The Columbia
Heights Fire Department operated with 30 hand held radios, one base station and 8 mobile radios. With the base
station, we had three remote heads so that the system itself could be utilized in the Fire Chief's office, the
Assistant Fire Chief's office, and in the Police and Fire Training room which is also is the City's EOC (Emergency
Operations Center).
ANALYSIS:
Anticipating a major shortfall in radio equipment, the Fire chief proposed the purchase of 800 MHz equipment in
the 2005 Capitol Equipment purchase plan as presented to the Council in the 2004 budget process. This plan
included the purchase of 15 hand held radios, 15 spare batteries, three remote heads to be located in the designated
areas, as well as various loose equipment such as spare batteries, speaker microphones, cable for the installation of
the remote heads, and 110 volt chargers. All quotes were given by ANCOM Communications, Inc. This company
currently holds the State Bid Contract for our area (State Bid Contract Number: 433614).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Award the 800 MHZ Equipment Purchase to Ancom Communications,
Inc., Based upon their Low, Qualified, Responsible Bid in the Amount of $39,599.45, plus any Additional Taxes
with Funds to be Appropriated from 431-42200-5180; and Furthermore, to Authorize the Mayor and City Manager
to Enter into an Agreement for the Same.
05-4
COUNCIL ACTION: