HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 25, 2002 RegularCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40th Avenue N.E.. Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Visit Our Website at: www. ci. cohmtbia-heights.~nn, us
ADMINISTRATION
March 22, 2002
MaFor
Gary L. Peterson
Councilmembers
Marlaine Szurek
Julienne Wyckoff
Bruce Nawrocki
Robert A. Williams
City Manager
Walter R. Fehst
The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
March 25, 2002 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN.
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or
cmployment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are
available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Deputy City Clerk at 763-706-3611,
to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only)
Invocation: Pastor Dave Briley - Oakhill Baptist Church
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA
(The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda. These
may be items brought to the attention of the Council under the Citizen Forum or items submitted after the
agenda preparation deadline.)
PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS
A) Proclamations
B) Presentations
C) Introduction of New Employees
1) LeAnn Ottney, Accounts Payable Clerk
2) Donald Mulgrew, Accountant
D) Recognition - Resident Brian Peters
CONSENT AGENDA
(These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted as part of the Consent
Agenda by one motion. Items removed from consent agenda approval will be taken up as the next order of
business.)
A) MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda items as follows:
1) Minutes for approval
MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2002, regular City Council meeting as
presented, and approve the March 18, 2002 Central Avenue Improvement Hearing.
2)
Establish Work Session Meeting Date for April 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in Ci_ty Hall Conference
Room 1
MOTION: Move to establish Work Session meeting date for Monday, April 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.,
in City Hall Conference Room 1.
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAl OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City Council Agenda
March 25, 2002
Page 2 of 5
3)
Reappoint members to the various Ci_ty of Columbia Heights Boards and Commissions.
MOTION: Move to reappoint the following people to the various City of Columbia Heights Boards and
Commissions: Human Services Commission, Karen Leishman; Planning and Zoning Commission, Ted
Yehle; Traffic Commission, Joseph Goodman and Ed Carlson; Telecommunications Commission,
Kenneth Henke, Bob Buboltz and Dan Swee.
4)
Authorize Recreation Staff to Seek bids for Recreation T-shirts and Equipment
MOTION: Move to authorize recreation staff to seek bids for the purchase of t-shirts, hats, and
athletic equipment for the year of 2002 to be purchased from account 881-45001-2170.
5)
Approve Conditional Use Permit Case//2002-0302, 2261 37th Avenue NE
MOTION: Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the placement of a 21 x 48 foot tent
for the display and sale of green and flowering plants at 2261 37th Avenue NE from April 15, 2002
through July 15, 2002, subject to the following condition:
· A $500 deposit shall be submitted to the License/Permit Clerk prior to the display of
green and flowering plants on the site.
6)
Approve Purchase of a Towmaster T-12DD Trailer
MOTION: Move to approve the purchase of one new 20 foot Towmaster Model T-12DD Trailer,
equipped with spring assist ramps and fork holder from RDO Equipment Co. of Bumsville, MN in
the amount of $4,680, plus tax and delivery with funding appropriated from the Park Capital
Equipment Fund 431-45200-5180.
7)
Adopt Resolution No. 2002-21, being a resolution adopting a Street Sweeping Policy
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2001-21, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2002-21, being a resolution adopting the
City of Columbia Heights Street Sweeping Policy.
8)
Approve Final Plans and Specifications for City Project 0202:2002 Street Rehabilitation Projects in
Zone 6A and Authorization Staffto Seek Bids for the 2002 Street Rehabilitation Project.
MOTION: Move to approve the final plans and specifications for City Project 0202:2002 Street
Rehabilitation Projects in Zone 6A, including utility improvements, and authorize staff to seek bids
for the same.
9)
Award 2002 Road Aggregates Contract
MOTION: Move to award the 2002 Road Aggregates contract based on the unit prices and vendors
listed, up to a maximum contract amount as approved in the 2002 Public Works budget and to
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
10) Award 2002 Plant Mixed Bituminous Materials Contract
MOTION: Move to award the 2002 Plant Mixed Bituminous Materials contract based on the unit
prices and vendors listed, up to a maximum contract amount as approved in the 2002 Public Works
budget, and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
11) Award of Sullivan Lake Tennis Court Resurfacing Project
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-22, there being ample copies
available to the public.
City Council Agenda
March 25, 2002
Page 3 of 5
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2002-22, accepting bids and awarding City Project 2002-04,
resurfacing of the Sullivan Park Tennis Courts, to C & H Sport Surfaces based upon their low,
qualified, responsible bid in the amount of $6,125.00, accepting the base and alternate bid, with
funds appropriated from Fund 412-50204-5130, and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
12)
Approve Request for Qualification Document for the Columbia Heights Industrial Center
Redevelopment Project
MOTION: Move to approve the Request for Qualification document for the Columbia Heights
Industrial Center Redevelopment Project and direct staff to proceed with the advertising and mailing
of the FRQ's to interested developers.
13)
Adopt Resolution 2002-25, Authorizing Purchase of 325 Summit Avenue N.E.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2002-25, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2002-25, being a Resolution authorizing the purchase of 325
Summit Avenue N.E. and utilizing the general fund balance for interim funding.
14) Approve Business License Applications
MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for March 25, 2002
as presented.
15) Approve Payment of Bills
MOTION: Move to approve payment of the bills, as listed, out of the proper fund.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) Public Hearing called for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 3947 Arthur Street NE is
now in compliance
MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental
license held by David Utke regarding rental property at 3947 Arthur Street in that the property complies
with the Residential Maintenance Code.
B) Public Hearing called for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4524 Monroe Street NE
is now in compliance.
MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental
license held by Ruben Cruz regarding rental property at 4524 Monroe Street in that the property
complies with the Residential Maintenance Code.
¢)
Rental Housing Revocation for 4637 - 4639 Pierce Street N.E.
MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental
license held by Rusell Waletski regarding rental property at 4637-4639 Pierce Street in that the property
complies with the Residential Maintenance Code.
City Council Agenda
March 25, 2002
Page 4 of 5
D)
Adopt Resolution No. 2002-23, Rental Housing Revocation for 5101 7th Street N.E.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-23, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2002-23, Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of the Rental
License held by Robert Zschokke regarding property at 5101 7th Street N.E.
E)
Adopt Resolution No. 2002-24, Rental Housing Revocation for 1348-1350 44 ½ Avenue N.E.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-24, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2002-24, Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of the Rental
License held by Richard Meissner regarding property at 1348-1350 44 ½ Avenue N.E.
F)
Establish Hearing Date for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Property_ License for 2215 45th Avenue
N.E.
MOTION: Move to establish a hearing date of April 8, 2002, for revocation or suspension of a license
to operate a rental property within the City of Columbia Heights against Kunal Kamran at 2215 45th
Avenue N.E.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A) Other Ordinances and Resolutions
1) Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1445, Pertaining to the Ci_ty Charter, Chapter 3, Section 19..
Procedure on Reading Ordinances (Changing Current Wording of Unanimous Council Vote to 4/5)
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the ordinance, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. 1445, an ordinance pertaining to Procedure on
Ordinances.
2)
First Reading of Ordinance No. 1446, Amending the Street Excavation Portion of the City Code
(6.301)
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1446, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to establish April 22nd, at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the Second Reading of
Ordinance #1446, being and ordinance replacing City Code Section 6.301, Street Excavations with a
Right-of-Way Ordinance.
3)
Adopt Resolution No. 2002-20, Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT for TH 65
Reconstruction
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-20, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2002-20, being a resolution authorizing the City of
Columbia Heights to enter into a Cooperative Agreement No. 82966 with MnDOT for Central
Avenue, T.H. 65, reconstruction.
City Council Agenda
March 25, 2002
Page 5 of 5
B) Bid Considerations
c)
Other Business
1) Approve Purchase of Ci_ty View Software
MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with
Municipal Software for the purchase of the City View software program at a cost of $45,470 as
outlined in their proposal of June 1,2001 with funding coming from the Cable/Television budget.
2)
Authorize Agreement with Consulting Firm for Architectural Design Guidelines for Central Avenue
MOTION: Move to authorize the consulting firm of BRW's architectural design guidelines for
Central Avenue, from 37th to 42nd Avenues as defined in their proposal dated March 13, 2002, at a
cost not to exceed $28,500 with funding appropriated from the Special Projects Fund #226-49846-
3050.
8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A) Report of the City Manager
1) Upcoming Work Session Items
B) Report of the City Attorney
o
GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
A) Minutes of Boards and Commissions
1) Meeting of the March 4, 2002, Public Library Board of Trustees
10. CITIZENS FORUM
(At this time, citizens have an opportunity to discuss with the Council items not on the regular agenda.
Citizens are requested to limit their comments to five minutes. Please note the public may address the
Council regarding specific agenda items at the time the item is being discussed.)
11. COUNCIL CORNER
12. ADJOURNMENT
Walter R. Fehst, City Manageq
WF/cb
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 11, 2002
The following are the minutes for the regular meeting of the City Council held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
March 11, 2002 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights,
MN.
Pastor Tom Carlson, First Lutheran Church, gave the Invocation.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Peterson, Councilmember Wyckoff, and Councilmember Williams
Absent: Councilmember Szurek and Councilmember Nawrocki
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA -none
PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS
Proclamations -none
Presentations -none
Introduction of New Employees -none
Recognition -none
CONSENT AGENDA
}Yyckoff asked to have items #5 and g6 removed for discussion. Linda Magee,?lcting City Manager
read through the consent agenda items.
MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Williams, to approve the Consent Agenda items, not including
items #5 and #6, as follows:
1) Approve Minutes of the February 25, 2002 regular City Council meeting and the March 4,
2002 Zone 6A Improvement Hearing
MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 25, 2002, regular City Council meeting as
presented.
MOTION to approve the minutes of the March 4, 2002 Zone 6A Improvement Hearing,
special City Council meeting as presented.
2)
Authorization to seek bids for 2002 Miscellaneous Concrete Replacement and Installation
Project.
MOTION to authorize staff to seek bids for the 2002 MiScellaneous Concrete Replacement
and Installation Project.
3) Authorization to seek bids for 2002 Street and Parking Lgne Striping
MOTION to authorize staff to seek bids for the 2002 street and Parking Lane Striping.
4)
Adopt Resolution #2002-17, being a Resolution requestiqg MSAS Construction Funds for
other local transportation uses ~
MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-17, there being ample copies
available to the public.
City Council Agenda
March 11, 2002
Page 2 of 7
MOTION to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2002-17 requesting Municipal State Aid
System construction funds for other local transportation uses.
RESOLUTION No. 2002-17
BEING A RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTION FUNDS FOR OTHER LOCAL TRANSPORTATION USES
WItEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights receives Municipal State Aid System (MSAS) funds for
construction and maintaining 20% of its City streets, and
WHEREAS, 11.65 MSAS miles are currently authorized, and
WHEREAS, 11.65 MSAS streets have been built or resurfaced since 1964, and
WHEREAS, the City currently has 47.08 municipal streets that require maintenance and upgrade, and
WHEREAS, the majority of these streets have insufficient strength and poor surface drainage, and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to systematically install or repair concrete curb and gutters for improved
surface water drainage and additional strength to the streets for traffic survivability, and
WHEREAS, the City State Aid routes are improved to State Aid standards and are in an adequate
condition that they do not have needs other than additional resurfacing, and
WHEREAS, it is authorized by MN Rules 8820.1800 to use part of the MSAS construction
appropriation of our City's State Aid allocation on local streets not on the approved State Aid system,
and
WHEREAS, the City proposes to rehabilitate the City-owned underground utilities as needed and
rebuild the street in the process, and
WHEREAS, it is pro. posed to use. a portion of the City's population allocation funds to upgrade the
local street, to wit: 7th Street (42na Avenue to 44th Avenue), Washington Street (42na Avenue to 44th
Avenue), Madison Street (42na Avenue to 44th Avenue), and Monroe Street (42nd Avenue to 44th
Avenue) combined with other non-eligible construction, and
WHEREAS, the City indemnifies save and holds harmless the State of Minnesota and its agents and
employees from claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising out of or by reason or matter
related to constructing the local street as designed, and
WHEREAS, the City further agrees to defend at its sole cost any claims arising as a result of
constructing the local street, and
WHEREAS, the final approval of the State Aid for Local Transportation Division is therefore given,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA that:
the City of Columbia Heights, Anoka County Minnesota, requests the release of MSAS construction
funds for the upgrade and reconstruction of City municipal streets, to wit: 7th Street (42nd Avenue to 44th
Avenue), Washington Street (42nd Avenue to 44th Avenue), Madison Street (42nd Avenue to 44th
Avenue), and Monroe Street (42nd Avenue to 44th Avenue).
Passed this 11th day of March 2002.
City Council Agenda
March 11, 2002
Page 3 of 7
5) Authorize to seek bids for Ambulance -Removed
6) Adopt Resolution #2002-197 being a Resolution authorizing condemnation by Quick Take for
the property located at 3955 University Avenue NE (PIN#R35-30-24-31-0151) - Removed
7)
Approve to establish the heating date of March 25, 2002 for Revocation or Suspension of a
License to Operate a Rental Property at 3947 Arthur Street, 4524 Monroe Street, 5101 7th
Street, 1348-1350 44 ½ Avenue, and 4637-4639 Pierce Street
MOTION to Establish a Heating Date of March 25, 2002 for Revocation or Suspension of
a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against David
Utke at 3947 Arthur Street NE.
MOTION to Establish a Heating Date of March 25, 2002 for Revocation or Suspension of
a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against
Rueben Cruz at 4524 Monroe Street NE.
MOTION to Establish a Hearing Date of March 25, 2002 for Revocation or Suspension of
a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Robert
Zschokke at 5101 7th Street NE.
MOTION to Establish a Heating Date of March 25, 2002 for Revocation or Suspension of
a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against
Richard Meissner at 1348-1350 44 ½ Avenue NE.
MOTION to Establish a Hearing Date of March 25, 2002 for Revocation or Suspension of a
License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Russell
Waletski at 4637-4639 Pierce Street NE.
8)
Approve Business License Applications
MOTION to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for March 11, 2002
as presented.
9) Approve Payment of Bills
MOTION to approve payment of the bills, as listed, out of the proper fund.
Wyckoff read the March 11, 2002 business license requests. Magee stated that the list was
available in the information rack outside of the Council Chamber door, and were listed on the
government access cable channel.
Upon vote of the Consent Agenda: All ayes. Motion carried.
#5 Authorize to seek bids for Ambulance
Fire Chief Charles Thompson stated the bid request is for a 1994 or newer module (ambulance
box) and a 2002 chassis. The current ambulance has over 7, 000 hours on it, which is equal to
250,000 miles on the engine. The requested ambulance bid would have a module that can be
replaced. A new ambulance would be about $110,000. Thompson stated that the new SUV is
used for inspections during the day; but there are second, third and fourth callouts during the
day. Wyckoff asked if we transport with our ambulance. Thompson stated we are licensed to
transport and may do so at some point. We did transport Sgt. Dietz when he was shot and we
wouM not hesitate to transport our own people. Williams asked if we wouM have this ambulance
by the Jamboree. Thompson stated he hoped we would. Wyckoff asked if the trade of the old
ambulance would be part of the specifications. Thompson stated that it would.
City Council Agenda
March 11, 2002
Page 4 of 7
MOTION by Williams, second by Wyckoff, to authorize staff to seek bids for the purchase of a
new Fire Department ambulance.
Peterson stated that he believes in good equipment, and praised the department for their attitude
and proficiency.
Upon vote: All ayes. Motion carried.
#6
Adopt Resolution #2002-19, being a Resolution authorizing condemnation by Quick Take for the,
property located at 3955 University Avenue NE (PIN#R35-30-24-31-0151) - Removed
Jim Hoefi, City Attorney, stated that the Acting Community Development Director is currently in
negations with the owner of the site and the two neighbors. There is a time deadline on the
Anoka County funds to be used or they would be lost. This resolution authorizes the
condemnation procedure under the timeframe necessary. This is not authorizing staff to go any
further, only the beginning step. Wyckoff stated that the Conoco owner has agreed to sell. Hoefi
stated that he was not dissatisfied with the progress, but must show there is a deadline that needs
to be set.
Williams stated that he is against condemnation, but he will vote for this so we don't lose the
funds. Peterson stated that this is just a legal step and will tell the owner that we are interested
in moving forward, or we will lose funds if not utilized by the end of the month.
MOTION by Williams, second by Wyckoff, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-19, there
being ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION by Williams, second by Wyckoff, to adopt Resolution #2002-19, being a Resolution
authorizing condemnation by Quick Take for the property located at 3955 University Avenue NE
(PIN#R35-30-24-31-0151). Upon vote: All ayes. Motion Carried.
RESOLUTION 2002-19
BEING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION BY QUICK TAKE FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3955 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
(PIN # R35-30-24-31-0151) FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights has been negotiating with the property owner at the above
referenced address for over two years in an attempt to acquire same for redevelopment purposes, and
WHEREAS, the City has successfully negotiated the acquisition of blighted properties directly South
and adjacent to subject property for redevelopment purposes, and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority and City Council have adopted goals and priorities
for year 2002, of which this acquisition/redevelopment project has been given a high priority, and
WHEREAS, the City under City Charter (Chapter 9), and Minnesota State Statutes is empowered to
acquire by purchase, girl, devise or condemnation, any property which may be needed by said City for
public use or purpose.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA THAT:
City Council Agenda
March 11, 2002
Page 5 of 7
1. The stated acquisition is in the public interest and for a public purpose.
2. That the City Attorney is directed to proceed with Condemnation and where legally appropriate
to acquire this property by direct purchase, if feasible and practical.
The time requirement for funding this acquisition with Community Development Block Grant
dollars makes it necessary to obtain this property in a timely manner so as not to jeopardize the
funding source.
4. The acquisition is consistent with the City's redevelopment plan and qualifies under the
definition of a blighted property.
5. The City may at any stage of the Condemnation proceedings, abandon such proceedings of the
property sought to be acquired.
Passed this 11th day of March 2002
PUBLIC HEARINGS - none
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Other Ordinances and Resolutions
Bid Considerations
Other Business
1) Special Assessments Contract with Anoka County
Bill Elrite, Finance Director, stated that Columbia Heights is the only city in Anoka County
that does their own assessments, and that other cities contract with the County. With the
retirement of our Assessment Clerk, it is staff's recommendation to have the County put our
assessment charges on the resident 's property tax bill. Elrite stated that currently we are
assessing for some mid-block lights and alley lights, and we would add that charge quarterly
onto their utility bills. Wyckoff asked if residents could pay at City Hall. Elrite stated that
they could pay here within 30 days of the levy hearing or if they wish to pay the entire
amount due before it is certified to the County. There are about a dozen individuals that pay
piece meal throughout the year that would no longer be able to do so. Wyckoff stated that
,lane Gleason, the Assessment Clerk, wouM be leaving the City after 22 years of employment.
Wyckoff asked if this would save the City money. Elrite stated it would create some savings,
however the County will charge us for their services and we will need to buy additional
computer software. Elrite stated that there would be a slight reduction in service.
MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Williams, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to
enter into a contract with Anoka County for special assessment billing services, to add the
estimated county administration charge to the bills, and to place all mid-block lighting bills
on the utility bill at a monthly rate of $1.00 effective on all bills sent out after January 1,
2003. Upon vote: All ayes. Motion carried.
2)
Authorize Professional Services Agreement for construction services with URS for Central
Ave. street, utility and Streetscaping improvements, City Projects 1999-12, 99-12A & 99-20
Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director, summarized that this agreement is for professional
services for the 2002 Central Avenue construction project. Hansen replied to a comment
from the work session on the multiplier/hourly rate. The multiplier was originally 2.9percent
and is the actual hourly rate from the 2002 rate schedule; the contract does use hourly rates.
BR W has offered to reduce their rate from 2.9 to 2.8 percent. Hansen reviewed percentages
paid by other communities that did cooperative projects and they were in the range of 20 to
25 percent in consultant costs as a percentage of construction costs. Hansen felt our
City Council Agenda
March 1 I, 2002
Page 6 of 7
estimated cost of 22 percent is not out of line. Hansen stated that two representatives from
URS were present to answer questions.
Williams did not want to halt the project or lose funding for this very important project.
Peterson stated that Hansen was directed to research alternatives and the only alternative
wouM be to scrap the project.
The Deputy City Clerk read a comment, from Councilmember Nawrocki, into the record
which stated his objection to the cost of the agreement as excessive.
Peterson noted that the 2.9 multiplier rate has now been reduced to 2.8.
Williams stated that Hansen has done a good job in keeping costs down and thanked BR W
for working with us.
MOTION by Williams, second by Wyckoff, to accept the Professional Services Agreement
with URS/BRW for Central Avenue Construction Services, Project(s) 1999-12, 1999-12A
and 1999-20, in an amount not to exceed $460,680, and authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. Upon vote: All ayes. Motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Report of the City Manager (by Linda Magee, Assistant to the City Manager)
· Work Session Items for March 18, 2002
o Proposed detour routes for Central Avenue during construction
o Draft of City Right-of Way Ordinance
o Central Avenue design Guidelines
o Replacement of a Trailer for the Public Works Bobcat
o Review of a draft City Street Sweeping policy
o Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT for Central Avenue Reconstruction project
o City View computer program
o Redevelopment of the Southeast quadrant of 40th and University
Report of the City Attomey- none
GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Minutes of Boards and Commissions submitted to the City Council
· Meeting of the February 20, 2002, Human Services Commission
· Meeting of the February 21, 2002, Telecommunications Commission
· Meeting of the February 27, 2002, Park and Recreation Commission
Peterson spoke of attending the Heights Theater Grand Gala Illuminata, describing the newly
erected sign and the Guinness record setting 12people who watched 52 hours of movies. He
stated that $27,000 was raised through this event for the Boys and Girls Clubs.
CITIZENS FORUM
Mayor Peterson asked the students present to introduce themselves.
COUNCIL CORNER
Wyckoff thanked Jean Kuehn, Special Projects Coordinator, for putting old photos ora home on
Arthur Street on our web site, along with a current photo. Wyckoff also thanked her for filming the
interviews with restaurants that are serving at the Taste of Columbia Heights.
City Council Agenda
March 11, 2002
Page 7 of 7
Wyckoff stated that the Historical Society is currently taking oral histories, beginning with the
Heights Theater. She stated that the Taste of Heights would be March 24, 2002, from 4.'00 to 8.'00
p.m. with seven restaurants participating, and that there will be several lines f or purchasing tickets.
Wyckoff requested Mayor Peterson and Councilmember Williams assist at the event.
Williams read a quote, and stated that the new Gateway Park was used as a park years ago.
Williams referred to the Southern Anoka County Chamber Gala held last weekend to celebrate our
County.
Mayor Peterson stated, "Don't take ourselves too seriously, enjoy life and do a random act of
kindness ".
ADJOURNMENT
Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
NO: __;~ 'j CITY MANAGER' S APPROVAL
FOR APRIL, 2002 DATE: 3-20-02 DATE: ¥~v~
NO:
It is recommended that a work session meeting be scheduled for Monday, April 15, 2002, at 7:00
p.m. in City Hall Conference Room 1.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to establish a work session meeting date for Monday, April 15, 2002,
at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room 1.
COUNCIL ACTION:
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: ,5-- A -~ CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL , /
ITEM: Board/Commission BY: W altFehst DB~
Reappointments DATE: March 4, 2002 E.
NO:
Terms to expire April 1 of 2002 are:
Board or Commission
Name Date
Requesting Reappointment
Human Services Commission
Karin Leishman
4-2002
yes
Planning & Zoning Commission
Ted Yehle 4-2002
yes
Traffic Commission
Joseph Goodman 4-2002 yes
Ed Carlson 4-2002 yes
Telecommunications Commission
Kenneth Henke 4-2002 yes
Bob Buboltz 4-2002 yes
Dan Swee 4-2002 yes
-Not interested in reappointment are:
Joe Sturdevant, Human Services Commission
Julie Wesley, Human Services Commission
Scott Neimeyer, Park and Recreation
Dick Petkoff, Police and Fire Civil Service
-This will bring our total Board and Commission vacancies to: 4 - Human Services Commission
2 - Park and Recreation Commission
2 - Police and Fire Civil Service Commission
1 - Library Board
1 - Planning and Zoning Commission
MOTION: Move to reappoint the following people to the various City of Columbia Heights Boards and
Commissions: Human Services Commission, Karen Leishman; Planning and Zoning Commission, Ted
Yehle; Traffic Commission, Joseph Goodman and Ed Carlson; Telecommunications Commission, Kenneth
Henke, Bob Buboltz and Dan Swee.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
~,, , Recreation APPROVAL
ITEM: Seek bids for recreation t-shirts and equipment BY: Josh Overmohle, (!~ BY:
NO: Athletic Program Coordinatc [
DATE: March 18, 2002
BACKGROUND:
Each year the recreation department purchases t-shirts, caps, and athletic equipment for all of
our youth athletic programs. At this time, the staffwould like authorization to seek bids for the purchase oft-
shirts, hats, and athletic equipment. The funds have been budgeted in line 881-45001-2170, this is the same
account in which money donated by the boosters is deposited. We will be seeking bids for the following
companies:
Dave's Sports Shop (Fridley)
Taho Saturn Sportswear (Fridley)
Fitzharris Sports (St. Cloud)
Pro-Motion Apparel (Maple Grove)
Steichen's (St. Paul)
Sporting Goods, Inc. (Brooklyn Park)
Mike Palkert (Maple Grove)
All Service Screen Printing (Minneapolis)
Raghead Sportswear (Coon Rapids)
Metro Athletic Supply (Edina)
Metro Screen Printing (Burnsville)
Athletic Outfitters (Shoreview)
Marudas (St. Paul)
Embroidery & More (Columbia Heights)
Ideal Advertising (Fridley)
T-shirt Towne, Inc. (Bumsville)
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to authorize recreation staff to seek bids for the purchase of t-shirts, hats, and athletic
equipment for the year of 2002 to be purchased from account 88145001-2170.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
NO: ~ A, ~) Community Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Conditional Use Permit BY: Tim Johnson By: .~///~J~ ~~''
NO: Case #2002-0302, 2261 37th Avenue NE DATE: March 14, 2002
Issue Statement:
Ace Hardware is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a temporary tent
(Flower Mart) for the display and sale of green and flowering plants in the southeast side of the parking lot at
2261 37th Avenue NE, from April 15, 2002 through July 15, 2002.
Back,round:
This will be the ninth year that Ace Hardware will operate their greenhouse in Columbia Heights.
Analysis:
Section 9.607 1)e of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for seasonal agricultural sales. The
attached site plan illustrates the configuration of the flower tent. This site plan and configuration remains
unchanged from previous years. The greenhouse structure will be the same as last year with both exits remaining
open at all times during business hours. There will be at least two fire extinguishers in the Flower Mart and all
smoking will be prohibited. The principal uses of the subject parcel are preexisting and comply with General
Business zoning regulations. Existing parking exceeds zoning requirements, and adequate parking will be
maintained after placement of the accessory structure over this portion of the parking lot. It should be noted that
the Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and has expressed no concerns.
Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Heating for the request on March 12, 2002. They voted
unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the one condition
listed in the recommended motion.
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the placement of a 21 X 48 foot tent for the display and
sale of green and flowering plants at 2261 37th Avenue NE from April 15, 2002 through July 15, 2002, subject to
the following condition:
1. A $500 deposit shall be submitted to the License/Permit Clerk prior to the display of green and flowering
plants on the site.
Attachments: Sta~Report; Completed application form; Correspondence; Site plans; Fire De?artment email; Public Notice
COUNCIL ACTION:
Case: 2002-0302
Page I
STAFF REPORT TO TltE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE MARCH 12, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING
Case #: 2002-0302
Owner: Larry Frattallone
Address: Arden Hills, MN
Phone: (651) 484-3327
Parcel Address: 2261 37th Ave. NE
Zoning: GB - General Business District
Comprehensive Plan: C - Commercial
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Ace Hardware
2261 37th Ave. NE
Columbia Heights
(763) 788-9455
Surrounding Zoning
and Land Uses:
Zoning
North: R-3
South: GB
East: GB & LB
West: GB
Land Use
North: Multi-family residential
South: Vacant
East: Commercial
West: Commercial
BACKGROUND
Explanation of Request:
Frattallone's Ace Hardware is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the placement of/]
a tent measuring 21 x 48 feet for the display and sale of green and flowering plants from April 15~,,
through July 15, 2002. The display is to be located on the southeast side of the parking lot at
2261 37th Ave NE. Approximately seven (7) parking spaces will be used for tent sales in front
of the Ace Hardware store.
(CaseHistory:
Frattallone's Ace Hardware has operated seasonal greenhouses on this property for the last
years.
Case: 2002-0302
Page 2
ANALYSIS
Surrounding Prot~ertv:
GB General Business is the existing zoning on the subject parcel and on property to the south,
east, and west. The zoning to the north of the subject parcel is zoned R-3, Multiple Family
Residential, and is used for multi-family residential purposes. The area east across McKinley
Street is zoned both GB, General Business, and LB, Limited Business, and is used commercially.
Property south of the subject parcel within Columbia Heights is used as open space by the Lion's
Club and is zoned GB, General Business. The proposed use will continue to be consistent with
the character of the sun'ounding property.
Technical Review:
The principal uses of the subject parcel are preexisting and comply with zoning regulations.
Existing parking exceeds zoning requirements, and the property will still meet minimum parking '")
requirements after the placement of the tent over seven parking spaces. The operation should not
have any effect on vehicular access for the site, as the adjacent parking lot aisle will not be
blocked in any way. According to Section 9.607 1)e of the Zoning Ordinance, temporary uses
and structures are allowed as a Conditional Use. The proposal is consistent with zoning
regulations. Please note that the Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and has no concerns
regarding it.
Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan Map designates this area of Columbia Heights for future commercial activity,
including retail sales, offices, and service businesses. The proposal is consistent with the intent
of the City Comprehensive Plan.
Summary:
The positive aspects of this petition are as follows:
1. The proposal is consistent with the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Similar type uses have operated successfully for each of the past nine years on a seasonal
basis.
CONCLUSION
Staff.Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit provided a $500 deposit is submitted
to the License/Permit Clerk prior to the display of the tent on the site to ensure removal at the end
of the approved time period.
Recommended Motion:
Move to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the
placement of a 21 x 48 foot tent for the display and sale of green and flowering plants from April
Case: 2002-0302
Page 3
15, through July 15, 2002, for Ace Hardware at 2261 37th Avenue NE subject to the following
condition:
1. A $500 deposit shall be submitted to the License/Permit Clerk prior to display of green
and flowering plants on the lot.
Attachments: Completed Application Form; Site Plan; Site Map; and, Public Notice
5
From: Gary Gorman
To: Tim Johnson
Date: 3/7/02 6:49PM
Subject: Ace Hardware
I reviewed the plans for the flower mart proposed at Ace Hardware and found them acceptable.
Gary Gorman
Fire Department
(763)706-3650
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
~590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD 706-3692
r V~sit Our Website at: www. ci. columbia.height~.mn.u~ (763)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
M£MB£R$
Thoma~ Rams#ell, Chai~
Ted Ye~i~
Oonna $chmitt
Stephan Jol~on
Tamara E~ic~on
Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of
City Hall, 590 N.E. 40th Avenue, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12 2002. The order of business is as follows:
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a seasonal Flower Mart in the parking lot at 2261
37"' Avenue NE from April 15 through July 15, 2002.
Section 9.807 le)Temporary Uses and Structures. The Zoning and Development Ordinance requires a
conditional use permit for this type of operation.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For questions, you may
contact Tim Johnson, City Planner, at 763-706-3873.
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Walt Fehst
City Manager
TJ
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or
employment in, its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for 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 arrangements. (TDDI706.3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only.)
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
**PRE-APPLICATION MEETING REQUIRED WITH CITY PLANNER BEFORE SUBMISSION**
APPLICATION FOR:
Re Zoning/Zoning Amendment
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision Approval
Site Plan Approval
Lot Split
Vacation
Application Date 7_.~ 2- / 0 Z.
1. Street Address of Subject Property: ~"~G /
Fee: /
Receipt No:
Date pd:
2. Legal Description of Subject Property:
3. Applicant
Name:
Address: ;:~,','~-4,
Phone: 7
4. Owner:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
5. Reason for Request: (Please attach a written narrative describing request and justification for request)
6. Zoning: (Staff will fill out)
Applicable City Ordinance #
Present Zoning
Section
Present Use ~ ~
7. Exhibits Submitted (maps, surveys, diagrams, etc) .
Proposed Zoning
Proposed Use
8. Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law,
for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia Heights to take the action herein requested, that all
statements herein are tree and that all~ein mentioned will be done in accordance with the
Ordinances of the Ci~k_~b~ Heig~hts~ the la:s of the State of Ms[meso~a.
Signature of Applicant:,~ _.../'g.e.~ ~ c~Date: ~/t ~/0 ,~
Taken by: ~ _..
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
ITEM: APPROVAL TO PURCHASE A TOWMASTER BY: K. Hansen BY:
T-12DD TRAILER DATE: 3/19/02 v(,_~.~~ DATE:
Background:
Existing equipment unit #042 is a 10-foot Towmaster Trailer (model T-6) scheduled for replacement in 2002. It was purchased in
1989 for $2,050 and is used in the Park and Street Departments to haul the skid steer loader. The Shop Foreman has evaluated the
trailer's mechanical condition and has determined that Unit # 042 is in satisfactory condition, but determined the load hauling
capacity and braking is under sized to haul the existing John Deere skid steer loader.
The 2002 Park Capital Equipment budget has $5,500 designated for replacemem of Equipment Unit #042.
Analysis/Conclusion:
In 2001, the City replaced the'M, elrose Bobcat Skid-Steer Loader, Model 753 with a John Deere Skid Steer Loader, Model 260.
The new loader was chosen to f~cilitate construction and maintenance activities and replace an undersized unit. Unfortunately, the
new skid steer loader is too large and heavy to be hauled safely on the existing trailer.
Staff recommends the purchase of one new 20-foot Towmaster Model, T-12DD Trailer. This trailer is large enough to transport
the skid steer loader and attachments safely to the work site and is equipped with spring assist loading ramps to minimize the
possibility of back injury.
Staffhas the following alternatives for the existing trailer:
Option #1: Convert it into a Public Works safety trailer that would caay advanced warning devices, warning signs, barricades,
barrels, flashers, cones and sand bags. The safety trailer would be used for traffic control during street maintenance and/or
emergency operations.
Option #2: Dispose of the trailer by auction.
The recommended unit, a Towmaster Model T-12DD Trailer is available off the State of Minnesota State Purchasing Contract
from RDO Equipment Company in the amount of $4,680. Staff recommends converting the existing trailer to a Public Works
safety trailer used for traffic control.
Recommended Motion: Move to approve the purchase of one new 20 foot Towmaster Model T-12DD Trailer, equipped with
spring assist ramps and fork holder from lIDO Equipment Co. of Burnsville, MN m the amount of $4,680, plus tax and delivery
with funding appropriated from the Park Capital Equipment Fund: 431-45200-5180.
KH.'jb
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: ~ - E 0 ~ S £ ~T ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
ITEM: RESOLUTION ADOPTING STREET BY: K. Hanse~t~,A.~~ BY:
SWEEPING POLICY DATE: 3/19/02~-~ DATE:
Background:
It has recently been recommended by attorneys at the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) that every city have a street sweeping
policy that is reviewed annually by the City Council and approved by resolution. The Public Works Department recommends
adopting a model policy developed by the LMC that details our city's street sweeping efforts and offers protection for the City of
Columbia Heights from possible liability, from pending MPCA regulations and from an environmental perspective. Based upon
the League of Minnesota Cities 2002 model street sweeping policy, staffhas developed a street sweeping policy that addresses
when the city will sweep its streets, what streets will be swept first, and what safety precautions will be taken by city staff when
performing street sweeping activities.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Over the last coupe of years, the Rice Creek Watershed District has completed several lake and stream monitoring projects that
collected and tested water quality samples from a number of differem sources. These studies have concluded that within the
watershed district, approximately 20 percent of the annual pollutants enter our water system during the first heavy spring rain.
The Rice Creek Watershed considers street sweeping as the "best management practice" for reducing the number of pollutants in
our lakes and creeks. Sweeping is very effective in reducing the amount of salt and sand in our receiving water body system.
Much of what is described in the proposed Street Sweeping Policy follows the operational procedures Public Works has been
conducting for the last two years.
Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-21, there being ample copies available to the public.
Recommended Motion: Move to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2002-21, being a resolution adopting the City of Columbia
Heights Street Sweeping Policy.
Attachment:
Draft Street Sweeping Policy
Resolution
Maps
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-21
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE STREET SWEEPING POLICY
WHEREAS, a Street Sweeping Policy has been developed based upon recommendations by the
League of Minnesota Cities and recommended by City staff; and
WHEREAS, adoption of said policy has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of
Columbia Heights; and
WHEREAS, said policy defines the Street Sweeping procedures and methods of the City of
Columbia Heights,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Columbia
Heights that said Street Sweeping Policy is hereby approved and adopted.
Dated this 25* day of March, 2002.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BY
Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
STREET SWEEPING POLICY
2002
Adopted by the Columbia Heights City Council
Page 1 of 4
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Columbia Heights believes that it is in the best interest of the residents for the City to
assume basic responsibility for control of sweeping on city streets. Reasonable sweeping is necessary
for vehicle and pedestrian safety, water quality issues and environmental concerns. The City will
provide such service in a cost-effective manner, keeping in mind safety, budget, personnel and
environmental concerns. The City will use City employees, equipment and/or private contractors to
provide this service. Streets will not be posted no parking prior to sweeping operations. Completion
dates are dependent on weather conditions, personnel and equipment availability. The Public Works
Superintendent or his/her designee will be responsible for scheduling of personnel and equipment.
2. POLICY
When Will the City Perform Street Sweeping Operations?
A. Spring sweeping of snow and ice control aggregate will begin when streets are significantly
clear of snow and ice, usually late March or early April, after the risk of later snow has
passed. Spring sweeping is typically completed by May 31st.
B. Storm Water Quality areas will be swept on a priority basis throughout the year.
C. Environmental/general sweeping will be performed on a routine basis.
D. Fall sweeping will commence in early October and is typically completed by November 20*.
E. Seal coating is a surface application of an asphalt emulsion followed by a layer of small rock
that protects the pavement from the deteriorating effects of sun and water plus it provides
increased surface friction. Seal coat sweeping will commence 3 to 5 days after application.
F. Bituminous milling recovery sweeping will be performed the day of a grinding, milling or
crack sealing operation.
G. Erosion/siltation dirt & debris clean up from construction projects is the responsibility of the
developer, contractor or property owner. Except in cases of emergency the streets shall be
cleaned and swept within 2 to 5 days of notification. If the streets are not swept within the
specified time allowed or in the case of an emergency the City may sweep the street and the
responsible party will reimburse the city for all associated costs.
H. Tree trimming and pruning areas will be swept the day trimming and pruning operations are
performed.
I. Citizen requests for sweeping will be evaluated and the Street Foreman will determine the
priority.
3. How will Streets Be Swept?
Sweeping is a slow process with average gutter line speeds for the first sweeping in spring that can be
as slow as 2 to 3 miles per hour. The City will sweep with its own equipment and manpower.
Normally centerlines are swept after gutter lines are cleaned. Equipment may include mechanical,
vacuum or regenerative air sweepers.
4. Priorities
The City has classified City streets based on the street function, traffic volume, impact on water
quality and the environment, and the importance of the welfare of the Community. Accordingly,
Page 2 of 4
sweeping routes will be designed to provide maximum possible benefit to higher volume and water
quality sensitive areas. See attached maps or routes.
5. Weather Conditions
Sweeping operations will be conducted when weather conditions permit. Factors that may delay
sweeping operations include: temperatures below 32 degrees, wind, rain, snow, and frozen gutter
lines.
6. Work Schedule
Sweeping operations are performed in conjunction with and can be impacted by other maintenance
operations. Sweeping operations will normally be conducted Monday-Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to
3:30 p.m. Extended workdays and shift changes may be utilized for spring cleanup or emergency
sweeping to provide maximum efficiency. For safety reasons, no operator shall work more than a
twelve-hour shift in any twenty-four hour period.
7. Sidewalks and Trails
The City will sweep trails and sidewalks on collector and arterial streets once in the spring after the
risk of snow has passed and are clear of snow and ice or on an as-needed basis.
8. Safe~
Sand, seal coat rock, or other dirt and debris on the street can create a potentially dangerous condition
for vehicles, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians. It would not be practical or effective to sign all
streets for potential dangerous conditions. During seal coat operations, warning signs indicating loose
rock will be placed on each end of collector and arterial streets or other appropriate areas where
needed. These signs will remain in place until the street has been swept. Employees will follow all
work rules, OSHA regulations, and Federal and State laws to ensure a safe sweeping operation.
9. Street Sweeping Procedure
Street Sweeping Priorities for the City of Columbia Heights:
A. Water Shed Area #1 (SE Quadrant)-Includes Hart Lake, Labelle Pond, Prestemon Pond,
Silver Lake Pond, Silver Lake, and 1302 42"d Avenue over flow area.
B. Water Shed Area #2 (NE & NW Quadrant)-Includes Highland Lake, Clover Pond, Tertiary
Pond, Sullivan Pond, and Sullivan Lake.
C. Water Shed Area #3 (SW & SE Quadrants)-Includes Jackson Pond, University Heights Pond,
Huset Park overflow area, Gauvitte Park overflow area.
D. Water Shed #4 (NW Quadrant)-Includes Hilltop Pond and 4636 Washington Avenue
overflow area.
Page 3 of 4
*Note:
Special Need Areas- These areas are swept in the evening or nighttime to minimize conflict
with parked vehicles and traffic. Sweeping operations will begin when nighttime
temperatures exceed 32 degrees and will continue on a regular basis until freezing
temperatures halt the operation. Standard sweeping schedules will be Thursday night (one
time per month). Additional sweepings will be handled on an as needed basis. · Central Avenue (from 37th to 53~ Avenues);
· 40t~ Avenue (from University Avenue to Circle Terrace and Mill Street);
· 39t~ Avenue (From Jefferson Street to Central Avenues);
· 37th Avenue (From Jefferson Street to Central Avenues);
· 41st Avenue (From Quincy Street to Central Avenues);
· Quincy Street, Jackson Street, Van Buren Street, and 40t~ Avenue to 41st Avenue;
Please refer to the Street Sweeping-Water Shed Areas Map and Downtown Business
Area Map for more information.
The City of Columbia Heights Street Sweeping procedures have been established by
following the "Street Sweeping"-Best Management Practices manual created by the
Metropolitan Council (February 1994).
Page 4 of 4
llOlitl~lllll II,;INI ~IO JLlI.'l
ANOlt~LNV 'IS ~IO A~LI~
I.
.~iOltl~V '~$ &O AJ~I~
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
ITEM: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS AND BY: K. Hansen
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK DATE: 3/20/0XE5..~~ .
BIDS FOR THE 2002 STREET REHABILITATION
PROJECTS
Background:
A Public Improvement Hearing for the 2002 Street Rehabilitation Projects in Zone 6A was held on March 4, 2002. The City
Council ordered improvements for 7 blocks of full reconstruction and either 1 block of partial reconstruction or 1 block of full
reconstruction, if a signed petition was received from the fronting property owners. Staff has not received the petition to improve
Monroe Street, 43ra to 44th Avenues as a full reconstruction project rather than partial reconstruction, however, Mr. Hensel has
indicated that all but two property owners have signed the petition. Mr. Hensel hopes to have all of the signatures by Monday.
Analysis/Conclusions:
The proposed water main replacement and storm sewer construction remain essentially unchanged from the work presented at the
Public Improvement Hearing. Work on the sanitary sewer main includes several spot repairs, reconstruction of one outside drop,
and new manhole construction at one location on the trunk main. The proposed funding for this work is as follows:
Storm Water Utility
Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund
Water Construction Fund
$180,000'.
$ 30,000.
$ 245,400.
* The Storm Sewer work includes a DNR Grant for $ 46,500.
The Sanitary Sewer construction does not include lining. This work is done under a separate contract and will be discussed with
the Council at a future work session.
Final plans and specifications for the Street Rehabilitation Improvements, including utilities, are complete. The bid opening is
scheduled for May 7th with City Council award on May 13t~. A copy of the proposed schedule is attached for informational
purposes.
Recommended Motion: Move to approve the Final Plans and Specifications for City Project 0202:2002 Street Rehabilitation
Projects in Zone 6A, including utility improvements, and authorize staff to seek bids for the same.
Attachment: Proposed Schedule
COUNCIL ACTION:
2001 STREET REHABILITATION - ZONE 6A
PROJECT NO. 0202
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
FEASIBILITY STAGE
Council Authorizes Feasibility Report (Resolution)
Feasibility Report to Work Session
Council Receives Engineer's Report and Orders Hearing (Resolution)
Informational Meeting
Send Improvement Hearing Notice to FOCUS
Publish Notice of Hearing
Mail Notice of Hearing
IMPROVEMENT HEARING
Council Considers Improvement and
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (Resolution)
January 14
February 4
February 11
February 21
February 15
February 21 and 28
February 22
March 4
MSAS APPROVAL OF FUNDS FOR LOCAL ROADS
Council Authorization to Spend MSAS Funds on Local Roads (Resolution)
Submit plans to Mn/DOT
Final Mn/DOT Approval
PROJECT STAGE
March 11
April 1
May 1
Plans and Specs Substantially Complete
Council Authorization to Advertise for Bids
Send Advertisement for Bids to Focus
Send Advertisement for Bids to Construction Bulletin
Publish Advertisement (Focus)
Publish Advertisement (Construction Bulletin)
Bid Opening (Minutes)
Council Awards Contract (Resolution)
Contract, Bond Forms and Notice of Award to Contractor (EJCDC)
Preconstruction Meeting (Minutes)
Receipt of Executed Contract, Bonds and Insurance
Preconstruction Meeting with Residents
Notice to Proceed
Begin Work
Substantial Completion
Ill
ASSESSMENT HEARING STAGE
March 25
March 25
April 5
April 9
April 11
April 12, 19, and 26
May 7
May 13
May 14
May 23
May 30
May 30
June 5
June 10
August 30
Il!
Order Levy Hearing
Notice of Cost Sharing to Council (Resolution)
Send Improvement Hearing Notice to FOCUS
Publish Notice of Hearing
Mail Notice of Hearing
ASSESSMENT HEARING
Council Considers Assessment (Resolution)
September 9
September 23
September 27
October 3
October 11
October 21
G:Wrojects~2002\0202~Zone 6LProject Schedule
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/01
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
ITEM: AWARD OF 2002 AGGREGATES BY: K. HansenX,~/.
DATE: 3/19/01 ~
Background:
Each year Public Works obtains bids for Road Aggregates on a unit price basis for routine purchases as needed. The City
advertised and received bids on March 13,2002 at 10:00 A.M. The City received 5 bids with a copy of the bid tab attached. The
bidding documents asked for materials either delivered or picked up. The picked up bid was adjusted for mileage and labor, as
indicated in the specifications, to reflect the City's total cost.
Analysis and Conclusions: A summary tabulation is provided for the 2002 Road Aggregates based upon low formal bid(s)
received at the unit prices and associated vendor(s) as follows:
MATERIAL COMPANY UNIT PRICE
Bid C - Sanding Sand
Bid D - Class 2 Aggregate
Bid E - Class 5 Aggregate
Bid F - Alternate Class 5 Aggregate
Bid G - Select Granular Borrow
Bid H - Crushed Rock
Hassan
Barton Sand
Bryan Rock
Bryan Rock
Bryan Rock
Bryan Rock
Midwest Asphalt
Midwest Asphalt
Bryan Rock
Midwest Asphalt
Bryan Rock
Bryan Rock
$ 7.10 per ton - delivered
$ 6.60 per ton - picked up
$ 9.80 per ton - delivered
$ 6.25 per ton - picked up
$ 9.80 per ton - delivered
$ 6.25 per ton - picked up
$ 7.65 per ton - delivered
$ 5.70 per ton - picked up
$ 5.57 per ton - delivered
$ 5.45 per ton - picked up
$14.47 per ton - delivered
$10.92 per ton - picked up
The delivered aggregates went up an average of 3.7 percent from the 2001 low bid prices while the picked up pricing went up
significantly - by an average of $1.41 per ton. This can be attributed to two different low bid vendors for the sanding sand and
select granular borrow. Removing these two items the average price increased by 5.8 percent.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/01
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM: AWARD OF 2002 ROAD AGGREGATES BY: K. Hansen BY:
DATE: 3/19/01 DATE:
The 2002 Public Works Budget has the following amounts budgeted:
Aggregate
o Sanding Ice Control $ 8,000
o Gravel $ 2,000
o Granular & Crushed Rock $ 4,500
Continued - Page 2
Recommended Motion: Move to award the 2002 Road Aggregates contract based on the unit prices and vendors listed, up to a
maximum contract amount as approved in the 2002 Public Works budget, and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter
into an agreement for the same.
KH:kh
Attachment:
Bid Tabulation
Bid Opening Minutes
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Minutes of Bid Opening Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 10:00 a.m.
ROAD AGGREGATES
Pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Road Aggregates, an administrative meeting was
held on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of bid opening. Bids were
opened and read aloud.
Attending the meeting were:
Schawn Johnson, Administrative Assistant
Joanne Baker, Public Works Secretary
Michael Schleeter, Midwest Asphalt Corporation
Bids were opened and read aloud as follows:
See a~ached.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Baker,
Public Works Secretary
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting off 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA .. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: ~,_~* /~ PUBLIC WOR~S~~~¥... BDYA"TEJ//~
ITEM: AWARD OF 2002 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS BY: K. Hansen~~'/
MATERIALS DATE. 3/19/01 x-~ .
Background
Each year Public Works obtains bids for Plant Mixed Bituminous Materials on a unit price basis for routine purchases as needed.
The City advertised and received bids on March 13, 2002 at 11:00 A.M. The City received 4 bids with a copy of the bid tab
attached. The bidding documents asked for materials either delivered or picked up. The picked up bid was adjusted for mileage
and labor, as indicated in the specifications, to reflect the City's total cost.
Analysis and Conclusions: A summapy tabulation is provided for the 2002 Plant Mixed Bituminous Materials based upon low
formal bid(s) received at the unit prices and associated vendor(s) as follows:
MATERIALS COMPANY UNIT PRICE
AC Fine Sand Mix
3/8 AC Fine - Max. Aggregate
2331 Type 3lB Base
2331 Type 4lB Binder
Bituminous Roadways
C.S. McCrossan
Bituminous Roadways
C.W. McCrossan
Bituminous Roadways
Bituminous Roadways
Bituminous Roadways
Bituminous Roadways
2331 Type 4lB Wear Bituminous Roadways
Bituminous Roadways
2331 - Type 4 lA Wear Bituminous Roadways
Bituminous Roadways
Winter Mix Bituminous Roadways
Bituminous Roadways
$46.00 per ton - delivered
$26.00 per ton - picked up
$46.00 per ton - delivered
$26.00 per ton - picked up
$37.00 per ton - delivered
$21.75 per ton - picked up
$37.00 per ton - delivered
$21.75 per ton - picked up
$37.00 per ton - delivered
$21.95 per ton - picked up
$38.00 per ton - delivered
$23.25 per ton - picked up
$60.00 per ton - delivered
$50.00 per ton - picked up
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM: AWARD OF 2002 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS BY: K. Hansen BY:
MATERIALS DATE: 3/19/01 DATE:
Continued - Page 2
DISPOSAL OF CONCRETE/ASPHALT RUBBLE
MATERIALS COMPANY UNIT PRICE
Bituminous
Concrete with steel
Concrete without steel
Midwest Asphalt
Midwest Asphalt
Midwest Asphalt
Midwest Asphalt
Midwest Asphalt
Midwest Asphalt
$27.50 per ton - picked up by Company
Free dump - delivered by City crew
$57.50 per ton - picked up by Company
$12.50 per ton - delivered by City crew
$27.50 per ton - picked up by Company
Free dump - delivered by City crew
On average, the low bid prices are down $1.00 per ton for bituminous and up $2.50 per ton for disposal of materials from the 2001
bid prices. The 2002 Public Works Budget has the following amounts budgeted:
Asphalt Materials
o Hot Mix Bituminous $18,800
o Winter Cold Mix $ 7,000
· Disposal of Asphalt & Concrete Rubble $ 2,500
Recommended Motion: Move to award the 2002 Plant Mixed Bituminous Materials contract based on the unit prices and
vendors listed, up to a maximum contract amount as approved in the 2002 Public Works budget, and to authorize the Mayor and
City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
r.~-I.'jb
Attachment:
Bid Tabulation
Bid Opening Minutes
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Minutes of Bid Opening Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 11:00 a.m.
PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS
Pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Plant Mixed Bituminous, an administrative meeting
was held on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of bid opening. Bids
were opened and read aloud.
Attending the meeting were:
Schawn Johnson, Administrative Assistant
Joanne Baker, Public Works Secretary
Michael Schleeter, Midwest Asphalt Corporation
Bids were opened and read aloud as follows:
See attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Baker,
Public Works Secretary
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
~, /~t', / [ ~ PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM:
AWARDING THE TENNIS BY: K. Hansen'S/ BY:
RESOLUTION
COURT REPAIR/RESURFACING AT SULLIVAN DATE: 3/21/02 ~ DATE:
LAKE PARK TO C & H SPORT SURFACES, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,125.00.
Background:
In 2000/2001, staffreviewed the Park Development Capital Improvement Projects with the Park and Recreation
Commission. Staff applied but was unsuccessful in obtaining DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant funding for the
Commission recommended projects (Redevelopment of Ramsdell Park and Paved Trail improvements at Labelle and
Prestemon Parks). Public works staff subsequently installed a raised paved walking trail at Prestemon Park. Further
discussions with the Park & Recreation commission in 2001 looked at existing facilities in the parks and identified
Sullivan Lake Park Tennis Courts as one recreational amenity that could be brought up to a playable surface without
needing complete reconstruction. Public Works planned for this as a maintenance activity by allocating $6,000 in the
2002 Parks budget for tennis court resurfacing.
Analysis/Conclusions:
The existing tennis court surfaces are at the point where resurfacing is required to keep them in playable shape. This
was last done in 1994 and is recommended to be done every 3-5 years. The existing cracks will be cleaned and filled
with an acrylic patch binder and leveled before resurfacing. All birdbaths will be filled and leveled. The finish
resurfacing shall consist o£ two coats o£ a textured acrylic color-playing surface, with new white lines. Staff prepared
specifications for the work and received bids on January 25, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. The City received 5 bids, ranging
from $4,176 to $6,480, with a copy of the bid opening minutes attached. Because of the condition of the existing net
post and no mechanical means to tighten the nets (currently done by hand), an alternate bid for new net posts and two
ratchets (for tightening the nets) was also requested with bids ranging from $1,600 to $2,300. Considering the base
bid and alternate bid, the low bid amount is $6,125, from C & H Sport Surfaces of Lonsdale, MN.
The Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the bids at their February 27, 2002 meeting with a
recommendation to the City Council of accepting the low and alternate bid and awarding the contract to C & H
Sport Surfaces in the amount of $6,125.00.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-22, there being ample copies available to the public.
Move to adopt Resolution 2002-22, accepting bids and awarding City Project 2002-04, resurfacing of the
Sullivan Park Tennis Courts, to C & H Sport Surfaces based upon their low, qualified, responsible bid in
the amount of $6,125.00, accepting the base and alternate bid, with funds appropriated from Fund 412-
50204-5130, and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the
same.
Attachments: Resolution
Bid Opening Minutes
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION No. 2002-22
BEING A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR TENNIS COURT REPAIR/RESURFACING AT
SULLIVAN LAKE PARK CITY PROJECT 2002-04
TO C & H SPORT SURFACES OF LONSDALE, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for City Project 2002-04, Tennis Court Repair/Resurfacing, bids
were received, opened and tabulated according to law. The following bids were received complying with the
advertisement:
Bidder Base Bid Addendum 1
Dermco-LaVine Construction
C & H Sport Surfaces, Inc.
Tennis Court Doctor
A-1 Surfacing
Blacktop Repair Service Inc.
$4,176 $2,057
$4,325 $1,800
$4,444 $2,250
$4,500 $2,300
$6,480 $1,600
WHEREAS, it appears that C & H Sport Surfaces, 108 N. Main St., P. O. Box 290, Lonsdale, MN 55046, is the
lowest responsible bidder.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA that:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with C & H Sport
Surfaces, in the name of the City of Columbia Heights for Tennis Court Repair/Resurfacing at Sullivan
Lake Park, City Project 2002-04, according to plans and specifications therefore approved by the
Council.
The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to return, forthwith, to all bidders, the deposits made
with their bids except the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until
the contract has been signed.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2002.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BY
Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Minutes of Bid Opening on Friday, January 25, 2002
City Project No. 0203
2002 Tennis Court Repair/Resurfacing - Sullivan Lake Park
Pursuant to bid proposals being sent out to 10 companies, an administrative meeting was held on
Friday, January 25, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of bid opening. Bids were opened and
read aloud.
Attending the meeting were:
Kathyjean Young, Assistant City Engineer
Joanne Baker, Public Works Secretary
Bids were opened and read aloud as follows:
Bidder Base Bid Addendum 1
Dermco-LaVine Construction
C & H Sport Surfaces, Inc.
Tennis Court Doctor
A-1 Surfacing
Blacktop Repair Service Inc.
$4,176 $2,057
$4,325 $1,800
$4,444 $2,250
$4,500 $2,300
$6,480 $1,600
Respectfully submitted~
Joanne Baker
Public Works Secretary
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
AGENDA SECTION: ) ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: ~'. /~. I ~.. Community Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Approve Request for Qualifications BY: Randy Schumacherc.~.3~
for the Industrial Center Redevelopment DATE: March 20, 2002
Project
BACKGROUND: At the January 5th Goals Session for the Community Development Department, the
City Council and EDA listed the redevelopment of industrial zoned properties as their number 1 priority
for 2002. In February, the City Council and EDA decided that a Request for Developer Qualifications
(RFQ) process would be the approach taken for redevelopment of the industrial area bounded
approximately by Jefferson Street, 37th Avenue, University Avenue, and 39~h Avenue/Lookout Place.
The RFQ process is a faster, more streamlined approach than the RFP and will give the EDA a very
good idea of what the private market is willing to build in a short timeframe.
The attached draft of the RFQ is a combination of several examples from metro area cities, all of which
had success with the RFQ process. The RFQ will be mailed to a list of interested developers. Once
received, a checklist for evaluating each proposal will be written for decision-making purposes. It is
hoped that the selection can be made by July 2002. At the EDA meeting of March 19, 2002 the Board
reviewed the draft RFQ, directed staff to make amendments to the document and approved a motion
recommending City Council approve the document.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the RFQ document for the Columbia
Heights Industrial Center Redevelopment Project and direct staff to proceed with the advertising and
mailing of the RFQ's to interested developers.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Request For Qualification document for the
Columbia Heights Industrial Center Redevelopment Project and direct staff to proceed with the
advertising and mailing of the RFQ's to interested developers.
Attachments
COUNCIL ACTION:
Consent2002\CL Approve RFQ for Industrial Area
City of Columbia Heights
Industrial Center Redevelopment Project
Request for Qualifications
1. Project Context
The City of Columbia Heights is initiating redevelopment of an industrial area generally
bounded by 37th Avenue on the south, Jackson Street on the east, 39th Avenue and Lookout Place
on the north and all Industrial and General Business to the west of University extending from
37th to 40th Avenue (see Appendix A for map). The City of Columbia Heights is seeking
qualifications from interested development teams to assist the City in redeveloping the property
described in Appendix A.
It is the objective of the City of Columbia Heights to facilitate the redevelopment of an
underutilized and blighted industrial area through a coordinated, collaborative public/private
partnership approach. To this end, the City has received limited funding from Anoka County for
planning the Industrial Center Redevelopment Project along with a selected development team.
It should be noted that the project is not limited to redevelopment into industrial uses and will be
based on the highest and best use of the property. It is anticipated that the final agreed upon plan
for this Industrial area will serve as the gateway to the University Avenue to Anoka County
Corridor of Columbia Heights - people will know that they have arrived in Columbia Heights.
2. Area Information
2.1 The area has views of downtown Minneapolis.
2.2 The area is zoned (I-1 & 1-2) industrial use.
2.3 56 parcels - 2 city-owned - housing about 20 companies
2.4 Not all companies may need to be relocated - some existing buildings
may be incorporated into the project.
2.5 Environmental issues will likely need to be addressed.
2.6 Area is high profile with proximity to city's senior center, library, major park,
downtown shopping, and bus routes.
2.7 City has the following studies available to the development teams:
Downtown Market Study (McComb Group, Ltd); Downtown Master Plan (SRF
Consulting Group); Demographic Profile (Demographic Technologies, Inc.,
Medtronics); Minnesota Design Team Plan; and the Life Cycle Housing Study.
3. Development Team Information Requested
The information that is sought by the City is intended to assist in the evaluation of
potential, redevelopment partners, but the City caimot guarantee that information
submitted in response to the RFQ will remain private. This information is
representative of the data that will be used to select the City's redevelopment partner,
but additional information may be requested by the City during the process to assist in
making the final selection.
3.1 Redevelopment Team Data
3.1.1 Organizational form
3.1.2 Contact person and availability
3.1.3 Staff members and availability
3.1.4 Developments underway, under consideration, or committed
3.1.5 Names of consultants and their anticipated project involvement
3.1.6 Redevelopment team's approach to public/private partnerships
3.2 Redevelopment Team Experience
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
Previous redevelopment experience, especially similar projects
Demonstrated ability to work with relocating existing businesses
Demonstrated ability to move from concept stage to construction completion within
an established time frame
Experience in the redevelopment process, including land use revisions, utilities,
highway, environmental and other regulatory permitting and review agencies
Describe your ability to establish effective working relationships with the City and
community
3.3 Financial Capability
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
Financial capability, including ability to secure project financing,
secure construction bonds, finance pre-development activities, and work with a
variety of finance professionals.
Financial planning capacity, including the ability to prepare project
proformas and financing plans
Demonstrated record of meeting project financial commitments
3.4 Design Experience
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
Design capacity, as evidenced by completed projects of similar size
Design flexibility, as demonstrated by the ability to adapt to local design criteria
Creativity, as evidenced by previous experience of redevelopment team to meet
special redevelopment challenges with a unique approach
e
Redevelopment Team Selection Process
4.1 Respondents are requested to submit ten (10) copies of their proposal focusing
on the above questions.
4.2 All RFQ packages are to be submitted to the City of Columbia Heights no
later than 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 14, 2002.
4.3 All RFQ packages should be addressed: Industrial Center Redevelopment
Center Redevelopment Project, Attention: Randy Schumacher, Acting Community
Development Director, City of Columbia Heights, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia
Heights, MN 55421.
4.4
The City of Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority will review
and interview the Redevelopment Team proposals and make a recommendation to
the City Council by June 19, 2002.
4.5 The City of Columbia Heights City Council will consider the Economic
Development Authority's recommendation at their July 8, 2002 meeting.
4.6 The City and the selected Redevelopment Team will have 45 days to agree
on a Letter of Understanding setting forth the scope of work, timeline, and division
of costs.
The City of Columbia Heights reserves the right to reject any and/or all RFQ's for the Industrial
Center Redevelopment Project.
Staff Contact
5.1
All questions related to this RFQ may be addressed to Randy Schumacher,
Acting Community Development Director, City of Columbia Heights at 763-706-
3675; FAX at 763-706-3671; and/or by E-mail: Randy. Schumacher~ci.columbia-
heights.mn.us.
5.2 THANK YOU for your interest in our community and we look forward to
receiving your proposal!
.LS
IS NO.I.IDNIH
IS
'Id NOSIC]~IAI
ZI;' # 'H'I'S
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting off March 25, 2002
AGENDA SECTION: c o N S E bi T ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY
Community Development MANAGER'S
NO: ~o ~-~. //3 APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2002-25, BY: Randy Schumacher ~-"~o,-, BY.~.~/~,/_
Approving Purchase Agreement for 325 DATE: March 22, 2002 ~
Summit Avenue N.E.
BACKGROUND: At the March 19, 2002 EDA meeting, the Board reviewed a proposal to
redevelop the southeast comer of 40th Avenue and University Avenue.
Presently the City controls two sites in the redevelopment area and is in the process of
completing the acquisition of a third site.
The single-family home at 325 Summit Avenue N.E. is presently unoccupied and is available for
a voluntary sale. By adding this property into the redevelopment project area, it will assist the
City in compiling a total redevelopment site of over one acre. The house sits on lots 16,17 & 18,
Block 68, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Staff has reached an agreement to purchase the house at 325 Summit Avenue N.E. fi:om the
owner Walter Diachuk, personal representative for the estate of Ivan Diaczuk, (Purchase
Agreement is attached). The property can be purchased by the City for $144,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council Adopt Resolution 2002-25, a
Resolution authorizing the purchase of property at 325 Summit Avenue N.E.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2002-25, there
being ample copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2002-25, being a Resolution
authorizing the purchase of 325 Summit Avenue N.E. and utilizing the general fund balance
for interim funding.
Attachments
h:\
COUNCIL ACTION:
Consent2002\CL Purchase Agreement 325 Summit Ave.
RESOLUTION 2002 - 25
BEING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 325 SUMMIT AVENUE N.E.
WHEREAS, at the March 19, 2002 EDA Meeting; the Board reviewed a proposal to redevelop the
southeast comer of 40th Avenue and University Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City presently owns two properties in the study area and is in the process of acquiring
the Conoco Station with Community Development Block Grant dollars obtained in 2001;
and
WHEREAS, the property located at 325 Summit Avenue N.E. is adjacent to the redevelopment site and
is unoccupied and available for a voluntary sale; and
WHEREAS, the consensus of the EDA was to pursue negotiations with the property owner for the
acquisition of 325 Summit Avenue N.E.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that:
The City Council hereby approves the terms of the Purchase Agreement for 325 Summit Avenue
N.E. between the City of Columbia Heights and Walter Diachuk, personal representative for the
estate of Ivan Diaczuk and authorizes the Mayor and the City Manager to sign it on behalf of the
City at a purchase price of ~144~000, which is established as a fair market value based on
negotiations with the property owner.
The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to handle all the requirements and
conditions in order for the City to complete the transaction contemplated in the Purchase
Agreement.
o
The City Council approves payment of the purchase from the General Fund balance, to be
reimbursed at the time the redevelopment project property subdivision takes place and
alleyway improvements have been completed.
Passed this
__ day of March, 2002
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
Address: 325 Summit Street
Columbia Heights, MN
PIN # 35-30-24-31-0119
Page 1 of 6
REAL ESTATE SALE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 21st day of March, 2002, by and between, Walter
Diaczuk, also known as Walter Diachuk, personal representative for the estate of Ivan
Diaczuk, hereinafter referred to as Seller, and the City of Columbia Heights, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as Buyer.
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Seller owns certain real estate situated at 325 Summit Street N.E.,
Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and legally described below; and
WHEREAS, Buyer wishes to purchase and Seller is willing to sell to Buyer said real
estate; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to define their respective rights, duties and obligations
related to the sale/purchase of said real estate.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and the respective
agreements contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Prooerty
The Seller hereby agrees to sell and the Buyer hereby agrees to purchase thc following
described real estate located in the City of Columbia Heights, State of Minnesota to-wit:
Lots 16, 17 & 18, Block 68, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis, Anoka
County, Minnesota
Page 2 of 6
2. Purchase Price
The purchase price for the subject property shall be the sum of One Hundred Forty Four
Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($144,000.00) payable at closing.
3. Contingency
This offer is contingent upon approval by the Columbia Heights City Council for a period
of 7 days after signing of the Purchase Agreement by the Seller.
4. Closing
The closing shall be within 14 days after all required City Council actions have been
finalized and all title objections have been satisfied by the Seller, if any have been made by the
Buyer, but will not be any later than April 8, 2002.
5. Possession
The Seller further agrees to deliver possession not later than at time of closing, provided
that all conditions of this agreement have been complied with. All charges for city water, city
sewer, electricity, and natural gas shall be prorated between the parties as of date of possession.
Seller agrees to remove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED
HEREIN fi.om the property by possession date. Any personal property not removed by the date
of possession, shall be considered the property of the Buyer.
6. Deed/Marketable Title
Subject to performance by the Buyer, the Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Warranty
Deed conveying marketable title to said premised subject only to the following exceptions:
a)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Building and zoning laws, ordinances, State and Federal regulations.
Restrictions relating to use or improvement of premises without effective
forfeiture provision.
Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota.
Utility and drainage easements, which do not interfere with present
improvements.
Rights of tenants as follows: (unless specified, not subject to tenancies)
Page 3 of 6
7. Title
The Seller shall, within a reasonable time after approval of this agreement, furnish an
abstract of title, or a registered Property Abstract certified to date to include proper searches
covering bankruptcies, and State and Federal judgments and liens. The Buyer shall be allowed
15 days after receipt thereof for examination of said title and the making of any objections
thereto, said objections to be made in writing or deemed to be waived. If any objections are so
made the Seller shall be allowed 60 days to make such title marketable. Pending correction of
title the payments hereunder required shall be postponed, but upon correction of title and within
10 days after written notice to the Buyer, the parties shall perform this agreement according to its
terms.
If Seller shall fail to have said exceptions removed or satisfied within the time provided,
Buyer may elect to do one or more of the following: (a) remove or satisfy the exceptions on
behalf of Seller and at Seller's cost and expense, all of which costs and expenses shall be
deducted from the purchase price at closing; (b) elect to purchase the property subject to the
exceptions; and/or (c) declare this Agreement null and void (in which case neither party shall
have any further liability or obligation to the other. In the event Buyer elects, to remove or satisfy
the exceptions on behalf of Seller in accordance with alternative (a) above, Seller shall cooperate
with and assist Buyer in all reasonable respects.
8. Real Estate Taxes
Real estate taxes due and payable in and for the year of closing shall be prorated between
the Seller and Buyer on a calendar basis to the actual date of closing.
9. Special Assessments
Seller shall pay on date of closing all installments of special assessments. Seller shall pay
on date of closing all other special assessments levied as of the date of closing. Buyer shall
provide for payment of all special assessments pending as of the date of closing for
improvements that have been ordered by the city or other assessing authorities. Seller shall pay
on the date of closing, any deferred taxes.
10. Seller Warranties
Seller warrants that buildings, are or will be, constructed entirely within the boundary
lines of the property. Seller warrants that there is a right of access to the property from a public
fight of way. These warranties shall survive the delivery of the deed or contract for deed.
Page 4 of 6
Seller warrants that prior to the closing, payment in full will have been made for all labor,
materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the
closing in connection with construction, alteration or repair of any structure on or improvement
to the property. Seller warrants upon execution of this Agreement, Seller will not rent the
property once it is vacated by any person now occupying same.
Seller warrants Seller has executed no option to purchase, right of first refusal, or any
other agreement giving any person or other entity the right to purchase or otherwise acquire any
interest in the property, and Seller is unaware of any option to purchase, right of first refusal, or
other similar rights affecting the property, except as otherwise noted in the title commitment for
the property.
Seller has received no notice of any action, litigation, investigation or proceeding of any
kind pending against Seller, nor to the best of Seller's knowledge is any action, litigation,
investigation, or proceeding pending or threatened against the Subject Premises, or any part
thereof.
On the Date of Closing, there will be no service contracts in effect in connection with the
Subject Premises, except those, which are terminable on thirty (30) days written notice.
11. Risk of Loss
If there is any loss or damage to the property between the date hereof and the date of
closing, for any reason including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake, or act of God, the risk of loss
shall be on Seller. If property is destroyed or substantially damaged before the closing date, the
Purchase Agreement shall become null and void, at Buyer's option, and earnest money shall be
refunded to Buyer; Buyer and Seller agree to sign cancellation of Purchase Agreement.
12. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence in this Purchase Agreement.
13. Acceptance
Seller understands and agrees that this Purchase Agreement is subject to acceptance by
Buyer in writing.
14. Environmental Concerns
To the best of the Seller's knowledge there are no hazardous substances, underground
storage tanks, or wells except herein noted:
Page 5 of 6
15. Well Disclosure
Buyer acknowledges receipt of a well disclosure statement from Seller attached as
Exhibit A to this Agreement.
16. Individual Sewage Treatment System Disclosure
Seller discloses that there is not an individual sewage treatment system on or serving the
Property.
17. As-Is-Basis
It is specifically agreed that the Real Property in its current condition is being conveyed
to the Buyer by the Seller in "As-Is Condition" ("with all faults").
18. Right of Entry
Buyer is duly authorized agents shall have the right during the period from the date of
this Agreement to closing, to enter in and upon the Premises in order to make, at Purchaser's
expense, surveys, measurements, wetlands delineations, soil tests, and other tests that Buyer shall
deem necessary. Buyer agrees to restore any resulting damage to the Premises and to indemnify,
hold harmless and defend Seller from any and all claims by third persons of any nature
whatsoever arising from Buyer's right of entry hereunder, including all actions, suits,
proceedings, demands, assessments, costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
19. Brokers Commissions
In the event Seller has retained the services of any agent, person, corporation or firm to
assist in the sale of the property who, in tum, is entitled to a commission by reason of this
Agreement and the closing hereunder, Seller hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Buyer
harmless from any liability arising therefrom.
20. Entire Agreement
This Purchase Agreement, any attached exhibits and any addenda or amendments signed
by the parties, shall constitute the entire agreement between Seller and Buyer, and supersedes
any other written or oral agreements between Seller and Buyer. This Purchase Agreement can be
modified only in writing signed by Seller and Buyer and is contingent upon the execution and
passage of all necessary City and State requirements.
Page 6 of 6
21. Incidental Expenses
All expenses of examination of title, transfer tax, closing fees will be paid by the Buyer. Any
cost incurred to remove any cloud on the title to convey a good and marketable title to said
premised subject shall be the responsibility of the Seller.
22. Ineligible for Relocation Assistance
The Seller acknowledge that they have voluntarily entered this Purchase Agreement and,
as such, acknowledge that the Sellers are not "displaced persons" as defined by The Uniform
Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Act of 1970 as amended and M.S. 117.52 and hence
the Sellers are not eligible for any relocation assistance or benefits (see Addendum "C", Waiver
Agreement Regarding Relocation Benefits).
The undersigned, owner of the above land, does hereby approve the above agreement and the
sale thereby made.
SELLER:
Walter Diachuk, Personal Representative for the
Estate of Ivan Diaczuk
I hereby agree to purchase the said property for the price and upon the terms above mentioned,
and subject to all conditions herein expressed.
BUYERS:
Walter Fehst - City Manager, Columbia Heights
Gary Peterson - Mayor, City of Columbia Heights
FINAL ACCEPTANCE DATE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT:
H:Lgorms\325 Summit Street Purchase Agreement
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
AGENDA SECTION: c o N $ E N T ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
NO: ~" A' ]/'~) License Department APPROVAL
ITEM: License Agenda BY: Shelley Hanson f,~X~, DATE.' ~ ~~
NO: DATE: March 21, 2002 BY:
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Attached is the business license agenda for the March 25, 2002 City Council meeting.
consists of applications for Contractor licenses for 2002.
This agenda
At the top of the license agenda you will notice a phrase stating *Signed Waiver Form Accompanied
Application. This means that the data privacy form has been submitted as required. If not submitted,
certain information cannot be released to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for March 25, 2002 as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION:
TO CITY COUNCIL March 25, 2002
*Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application
2002 BUSINESS LICENSE AGENDA
CONTRACTORS LICENSES
BLDG
*Paul Vadnais Plumbing
*Refrigeration Services
*Commercial Plmbg & Htg
*Tech Builders
*Signsations
*Sign Maintenance
*Allstate Tree Service
307 Sargent Rd Willemie, MN$50.00
4110 Central Avenue $50.00
24428 Greenway Ave $50.00
410 Downtn Plaza, Fairmont $50.00
2140 Energy Park Dr St Paul $50.00
12300 63rd Ave N,Mpl Gr $50.00
7510 Jackson St NE Fridley $50.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/21/2002 14:37:33
FUND DESCRIPTION
101 GENEPAL
201 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
202 ANOKA COUNTY CDBG
203 PARKVIEW VILLA NORTH
204 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTH
213 PARKVIEW VILLA SOUTH
235 RENTAL HOUSING
240 LIBRARY
250 COL HG~{TS ;%FTER SCHOOL ENRI
270 DA~,E PROJECT
276 LOCAL LAW ENFORCE BLK GRANT
387 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BOND 1999A
402 STATE AID CONSTRUCTION
405 DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE
415 CAPITAL IMPRO~'EMENT - PIR
601 WATER UTILITY
602 SEWER UTILITY
603 REFUSE ~U%DD
604 STORM SEWER UTILITY
609 LIQUOR
631 WATER FUND DEBT SERVICE
632 SEWER FUND DEBT SERVICE
634 STOEMM SEWER DEBT SERVICE
701 CENTRAL GARAGE
720 DATA PROCESSING
884 INSURANCE
885 ESCROW
887 FLEX BENEFIT TRUST FUND
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
Check History
DISBURSEMENTS
56,818.71
919.22
35,000.00
32,399.98
1,040.16
15,709.56
492.45
5,412.63
1,759.74
350.00
1,402.18
316.25
523.45
3,000.00
776.16
80,266.47
56,970.32
714.20
42.01
102,941.09
165.22
6.27
144.76
4,634.68
49.21
34,529.50
201,392.43
1,265.77
639,042.42
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL060S-V06.40 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
TOTAL ALL BANKS
DISBURSEMENTS
639,042.42
639,042.42
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/21/2002 14
Check History
03/25/2002 COUNCIL LISTING
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R-V06.40 PAGE 1
BANK VENDOR
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
AARP 97110 330.00
BECKER/KELLY 97111 107.60
BIFF'S,INC. 97112 358.64
BROOKLYN CENTER CINEMA 2 97113 290.00
DESCHENE/JOHN 97114 250.00
DONAGHUE DOORS INC 97115 150.00
ERICKSON/MARJORIE 97116 42.00
FLARERTY'S BO~ 97117 168.00
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AU?O 97118 26.08
GREATAMERICAN HISTORY T 97119 1,299.00
HONEYWELL INC 97120 313.53
LACH/HENRY 97121 102.00
LARSON/ROY 97122 202.50
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITI 97123 20.00
LEXVOLD/SC(II'~ 97124 150.00
MEYER/BEVERLY 97125 103.00
MINN DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 97126 20.00
MINNESOTA PUBLIC WORKS A 97127 280.00
MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSO 97128 390.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 97129 65.00
MN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE A 97130 188.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING 97131 200.00
NATIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL 97132 400.00
O'GARA/ANDREW 97133 55.00
OLSON FIRE INSPECTION 97134 262.00
PEDDYCOART SERVICE GROUP 97135 1,096.96
PETTY CASH - KELLY BECKE 97136 15.85
PETTY CASH - LINDA MAGEE 97137 300.00
POSTAGE BY PHONE REVERSE 97138 6,000.00
RANGE/DALE 97139 196.37
RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF M 97140 306.03
SUPERIOR PRODUCT 97141 722.07
SURPLUS SERVICES 97142 15.00
TRANS-ALARM INC 97143 27,294.74
VERIZON WIRELESS 97144 459.82
VISA 97145 766.59
WINESCHITL/KEITH 97146 14.50
HONEYWELL INC 97147 313.53
LACH/NE/~RY 97148 102.00
MN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE A 97149 188.00
ALL SAINTS BRAND DISTRIB 97150 372.00
ANOEA COUNTY PROPERTY RE 97151 35,000.00
ARCTIC GLACIER 97152 302.12
BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 97153 183.01
BELLBOY CORPORATION 97154 7,391.78
CHISAGO LkKES DISTRIBUTI 97155 5,216.40
CITY PAGES 97156 420.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/21/2002 14
Check History
03/25/2002 COUNCIL LISTING
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R-V06.40 PAGE 2
BANK VENDOR
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
CLARK ENGINEERING
COCA-COLA BO~i~ING MIDWE
DPMS
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
EAST SIDE BE~RAGE CO
EDLUND/DORINDA
GAULT/BIL5
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUlD
GRIGGS-COOPER & CO
GUALT/BIL5
HOHENSTEINS INC
JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO.
KUETHER DIST. CO.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITI
MARK VII DIST.
MCDONALDS
METRO CASH REGISTER SYST
METROCALL - ATT MESSAGIN
NEEDHAM DISTRIBUTING CO
NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOG
NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY
OFFICE DEPOT
PEPSI-COLA-7 UP
PE~ CASH - JEAN ANDRES
PETTY CASH - I(AREN MOELL
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PIERSON/MITCH
PITNEY BOWES LOUISVILLE
PRIOR WINE
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASC
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNES
VERIZON WIRELESS
WILD MOUNTAIN
XCEL ENERGY (N S P)
AFFINITY PLUS FEDERAL ca
AFSC~E
DELTA DENTAL
FIRST CO~4UNITY CREDIT U
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45
MEDICA SENIOR
MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 39
ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY
PERA
97157 3,000.00
97158 907.18
97159 650.00
97160 761.19
97161 8,173.42
97162 580.75
97163 11.30
97164 89.65
97165 7.50
97166 9,120.67
97167 10.00
97168 2,096.20
97169 4,450.61
97170 21,779.10
97171 116.43
97172 25,095.25
97173 99.89
97174 175.74
97175 66.55
97176 409.45
97177 390.44
97178 1,519.00
97179 261.16
97180 192.01
97181 123.58
97182 86.98
97183 2,071.45
97184 240.97
97185 222.45
97186 3,065.05
97187 3,235.58
97188 1,779.85
97189 176.89
97190 294.00
97191 9.82
97192 892.00
97193 12,453.04
97194 584.77
97195 1,117.24
97196 4,674.80
97197 2,380.00
97198 12,511.52
97199 846.60
97200 674.70
97201 318.00
97202 7,370.50
97203 27,171.66
BRC FIN CI L SYSTEM
03/21/2002 14
Check History
03/25/2002 COUNCIL LISTING
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R~V06.40 PAGE 3
BANK VENDOR
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
RAMSDELL SCHOLARSHIP FUN 97204 54.25
RELIASTAR EMPLOYEE BENEF 97205 2,059.20
UNION 49 97206 551.00
UNITED WAY 97207 39.00
VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER - 97208 225.00
WELLS FAROO - PAYROLL AC 97209 142,270.57
WI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 97210 291.22
ACE HARDWARE 97211 715.45
ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC 97212 66.56
ADI-ADEMCO DISTRIBUTION 97213 146.66
ALL SAINTS BRAND DISTRIB 97214 196.50
ALLEGIS CORPORATION 97215 104.34
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS AS 97216 63.00
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASS 97217 112.00
AMERIPRIDE 97218 87.14
ANOKA HENNEPIN TECH COLL 97219 960.00
ARCTIC GLACIER 97220 139.62
ASPEN MILLS, INC. 97221 319.50
AT & T WIRELESS 97222 54.99
AUTOMATED ENTRANCE PRODU 97223 995.16
BAKER & TAYLOR CONT. SER 97224 2,966.24
BARNAGUZY & STEFFEN LTD 97225 14,455.00
BATTERIES PLUS 97226 181.03
BATTERY CITY INC 97227 144.02
BEACON BALLFIELDS 97228 728.00
BELLBOY CORPORATION 97229 992.33
BEN FRANKLIN ELECTRIC 97230 458.00
BOOK ~OLESALERS INC 97231 301.98
BRODART 97232 44.28
CARLSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 97233 196.97
CATALINA ENTERPRISE,INC 97234 100.00
CITY BUSINESS 97235 88.00
CITY WIDE LOCKSMITHING 97236 200.47
CLA~ PRODUCTS INC 97237 759.57
COCA-COLABOTTLING MIDWE 97238 142.15
COLUMBIA HGTS-FRIDLEY KI 97239 323.81
COLUMBIA PARK CLINIC 97240 460.00
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH COR 97241 272.00
CREST VIEW CORPORATION 97242 12,395.11
CRYSTEEL DISTRIBUTING 97243 164.20
CRYSTEEL TRUCK~EQUIPMENT 97244 292.13
CSC CREDIT SERVICES 97245 25.00
DANKA 97246 270.00
DAVIES-NORTHERNWATER WK 97247 119.31
DEMCO 97248 139.49
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS 97249 233.77
DOUGS TV & APPLIAI~CE 97250 23.43
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/21/2002 14
Check History
03/25/2002 COUNCIL LISTING
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R-V06.40 PAGE 4
BANK VENDOR
CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO 97251 198.00
E}{LER & ASSOCIATE-PUBLIC 97252 843.75
~{BROIDERY & MORE 97253 587.54
EMP 97254 968.91
ENCOMPASS 97255 1,082,73
FIDELITY SERVICES INC 97256 4,728.22
FRIDLEY-COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 97257 323.81
G & K SERVICES 97258 114.29
GALE GROUP/THE 97259 44.17
GALLAGHER & COMPANY OF M 97260 50.00
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO 97261 231.56
C~)ODINCO. 97262 14.39
GRIGGS-COOPER & CO 97263 540.10
H~ INC 97264 200.00
HARVEST INTERIORS 97265 206.00
HCFA LABORATORY PROGRAM 97266 150.00
HEINRICH ENVELOPE CORP 97267 580.00
HOME DEPOT ~2802 97268 341.34
ICMA 97269 696.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTION 97270 136.00
INSTRUMENT CONTROL CO 97271 19.98
INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH IN 97272 126.40
INT'L ASSOC OF FIRE CHIE 97273 170,00
IPC PRINTING 97274 37.28
J & L INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 97275 56.05
J H IARSON ELECTRIC COMP 97276 250.49
KMART 97277 43.48
LADEN'S BUSINESS MACHINE 97278 17.31
LAKE COUNTRY NORTH STAR 97279 50.00
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITI 97280 60.00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS 97281 34,280.00
LEAENCOM 97282 177.00
MARTINGASE & COMPANY 97283 26.97
MARUDAS PRINTING 97284 102,24
MCI WO~DCOM COMM SERVIC 97285 6.02
MEDTOX I~%BORATORIES, INC 97286 174.00
MELODY HOUSE 97287 76.95
MENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-F 97288 71.63
METRO NElDING SUPPLY 97289 46.33
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WAS 97290 52,492.30
MGS PROFESSIOAL BUILDING 97291 180.00
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT 97292 78,117.44
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO. 97293 4.77
MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSO 97294 130.09
MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 97295 350.00
MN RURAL WATER ASSOC 97296 26.56
MORTON SALT 97297 6,127.41
BRC FIN CI L SYS
03/21/2002 14
Check History
03/25/2002 COUNCIL LISTING
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
GL540R-V06.40 PAGE 5
BANK VENDOR
CHECK NUNBER AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
N.S.R.M.A.A. 97298 150.00
NORTh~STER 97299 106.00
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMEN 97300 37.26
OFFICE DEPOT 97301 1,047.89
OMNIGRAPHICS, INC 97302 98.00
ONE-CALL CONCEPT-GOPHER 97303 49.60
ONVOY 97304 24.95
PAM OIL INC 97305 38.35
PARK SUPPLY INC 97306 120.56
PARTS ASSOCIATES INC 97307 172.42
PARTS WAREHOUSE, INC 97308 100.11
PC SOLUTIONS 97309 116.00
PETE'S WATER & SEWER INC 97310 2,700.00
QUALITY SALES & SERVICE 97311 488.79
RADIO SHACK 97312 26.60
RAPIT PRINTING - FRIDLEY 97313 9.74
RDO EQUIPMENT 97314 53.14
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS & ADV 97315 338.69
ROSEDALE CHEV 97316 69.37
SAM GIBSON SEWER COMPANY 97317 75.00
SCHELEN GRAY ELEC'TRIC 97318 211.86
SHARP HEATING & AIR COND 97319 49.91
STREICHER'S GUN'S INC/DO 97320 496.73
SUBIJ~AN PATE AUTHORITY 97321 800.00
SUN PUBLICATION 97322 1,015.74
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC. 97323 152.52
TECHIFAX BUSINESS SYSTEM 97324 10.00
TI(DA 97325 541.05
TRANS-ALAEM INC 97326 601.76
TWIN CITY TRANSPORT & RE 97327 50.00
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 97328 1,402.18
UNITED RENTALS 97329 469.37
US BANK TRUST NATIONAL A 97330 632.50
VERIZON WIRELESS 97331 36.61
WW GRAINGER, INC 97332 64.84
ZAItL EQUIPMENT 97333 401.39
ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPAN 97334 384.47
639,042.42 ***
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of March 25, 2002
AGENDA P u B I_ I c It E/~ R I ~l c, S ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
SECTION: Fire APPROVAL
No: (o.
ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Charlie Thompson BY:
Rental License Revocation
DATE:
NO: DATE: March 19, 2002
The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against
David Utke regarding rental property at 3947 Arthur Street for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential
Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of March 25, 2002.
The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the owner has brought the property/building into
compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the
Rental License Held by David Utke Regarding Rental Property at 3947 Arthur Street in that the Property
complies with the Residential Maintenance Code.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Close Heating Council Letter
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of March 25, 2002
AGENDA ? U B L ~ C ~ £ ^ R ~ ~ ~ $ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
SECTION: Fire APPROVAL
No: 3.
ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Charlie Thompson BY: 0,-) ~'-~s2~-{/c~
Rental License Revocation
DATE:
NO: DATE: March 19, 2002
The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against
Ruben Cruz regarding rental property at 4524 Monroe Street for failure to meet the requirements of the
Residential Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of March 25,
2002.
The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the owner has applied for and received an extension
to bring the property/building into compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the
Rental License Held by Ruben Cruz Regarding Rental Property at 4524 Monroe Street in that the Property
complies with the Residential Maintenance Code.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Close Hearing Council Letter
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of March 25, 2002
AGENDA p u B L ! C H E ^ R ~ ~ G S ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
SECTION: Fire APPROVAL
ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Charlie Thompson BY: IL)~J~/c~c,- ~--
Rental License Revocation
DATE: March 21, 2002 DATE:
NO:
The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against
Russell Waletski regarding rental property at 4637-4639 Pierce Street NE for failure to meet the requirements of
the Residential Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of March
25, 2002.
The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the owner has brought the property/building into
compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the
Rental License Held by Rusell Waletski Regarding Rental Property at 4637-4639 Pierce Street in that the
Property complies with the Residential Maintenance Code.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Close Hearing Council Letter
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of March 25, 2002
PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: (~, Do Fire APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution For Revocation BY: Charlie Thompson BY: ~(~,
DATE: March 19, 2002 DATE:
NO: (2002-
Revocation of the license to operate a rental unit within the City of Columbia Heights is requested against
Robert Zschokke regarding rental property at 5101 7th Street NE. for failure to meet the requirements of the
Residential Maintenance Codes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No.2002- ~$, there being ample copies
available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2002-~3 , Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Columbia Heights Approving Revocation Pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of the Rental
License held by Robert Zschokke Regarding Rental Property at 5101 7th Street NE.
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION 2002-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
APPROVING REVOCATION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 5A.408(1) OF
THAT CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL RENTAL LICENSE HELD BY ROBERT ZSCHOKKE
(HEREINAFTER "LICENSE HOLDER").
WHEREAS, LICENSE HOLDER IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5101 7TM STREET, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE SECTION 5.104(1)(A),
WRITTEN NOTICE SETTING FORTH THE CAUSES AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED
COUNCIL ACTION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS GIVEN TO THE LICENSE HOLDER ON
FEBRUARY 5, 2002 OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 25, 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, AND ALL ORDINANCES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MAKES THE FOLLOWING:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That on or about August 1, 2001 a relicensing application was sent by regular mail to the
owner of the property at the address listed on the rental housing license application.
That on February 5, 2002, Dana Alexon, Housing Enforcement Officer for the City of
Columbia Heights, sent notice that the Fire Department had not received the rental license
application. Notices were sent by regular mail to the owner of the property at the address
listed on the Rental Housing License Application.
That on March 19, 2002, Charlie Thompson, Fire Chief for the City of Columbia Heights,
sent notice that the Fire Department had not received the rental license application. Notices
were sent by regular mail to the owner of the property at the address listed on the Rental
Housing License Application.
4. That based upon said records of the Enforcement Officer, the following conditions and
violations of the City's Housing Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit:
o
FAILURE TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED RENTAL HOUSING
APPLICATION AND PAY ALL ASSOCIATED FEES.
That all parties, including the License Holder and any occupants or tenants, have been given
the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section
5A.306(1) and 5A.303(1)(d).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
o
That the building located at 5101 7th Street NE is in violation of the provisions of the
Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Compliance Order attached hereto;
That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing,
and any other hearings relevant to the revocation or suspension of the license held by
License Holder.
That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the license holder, owner,
occupant, or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and
completed.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license
number US101 is hereby revoked/suspended (cross out one);
The City will post for the purpose of preventing occupancy a copy of this order on the
buildings covered by the license held by License Holder;
All tenants shall remove themselves from the premises within 60 days from the first day of
posting of this Order revoking the license as held by License Holder.
Passed this day of ,2002
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
Attest:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of March 25, 2002
PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: (Or I~ Fire APPROVAL
ITEM: Adopt Resolution For Revocation BY: Charlie Thompson BY:/j,~ ~'~.~
DATE: March 19, 2002 DATE:
Revocation of the license to operate a rental unit within the City of Columbia Heights is requested against
Richard Meissner regarding rental property at 1348-50 - 44-1/2 Avenue NE. for failure to meet the
requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No.2002-~, there being ample copies
available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2002- ~tat, Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Columbia Heights Approving Revocation Pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of the Rental
License held by Richard Meissner Regarding Rental Property at 1348 - 1350 44-1/2 Avenue NE.
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION 2002-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
APPROVING REVOCATION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 5A.408(1) OF
THAT CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL RENTAL LICENSE HELD BY RICHARD MEISSNER
(HEREINAFTER "LICENSE HOLDER").
WHEREAS, LICENSE HOLDER IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1348-1350 44-1/2 AVENUE, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE SECTION 5.104(1)(A),
WRITTEN NOTICE SETTING FORTH THE CAUSES AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED
COUNCIL ACTION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS GIVEN TO THE LICENSE HOLDER ON
FEBRUARY 5, 2002 OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 25, 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, AND ALL ORDINANCES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MAKES THE FOLLOWING:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That on or about August 1,2001 a relicensing application was sent by regular mail to the
owner of the property at the address listed on the rental housing license application.
That on February 5, 2002, Dana Alexon, Housing Enforcement Officer for the City of
Columbia Heights, sent notice that the Fire Department had not received the rental license
application. Notices were sent by regular mail to the owner of the property at the address
listed on the Rental Housing License Application.
o
That on March 19, 2002, Charlie Thompson, Fire Chief for the City of Columbia Heights,
sent notice that the Fire Department had not received the rental license application. Notices
were sent by regular mail to the owner of the property at the address listed on the Rental
Housing License Application.
4. That based upon said records of the Enforcement Officer, the following conditions and
violations of the City's Housing Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit:
Ae
FAILURE TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED RENTAL HOUSING
APPLICATION AND PAY ALL ASSOCIATED FEES.
That all parties, including the License Holder and any occupants or tenants, have been given
the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section
5A.306(1) and 5A.303(1)(d).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
1. That the building located at 1348-1350 44-1/2 Avenue NE is in violation of the provisions
of the Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Compliance Order attached hereto;
That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this heating,
and any other hearings relevant to the revocation or suspension of the license held by
License Holder.
o
That all applicable tights and periods of appeal as relating to the license holder, owner,
occupant, or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and
completed.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license
number F4471 is hereby revoked/suspended (cross out one);
2. The City will post for the purpose of preventing occupancy a copy of this order on the
buildings covered by the license held by License Holder;
3. All tenants shall remove themselves from the premises within 60 days from the first day of
posting of this Order revoking the license as held by License Holder.
Passed this __ day of ., 2002
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
Attest:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
AGENDA P 0 B L I C H E A R I ~1C~ $ ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER
SECTION: DEPARTMENT: APPROVAL
NO: /0, ~. Fire
ITEM: Establish Hearing Dates BY: Charlie Thompson BY: /03. ~"-adtg-/t/c~
License Revocation, Rental Properties
NO: DATE: March 19, 2002 DATE:
Revocation or suspension of a license to operate a rental property within the City of Columbia Heights is
requested against the following owners regarding their rental property for failure to meet the requirements of the
Residential Maintenance Codes.
1. Kunal Kamran ............................................................... 2215 45th Avenue NE
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of April 8, 2002 for Revocation or Suspension
of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Kunal Kamran at 2215
45th Avenue NE.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: March 25, 2002
AGENDA SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S
NO: 7- ~-~ CHARTER COMMISSION APPROVAL, , jj
ITEM: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1445, BY: T. Ericson, Chair BY: ~/~~
PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 3, SECTION 19, DATE: 3-12-02 DATE: '~ ~
PROCEDURE ON ORDINANCES
NO:
Currently, Chapter 3, Section 19, of the City Charter states that reading of ordinances by
unanimous vote could be dispensed with provided the printed text is made a part of the
official minutes upon passage and at least three days elapses between the first and second
readings thereof.
Last fall and at the January 17, 2001 Charter Commission meeting, a change to this section
of the city charter was discussed. The commission discussed the advantages and disad-
vantages of the current and proposed language. It is the commission's opinion the
"reading" requirement is designed to protect the public's right to be informed about
ordinances under consideration by the city council. As you know, for practical purposes, it
is rare that an ordinance is actually "read."
The Charter Commission members discussed the possibility of requiring a 3/5 vote, as well
as the possibility of expanding the language to more broadly define an "emergency."
After much consideration, we agreed that the best alternative was to require a 4/5 vote to
waive the reading of the ordinance. We are confident that if an ordinance exists that
should literally be read, at least two council members will agree and the reading will not
be waived. The commission concluded that changing the requirement to a 4/5 vote will
protect the interests of the public, while at the same time, reduce the likelihood that any
member of the council can use this provision as a "stalling" tactic or for some purpose
other than that for which it was intended. As representatives of this community, the
Charter Commission is extremely disappointed that this would even be an issue, but it is
important to us that the possibility be considered. It is our belief that leaving the
language in its current form allows for abuse.
The Charter Commission realizes that final adoption of this proposed language requires a
unanimous vote of approval by the council. It is the intent of the Charter Commission to
place this item on the ballot during the next general election if it is not unanimously
approved by the council.
Again, we are confident that if the public were fully aware of the intent of this section
and the possibility for abuse by a council member, they would agree that a 4/5 vote to
waive an ordinance requirement would be sufficient.
The first reading of this ordinance was held on February 11, 2002.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the ordinance, there being ample copies
available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. 1445, an ordinance pertaining to Procedure on
Ordinances.
COUNCIL ACTION:
ORDINANCE NO. 1445
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 19
OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PERTAINING TO PROCEDURE ON ORDINANCES
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1: Chapter 3, Section 19 of the Charter of the City of Columbia Heights which currently reads as
follows, to wit:
PROCEDURE ON ORDINANCES. The enacting clause of all ordinances by the council shall be in
the words, "The City of Columbia Heights does ordain." Every ordinance shall be presented in
writing. Every ordinance, other than emergency ordinances, shall have two public readings in full,
except that the reading may, by unanimous vote, be dispensed with, provided the printed text is
made a part of the official minutes upon passage and at least three days shall elapse between the first
and second readings thereof. Every ordinance appropriating money in excess of five hundred
dollars, and every ordinance and resolution authorizing the making of any contract involving a
liability on the part of the city in excess of five hundred dollars, shall remain on file in the office of
the secretary of the council at least one week, and shall be published at least once in the official
newspaper of the city or posted on official bulletin boards in the manner provided by this charter,
before its final passage except in the case of emergency ordinances.
IS HEREWITH AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
PROCEDURE ON ORDINANCES. The enacting clause of all ordinances by the council shall be in
the words, "The City of Columbia Heights does ordain." Every ordinance shall be presented in
writing. Every ordinance, other than emergency ordinances, shall have two public readings in full,
except that the reading may, by four-fifths (4/5) unanimc, ua vote, be dispensed with, provided the
printed text is made a part of the official minutes upon passage and at least three days shall elapse
between the first and second readings thereof. Every ordinance appropriating money in excess of
five hundred dollars, and every ordinance and resolution authorizing the making of any contract
involving a liability on the part of the city in excess of five hundred dollars, shall remain on file in
the office of the secretary of the council at least one week, and shall be published at least once in the
official newspaper of the city or posted on official bulletin boards in the manner provided by this
charter, before its final passage except in the case of emergency ordinances.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after ninety (90) days after its passage.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Date of Passage:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: 1~7' At ~o~) PUBLICWORKSBy: K. Hansen ~7~L' BY: ~'/~
ITEM: ADOPT ORDINANCE #1446 AMENDING THE
STREET EXCAVATION PORTION OF THE CITY DATE: 3/13/02 DATE:
CODE (6.3Ol)
Staff requests that Council members please bring the attachment that was included in the packets from the March 18th
Work Session.
Background:
The Public Works Department is recommending amending the Street Excavation section of the City Code (6.301) by replacing it
with an entirely new ordinance based upon League of Minnesota Cities recommended language. The primary purpose is to address
safety and restoration issues revolving around the City's public streets and right-of-way. The City and other public entities have
invested substantial public funds to build and maintain our infrastructure and right-of-way. The public right-of-way is also used by
other for-profit utility providers such as Xcel, Minnegasco, Qwest, AT & T and others providing natural gas, electric, phone and
cable services to our residents and businesses. Although the installation of such service facilities is necessary or convenient, the
installation and maintenance of these facilities all too often have a detrimental affect on our public streets and/or the right-of-way.
Consequently, the City must be able to better regulate and manage the usage of public right-of-way areas. The League of
Minnesota Cities (LMC) along with a consortium of city and county engineers and private utility representatives, developed a
Model Ordinance to address right-of-way issues and set standards for restoration in the right-of-way. The intent of the ordinance
is to allow the Cities to impose reasonable and uniform regulations on the placement and maintenance of equipment currently
within its right-of-ways or to be placed therein at a future date. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and
federal agencies while providing the city with the means necessary to recover the costs associated with managing, maintaining
and/or repairing public rights-of-way.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Approximately seventy five percent of the cities in the Metro area have adopted a Right-of-Way Ordinance. City staffhas reviewed
the LMC model ordinance, contacted other cities for review of fee structures, and formulated a draft Right-Of-Way Ordinance for
Columbia Heights. The Public Works Department discussed the benefits of a right-of-way ordinance that would assist Public
Works in regulating and maintaining the integrity of the City's rights-of-way and infrastructure throughout the City.
Through the implementation of this ordinance, the Public Works Department intends to achieve the following goals:
· Restoration - Right-of-way and surrounding area is returned to condition that existed before any surface disturbance;
· Accountability - The permit holder shall be required to perform repairs and restoration in accordance with the standards
and materials specified by the ordinance;
· Revenue - Recovering of costs associated with administering and maintaining the City's rights-of-way program.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM: ADOPT ORDINANCE #1446 AMENDING THE BY: K. Hansen BY:
STREET EXCAVATION PORTION OF THE CITY DATE: 3/13/02 DATE:
CODE (6.301)
Continued - Page 2
It should be noted that this ordinance is not intended to be a large revenue generator, but structured to recover City costs associated
with managing the public right-of-way. A spreadsheet showing what the revenue difference would be from 2001 existing fees to
2002 new proposed fees is included as attachment 'A.' A second spreadsheet lists what other cities right-of-way fee structure are as
attachment 'B.' Staff proposed only two fees for this ordinance: An annual registration fee by company, in the amount of $50.00,
and a permit fee in the mount of $150 for street excavation or $50 for boulevard excavation.
The primary intent of this ordinance is to provide consistent restoration standards that will ensure the long-term structural integrity
of its streets and the appropriate use of the public rights-of-way. The City strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair
and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the general population bears the financial burden for continued maintenance of
the right-of-way, one of the causes for early and excessive deterioration of its rights-of-way is frequent excavation and
disturbances. This ordinance places the responsibility on those that excavate or disturb the public right-of-way to restore the public
streets and surrounding area to the condition that existed before the commencement of the work.
Staff is recommending the First reading of the Right-of-Way ordinance for March 25, 2002.
Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance # 1446, there being ample copies available to the public.
Recommended Motion: Move to establish April 22nd at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the Second Reading of Ordinance #1446,
being an Ordinance replacing City Code Section 6.301, Street Excavations, with a Right-of-Way Ordinance.
Attachment:
Attachment 'A' - Revenue Comparison
Attachment 'B' - Right-of-Way Fee Survey
Draft Right-Of-Way Ordinance
Standard Plates
COUNCIL ACTION:
ORDINANCE #1446
BEING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE OF
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
The City Columbia Heights does hereby establish City Code Section 6.304 to read as follows:
Purpose.
The City holds the right-of-way within its geographical boundaries as an asset in trust for its
citizens. The City and other public entities have invested substantial dollars in public funds to
build and maintain the right-of-way. The City also recognizes that by placing other utility
equipment in the right-of-way for the purpose of delivering services to the citizens of the City
also is a public use of this property for the public good. Although such services are necessary or
convenient for the citizens, other persons or entities receive revenue and/or profit through their
use of public property. Although the installation of such service delivery facilities are in most
cases a necessary and proper use of right-of-way, the City must regulate and manage such uses.
To provide for the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, and to ensure the structural
integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way, the City strives to keep its
right-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the
general population bears the financial burden for the upkeep of the right-of-way, one of the causes
for the early and excessive deterioration of its right-of-way is frequent excavation.
This ordinance imposes reasonable regulations on the placement and maintenance of equipment
currently within its right-of-way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to
complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this ordinance, persons
disturbing and obstructing the rights-of-way will bear a fair share of the financial responsibility for
their integrity.
This ordinance shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123,
substantially codified in Minnesota Statues Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81,
and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the
right-of-way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050-
7819-9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this ordinance cannot be interpreted
consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other
applicable statutory and case law is intended. This ordinance shall not be interpreted to limit
regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinance necessary to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Election to Manage the Public Rights-Of-Way:
Pursuant to the authority granted to the City under state and federal statutory administrative and
common law, the City hereby elects pursuant Minnesota Statues, 237-163 subd. 2(b) to manage
right-of-way within its jurisdiction.
Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, as used herein, have the following
meanings:
Applicant. Is the person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way.
City. For purposes of this ordinance, City means the City of Columbia Heights and its
elected officials, officers, employees, agents or any commission, committee or
sub-division acting pursuant to lawfully delegated authority.
City Cost. The actual cost incurred by the City for public rights-of-way management;
including but not limited to costs associated with registering applicants; issuing,
processing, and verifying right-of-way permit applications; inspecting job sites and
restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving facilities during
public right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring
work inadequately performed; mapping of "as built" locations of facilities located in
rights-of-way; and revoking right-of-way permits and performing all other tasks required
by this Section, including other costs the City may incur in managing the provisions of
this Section.
Deeradation. The accelerated depreciation of the right-of-way caused by excavation or
disturbance of the right-of-way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way
earlier than would be required if the excavation did not occur.
Deeradation Cost. Money paid to the City to cover the cost associated with a decrease
in the useful life of a public right-of-way caused by excavation.
Emery, ency. A condition that 1) poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health, or
of a significant loss of property; or 2) requires immediate repair or replacement in order
to restore service to a customer.
Equipment. Any tangible thing or asset used to install, repair or maintain facilities in
any right-of-way; but shall not include boulevard plantings or gardens planted or
maintained in the right-of-way between a person's property and the street curb.
Excavate. To dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part
of a right-of-way.
Permit. A permit issued pursuant to this Section.
Permit Holder. Any person to whom a permit to excavate or place equipment or
facilities in a right-of-way has been granted by the City under this Section.
Public Ri~,ht of Way. The area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street,
cart way, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including
other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements of the City. It
shall also include utility easements along side and rear lot lines. A right of way does not
include the airwaves above a right-of-way with regard to cellular or other non-wire
telecommunications or broadcast service.
Registrant. Any person who has or seeks to have its facilities or equipment located in
any right-of-way.
Restore or Restoration. The process by which the right-of-way and surrounding area,
including pavement and foundation, is returned to the condition that existed before the
commencement of the work.
Restoration Cost. Money paid to the City by a permittee to cover the cost of restoration.
Rieht-of-Way. The surface and space above and below a public roadway, highway,
street, cart way, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest,
including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements owned
by the City for City utility purposes.
Service or Utility Service. Includes but is not limited to 1) those services provided by a
public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. §216B.02, Subds. 4 and 6; 2) telecommunications,
pipeline, community antenna television, fire and alarm communications, water, sewer,
electricity, light, heat, cooling energy, or power services; 3) the services provided by a
corporation organized for the purposes set forth in Minn. Stat. {}300.03; 4) the services
provided by a district heating or cooling system; and 5) cable communications systems as
defined in Minn. Stat. Chap. 238.
Telecommunication Right-of-Way User. A person owning or controlling a facility in
the public rights-of-way, or seeking to own or control a facility in the public right-of-way,
that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or
data information. For purposes of this Section, a cable communication system defined
and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to
providing natural gas or electric energy services are not telecommunications right-of-way
users.
Administration.
The Public Works Director is the principal city official responsible for the
administration of the right-of-way permits, and the ordinances related thereto.
The Public Works Director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder.
(2)
Registration Requirements.
(a) Each person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use the right-of-way or place
any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of-way, including persons with
installations and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease, or assignment, must
register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information
and paying a registration fee.
(b) No person shall construct, install, repair, remove, relocate or perform any work within
any right-of-way without first being registered pursuit to this subsection. Such
registration shall be made on an application form provided by the City and shall be
accompanied by the registration fee required by the City. All right-of-way
registration fees shall be set forth in the City of Columbia Heights licensing fee
section.
Reeistration Information. The registrant shall provide the following at the time of
registration and shall promptly notify the City of changes in such information:
(a) Registrant's name, address, telephone number, facsimile number and Gopher One-
Call registration certificate number if required by State law.
(b) Name, address, e-mail address, telephone number, and facsimile number of the
person responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the registrant.
(c) A Certificate of Insurance fi.om a company licensed to do business in the State of
Minnesota providing coverage in the following amounts.
(i) GENERAL LIABILITY: Public Liability, including premises, products and
complete operations.
Bodily Injury Liability
Property Damage Liability
Bodily Injury and Property and
Damage Combined
$1,000,000 each person
$3,000,000 each occurrence
$3,000,000 each occurrence
$3,000,000 single limit
(ii) COMPREHENSIVE: Automobile Liability Insurance, including owned, non-
owned and hired vehicles.
Bodily Injury Liability
Property Damage Liability
In lieu of 1) & 2) Bodily Injury
and Property Damage Combined
$1,000,000 each person
$3,000,000 each occurrence
$3,000,000 each occurrence
$3,000,000 single limit
Such certificate shall verify that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including
death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the
right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and
use of equipment or facilities in the rights-of-way by the registrant its officers, agents, employees
and permittees, including but not limited to, protection against liability arising fi'om completed
operations, damage of underground equipment and collapse of property. Such certificate shall also
indicate the registrant's insurance is the primary coverage, shall name the City as an additional
insured as to whom the coverage's required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense
will be provided as to all such coverage's. Such certificate shall require that the City be notified 30
days prior to cancellation or non-renewal of the policy.
(d) 24 hour emergency number.
(e) An acknowledgment by the registrant of the indemnification.
(f) Such other information the City may require.
(3) Exceptions. The following are not subject to the requirements of this subsection.
(a) Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens.
(b) Persons erecting fences, installing driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, or parking
lots.
(c) Persons engaged in snow removal activities.
(d) Federal, State, County, and City agencies.
(e) Persons installing pet containment systems.
(f) Plumbers licensed in accordance with City Code.
(g) Persons acting as agents, contractors or subcontractors for a registrant who has
properly registered in accordance with this subsection.
(4)
Term. Registrations issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall expire on December 31st of
each calendar year.
Rel~ortin~ Oblieations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1st of
each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with
the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall
contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the
coordination and reduction in the fyequency of excavations and obstructions of right-of-
way.
The plan should include, but not be limited, to the following information:
(a) The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be
commenced during the next calendar year; and
(b) To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending
dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar
year.
The term "project' in this section shall include both next-year projects and five year projects.
By January 1st of each year the city will have available for inspection in the city's office a
composite list of all projects for which the city has been informed of the annual plans. All
registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed on the current status of this list.
Thereafter, by February 1 st, each registrant may change any projects in its list of next-year
projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a next-year project of another
registrant listed by the other registrant.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an application for a rights-of-way permit for
failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially
reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for a project.
Permit Required; Bond; Exceptions, No person shall excavate, dig, tunnel, trench, or install
any facilities, equipment or improvements above, on, or beneath the surface of any
right-of-way in the City or any property owned by the City without first obtaining a
permit pursuant to this subsection.
(a)
Excavation-Boulevard Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to
excavate any part of the right-of-way described in such permit to hinder flee and
open passage over the specified portion of rights-of-way by placing facilities
described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. A permit is
also required by a registrant to hinder f~ee and open passage over the specified
portion of right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the right-of-way
to the extent and for the duration of the permit.
Application Fee. An application for a permit shall be made on forms provided by the City and
shall be accompanied by the fees set forth by the City of Columbia Heights which are
established to reimburse the City for associated costs. If the work is to be performed by
an agent, contractor or subcontractor on behalfofa registrant, the registrant shall sign
such application. The application shall also be accompanied by the following:
(a) Scaled drawings showing the location of all facilities and improvements proposed by
the applicant.
(b) A description of the methods that will be used for installation.
(c) A proposed schedule for all work.
(d) The location of any public streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be temporarily closed
to traffic during the work.
(e) The location of any public streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be disrupted by the
work.
(f) A description of methods for restoring any public improvements disrupted by the
work.
(g) Any other information reasonably required by the Public Works Director or City
Engineer.
Security.
A surety bond, letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount determined by the Public
Works Director or City Manager but not less than $5,000, shall be required from each
applicant. A surety bond shall be from a corporate surety authorized to do business in the
State. Security required pursuant to this subsection (2) shall be conditioned that the
holder will perform the work in accordance with this ordinance and applicable
regulations, will pay to the City any costs incurred by the City in performing work
pursuant to this section; and will indemnify and save the City and its officers, agents and
employees harmless against any and all claims, judgment or other costs arising from any
excavation and other work covered by the permit or for which the City, Council or any
City officer may be liable by reason of any accident or injury to persons or property
through the fault of the permit holder, either in improperly guarding the excavation or for
any other injury resulting from the negligence of the permit holder. The bond, letter of
credit or cash deposit shall be released by the City upon completion of the work and
compliance with all conditions imposed by the permit. For permits allowing excavations
within public streets, such bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be held for a period
of 24 months to guaranty the adequacy of all restoration work.
Permit Issuance; Conditions.
The Public Works Director or City Manager shall grant a permit upon finding that the work
will comply with applicable sections of this ordinance. The permit shall be kept on the site
of the work while it is in progress, in the custody of the individual in charge of the work.
The permit shall be exhibited upon request made by any City official or police officer. The
Public Works Director or City Manager may impose reasonable conditions upon the
issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant there-under to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, to ensure the structural integrity of the right-of-way, to
protect the property and safety of other users of the right-of-way, and to minimize the
disruption and inconvenience to the traveling public. No permit shall be issued to anyone
who has failed to register in accordance with this ordinance.
Exceptions. No permit shall be required for the following:
(a) Landscaping work permitted by the City pursuant to site improvement agreements.
(b) Driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and other facilities permitted by the City
pursuant to site improvement agreements.
(c) Snow removal activities.
(d) Activities of the City.
Diligence in Performing Work.
Work shall progress in an expeditious manner as reasonably permitted by weather
conditions until completion in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to traffic. In
the event that the work is not performed in accordance with applicable regulations
pertaining to excavations and utility connections, or the work is not done in an
expeditious manner, or shall cease or be abandoned without due cause, the City may,
after 72 hour notice to the permit holder, correct the work and fill the excavation or
repair the street. The entire cost of such work shall be paid by the permit holder upon
demand made by the City. The financial guarantees may be used by the City to
reimburse itself for costs incurred through private engineering consulting fees and
attorney fees to complete the work under this section.
Standards During Construction or Installation.
The permit holder shall comply with the following standards when engaging in the work:
O)
Take such precautions as are necessary to avoid creating unsanitary conditions. Observe
and comply with all laws, rules and regulations of the State, County, and City.
(2)
Conduct the operations and perform the work in a manner as to ensure the least
obstruction and interference to traffic.
(3)
Take adequate precautions to ensure the safety of the general public and those who
require access to abutting property.
(4)
If required by the Public Works Director or City Engineer, notify adjoining property
owners prior to the commencement of work which may disrupt the use of and access to
such adjoining properties.
(5)
In all cases where construction work interferes with the normal use of the construction
area, provide for closing the construction area to traffic or to afford it restricted use of the
area and comply with MMUTCD traffic safety signing requirements.
(6)
Exercise precaution at all times for the protection of persons, including employees and
property.
(7)
Protect and identify excavations and work operations with barricade flags, and if
required, by flagmen in the daytime, and by warning lights at night.
(8)
Provide proper trench protection as required by O.S.H.A. when necessary and depending
upon the type of soil, in order to prevent cave-ins endangering life or tending to enlarge
the excavation.
(9) Protect the root growth of trees and shrubbery.
(10)
Installation of pipe (utility conductors) under Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt
concrete, or other high-type bituminous pavements shall be done by jacking, auguring or
tunneling as directed by the Engineer unless otherwise authorized. HDPE sleeving shall
be an acceptable casing or sleeving material for telecommunications installations.
(11)
When removing pavement of Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt concrete or high-type
built-up bituminous surfacing, the pavement shall be removed on each side of the trench
or excavation a distance of nine inches beyond the trench width and length, in order to
provide a shoulder and solid foundation for the surface restoration.
7
(12)
To obtain a straight edge and neat-appearing opening in pavement surfaces, the following
procedure is required:
(a) Portland Cement Concrete Pavement - The surface shall be saw-cut scored two
inches deep and the concrete broken out by sledge or pneumatic hammer chisel.
(b) Asphalt Concrete - The surface shall be cut full depth by pneumatic hammer
chisel.
(13)
Excavations, trenches and jacking pits offthe roadway or adjacent to the roadway or
curbing shall be sheathed and braced depending upon location and soil stability, and as
directed by the City.
(14)
Excavations, trenches and jacking pits shall be protected when unattended to prevent
entrance of surface drainage.
(15)
All backfilling must be placed in six-inch layers at optimum moisture and compacted
with the objective of attaining 100 percent of AASHTO density. Compaction shall be
accomplished with hand, pneumatic or vibrating compactors as appropriate.
(16)
Backfill material shall be Class 5, or better at the judgment of the Public Works Director.
Backfilling with the material from the excavation may be permitted provided such
material is granular in nature and acceptable to the Public Works Director or Assistant
City Engineer.
(17)
Compacted backfill shall be brought to street grade and crowned at the center not more
than one inch. Backfill procedures shall provide for no settlements. Settlements, which
occur within a 2-year warranty period, shall be repaired in a timely manner. The City
may authorize another contractor to make the repair if it is not done in a timely manner.
Reimbursement may be made from the surety bond, letter of credit or cash deposit with
City.
(18)
Street and pedestrian traffic shall be maintained throughout construction unless provided
otherwise by the permit.
(19) No lugs damaging to roadway surfaces may be used.
(20) Dirt or debris must be periodically removed during construction.
(21)
Other reasonable standards and requirements of the Public Works Director or Assistant
City Engineer.
Repair and Restoration.
(1)
Schedule. The work to be done under the permit, and the repair and restoration of the
right-of-way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the
permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of extraordinary
circumstances beyond the control of the permit holder, when work was prohibited as
unseasonable or unreasonable or when extended by the Public Works Director. In
addition to repairing its own work, the permit holder must restore the general area of the
work, and the surrounding areas, including the paving and its foundations, to the
condition that existed before the commencement of the work but only to the extent the
permit holder disturbed such surrounding areas.
(2)
General Standards. The permit holder shall perform repairs and restoration according
to the standards and with the materials specified by the Public Works Director or
Assistant City Engineer. Both individuals shall have the authority to prescribe the
manner and extent of the restoration, and may do so in written procedures of general
application or on a case-by-case basis. In exercising this authority, the Public Works
Director or Assistant City Engineer shall be guided by the following standards and
consideration:
(a) The number, size, depth and duration of the excavations, disruptions or damage to
the right-of-way.
(b) The traffic volume carried by the right-of-way; the character of the neighborhood
surrounding the right-of-way;
(c) The pre-excavation condition of the right-of-way; the remaining life-expectancy of
the right-of-way affected by the excavation;
Whether the relative cost of the method of restoration to the permit holder is in
reasonable balance with the prevention of an accelerated depreciation of the
right-of-way that would otherwise result fxom the excavation, disturbance or damage
to the right-of-way; and
(e) The likelihood that the particular method of restoration would be effective in slowing
the depreciation of the right-of-way that would otherwise take place.
(1)
City Restoration. The permit holder may request that the City restore the right-of-way.
If the City agrees to perform the work, the permit holder shall pay to the City, in advance;
a cash deposit equaling 150% of the estimated restoration cost. The restoration cost shall
be estimated by the Public Works Director or designee shall include an estimate of the
degradation cost. The estimate of the degradation cost shall be based upon criteria
adopted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Following completion of the
restoration, any funds in excess of the actual restoration cost and the degradation cost
shall be returned to the permit holder. Notwithstanding this section, the City shall have
no obligation to honor the permittee's restoration request.
(2)
Guarantees. The permit holder shall guarantee its work and shall maintain it for
twenty-four (24) months following its completion. During this twenty-four month period
it shall, upon notification fi.om the Public Works Director or Assistant City Engineer,
promptly correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required
by the Engineering Department.
(3)
Permit Limitations. Permits issued pursuant to this Section are valid only for the area
of the right-of-way specified in the application and the permit and only for the dates so
specified. No work shall be extended beyond the permitted area or dates without a new
permit being procured therefore, provided the Public Works Director may extend the
completion date of the work in accordance with §6.147(1) of this Code.
Denial of Permit. The Public Works Director may deny a permit due to the following:
(1) Failure to register pursuant to this ordinance.
(2)
A proposed excavation within a street or sidewalk surface that has been constructed or
reconstructed within the preceding five years unless the Public Works Director or City
Manager determines that no other locations are feasible or when necessitated by an
emergency.
(3) The applicant is subject to revocation of a prior permit issued pursuant to this ordinance.
(4)
The proposed schedule for the work would conflict or interfere with an exhibition,
celebration, festival or any other similar event.
(5)
The right-of-way would become unduly congested due to the proposed facilities and
equipment when combined with other uses in the right-of-way.
(6)
(7)
Businesses or residences in the vicinity will be unreasonably disrupted by the work.
The proposed schedule conflicts with scheduled total or partial reconstruction of the
right-of-way.
(8)
The applicant fails to comply with the requirements of this Section or other Sections of
this Code.
Emergency Work.
A registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to an
emergency. Within two business days after the occurrence of the emergency the
registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and
fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this
Section for the actions it took in response to the emergency.
If the Public Works Director becomes aware of an emergency, the Director shall attempt
to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by
the emergency. In any event, the Public Works Director may take whatever action
deemed necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the
registrant whose facilities or equipment occasioned the emergency.
Revocation of Permits.
The Public Works Director or City Manager may revoke any permit, without a fee
refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, this
Code, rule or regulation, or any condition of the permit which substantial breach shall
continue uncured for 10 calendar days after the issuance of a written order of the Public
Works Director. A substantial breach of a permit holder shall include, but shall not be
limited to, the following:
(1) The violation of any material provision of the permit;
(2)
(3)
(4)
An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the permit, or the perpetration
or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens;
Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a permit;
The failure to maintain the required bonds and insurance;
(5) Failure to complete the work in a timely manner;
(6)
The failure to correct a condition indicated on an order issued by the Engineering
Department.
Appeal.
(1)
Filine of Appeal. Any person aggrieved by, (i) the denial of a permit application, (ii) the
denial of a registration, (iii) the revocation of a permit or, (iv) the application of the fee
schedule imposed by the City may appeal to the Council by filing a written notice of
appeal with the Administrative Secretary. Said notice must be filed within 20 days of the
action causing the appeal.
10
(2)
Notice of Hearine. The Council shall hear the appeal no later than 30 days after the date
the.appeal is filed. Notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be
mailed to the appellant not less than 10 days before the date of the hearing.
(3)
Hearinff and Decision. The Council shall, at such hearing, hear and consider any
evidence offered by the appellant, the Public Works Director or Engineering Department,
and anyone else wishing to be heard. After hearing the oral and written views of all
interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a
specified future meeting.
MaDDing.
Within 120 days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the registrant
shall provide the Public Works Director accurate maps and drawings certifying the
"as-built" location of all facilities and equipment installed, owned and maintained by the
registrant. Such maps and drawings shall indicate both the horizontal and vertical
location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided in a format consistent with
the City's electronic mapping system. Failure to provide maps and drawings in
accordance with this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's
registration.
Location of Facilities and Equipment.
(1)
Under ~rounding by Telecommunications Right-of-Way Users. Any new
construction and the installation of new equipment and replacement of old equipment of
telecommunication right-of-way users shall be underground or contained within buildings
or other structures in conformity with applicable codes. Provided, telecommunications
right-of-way users may attach equipment and facilities to existing poles and structures
maintained by a service or utility service.
(2)
Corridors. The Public Works Director may assign specific corridors within the
right-of-way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of
equipment that is or, pursuant to current technology, the Public Works Director expects
will someday be located within the right-of-way. All permits issued by the Public Works
Director involving the installation or replacement of equipment shall designate the proper
corridor for the equipment at issue.
(3)
Limitation of Space. To protect health and safety, the Public Works Director shall have
the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional equipment within the
right-of-way if there is insufficient space to accommodate all of the requests of registrants
or persons to occupy and use the right-of-way. In making such decisions, the Public
Works Director shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and
potential users of the right-of-way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the
public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the
right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing
equipment in the right-of-way, and future City plans for public improvements and
development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest.
Relocation.
(1)
Relocation for City Purposes. A registrant shall promptly but in no event more than
120 days of the City's request, permanently remove and relocate at no charge to the City,
any facilities or equipment if and when made necessary by a change in the grade,
alignment or width of any right-of-way, by the construction, maintenance or operation of
any City facilities or to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The registrant shall
restore any right-of-way to the condition it was in prior to removal and relocation.
11
(2)
Under grounding of Relocated Telecommunications Facilities. A telecommunications
right-of-way user shall relocate all above ground facilities and equipment to underground
locations at its own cost and expense at the City's request when, (i) the City requires the
relocation of all telecommunications facilities and equipment to underground locations or
ii) structures or poles to which the registrant's facilities or equipment is attached are
abandoned or removed by the owner of such structures or poles.
Ri~,ht-of-Way Vacation.
O)
Reservation of Right. If the City vacates a right-of-way which contains the equipment of
a registrant, and if the vacation does not require the relocation of registrant facilities and
equipment, the City shall reserve, to and for itself and all registrants having facilities and
equipment in the vacated right-of-way, the right to install, maintain and operate any
facilities and equipment in the vacated right-of-way and to enter upon such right-of-way at
any time for the purpose of reconstruction, inspecting, maintaining or repairing the same.
(2)
Relocation of Equipment. If the vacation requires the relocation of registrant facilities
and equipment; and (a) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the registrant, the
registrant must pay the relocation costs; or Co) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by
the City, the registrant must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the City
and the registrant; or (c) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a person or persons
other than the registrant or permit holder, such other person or persons must pay the
relocation costs.
Abandoned and Unusable Equipment.
(1)
Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue its operations
in the City must either:
(a)
Provide information satisfactory to the Public Works Director that the registrant's
obligations for its equipment in the right-of-way under this ordinance have been
lawfully assumed by another registrant; or
CO)
Submit to the Public Works Director an action plan for the removal or abandonment
of equipment and facilities. The Public Works Director shall require removal of
such facilities and equipment if the Public Works Director determines such removal
is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Public Works
Director may require the registrant to post a bond in an amount sufficient to
reimburse the City for reasonably anticipated costs to be incurred in removing the
facilities and equipment.
(2)
Abandoned Facilities Equipment. Facilities and equipment of a registrant located on
the surface of or above a right-of-way or on City property that, for two years, remains
unused shall be deemed to be abandoned. Such abandoned equipment is deemed to be a
nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity,
including, but not limited to, (i) abating the nuisance, or (ii) requiring removal of the
equipment or facilities by the registrant, or the registrant's successor in interest.
(3)
Removal of Underground Equipment. Any registrant who has unusable and
abandoned underground facilities or equipment in any right-of-way shall remove it fi.om
that right-of-way during the next scheduled excavation, to the extent such facilities or
equipment is uncovered by such excavation unless this requirement is waived by the
Public Works Director or City Manager.
12
Indemnification and Liability.
(1)
Limitation of Liability. By reason of the acceptance of a registration or the grant of a
right-of-way permit, the City does not assume any liability (a) for injures to persons,
damage to property, or loss of service claims by parties other than the registrant or the
City, or (b) for claims or penalties of any sort resulting from the installation, presence,
maintenance, or operation of equipment by registrants or activities of registrants.
(2)
Indemnification. By registering with the City, a registrant agrees, or by accepting a
permit under this Section, a permit holder is required, to defend, indemnify, and hold the
City whole and harmless from all costs, liabilities, and claims for damages of any kind
including the City's reasonable attorney fees and costs arising out of the construction,
presence, installation, maintenance, repair or operation of its equipment, or out of any
activity undertaken in or near a right-of-way, whether or not any act or omission
complained of is authorized, allowed, or prohibited by a right-of-way permit. It further
agrees that it will not bring, nor cause to be brought, any action, suit or other proceeding
claiming damages, or seeking any other relief against the City for any claim nor for any
award arising out of the presence, installation, maintenance or operation of its equipment,
or any activity undertaken in or near a right-of-way, whether or not the act or omission
complained of is authorized, allowed or prohibited by a right-of-way permit. The
foregoing does not indemnify the City for its own negligence except for claims arising
out of or alleging the City's negligence where such negligence arises out of or is primarily
related to the presence, installation, construction, operation, maintenance or repair of said
equipment by the registrant or on the registrant's behalf, including but not limited to, the
issuance of permits and inspection of plans or work. This section is not, as to third
parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the registrant or to the
City and the registrant, in defending any action on behalf of the City, shall be entitled to
assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf.
Right-of-Way Manal~ement Regulation Fees:
(l)
(2)
(3)
Annual Registration
Street Excavation Permit
Boulevard Excavation Permit
$ 50.00 (Per Year)
$150.00 (Per Excavation)
$ 50.00 (Per Excavation)
13
Projected ROW Revenues.xls
2001 Street Excavation Information
Application Forms 2001 Totals
Cost
Attachment A
Estimated
2001 Street Excavation 40 Permits
Permits Issued
~30.00
Revenue
2002 Projected Right-of-Way Information
Registration Forms Service
Cost
Estimated
Proposed 2002
Registration Revenues
Cable Television $
Gas Company $
Telephone Company $
Electric Company $
Utility Companies $
Construction Compan $
Cellular Phone $
Revenue
50.00 $ 50.00
50.00 $ 50.00
50.00 $ 50.00
50.00 $ 50.00
50.00 $ 50.00
50.00 $ 5O.00
5O.0O $ 50.0O
$ 350.00
Application Forms
Street Excavation Permits
Boulevard F. xcavation
Permits
Pro.iectad
2002 Totals
25
15
Cost
Estimated
5o.oo
50.00
Revenue
$ 3.750.0O
$ 750.0O
$ 4,500.0O
Revenue Comparison
2001 Total
2002 Project Totals
Estimated Revenue
Generated
$ 1,200.00
$ 4,850.00
$ 3ASO.0O
Prepared by Public Works 3/14/02 Page 1
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting off 3/25/02
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIOnS
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO' 7, A, "~) PUBLICWORKS~..) ~[~E.~~
ITEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BY: K. Hansen~ ~ .._..
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TO ENTER INTO A DATE: 3/19/0~ .
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH MNDOT FOR
TH 65 RECONSTRUCTION
Background:
Feasibility reports have been prepared and accepted by the Council for Street and Utility Improvements (December 13, 1999) and
Streetscaping and Water Services (March 12, 2001). The first report included utilities: sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main
and street reconstruction which includes center medians, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous pavement and concrete sidewalk.
The second report included street landscaping improvements: decorative concrete sidewalk, benches, planters and street lighting
and replacing water services within the project area. Right-of-Way deficiencies, pavement design issues and funding issues delayed
construction until the 2002 construction season. The engineering reports and fmancial estimates indicate a funding level from
MnDOT in the amount of $1,296,000.
Analysis/Conclusions:
The Central Avenue Project was resubmitted to the State for funding consideration and awarded a Cooperative grant in the amount
of $540,000 for fiscal year 2003. Staff has been working with MnDOT to secure the remaining funding necessary for the entire
project. Attached is a letter from the Cooperative Agreements Engineer, Mike Kowski indicating that the remaining balance will be
provided by MnDOT. Another $620,000 will be included in the TH 65 Cooperative Agreement available in 2002. The remaining
$136,000 is secured from the Office of Traffic Engineering, but will not be available until FY 2006, or July 1, 2005.
A cooperative agreement is required by MnDOT and essentially details several things regarding the project:
1. Engineer's Estimate with detailed quantity takeoff.
2. Cost participation by the State and City.
3. Maintenance responsibilities after construction is complete.
The Central Office of MnDOT is currently completing the TH 65 Agreement and indicated they would forward it by next
Thursday, March 21. MnDOT's fmancial contribution to the project will be what is defined in the attached letter from the
Cooperative Engineer. The maintenance responsibilities of the project are defined on the attached two page listing from MnDOT.
Staff recommends adopting the resolution which authorizes the City of Columbia Heights to enter into a Cooperative Agreement
No. 82966 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Central Avenue, TH 65.
Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-20, there being ample copies available to the public.
Recommended Motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2002-20, being a resolution authorizing the City of Columbia Heights to
enter into a Cooperative Agreement No. 82966 with Mn/DOT for Central Avenue, T.H. 65, reconstruction.
Attachment:
Mike Kowski letter dated March 12, 2002
Resolution
Cooperative Agreement No. 82966
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION No. 2002-20
BEING A RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE OF I~HNNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT)
FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF CENTRAL AVENUE (T.H. 65)
'WHEREAS, the engineering consulting firm of URS has prepared final plans and specifications for the improvement of Central
Avenue from 37th Avenue to 43ra Avenue, City Project 9912 and 9912(A); and
WHEREAS, the City has approved the plans, ordered the project and ordered the advertisement for bids by City Resolution No.
2002-01 and Resolution No. 2002-18; and
'~VHEREAS, MnDOT has designated the improvements as SP 0207-73 (TH 65 = 005); and
WHEREAS, the City's Municipal State Aid account, Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement Funds, Speci.al Assessments and City
Utility Funds shall provide the funding for the proposed improvements; and
WHEREAS, MnDOT has secured funding in the amount of $1,296,000.00 for the project and has prepared Municipal Agreement
Number 82966 for the making of the improvements; and,
WHEREAS, the improvements continue the City goal(s) of improving the physical appearance of the City's commercial and
industrial corridors and replacement of deteriorated infrastructure; and,
~3,~IEREAS, the improvements will benefit Mn.DOT's Trunk Highway system.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA that the
City of Columbia Heights, Anoka County Minnesota, enter into MnDOT Agreement No. 82966 with the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for payment by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to the City of Columbia Heights for the Minnesota
Department of Transportation's share of the costs of the roadway construction and other associated construction to be performed
upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 65 from 37th Avenue to 4Ya Avenue within the corporate limits of the City of
Columbia Heights.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and the Director of Public Works are authorized to execute the Agreement
and any amendments to the Agreement.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2002.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BY
Mayor
Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
March 12, 2002
651-582-1661
Mr. Kevin Hansen
Director of Ptiblic Works
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue North
Columbia Heio~ts. MN 55421-3835
RE: Funding for SP 0207-73, TH 65 in Columbia Heights
Dear Mr. Hansen:
This letter is to inform you of the funding available for the above referenced project.
When this project was resubmitted in October of 2001 for funding through the Municipal Agreement Program the
amount requested by the City of Columbia Heights was $1,296,000. This amount was presented to the Municipal
Agreement Selection Committee on January 18, 2002.
At that time the Municipal Agreement Selection Committee award $500,000 (plus 40,000 for CE&I) in FY 2003
funds toward the project.
Following the directions given by the Committee regarding any unused FY 2003 (or FY 2002) funds I attempted to
obtain the remainder of the requested funding.
As of March 11, 2002 1 have been able to obtain an additional $620,000 from cancelled or postponed municipal
agreement projects. In addition I have gotten a commitment from the Metro Traffic Engineering Office to dedicate
the remaining $136,000 from their Safety Capacity Pro,am.
The funds from Traffic are only available on a Debt Managed basis, the payback date would be no earlier than FY
2006. It is now up to the City to decide whether to accept this funding package and continue with the project.
Please let me know the decision of the City Council as soon as you can. If the City chooses to turn down this
funding I will need to redirect it to other projects.
If you have any questions please contact me.
...~incerely, ~.,d~/~,~) .
owski, P.E.
Cooperative Agreement Engineer
Metro Division
cc:
Bob Brown, Mn/DOT-Metro State Aid
Tom Leibli/Project File - Metro State Aid
Kevin Kielb, IJRS Inc.
An equal opportunity employer
TH 65 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
T.H. 65 from 37~h Avenue to 43"~ Avenue and at 51s~ Avenue.
T.H. 47 from 37~h Avenue to 49~h Avenue.
I. DUTIES OF CITY
City will provide routine maintenance on the above described roadway in accordance with the
standards and guidelines City uses to routinely maintain its street system, and will include the
following:
Keep the median opening, island, and adjacent turn lanes located approximately 400 feet
north of 37th Avenue reasonably free and clear from ice and snow, undertake proper
cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when necessary. Replace
damaged signs on this island as needed.
Keep the east and west islands and associated turn lanes located at the intersection of
T.H. 65 and 51st Avenue reasonably free and clear from ice and snow, undertake proper
cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when necessary. Replace
damaged signs on these islands as needed.
3. Keep all pedestrian walkways free and clear from ice and snow, undertake proper
cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when necessary.
4. Maintain the new pedestrian decorative lighting as needed.
5. Perform all sweeping including mainline, turn-lanes, parking bays, and sidewalks.
Perform all routine maintenance of vegetation and other plantings, including necessary
and regular mowing, tree trimming, weed control, and replacement of dead vegetation
including trees and shrubs.
7. Perform all routine maintenance of streetscape hardware, including but not limited to,
planters, tree grates, benches, waste receptacles, and colored concrete walks.
8. Replace or repair damaged or settled concrete sidewalks, crosswalks, and medians.
9. Joint and crack sealing of bituminous surface as needed, not to exceed Once every eight
years.
10. Maintain internally lit signs on University Avenue (T.H. 47) from 37th Avenue to 49th
Avenue.
C. City will furnish at its own cost all labor, equipment, materials, supplies, tools, and other items
necessary for the performance of the services to be provided for by City under this Agreement.
All materials used by City in the performance of the work under this Agreement must conform to
the requirements of the Minnesota Department .of Transportation Standard Specifications for
Construction, 2000 Edition, and to any subsequent amendments thereto.
E. All work performed by under this Agreement shall conform to all applicable Mn/DOT Standards.
II.
III.
DUTIES OF STATE
Keep the roadway, other than described in "Duties of the City", reasonably free and clear from ice
and snow, undertake proper cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when
necessary.
Co
Perform any extraordinary maintenance, betterments, construction, or reconstruction on the trunk
highways described in Section I, Paragraph A. If State desires City to perform any such work, the
parties will enter into a separate agreement therefor.
Extraordinary maintenance, betterments, c.onstruction, or reconstruction includes, but is not
limited to, overlay of the roadway surface, milling and overlay of the roadway surface,
replacement of drainage structures and culverts, and major washout repairs.
State will retain its authority to administer, issue, and regulate access permits, sign advertising
permits, drainage permits, and permits to install new utilities on the trunk highways described in
Section I, Paragraph A.
ANNUAL INSPECTION
Authorized representatives of State and City will jointly inspect the highways and bridges on an
annual basis to review the adequacy of the maintenance work being performed, and to determine
if any extraordinary maintenance, betterments, construction, or reconstruction is required.
IV.
LANE CLOSURES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
City may partially block the trunk highways and bridges for a period of time necessary for the
performance of the services covered under this Agreement. In cases of emergency, such trunk
highways and bridges may be wholly blocked and the passage of traffic thereon prevented by
City. At no time, however, will City continue to obstruct the free passage of traffic on the trunk
highways or bridges for a longer period of time than is reasonably required for performing the
necessary work thereon. In the event of the total blocking or closing of any such trunk highway or
bridge, City must provide a suitable detour during such time, with the assistance of State, as
needed.
City may close to travel the trunk highways and bridges at such time as it is necessary for the
emergency repair of water or gas mains, electric or telephone cables, or sewers. However, City
will not cause any portions of said trunk highways and bridges to be closed to traffic for any
reasons other than those above set forth, and in no event for a time longer than reasonably
necessary to complete authorized work.
All partial and total closures of the trunk highways and bridges covered under this Agreement
must be in conformance with the current Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
2
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
MEETING OF: MARCH 25. 2002
'AGENDA SECTION: t 5'Ei~ ~' F o R c o ~4 s [ D E R ~ ,,ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER
NO: T [ 0 N v. 0 T H£ R FINANCE APPROVAL
ITEM: PURCHASE OF CITY VIEW BY: WILL .I6M ~.IJE BY:
SOFTWARE
NO: 0. C . t) DATE: 03/14/2002
During the 2002 budget review with the City Council there were discussions about the need for automated computer
software, and as part of the budget process, $50,000 was budgeted in the Cable/Television fund to purchase the CityView
software program.
Over the past 17 years, the City of Columbia Heights has made significant advancement into computerizing and
automating several areas of City business. However, there are still some areas that need computerization and automation
and some areas where the previous programs are obsolete and no longer provide cost-effective solutions. Upgrading to a
new software program will provide a more efficient and cost-effective solution that will result in better service to residents
of Columbia Heights.
The areas of primary concern are:
Building Permits and Inspections
Fire Protection Program
Human Resources Tracking and Reporting
Special Assessment Tracking
Business License
Time Cards/Public Works Labor Tracking
As you can see, the above list is relatively significant. Staffhas done a significant amount of research into solutions and
alternatives to provide adequate automation for these needs. In virtually every area, there are stand-alone programs
available that could adequately fulfill the various needs. However, stand-alone programs can be cumbersome and do not
provide an overall tie-in or database between the various components. City View software does provide one overall
database and software modules that could resolve the needs in all of the above-listed areas. The advantage to City View is
that it is one program and one database that ties everything together whereby all applications would have a similar
appearance and uniformity. The primary advantage to going with a single source program is that it is far easier for the IS
Department to maintain the software and to provide training to users as they would be responsible for maintaining only
one database rather than a multitude of databases. Also, City View provides an open architecture basis of programming
so that other components and modules can be added in the future at a very insignificant cost as compared to stand-alone
programming costs. Subsequently, it is staff's recommendation that we purchase the City View program as outlined in
the attached proposal.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with Municipal
Software for the purchase of the City View software program at a cost of $45,470 as outlined in their proposal of June 1,
2001 with funding coming from the Cable/Television budget.
WE:sms
0203143COUNCIL
Attachment
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF COL UMBIA HEIGHTS
DATE:
MARCH 14, 2002
TO:
FROM:
WALT FEHST
CITY MANAGER
WILLIAM ELRITE~.'y ~/"(~
FINANCE DIRECTOR
PRESENTATION OF CITYVIEW SOFTWARE SOLUTION FOR
SOFTWARE PROGRAMS (Page I of 2)
Attached are several documents that will be presented to the City Council at the work session on
March 18, 2002. The first yellow document is a printout of a slide presentation that briefly
summarizes what CityView is, it's benefits, costs, and it's potential for a long-range softv,'are
solution for the City of Columbia Heights.
The green document is a memo from Aleksandr Chemin, the IS Director, summarizing the
current proposal costs and what the City would receive in the initial purchase from CityView. In
essence, the cost breakdown here is $18,475 for the licensing of five concurrent users and
acquiring the building permits and inspection module along with the business license module.
The next cost factor is $14,800, which would be the cost to develop a special assessment module
and a human resources module. This would be a totally customized software module designed
specifically for the needs of Columbia Heights. The third component, $9,200, is for staff
training on the administration of CityView and its general operation. Here the goal is to train 1S
staff for the primary system administration and to allow them to provide additional training to
other City users in the future. The fourth component, $2,995, would be to purchase a fire
module to replace the current Firehouse software that is used in the Fire Department. The total
cost of this package is $45,470. As a comparison in the yellow sheets, slides 10 and 11 reflect
the cost to buy stand-alone programs for these functions, which have a cost range of $44,000 to
$61,000, and this cost range does not include updating the Fire Department program. The
purpose of this is simply to indicate that CityView, as a total package, is less expensive than
other alternatives.
The next document, on white, is a memo of March 8, 2002, to Aleksandr Chernin from Robert
Carlson at CityView. On this document we have highlighted in pink some of the key
information. The first highlighted section states that CityView is unique. CityView's approach
to software development is entirely new and innovative. In the past, software companies
developed software that severely limits any modifications or changes that the end-user may
require. The conventional approach to software development is to make sure the end-user has to
return to the software manufacturer for any updates or enhancements. CityView's approach to
this has been to utilize more of an open architecture format that will allow end-users to make
significant modifications and enhancements on their own, thus making the end-user less reliant
on the soft',~'are manufacturer and in the long run saving the end-user a significant amount of
money for software improvements and changes. This truly allows the end-user to customize the
Who makes CityView,
who uses it?
· Vendor: Municipal Soft. are Corp. - Founded in 1982
- Dedicated to local government market
- 31 employees
· Used by municipalities and counties across USA
and Canada
- 119 jurisdictions (56 in USA, 63 in Canada)
- 1300 user licenses
- Sales almost tripled since 2000
3
CityView benefits:
Single source of information
· Data are currently entered and stored in many databases
- For example, Community Development, Fire, Public Works, and Finance
have different databases on properties
· With CityView, data are entered into the system once and
immediately become available to employees in various
departments (according to access rights)
· It saves time and labor for data entry, and eliminates redundancy
and inconsistency in data
With other solutions we have to enter, store, and update the same
data in multiple databases
2
CityView benefits:
Customization and flexibility
· Data, reports and forms used by the City must conform to City
or state requirements
· With CityView, database tables, data entry forms, and reports
can be customized; new tables, forms and reports can be created
as necessary
· It can be done by IS personnel and advanced users
With other solutions we get pre-defined "canned" tables, forms
and reports - either cannot be customized at all or require
services from vendor
CityView benefits:
Workflow automation
· Many business processes in the City require
actions from several employees
- For example, issuing Building Permit may involve
Building Inspector, Fire Inspector, Permit Clerk
· CityView forms can be e-mailed from one
employee to another without additional paperwork
Other solutions do not have this capability
CityView benefits:
Integration with GIS
The City's GIS (Geographic Information System)
stores spatial information about properties and
City infrastructure
CityView can be integrated with GIS to provide
additional information for decision-making, as
well as additional services
- For example: CityView can find properties that are
located within 500 yards of a proposed project site, and
generate letters to the owners
Other solutions do not have this capability
CityView benefits:
Integration with other databases
· City employees often need to use data from
external resources
- For example, county system has the most current
information on property ownership
· CityView allows to import data from external
sources into the database
· This option also allows importing of data from
currently used systems into CityView to speed up
transition
Other solutions do not have this capability.
4
How much?
Software licenses for 5 concurrent users
Implementation
User training
Annual sof~vare maintenance (5 users)
TOTAL UPFRONT COST
Additional concurrent user licenses
Additional annual software maintenance
With 50% discount for base licenses valid until April 30, 2002
$16,470'
$14,800
$9,200
$5,000
$45,470
$4,990/user
$1,000/user
9
What do we use now?
· For Building Inspections and Permits:
- Banyon system (DOS-based, obsolete)
- Purchase/development cost: $20,000-25,000
- Support cost: $2,000-3,000
· For Fire protection: - FireHouse system
- Support cost: $1,400
· For Business licenses: - Nothing
- Purchase/development cost: $7,000-10,000
- Support cost: $1,000-$2,000
10
What do we use now?
· For Human Resources: - Nothing
- Purchase/development cost: $7,000-10,000
- Support cost: $1,000-$2,000
· For Time cards: - Nothing
- Purchase/development cost: $4,000-7,000
- Support cost: $1,000-$2,000
Our total current and future expenses for keeping and
implementing other solutions: $44,400 - $61,000
11
What will City get with CityView?
Better information, better decision-making, and
better services:
- Up-to-date and consistent data
- More informed decision-making by council members
and City staff
- Faster business processes with less paperwork
- City staff more productive
- Eventually, public access to CityView data, forms and
reports (according to security rights)
12
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
November 21, 2001
BILL ELRITE, FINANCE DIRECTOR
ALEKSANDR CHERNIN
IS DIRECTOR
SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE PROPOSAL FOR THE CITYVIEW
IMPLEMENTATION
The latest proposal from Municipal Software for the CityView implementation (dated 06/29/01)
provides for the following:
Item Quantity
1. Licensing for two modules
(Building Pmmits and Inspections
plus one of the following: Fire,
Code Enforcement, PLanning,
Lice_n_sing) ...............
Promotional Discount
~. Annual Software Maintenance
3. hpObjects Ucenses (for
integrmion with GIS data)
4. Data Collection
S. Scope Document
8. Prototype Customized Forms
7. User Review
8. Customized Form Refinement
9. Data Conversion - Estimate
UnIt Cost
S users S4,990
'S users
S users
I day
I document
10 form~
I thy
10 forms
$200
$1,500
$ 2,S00
~430 per diem
$1,S00
$830 per cllem
Extended
Price
$24,950
$1,soo
$3,150~
10. u~r Training (Muimum ~
_,~,-8)
Essentials (2 days) S ~tudants
ApplicitionTndrdng(1 days) Sstudants i S3~Oe~. $1,000 per dlem !
8y&'tem AdminisblHon Trolnhg (1 ~ .kd..h,
Designer (1 clap)
Reporter (1 days)
Enforcement, Planning,
Licensing, besides the oM
selected at item 1)
TOTAL BUDGET:
($12,475)
Ss,ooo
$1ooo
Sl,S00
$3,1S0'
tno#. $1.o0o p.rdbm i L1,000
t?.,000
$1,4oo
z,tudam i sz~o,,. $~oopfcn,m ! $1,40o
2studants S200eL Sl,000perdlem
~5
$1,400
:82,995
$45,470'**
*Based on estimate of lO forms - actual number determined upon site review.
**Amount is an estimate only - subject to change once the actual data has been reviewed.
*** Travel expenses are not included.
$18,475 software
licenses and
tinit!al building
permits and
business license
modules
$14,800 cost to
develop special
assessment and
human resource
programs
$9,200 staff
trai ni ng
$2,995 Fire
s of twa re
Proposal also says: "Most data conversion and customization work can be performed from our
offices in Victoria using couriers, fax, and the Interact (E-mailed attachments). All site visits for data
collection, training end project management will have costs including travel, meals and
eeeommodation billed at cost upon return. A budget should be established for travel expenses."
Ten customized forms will allow us to implement Human Resources Management functions, since
CityView doesn't currently have a standard HR module. It also might provide customization of
some other forms (depending on how much forms HR would require). All required customized
forms must be included into the Scope Document. As per proposal, "additional customization
requirements not included in the Scope Document are considered extras and pending approval are
costed at $90 per hour."
After the initial implementation and training, our ongoing costs would be $5,000 for Annual
Software Maintenance (ASM) which includes all software upgrades, phone support (180 minutes per
month), and software escrow. ASM cost is l~yable in advance of each year.
A few comments on CityView implementation: As with any other "enterprise-level" system, top-
management and end-users commitment is vital for success of the project. Managers and key users
are "subject matter experts", and therefore must be willing to dedicate significant time and efforts at
all stages of CityView system design and implementation:
· Initial Subject Matter Experts training
· Defining business processes, sources of data, forms and repons used, intra- and
interdepartmental communications involved (that would include a lot of paperwork, es well
es several meetings within departments and at thc Division/Department Heads level)
· Discussing requirements with Project Manager (all subject mauer experts must be present
during the Project Manager on-site visit)
· Reviewing Scope Document
· Reviewing prototype forms end discussing them with Project Manager (again, all subject
mauer experts must be present during the Project Manager on-site visit)
· Bringing all databases up-to-date before submission for data conversion
· Final user training
All tasks related to CityView design and implementation must have the high priority and receive
sufficient resources. The worst thing that may happen is implementing the system that is irrelevant
to the eetual business needs. Therefore the design and implementation decisions must be made by
Division Heads and epproved by the City Meneger.
The realistic time flame is also very important. My optimistic estimate is 6 months from budget
approval to end of £mal user training; pessimistic- 12 months. The switchover to CityView must be
~cheduled outside the busiest time for the departments involved.
I strongly b~lieve that CityView will be beneficial for the City in the long term. IS ~t is
rgedy to ectively pertieipetc at ~eeh stage of CityView design and implementation.
March 8, 2002
Mr Aleksandr Chernin
IS Director
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421-3878
Dear Mr. Chemin:
Municipal Software Corporation is excited to offer its products and services to the City of
Columbia Heights.
Municipal Software Corporation offers a fully integrated software application that provides
municipalities with a scalable solution that improves internal efficiency and enhances customer
service. Our flagship product, CityView®, is an enterprise-wide solution used by over 115
jurisdictions in North America (fifty-six in the US and sixty-three in Canada) to automate their
business processes including building permits, inspections, code enforcement, business licenses,
planning and zoning, public works, voter registration, and fire and police incident reporting.
CityView is unique: It is designed on the premise that one size does not fit all. Municipal
Software realizes that every municipality has its unique application requirements. CityView
provides completely customized applications that are developed to match your specific
processes. We will train your staff in the application tools we used to build your application so
your staff can be as self-sufficient as possible. When new requirements arise or a process
evolves, your staff can make the necessary changes. Columbia Heights will not be dependent on
us or other vendors for the routine changes you need to make and you will be able to use the full
power of CityView to develop other applications.
Municipal Software understands that automating your business processes is not inexpensive. It
requires an investment of both time and money. CityView protects your investment in the future.
It is scalable so Columbia Heights' growth will not exceed CityView's capabilities. Our training
will insure that your staff is able to take full advantage of your customized application and that
your IS staff will be able to use CityView to address other city requirements. Our concurrent
licensing policy enables you load your CityView application on any appropriate PC and it allows
any five users to access the application at any one time. CityView offers Import and Export
Wizards that can ease the transfer of data between CityView and other city applications.
CityView's Web Server module can be installed when it becomes important for Columbia
Heights to provide city information or services to the public via the Internet. CityView is also
easily integrated with ESRI, the leading geographic information system provider, so you can
share your mapping information with your appropriate CityView application. Finally, CityView
is developed on industry-standard Windows technology.
One of the best protections of your investment, though, is Municipal Software Corporation itself.
It is a stable, growing company (our sales have almost tripled since 2000) that has served the
needs of local governments for twenty years. Our management team is focused on making
CityView the best it can possibly be. Our thirty-one employees are dedicated to providing
applications of the highest quality...on time...and within budget. Our technical support team
resolves two thirds of all problems on the first call. Our 1,300 licensed users provide a constant
flow of new ideas to enhance CityView.
CityView clients range in size from Medina, Washington (about 3,000 people) to the City and
County of Denver (over I million). We would like Columbia Heights to join our roster of
clients.
Even though our initial proposal is nine months old, we will hold its prices and the deep fifty
percent discount on the five concurrent li~:enses it included until April 30, 2002. Additional
licenses (14) would be at our current $4,990 list price. Though I cannot freeze the license fee
for future years, I can guarantee no increase in the annual software maintenance charge for two
years at our current rate ($1,000 per license, $5,000 per year).
We hope you will become a member of our growing family of clients. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Carlson
Manager, Business Development - Midwest
Municipal Software Corporation
1623 McKenzie Avenue
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada, V8N IA6
CiF of ColumbiaHeights
i UTOMATINO SYSTEMS
for LOCAL OOVERNMENTS
Proposal for:
Data Management System
Submitted By:
s o F T lw ~a~!:
Munictpal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001
Document Contents
CiO' of Columbia Heights
Data Managernent System
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 Our Mandate .............................. i ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 History .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Corporation Duration and Ownership .................... Errorl Bookmark not defined.
2.4 Government Software Experience ......................... Errorl Bookmark not defined.
2.5 Services ................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Project Management ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Implementation/Customization ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Data Conversion .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Training ........................................................................................... Error! Boo 'kmark not defined.
Annual Software Maintenance program (ASM) .............................. Error! Boo 'kmark not defined.
Newsletter Subscription ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annual User Group Conferences ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CityView WI~B Site ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ABOUT CITYVIEW ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1 CityView Features .................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Forms ............................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Reports ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Database .......................................................................................... Error~ Boo 'kmark not defined.
Mapping .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Security ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Images .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
MAINTENANCE and SUPPORT ............................................. Errod. Bookmark not defined.
4.1 Software Maintenance ........................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined.
4.2 Technical Support .................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ............................................... Errod. Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Environment .......................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Database .............................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined.
5.3 Mapping ................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined.
5.4 Security .................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined.
PRODUCT PRICING ................................................................. Errod. Bookmark not defined.
6.1 Software Licenses ................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined.
6.2 Annual Software Maintenance (ASM) ...................Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Section 7 IMPLEMENTATION METHOD and COSTS ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Municipal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001
Section 8
Section 9
Document Contents
Ci O' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
7.1 Initial Subject Matter Expert Training ..................... Errorl
7,2 Site Visit ................................................................. Errorl
7.3 Scope Document ................................................... Errorl
7.4 Prototype Forms .................................................... Errorl
7.5 User Review .......................................................... Errorl
7.6 Form Refinement ................................................... Error!
7.7 Data Conversion .................................................... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Bookmark not defined.
Bookmark not defined.
Bookmark not defined.
Bookmark not defined.
Bookmark not defined.
Bookmark not defined.
7.8 Training .................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined,
DELIVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
COST SUMMARY ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
9.1 Software and Implementation Services ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
9.2 Expenses ............................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined.
9.3 Financing ............................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Mumctpal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001
umcla
s 0 F q'l~¥A R E
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
Section 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We are very pleased to have the opportunity to provide the City of Columbia Heights with the
following proposal. We believe that we can provide the City with the software and services
that meet the requirements of all your users.
CityView was programmed to deal with the specific needs of each local government. It is
open and flexible enough to fit with any business process. The City of Columbia Heights's
requirements can be met through our method of implementation where we help you to create
your forms and processes in CityView. Existing databases and forms are availble for use,
however given the unique requirements of the City and other cities across North America, we
find our implementation approach to be the best methodology to getting up and live.
We have provided cost estimates based on what we have experienced in the past with other
local governments. Of course these costs will change based on the exact number of licenses
purchased, the exact number of forms to be implemented and the number of people the City
wishes to train. Based on our assumptions and the information provided, your project will
cost $45,470. We can also provide financing to the City, which works out to a monthly fee of
$110.38/License.
Once again, thank-you for the opportunity to respond! If you have any questions please do
not hesitate to contact:
Steven Favalaro
Municipal Software Corporation
Telephone: 1-800-828-9284
Emil: sfavalaro~municipalsoflware.com
btumopal Software Corporation
dune 1, 2001 Page 1
Section 2 i MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION
CiO' of Columbia Heights
Data Management S)'stem
2.1 Our Mandate
Municipal Software Corporation is focused on providing our clients the software and
knowledge necessary to make their organizations more efficient and productive. Our mandate
is: "provide systems that are capable of being installed on time, on budget and that perform
beyond the computer user's level of expectation." We believe that computer users dictate the
role of computer systems and software developers - not the other way around.
2.2 History
Our interests in local government are deeply rooted. Two former local government
employees, one a planner and the other a computer scientist founded thc company in 1982. At
that time PCs were a fledgling technology but both founders felt that PCs were the future.
Therefore, they developed software to run on these new computers - software designed by
local government users for local government users. Since most local governments lagged
technologically compared to the private sector, the company spent its early years supplying
local governments with PCs, networks, and third party software such as word processors,
along with the software it had developed.
In the early 19.90's the company decided to divert its resources entirely to its flagship
software. Our past experience with hardware, networks and municipal systems is embodied in
the software and allows us to understand your needs better. The software has continued to be
refined and updated over the last 18 years to reflect changes in both technology and local
government.
Municipal Software Corporation is a leader in the local government marketplace. The
company has experienced 100% growth as a result of the refocusing and our client base now
stretches across North America.
2.3 Corporation Duration and Ownership
Municipal Software Corporation was founded in 1982 by two former local government
employees as a private corporation and continues to operate as a private corporation currently
owned by four partners.
2.4 Government Software Experience
Municipal Software deals exclusively with local governments across North America. As a
result, we are a valuable information pool that municipalities can tap, for both systems
automation knowledge and general information about local government operations. Municipal
Software is not diverted by other interests. The local government marketplace is a definite
niche - it is our niche. For most companies this market is a sideline business; for us it is our
only business!
In the early 1990s, the company decided to divert its resources entirely to its flagship software
"CityView". The software has continued to be refined and updated over the last 18 years to
reflect changes in both technology and local government. We plan to remain in the local
government marketplace. We will keep pace with technology so our clients can keep pace.
Municipal Software Corporation
June I, 2001 Page 2
Section 2:
2.5
Ci o' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION
The software will continue to develop and embody all that we learn from our clients.
Municipal Software Corporation is committed to providing local governments with the
software and support they need.
Since the initial release of CityView, Municipal Software has continually invested in the
development of the software. This development is directed by the client base and facilitated
through the Annual Software Maintenance program. The most recent release of CityView
(version 7) is the 4* complete rewrite of the software
Services
Municipal Sofiware can provide a complete range of services to assist the City of Colun~bia
Heights in implementing and maintaining Cib'View.
Project Management
The Project Manager can conduct an on-site visit and will work in conjunction with City
representatives to review existing systems and business processes, and gather existing data
sources, in order to design the City's database and form requirements for CityView.
lmplementation/Cust oznization
Services provided by Municipal Software Corporation, once the business process of a
particular phase of implementation has been approved, will include the development and
customization of necessary prototype on-screen forms, and reports, most of which will be
conducted in Municipal Software's offices.
Data Conversion
Municipal Software can take all sources of digital data, including City Assessment or Property
data, any historical data in digital format, and convert it to CityView. In addition, CityView
can directly use common forms of GIS or digital mapping, such as ArcViewTM, ArclnfoTM,
AutoCADTM, DXF, GeoTiff and many others.
Training
Municipal Software presents a series of full, in-depth and comprehensive course programs
designed to provide clients with the required skills, tools, and time saving tips and techniques
to increase their proficiency in the operation of CityView. Courses range bom hands-on
introductory overviews for new users and non-technical managers, to more advanced and
custom application training for key operators, technicians and system administrators. Training
course material is prescnted in a hands-on environment, and conducted at a location and
schedule which is convenient for our clients.
A complete outline of training courses available through Municipal Software is included for
your information as Appendix A.
Annual Software Maintenance program (ASM)
The ASM entitles CityView clients to a limited quantity (based on the number of CityView
licenses purchased) of free monthly support, using a toll-flee line for clients, during which
they may receive advice on any issue relating to the CityView software, as well as all upgrades
and enhancements to the software at no extra charge. These upgrades are supplied between 2
to 4 times each year via CD, or may be downloaded directly from our FTP site. The ASM
Munico:~al Sofnvare Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 3
Section 2 i MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION
Ci O' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
also provides the client with a f~ee subscription to "CityView" a regularly published
newsletter, and an invitation to the Annual User Conference.
Newsletter Subscription
A flee Newsletter Subscription provides clients with "The CityView"; current and relevant
information on product features and enhancements, as well as on general local government
news.
Annual User Group Conferences
Annual User Conferences provide an excellent forum for sharing information, trouble-
shooting advice and peer support. Conferences usually consist of workshops and open
discussion.
CityView Web site
The CityView Web site at www. M~icipalSo~are.com, provides a comprehensive and
entertaining resource for keeping in touch with CityView and Municipal Software.
Partners
Municipal Software is a Microsoft Certified Solution Provider (MCSP)CSP, a strategic
partner with Hewlett-Packard, and an ESRI Business Partner
[Micr
mpObjoct,J
Municipal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 4
Section 3 .' ABOUT ClTYVlEW
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
CityView is an easy-to-use, Windmvs based, systems automation software product designed
specifically for local governments. It collects, trac~, stores and displays all th'pcs of
information for various departments. CityView is flexible, customizable, versatile and scalable
to any size organization. You can automate any system in your organization using Cit3'View,
increasing your efficiency and productivity.
3.1 CityView Features
Forms
Users can create and modify your forms and applications, add data fields, text, graphics and
images to create perfect replicas of their existing forms.
~ n, ~ ~ ,- ,-- ~ .~. ~ .JeJ~ CityVie~
al~:al~ll~l ~' ~"fi'l'q, l "l'~"~i~'l-~'i'~l ~-'~tl~l~i ~'~1 ............ provides you
~'~' '~ with the
Buildh~9 Applicalion {Office I/se Only} flexibility and
.~lamcq~a.I Municipality o! Clty¥1ew tools Io be able
to create your
P,c,~n3' i,'fom,~o~ ] OWll forlns
'~. -- ~: I~ existing fo~s
~ ~ ~r ~.~.~ ~' ~ to automate any
~ ~i~n ~o~a~ ] business
I --': -'-- --': ,'---I process.
~ I~ t~ [
I
I
Reports
Users can create custom reports to compile statistics, flag bring forwards, or do any ad-hoc
analysis. A Report Wizard is provided to make report xwiting very user friendly.
Municipal Sofnrare Cortn~rat~on
June 1, 2001 Page
Section 3 i
ABOUT ClTYVlEW
City of Columbia Heigltts
Data Management System
Ci~Mew'
powerful Report
Wizard allows
you to generale
accurate and
detailed reports
for all activities
managed b)
Ci~,View
Database
CityView allows municipalities to develop their own databases and seamlessly integrate with
other municipal systems using ODBC (Open Database Connectivity).
Workflow
A sophisticated "expression builder" allows users to perform complicated calculations and
operations such as e-mailing and calendar scheduling automatically.
This graphic
shows CityView
mapping in use to
create a quick
geographically
based mailing
list. Note the
tfghts of way
marked by red
lines.
Mapping
Industry standard
GIS and mapping
formats such as ,
Shapefiles (fi.om
ESRI's ArcView
or Arclnfo), CAD
files (such as ~om
AutoDesk's
AutoCAD), DXF,
and GeoTiff
geographically
referenced aerial
photos can be
linked to property
data through the
forms. Maps can
be displayed and
printed to show
property
Mumcipal Sofnvare Corporation
June I, 2001 Page 6
Section
ABOUT CITYVlEW
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management Systera
boundaries, zoning, infrastructure, etc.
CityView has incorporated the MapObjects GIS library from ESRI. This eliminates the need
to import mapping data into a proprietary CityView format, as well as provides an enhanced
feature set, such as display of raster data (digital ortho photos).
Securit~
Security features control access to a municipality's data and CityView menus. Security is used
on Tables, Fields, and Commands for users and user groups.
Inmges
Users can attach site plans, aerial photos and digital photos directly to property files.
Future of CityView and the Web
CityVicx~ 7.6 allows publishing reports and status information to thc Web. Publish your forms
and reports to the Web! Apply for permits on-line, schedule and check inspections fivln the
field, reduce paperwork and improve service. Wireless connectivity with no HTML required!
Currently under development, CityView 8 will allow the full deployment of all of your
CityVicw business logic to the Interact through a simple migration. Investment in systems
~,, :,,,~..-:r_r~?'t~:.i x designed and implemented today continues
to pay offas technology evolves in thc
future !
r~. ~ ~lu~.~.,e~ .~,,,...~. -- -- '....~ t 3.2
~ I '~N~--~,*,*,~ ~ .~ Mobile
I:,~ ! .,, .--- , .~ and
Wireless
I
Computing
CityView has the ability to ~,~r:t:'a-*---~7-'=~' '~ ~'~-'-~--. 7',---'F'~F,;;;,-':--,.-' offer
Inspectors, contractors, appraisers
and others the ability access CityView forms and reports via handheld wireless devices 24
hors and day 7 days a week. This access can be gained through any device with a connection
to thc World Wide Web. This will allow contractors and citizens to complete permit, license
and other applications over the Web, as well as check the status of applications, make
payments and more! CityView puts you in the drivers seat when it comes to E-government.
With CityView you have thc ability to make information and processes available to your
citizens incrementally, without having to contract Web developers every time you want to add
a new function.
3.3 Your CltyView System
Unlike most other sot~,are that is purchased in the form of preset modules with limited ability
for customization, CityView is made to the specifications of your business processes from the
Munictpal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 7
Section
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management Systern
ABOUT ClTYVlEW
table level up. This is the reason that CityView will be able to exactly meet every one of the
application and report activities that the Data Management System requires.
In our 8 step implementation process we conduct site visits to examine your business
processes and then create a scope document that details the scope of the project and the
deliverables. This ensures that Municipal Software and the City can advance quickly in the
production of your CityView system.
Municipal Software currently has clients using CityView for planning and zoning, building
permitting and inspections, business licensing, code enforcement and complaint tracking, fire
administration and emergency/911, parking tickets, cemetery administration, health
departments, dog licensing, voter registration and more.
The tables and fields vary from client to client so it is not possible to provide a data map of
how the City of Columbia Heights's system would appear. CityView is an open database
structure and clients have the ability to view and modify all relationships contained therein.
Municipal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 8
Section 4 [ MAINTENANCE and SUPPORT
City of Colurnbia Heights
Data Management System
4.1 Software Maintenance
New releases of CityView are developed using in-house programmers. Clients have the
choice of receiving updates by CD or by downloading them from our FTP site which is
accessible from our Web page on the Internet. Each new release of the software is complete
and contains all the features included in previous releases. All releases are supplied at no
additional charge as part of the Annual Software Maintenance Agreement. Municipal
Software encourages all clients to take advantage of the features provided in the most recent
release.
CityView is constantly evolving. The nature of our relationship with our clients is an integral
part of that development. The relationship begins with the Annual Software Maintenance
Agreement (ASM). This agreement provides not only regular support to the users through our
toll free lines but also provides for all new releases, updates and enhancements at no extra
charge. The development of CityView is funded directly from the ASM program. In
addition, Municipal Software relies on its clients to provide guidance in the area of future
development for CityView. We maintain a comprehensive database of features that are
requested by our clients in e-mail or during telephone conversations, or that get generated
internally. Clients are also provided a forum on our Web Page and also at our User
Conferences to voice their suggestions and opinions.
At least two User Group Conferences are held each year. Thesc conferences, facilitated by
Municipal Software, are an opportunity for users to sharc some of their implementation
strategies and processes that have been automated using CityView. They are also an
opportunity for the users to advise Municipal Software in the development of CityView with
features that would provide benefit to the entire user base.
Suggestions for software enhancements are incorporated into the software at no charge as part
of the Annual Software Maintenance Agreement. The scheduling and priority for the
development of the enhancements are determined by the degree of benefit the enhancement
will provide the entire user-base.
4.2 Technical Support
Support and maintenance of the system for the City of Columbia Heights would be handled
from our head office. Support is provided by telephone between the hours of 7:30 am and
5:30 pm PST. Secondary support is offered through our Eastern Office during the hours of
8:00 am and 5:00 pm EST. Additional support packages can be negotiated should there be a
need.
Our support department is trained to isolate a potential problem within 15 minutes via a toll-
free support line for CityView Clients. In addition, we have the ability to connect directly via
modem or Intemet directly to the user's environment to assist in any diagnosis. We rely on
the client to accurately describe the problem and attempt to isolate the area affected.
Munico~al Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 9
Section 4: MAINTENANCE and SUPPORT
Ci o' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
The goal of our support department is to resolve any issue on the same call and most issues are
resolved in the same day. Clients receive an allotment of support at no charge as part of their
Annual Software Maintenance Agreement and very seldom does that allotment not cover the
support required to resolve any issue. Assistance is provided until the issue is identified as
either the software or the application of the software and then resolved.
The allotment of support provided to each Client at no charge, provides those Clients with
access via our toll free telephone line, fax, email and our Web page.
Munictpal Softss'are Carpor~on
June 1, 2001 Page 10
Section $: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
CityView can be implemented with little outside assistance and requires no specialized
hardware other than the specifications listed below. Municipal Software does not distribute
hardware, and therefore, cannot offer cost estimates regarding these expenditures.
5.1 Environment
Workstation: Any PC compatible Pentium 200MHz or better, with a
minimum of 64 megabytes of RAM (128 MB preferred).
Network:
Any network supporled by the Windows 9x, Windows
NT or Windows 2000 workstation, including (but not
limited to) Novell NetWare and Windoxx s NT/2000
Server.
Disk Space: Minimum of 20 megabytes on each workstation, plus
1000 - 2500 bytes per parcel on the server.
Display, Mouse, Printer, All devices supported by Windows 9x, Windows NT
Scanner: 4.0 or Windows 2000 or better.
ODBC Level: 3.0 (server and client)
MAPI Level: 1.0 (Simple MAPI)
Year 2000 Compliance: CityView 7.x is Year 2000 Compliant!
5.2
Database
Database Engine:
Maximum File Size:
Maximum Record Length:
# of Records:
# of Base Data Types
Field Types Supported
Microsoft Database Access Objects (DAO) and Jet are
distributed with CityView, and will work with
ClienVServer, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle and DB2.
12 Gigabytes
255 fields
Limited only by the maximum file size and the size of
the storage media.
Unlimited
Text, Memo (Notes), Boolean (Logical, True/False),
Integers, Floating Point, Currency, Fixed Point, Dates,
Times, Unique ID's (GUID's) and OLE (BLOB)
Municipal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page Il
Section $ ! TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Ci O' of Columbia Heights
Data Management ,~vstem
5.3
Database ....
Keys:
Import / Export Formats:
# of Binders Supported:
# of Forms per Binder:
# of Elements per Form or
Report:
Element types Supported:
Mapping (CityView uses ESRI
Supported Map Projections:
Supported Data Formats:
Supported Map Projections:
Supported Units of Measure:
# of Map Sheets Supported:
# of Maps Supported:
# of Layers Supported:
# of Layers per Map:
Full support for keys, foreign keys and segmented keys
(multiple fields in one key).
Dbase, FoxPro, Access, Delimited and Fixed-Width
Text, Excel, HTML, and any ODBC-compliant database
such as MS SQL Server and Oracle.
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Line, Rectangle, Round Rectangle, Ellipse, Polygon,
Text, Field, Checkbox, Listbox, Aggregate Field,
Expression, Image, Link Sheet, OLE Object, Subsection
with control over size, font, color etc.
MapObjects)
Over 100 different mapping projections supported by the
MapObjects environment, including UTM, Polar and
Lat/Long.
Direct connect to a wide variety of native data including:
GIS formats (ESRI Shapefile and ArcInfo Coverages),
CAD formats (DXF, DWG, and DGN) and image formats
such as BMP, TIFF, JPEG, GeoTiff, SUN, ERDAS, BIL,
BIP, BSQ, and MrSID
Any
Any
N/A (indexed, seamless map base)
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
5.4 Security
Municipal Sofnvare Corporation
June I, 2001 Page 12
Section $ .' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
# of Users Supported
# of Groups Supported:
Security Provided For:
Security Access Levels:
Unlimited
Unlimited
Files (tables), fields, and commands
Add, Read, Modify, Delete, Design or None
Municipal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 13
Section 6 i PRODUCT PRICING
CiO' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
6.1 Software Licenses
The initial step in implementation is thc purchase of licensing. CityView licensing is
concurrent licensing which allows for a license to be shared over the network. For the
purposes of the following proposal, price breaks will be identified and costs will be provided
for $ concurrent users.
The cost of $ licenses is $4,990 each, or $24,950 in total.
6.2 Annual Software Maintenance (ASM)
An Annual Software Maintenance (ASM) charge for each of the licenses purchased will entitle
the City of Columbia Heights to all software upgrades, and telephone support. Telephone
support will amount to 36 minutes per license each month, for a total of 180 minutes each
month. Also included with the ASM is a Software Escrow Agreement. The total ASM cost
would be payable in advance of each year.
The ASM cost for $ licenses is $1,000 each, or $5,000 in total.
Munidpa l Soft'are Corporation
Jur~ 1, 2001 Page 14
Section ? i IMPi.£M£NTATION M£THOD and ¢O$T$
ci O, of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
7.1 Initial Subject Matter Expert Training
We have found that prior to the initial visit to collect data for the scope document, that the
participants deemed as the Subject Matter Experts involved in the process are better equipped
if they have received training in CityView.
We recommend that the Subject Matter Experts receive training in CityView Essentials,
System Ad~ninistrator, Designer and Reporter. This initial training will provide to all those
that are involved in defining the business processes and design requirements a thorough
understanding of the software's features and capabilities. (See Appendix A for a complete
description of each course)
7.2 Site Visit
The implementation process begins with the collection of information necessary for a
successful implementation. The Municipal Software Project Manager assigned to the project
will spend one day at the City of Columbia Heights offices to observe and assist in defining
the business processes to be automated. During this time, information regarding the sources
of data, forms and technical environment will be determined.
Cost for the Site Visit is I days @ $1,500 per day.
7.3 Scope Document
The product of the site visit will be a Scope Document that will outline our findings and
provide our recommendation on how to proceed.
Cost for the completion of the Scope Document is $2,500.
7.4 Prototype Forms
The Prototype on-screen forms and reports are then developed to include fields, database,
preliminary lookup tables and fee expressions in a non-production or alpha environment. We
are estimating that the total number of forms used in the identified departments is 10.
However, this number may change upon conducting the on-site review as it may be
determined that some forms may be combined or additional forms may be included. At such
time any additional costs or credits will be handled appropriately.
The Prototype delivery of 10 forms amounts to approximately ½ day a form ~ $630 per diem,
equaling $3,150.
7.5 User Review
Following the development of the prototype forms, a second site visit will be conducted
during which time users would review the forms. It is during this time that our Project
Mumc~al Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 15
Section ? ,' IMPLEMENTATION METHOD and COSTS
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management &'stern
Manager would gather information required from the City's subject matter experts to develop
and tailor the various systems for the City and from this review, a list of changes or
refinements could be established in a Change Control Document.
The cost for the user review is 1 days ~ $1,500 per day.
7.6 Form Refinement
The next step in the Implementation process would be to complete the changes that have been
identified in the Change Control Document. At this point, the City could decide to have
Municipal Software complete the work or complete the work internally after its staff had
received appropriate training. Our past experience indicates that it would take Municipal
Software approximately 'h day per form to complete the necessary refinements as outlined in
the scope document.
The cost for the form refinements is 10 forms amounts to approximately ;5 day a form @ $630
per form, equaling $3,150.
Additional customization requirements not included in the scope document are considered
extras and pending approval are costed at $90 per hour.
7.7 Data Conversion
Data Conversion is also a consideration. Municipal Software can take all sources of digital
data the City may have, including your assessment or property-based data, any historical data
in digital format, as well as any digital mapping, and convert it or link it to CityView.
CityView is ODBC (Open Database Connectivity) compliant and could interface with another
database that is also ODBC compliant, or, property-based data could be convened into
CityView.
In order to set expectations we have provided an estimated cost for data conversion. The
amount estimated is subject to change once the actual data has been reviewed. More
information will be required before a concise quote on data conversion needs can be
determined. The City of Columbia Heights's conversion needs are defined during the Initial
On-Site visit where as the data to be converted and cost is included in the Scope Document
Mumcipal Soft~,
June 1, 2001
CityView's Data
Exchange wizard
allows for the
importing of a
number of
different data
formats to ensure
that any data new
and existing is
captured for use in
CityView
Section 7 '. IMPLEMENTATION METHOD and COSTS
Ci O' of Colurnbia Heights
Data Management System
7.8 Training
One of the most important aspects in the implementation of any software is the training.
Recommended training in CityView, for your City, includes CityView Essentials, Application
Training, as well as, Designer and Reporter, more advanced training in dcsi;cn and
customization of forms and repons intended to empower the City's Staff with the skill-set
required to evolve the system internally
Ali of our training courses are priced at $1,000 per day and $200 per student. The number of
training sessions for each course has been determined by assuming a classroom size for 8
students maximum. Based on the student numbers likely to require training in your City less
the 0 Subject Matter Experts receiving training at project startup, the budget for lxaining
should be as follows.
Course Duration No. of
Students Cost
CityView Essentials 2 day(s) 5 $3,000
Custom Application I days(s) 5 $2,000
System Administrator I day(s) 2 $1,400
Designer 1 day(s) 2 $1,400
Reporter 1 day(s) 2 $1,400
Total cost for this training, based on our recommendation of at least 5 students, is $9,200.
MtmictPal Sofnvare Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 17
Section 8: DELIVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
CiO' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
Once authorization to purchase the licensing has been received, Municipal Software will ship
the software and begin the process of developing the prototype forms and scheduling the site
visit.
It has been the experience of Municipal Software that once the initial site visit has been set,
development of the forms, the user review, training, and the ultimate launch of CityView can
be accomplished within a period of approximately 8 weeks time.
Milestone Purpose Time Requirement
Initial Training Subject Matter Experts 1 Week
Initial Site Visit Data Collection 1-2 Days
Scope Document Outline of Reconunendation 1 Week
Prototype Forms Fonns are Developed 1 Week
User Review Subject Matter Experts Review I - 2 Days
Form Refinement Complete Form Revisions 1 Week
Data Conversion Property and History Data I Week
User Training System Admin and Users I Week
Various components of the CityView delivery and installation can be scheduled as soon as the
City's authorization to purchase is received. Ultimate completion relies upon the scope of the
project defined during the initial site visit and outlined in the scope document.
The input of the City's subject matter experts would be required during various phases of the
implementation project.
The first occasion would be during the initial site visit when the City's subject matter experts
would be required to offer advise to the Municipal Software Project Manager to determine the
ultimate scope of the project.
The second occasion would be during the user-review when the Project Manager would
require assistance in defining the City's definitive business process to be reflected by the
prototyped forms and reports, and to complete the Change Control Document for revision
purposes. Our experience indicates that it is best for the City to also appoint a Project
Manager to coordinate staff activities during the duration of the implementation.
Municipal Software Corporation
June 1, 2001 Page 18
Section 9: COST SUMMARY
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
We would like the City of Columbia Heights to become a CityView client, and we understand
the need to deal. within budgetary realities. We have tried to include all costs the City might
incur to implement CityView successfully.
9.1 Software and Implementation Services
Item Quantity Unit Cost Extended
Price
1. Licensing 5 $4,990 $24,950
Promotional Discount ($12,475)
2. Annual Software Maintenance 5 $1,000 $5,000
3. MapObjects Licenses 5 $200 $1000
4. Data Collection 1 day $1,500 $1,500
5. Scope Document 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500
6. Prototype Forms - 10 Forms 10 $630 per diem $3,150'
7. User Review I day $1,500 $1,500
8. Form Refinement - 10 Forms 10 $630 per diem $3,150'
9. Data Conversion - Estimate $3,000**
10. User Training (Maximum class
size - 8)
Essentials (2 days)
Application Training (! days)
5 students $200 ea. $1,000 per diem $3,000
5 students $200 ea. $1,000 per diem $2,000
Designer (I days)
Reporter (1 days)
I Additional Form Set
TOTAL BUDGET:
System Administration Training (!
. . 2 students $200 ea. $1,000 per diem $1,400
........ ~.~ys) ...............................................................
2 students $200 ea. $1,000 per diem $1,400
2 students $1,400
$2,995
$45,470***
$200 ea. $1,000 per diem
$2995
9.2
*Based on estimate of 10 forms - actual number determined upon site review.
**Amount is an estimate only - subject to change once the actual data has been reviewed.
*** Travel expenses are not included.
Expenses
Most data conversion and customization work can be performed from our offices in Victoria
using couriers, fax, and the Internet (E-mailed attachments). All site visits for data collection,
training and project management will have costs including travel, meals and accommodation
billed at cost upon return. A budget should be established for travel expenses.
Municipal Sofm,are Corporation
June 1. 2001 Page 19
Section 9 i COST SUMMARY
Ci O, of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
9.3 Financing
Municipal Software does offer a financing option in order to accommodate some of the
budgetary constraints that local governments face. Sometimes it is easier for a City to
purchase CityView and our sen'ices using operating funds instead of capital funds. If the City
opted for financing the fee, based on a total of $45,470, would work out to approximately
$110.38/month / license for a term of 36 months. Of course, this number will vary upon the
actual dollar value of the contract, when the conlract is executed and a finalized term.
Munictpal Software Corporation
Jor~ 1, 2001 Page 20
City of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
Munico~al Sofn~'are Cort~ation
dune ~, 2001 Page 21
APPENDIX A
CiO' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
Municipal Software Corporation
,lur~ I~, 2001 Page 22
APPENDIX B
Ci O' of Columbia Heights
Data Management System
Appendix B
Municipal Software Corporation
4lmO l, 200~ Page 23
CityView 8.NET Page 1 of 2
M c pa]
Print
Thinking about E-Government
Now
CityView(E) is Web Based!
8.NET allows you to fully distribute your business processes over an Intranet and over the World
Wide Web with full and convenient control.
Municipal Software Corporation unveiled CityView 8.0, the first release of its innovative new 8.NET product
line, at their annual user conference in Boston on November 29. CityView 8.NET combines the power of
Microsoft's .Net Web-based technologies, ESRI's ArclMS, and CityView's award-winning business process
automation and management capabilities into a convenient and easy-to-use application for local government.
This significant new release is the first truly Web based local government automation software on the market.
It allows users of all types (municipal, agencies, contractors and the public) to access relevant business
processes over any Internet connection - E-government made easy!
The CityView 8.NET sedes features seamless integration with the Web. All modules, forms and reports can
be viewed from a traditional desktop platform or through a Web browser from any Internet connection. Once
the user's Web site is set up, there is no HTML coding necessary and no Web site maintenance is required.
CityView 8.NET is the application to quickly and easily define, build, deploy and use business processes and
data on any device and any network connection.
CityView 8.NET allows users to provide secure access to any business process from anywhere. It provides
real time data access from the field and remote offices with device independence - use your laptop, palmtop,
or cell phone!
Further, CityView 8.NET allows local governments to distribute GIS data over the Web using ESRI's ArclMS.
This mapping data is combined to property based and other related data for spatial investigation and display.
CityView 8.NETs Web Services module will allow frequent users of property and other data to link directly to
CityView (through the Intemet) from a spreadsheet, or similar application to search for addresses, valuations,
permits, maps and more.
According to Mike Palmer from the District of Langford "CityView 8.NET is not only innovative in the new
technology it synthesizes for local government use, but in the aensible approach taken by Municipal Software
in charging for the products Web capability. With the CityView 8.NET model, we can budget our Web
expenditures for a fixed amount for a whole year and guarantee no denial of service to our client base. This
removes a lot of the uncertainty about going to the Web."
Rebecca Lake from the City of Keene, NH commented "Municipal has obviously put a lot of thought into the
design and business model of 8.NET and this will provide an enormous benefit to e-Govemment initiatives
everywhere"
Mike Palmer from the District of Langford, BC also remarked that CityView 8.NET will greatly simplify the
District's drive to automate government services and make them available to council members, contractors
and the public. Mike says that the District currently uses CityView to offer Development Application Reports
over the Web and they will be eventually expanding this to property searches, sewer billing, business license
renewal, and property tax certificates.
Troy Kusy, Vice President of Product Development at Municipal Software said, "We are proud to be the first
http://www.municipalsoflware.com/newsl 8_8NET.html 2/26/2002
CityView 8.NET Page 2 of 2
on the market with this important new technology. Unlike our competitors who offer to host your data and
forms for you (and build them in HTML), CityView 8.NET allows you to do it all yourself with no programming.
it allows you to choose what business processes you wish to make public and how they will be presented.
What's more, because it is CityView, it gives you the ability to add to, change and modify any and all forms
and reports that you use, either internally, or on the Web - without Municipal Software's assistance."
Rob Bennett, the President of Municipal Software said, "1 can't stress enough what an innovation this is in the
market place. CityView 8.NET gives us a commanding lead in enabling remote access and E-government for
our local government clients. Working in CityView &NET, user's don't have to worry about getting on the
Web, they are already there.'
For more information please contact:
lan W. Carmichael
Sales and Marketing Manager
Municipal Software Corporation
Tel: 1-800-665-5647
Emaih icarmichae_! ~ m__u_.njcipalsoftwa re.corn
About Municipal Software Corporation
Municipal Software Corporation (www. MunicipalSoftware.com) is a provider of a fully integrated suite of
software products that assist municipal administrators and managers with scalable technology solutions for
increasing municipal government productivity in order to service citizens and communities more efficiently
and effectively. CityView~ provides forms automation software combining forms and reports with mapping,
Web enablement, and database management, and is used to automate any local government process.
CityView Xpress is designed specifically for out-of-the-box departmental management and comes complete
with ready-to-use forms and reports for a variety of municipal functions.
CityView is a registered trademark of Municipal Software Corporation. Environmental Research Systems
Institute, Inc. provides all ESRI trademarks under license to ESRI Canada Limited. All rights reserved
Go to Municipal Software.
http://www.municipalsoftware.com/news 18_SNET.html 2/26/2002
Page Two
software for their own individual needs. The next highlighted area states that CityView does
have a Web Server module available. It is not included in this proposal but down the road it
could be purchased and added on. This would allow the City to selectively make information
from the CityView program available to Interact users. The next highlighted section documents
that CityView has been in business for 20 years and has seen significant growth in more recent
years. Because of their innovative, cost-effective, approach to the software market, we anticipate
that they will continue to grow and continue to provide cost-effective solutions to end-users. The
last highlighted section reflects what could be our most significant future expenses with
CityView. In the initial package we are purchasing five concurrent user licenses, which means at
any given time five users can be on the system. As more programs are developed it will be
necessary to purchase additional user licenses to allow more than five individuals to access the
information at any given time. These licenses have an initial cost of $4,990 with an annual
licensing fee of $1,000 per license. It is anticipated that within the next two years we will need
to buy an additional five licenses at a total cost of $24,950. However, once these licenses are
purchased, the only ongoing expense is the $1,000 per license annual fee. For this fee, CityViexv
provides us with ongoing customer support. The only other potential expense would be if we
hire CityView to do additional custom program development. This is not anticipated within the
next two years.
The next document on buffpaper is the CityView proposal that provides more technical
information on their support and software.
The final document, on blue paper, provides information on the CityView Web Sen, er module,
which we are not proposing to purchase at this time but would be available in the future to
provide more information to Internet users.
In summary, the purchase of CityView software should provide a long-term, cost-efficient
solution to several of the City's automation needs, which will result in much more efficient
service to our residents. Paul Grosse and myself will be available at the work session to explain
this proposal in more detail.
WE:sms
0203141CM
Attachment
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting: 3/25/02
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS ~},--~) ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
NO: t'70 ~.,_ PUBLIC WORKSn~/..
ITEM: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES BY: K. Hanse ·
FOR CENTRAL AVENUE DATE: 3/19/0~ .
Backeround:
The City Council previously awarded the fmal design services for Central Avenue Street and Utility Improvements to BRW at their
February 28, 2000 regular meeting. The f'mal design work as identified in the Engineering Study, includes utilities: water main,
sanitary sewer and storm sewer; and street reconstruction which includes center medians, concrete curb and gutter, pavement and
sidewalks. On October 9, 2000, the Council awarded the f'mal design of streetscaping to BRW.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Staff:met with the Council at their August 7th work session to discuss preliminary alternatives for urban streetscaping. A public
informational meeting was held September 20t~, 2000 at Murzyn Hall with all fronting properties along Central Avenue invited.
From the direction and input of these two meetings, the f'mal design of streetscaping was developed. The total estimated cost of the
streetscaping is $760,000 with a total project cost in excess of 4.6 million dollars.
At the public informational meeting, the issue of storefront redevelopment and/or design guidelines was raised by the business
community. In further support of revitalization along Central Avenue, the recently completed city-wide survey by Decision
Resources reported that two of the major concerns of the community is 'redevelopment along Central Avenue,' ~ and 'rundown/dirty
conditions'2 of the downtown area. The Central Avenue Street, Utility and Streetscaping project will provide a large public
investment for the redevelopment of the 'core' downtown area along Central Avenue. For this type of redevelopment to be
cohesive and successful, the business community along this corridor should also have an opportunity for redevelopment.
In support of the comments of the Central Avenue business community, the creation of a 'Design Guidelines' document is proposed
by staffto guide private redevelopment. The proposed work scope is detailed on the attached proposal and is generally summarized
by the following tasks: Initial Project Scoping, Inventory and Analysis, Community Preference Survey, Design Principles and
Guidelines, DraR Ordinance, Review and Public Comment, and Final Ordinance Development. This work would not duplicate the
efforts of the Downtown Master Plan, but provide the next step of detailed Architectural/Design controls for existing business
owners.
Funding sources for this work could be any one or a combination of the following: City Project 1999-12, CDBG funds, Livable
Communities Grant funds, assessments to fronting business properties, or the undesignated fund balance.
Recommended Motion: Move to authorize the consulting fu'm of BRW's architectural design guidelines for Central Avenue,
from 37th to 42nd Avenues as defined in their proposal dated March 13, 2002, at a cost not to exceed $28,500 with funding
appropriated from the Special Projects Fund #226-49846-3050.
KH:jb
Attachment:
BRW proposal letter dated March 12, 2002
2000 Residential Survey, Decision Resources PG 23, 24
2000 Residential Survey, Decision Resources, PG 60, 61
COUNCIL ACTION:
Consistent with community demographics, twenty-six percent did not have enough information to
make a judgment.
Ratings increased among city residents for over twenty years, members of households containing
seniors, members of under $50,000 annual income households and residents informed about the
work of the Mayor and City Council. They decreased among city residents for six to twenty years
and residents who have contacted City Hall staff.
The four-to-one favorable-to-unfavorable rating was very strong in comparison with other first-
ring suburban school districts.
Cooperation with Hilltop
Respondents were questioned:
tffouhl you favor or oppose the Cities of Cohtmbia
Heights and Hilltop cooperating more in the provision
of services and issues of mutual interest? Do you feel
strongly that way ?
By over nine-to-one, 73%-8%, residents endorsed greater cooperation with the City of Hilhop:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................. 24%
FAVOR ........................................ 49%
OPPOSE ........................................
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 4%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 21%
There were no statistically significant sub-group differences noted.
Clearly, a mandate exists for the two cities to cooperate more in the provision of services and on
issues of mutual importance.
Summary and Conclusions
A moderate eighty-four percent rated the quality of life as either "excellent" or "good;" only
fourteen percent rated it as "excellent." Sixteen percent posted "only fair" or "poor" ratings, with
only one percent in the latter category.
Seventy-nine percent thought the City was generally headed "in the right direction," while fifteen
percent disagreed. Disagreement stemmed from the perceptions of"poor government decisions,"
"undesirable businesses moving to the community," and "slow response to change."
"Location" was the most liked feature of the city. At thirty-five percent, it outdistanced all other
23
responses. Nineteen percent pointed to "r~ce people," while twelve percent valued th~ "small
town ambience." Just behind, eight percent mentioned "quiet and peacefulness." Smaller
percentages posted "safety," "good city services, .... affordable housing," and "stability."
In thinking about serious issues facing the city, there proved to be two major concerns.
Seventeen percent pointed to "crime," while eleven percent worried about the "redevelopment of
Central Avenue." Nine percent worried about "rundown areas," while eight percent cited "low
income housing," and seven percent, "need for more businesses." Six percent mentioned "City
Council decisions" and five percent said "quality of schools." Smaller numbers cited "high taxes,"
"lack of activities for children," and "traffic congestion." Four percent of'the residents, however,
saw "no major issues" facing Columbia Heights at this time.
In evaluating a number of characteristics of the community, a plurality of residents reported the
city currently had "about the right number or amount" of each one; on average, forty-nine percent
of the community expressed satisfaction on each characteristic. But, there were sizable
minorities on seven of the characteristics which indicated some dissatisfaction xvith the status quo.
Significant numbers of residents thought there were "too many" rental units and "too man3"' lo`,v
income housing opportunities, even though pluralities saw "about the right number." Similarly.
significant numbers of residents thought there were "too few" upper bracket housing
opportunities, "too few" condominiums and townhouses, "too few" senior housing opportunities,
and "too few" light manufacturing and heaw manufacturing industries, while the plurality on each
characteristic expressed satisfaction. On only one dimension, parks and open spaces, did a
contented majority of respondents report there was "about the right amount."
A moderately large sixty-four percent felt they could have an impact ofthe way things ,,,.'ere run in
Columbia Heights. twenty-eight percent felt they could not. Among this latter group, only one-
half actually felt they would be ignored by City Hall. Overall, then, this level of perceived
empowerment ,,,,'as well above the suburban area norm. Columbia Heights residents, then, ,.,.'ere
feeling connected to their local decision-makers.
A high thirty-one percent thought there were areas in the community where they did not feel safe,
with the concern centered on Central Avenue, Hilltop, and the Minneapolis border. Two safety
concerns dominated from a list of six problems: "juvenile crime and vandalism," at twenty-six
percent, and "speeding cars," at twenty-four percent. "Burglar3' and other residential crime"
followed at eighteen percent.
Residents rated the quality of the Columbia Heights Public Schools ver3' highly: sixty-five percent
thought it was either "excellent" or "good," while only sixteen percent saw it as "only fair" or
"poor." Twenty-three percent were unsure of the quality of education provided by the School
District.
By an overwhelming 73%-8% margin, residents favored the Cities of Columbia Heights and
Hilltop cooperating more in the provision of services and issues ofmutual interest, In fact,
twenty-four percent "strongly favored" greater cooperation between the two municipalities.
24
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................. 20%
FAVOR ........................................ 45%
OPPOSE ........................................
STRONGLY OPPOSE ..............................
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 23%
Support increased among members of over $50,000 annual income households and residents
informed about the work ofthe Mayor and City Council. It decreased among city residents for six
to t``venty years.
While not as intensely supported as the redevelopment ofthe Downtown Area, a mandate exists
for action on commercial and industrial development of the Industrial Park.
Summary and Conclusions
-
In assessing the potential use of"eminent domain" in four areas ofthe community, residents
posted majorities in favor in each case. By a 69%-19% judgment, they supported its use "to get
rid of blighted properties and areas in the Downtown area." By a 59%-26% verdict, residents
supported the use of eminent domain "to assemble land to redevelop areas along Central
Avenue." Similarly, by a 56%-28% margin, respondents favored its use "for redevelopment of
Downtown." And, finally, by a 50%-34% judgment, residents supported the use of eminent
domain "to create a larger tax based by redeveloping the city's industrial area."
In discussing Downtown Columbia Heights, fifteen percent reported they liked most the
"convenience" of the area. "New development," at eleven percent, and "shopping opportunities,"
at ten percent, ranked next. Smaller numbers pointed to "restaurants," "ample parking," "new gas
station," "bus routes," "movie theater," "new bank," "cleanliness," and "small town ambience."
But, fourteen percent reported there ,,,,'as "nothing" they liked about the Downtown Area.
"Rundown and dirty condition" ,.,,'as the aspect tv,'enty-eight percent liked least about the
Downtown Area. "Empty buildings," at twelve percent, and "traffic congestion," at ten percent,
ranked next. "Lack ofstores" follo,,ved at seven percent. Fewer residents pointed to "too man`.'
fast food dri,,'e-ins," "poor roads," "bleak shopping mall," "poorly designed bus hub," and "lack of
safety." However, nine percent disliked "nothing" about this area of the community.
In prioritizing new development in the Downtown Area, twenty-three percent suggested "retail
opportunities," while fifteen percent cited "nice restaurants." Nine percent thought "additional
service providers" would make an excellent addition. Smaller numbers urged "a hardware store,"
"more entertainment and theaters," "family-friendly businesses," "light industrial opportunities,"
';a community center," and "small shops."
In reacting to a list of potential development projects for the Dov;ntov,'n Area, eighty percent
urged the City to attract "quality sit-down restaurants," wkile seventy-seven percent felt the same
,.`.'ay about "family-style restaurants." Seventy-three percent wanted the City to pursue ",,,,'omen's
clothing stores," while seventy-one percent each urged "a librat7 building," "men's clothing
stores," and "children's clothing stores." Between sixty and seventy percent supported attracting
"a police and public safety building," "a sports bar or dining establishment, like Applebee's,"
60
"co~ee shops," "electronics stores," and "sporting good stores." On onJy one potential
development, "second-hand or thrift stores," did a majority oppose its attraction to the
Downto'.vn Area. Other retail stores suggested by moderate numbers of residents included
"department stores" and "hobby and craft stores."
By a forty-six percent to thirty-six percent margin, residents opposed a more consistent
appearance for on-building advertising if'it might cause establishments already there to relocate or
discourage new businesses fi.om corning. Those most opposed did not want any other
impediments placed on retail development in the Do'.vntown Asea.
Tv,'o areas ,,,,'ere cited by a combined majority as their principal retail shopping locations,
excluding grocer)' and gasoline purchases: "Target in Fridley," by thirty percent, and "Rosedale,"
by twenty-two percent. "Northtown," at ten percent, and "K-,Mart in Columbia Heights," at nine
percent, attracted a moderate number or' households. Smaller numbers cited "Brookdale,"
"Herberger's in New Brighton," "Horizon Drugstore," "Walgreens in Columbia Heights,"
"Columbia Heights Mall," and "Downtown Mirmeapolis."
Two grocer)' stores were exceptionally popular with residents: fifty-eight percent regularly
purchased groceries at "Rainbow in Columbia Heights," '.vhile twenty-six percent '.`,'eat to "Cub in
the Apache Mall." Smaller numbers regularly shopped at "Cub in Fridley" and "Byerly's at
Rosedate."
Sixty-fi`,'e percent reported they ,,,,'ere either "vet"a' familiar" or "somewhat familiar" ¥,'ith the
Industrial Park located in the area south ot'Huset Park and east or'University Avenue. Thirty-six
percent, though, ,,`,'ere either "not too familiar" or "not at all familiar" '.vith it. Residents split on
the general appearance of'the Industrial Park: forty-one percent rated it as either "excellent" or
"good," '.vhile thirty-seven percent saw it as "only fair" or "poor." Twenty-tv,'o percent were
uncertain about its appearance. ^ solid sixty-five percent would support the redevelopment of' the
Industrial Park to attract more commercial and light industrial development there. Only thirteen
percent reported opposition, ',vhile twenty-three percent were uncertain.
61
BRW, Inc.
March 12, 2002
Mr. Kevin Hansen, PE
Public Works Director~ City Engineer
City of Columbia Heights
637 - 38a'Avenue N.E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: Scope of Work/Estimated Cost for Design Guidelines
Central Avenue (TH 65) Improvement Project
City Project No. 99-12
Dear Mr. Hansen:
As requested, we have developed a preliminary scope of work and estimated cost for the
development of Design Guidelines for the Central Avenue (TH 65) corridor. We understand that
the Design Guidelines should include both sides of Central Avenue between 37a Average and
42nd Avenue and perhaps 40th Avenue from Central to University as well. It is likely that
several districts will be identified during the preliminary inventory and analysis phase...These
might include the Central Avenue core area from 39th to 41st, Central Avenue north and south of
the core area and 40th Avenue from Quincy Street to University Avenue. The content of the
guidelines may then vary by district.
As discussed at our previous meetings, we have worked with a number of local communities to
develop Design Guidelines to assist them with development/redevelopment issues. We have
attached a copy of an article out of the January - February 2001 issue of Architecture Minnesota
that discusses how the City of Wayzata has developed Design Guidelines to assist them with
development/redevelopment along Lake Street in their community.
The following is a summary'of a preliminary scope of work and estimated cost for the
development of the Design Guidelines. The scope of work and cost estimate have been prepared
based upon our past experience with similar work for other communities.
SCOPE OF WORK
The following is a summary of a preliminary scope of work for the development of the Design
Guidelines.
Thrasher Square'
700 Thlnt Street South
Mlnneapoli~, MN 55415-1199
612.370.0700 Tel
612.370.1378 Fax
Mr. Kevin Hansen
March 12, 2002
Page 2
1. Project Scoping
o
We would meet with City staff to review the work program and finalize the schedule.
We would also review prior ~isioning efforts,'discuss problems or shortcomings of past
deVelopment and identify other issues that the project should address.
· Inventory and Analysis
Define and document the "typology" of the built environment along Central and 40th
Avenues.' The typological examination will include street cross-sections, building
setbacks, building dimensions, common architectural elements, street trees and
landscaping, lighting and street furnitm-e, signage, historic architecture and vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and movement patterns. We would illustrate these
elements in photographs~ sketches and descriptive text.
We also suggest that we meet with the City Council and/or Planning and Zoning
Commission at this time to get their assessment of.problems or shortcomings of past
development and their sense of buildings or sites Ihat exemplify community character.
Community Preference Survey
Define'visual preferences .and community character. We propose a two-part process,
using a focus group or task force composed of approximately 8.to t2 members of'the City
Council, El)A, Planning and Zoning Commission, business and neighborhood
representatives and other interested citizens. The two parts would be as follows:
ao
· Conduct a visual preference survey in which participants would rate the visual
appeal of buildings and streetscape elements, using images from Columbia
'Heights and other communities.
Sc0r~ the results and.discuss them with participants. While the results of this
method are often largely predictable, subtle differences will emerge which help
define the character of a particular community. The preferred images are then
used to establish basic design principles, which are used in developing the Design
· Guidelines.
BRW, Inc.
Mr. Kevin Hansen
March 12, 2002
Page 3
Design Principles and Guidelines
Drawing on the results of the previous task, we woald develop design principles: brief
statements accompanied by sketches or photos illustrating the community preferences.
These tn4nciples would focus on both the individual building, the development site and
the surrounding neighborhood, and would likely include the following design elements:
· Building scale and massing
· Proportion (height to width; building height to street width)
Building materials and detailing; appropriate primary materials, accents and
prohibited materials
Fenestration: pattern and rhythm of windows and doors
· Signage
· Site circulation and parking, balancing pedestrian and vehicle needs
· 'Preservation of existing landscaping and introduction of new landscape material
· Public spaces, including street furniture, lighting and streetscapeelements
Transitions between commercial and residential areas
e Community entrances, gateways and focal points
Draft Ordinance Language
Prepare a draft of an ordinance in outline form, including statements of the basic
principles and illustrations. Review draft language with staff, City Council and/or the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Review and Revise
Based upon the results of the previous task, refine the ordinance language into a final
draft format. Present the draft ordinance, illustratidns and results at a public meeting and
receive public comments.
Develop Final Ordinance
-Incorporate staff, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and public comments
into final design standards ordinance. Present final ordinance to the City Council and/or
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
BRW, Inc.
Mr. Kevin Hansen
March 12, 2002
Page 4
ESTIMATEDCOSTS
The following is a summary of the estimated ,'~sts for the services described above.
Task
Project Scoping $ 2,000
Inventory and Analysi.s $ 7,000
Community Preference Survey $ 3,000
Design Principles & Guidelines $ 9,500
Draft Ordinance Language $ 2,500
Review and Revise $ 2,000
Develop Final Ordinance ,$ 2,000
Subtotal $ 28,000
Reimbursable Expenses $ 500
Approximate Total Cost $ 28,500
'Estimated Cost
The estimated cost for the development of the Design Guidelines is, therefore, $28,500. This is
intended to be a preliminary cost only as the costs could vary with the further refinement of the
scope of work. Facilitaling the production of multiple copies of a final color booklet of the
guidelines document would be an additional expense the City may wish to consider. Typically
printing costs about $20.00 per booklet.
We propose lo perform these services on an hourly basis under the terms of our Professional
Services Agreement for the design phase of the Central Avenue 'Improvement Project. Labor
will be billed at the rates included in our hourly rate schedule. Reimbursable expenses will be
billed at cost with no BRW markup.
We estimate that it would take between four to five months to complete the development of the
Design Guidelines. The schedule would be dependent upon the City Council, Planning and
Zoning Commission and public involvement processes used for the project.
Two original copies of this proposal axe enclosed. If the proposal is acceptable, please execute
both copies on the signature blocks provided below and return one copy to us for our records.
BRW, Inc.
Mr. Kevin Hansen
March 12, 2002
Page $
Please let me 'know if you have any questions or you need any additional information.
Sincemly,
BRW, Inv..
APPROVED BY:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Name Name
Title Title
Signature Signature
Date Date
Copy:
Bob Kost/BRW
Kim Schaffer/BRW
File 33910-004-1001
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC LIBRARY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MINUTES
March 4, 2002
q-A-
The Library Board was introduced to Mindy Hicks, Library Clerk. A few minutes were taken for an informal session
getting to know each other. Mindy Hicks was excused at 6:45 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Miller at 6:50 p.m. Those present were Nancy Hoium, Catherine
Vesley, Barbara Miller, and Becky Loader.
It was moved, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2002, Board meeting as mailed
Bill list dated 3/11/02 was reviewed. It was moved, seconded, and passed that they be paid.
The 2002 accounting was reviewed.
Old Business:
1. Three new pages have been hired, Ramon Gomez, Stephanic Bengston, and Jenna Stromquist. They are
being trained tonight. Testing is scheduled for March 19.
The impact of the State budget on Columbia Heights was reviewed. The amount of state aid lost is
significant and will require that any and all spending be carefully considered. The Board will be updated
as necessary.
3. The magazine storage room/newspaper project is about ½ completed. Shelving has been installed,
discards have been processed, and labeling is in progress.
There is no further update on the Schuh property at this time. An update on the Mady's property was
provided. Becky along with other City officials will be participating in a tour tomorrow, March 5th, of
properties in Shakopee and Savage in which public/private use combination buildings will be viewed.
This is the type of complex that is being explored for the current Mady's site.
5. There is no Foundation update at this time.
New Business:
1. Crossover statistics were reviewed.
2. The article about "Understanding City Fund Balances" was reviewed and discussed.
3. "Establishing your City's Image" article was reviewed.
The Jamboree parade was discussed. A time line of upcoming events and commitments were reviewed.
The Board chose to not have an open house during National Library Week. There will be a City wide
open house held on May 22. The Board voted to participate in the parade and began discussing plans for
a walking unit with a support vehicle available. They would like to encourage all staff, and the Friends of
the Library to consider participating also.
5. Becky has been invited to participate as a guest speaker for the Anoka County Library StaffDay to be
held August 23, 2002.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
J~anine M. Schmidt Secret~ to the Librau Bo~d of Trustees.
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or
treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to
allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights= services, programs, and activities.