The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 20, 1998 Work SessionCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Joseph Sturdevant Councilmembers 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 5542 ;I -3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806Do~M E. Jolly Marlaine Szurek Gary L. Peterson Robert W. Ruettimann City Manager Walt Fehst ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF COUNCIL WORK SESSION Notice is hereby given that a Council Work Session is to be held in the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS as follows: Meeting of: CITY CO UNCIL/CITY STAFF Date of Meeting: MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1998 Time of Meeting: FOLLOWING EDA MEETING WHICH CONVENES AT 7:00P. M. Location of Meeting: CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA A. Consent Agenda Items 1. Changing Date of Second Council Meeting in May - Resolution 2. Appropriation of Reimbursement Grant Funds to Police Dept. Budget 3. Ma#ztenance Contract for Defibrillators B. Discussion Items 1. Sale of Land at 566 38th Avenue Northeast 2. Livable Communities Funding Application 3. Adopt Life Cycle Housing Study 4. Proposals to Develop Townhomes 5. Approve Contract for Planning Consultant Services 6. Insurance Coverage From 5-9-98-5-9-01 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 Cohtmbia 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 782-2800, Extension 209, To make arrangements. (TDD/782-2806 for deaf only) THE CiTY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPOrtUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF COLUMBIA HI::IGHTS ([.) Councilmembers 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN ~421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806Do~M~ (7. Jolly Marlaine ~zurek Gary L. Paterson Robert W. Ruettimann City Manager Walt Fehst ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF COUNCIL WORK SESSION Notice is hereby given that a Council Work Session is to be held in the CITY OF COL UMBIA HEIGHTS as follows: Meeting of: CITY CO UNCIL/CITY STAFF Date of Meeting: MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1998 Time of Meeting: FOLLOWING EDA MEETING WHICH CONVENES AT 7.'OOP. M. Location of Meeting: CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA /1. Consent Agenda Items .,,~ 1. Changing Date of Second Council Meeting in May - Resolution ~'~. 2. Appropriation of Reimbursement Grant Funds to Police Dept. Budget ~ 3. Maintenance Contract for Defibrillators B. Discussion Items th C_. ~ 1. Sale of Land at 566 38 Avenue Northeast -~ 2. Livable Communities Funding Application - g~. ~. 3. Adopt Life Cycle Housing Study ~. ~lt~.. 4. Proposals to Develop Townhomes- o ~ ~ Approve Contract for Planning Consultant Services ~. ' ~. Insurance Coverage From 5-9-98-5-9-01 -- ~.H. ~ ~~ ~/~" 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 782-2800, Extension 209, To make arrangements. (TDD/782-2806 for deaf only) THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION Of SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER C',TY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS (i") 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN ~..%421-3678 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-280~ RESOLUTION 98- BEING A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE DATE OF A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WHEREAS: There is an observed holiday on the fourth Monday of May which is the date for the regularly scheduled Council Meeting; and WHEREAS: The stated policy of the Columbia Heights City Council is that when an holiday is observed on either the second or fourth Monday of the month, the Council Meeting is scheduled to be held on the following Tuesday. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the second regular Council Meeting in the month of May, 1998, will be held on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Passed this ~ day of, lulag~, 1998. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll call: THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEr C',TY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS (i--) .~90 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 RESOLUTION 98- BEING A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE DATE OF A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WHEREAS: There is an observed holiday on the fourth Monday of May which is the date for the regularly scheduled Council Meeting; and WHEREAS: The stated policy of the Columbia Heights City Council is that when an holiday is observed on either the second or fourth Monday of the month, the Council Meeting is scheduled to be held on the following Tuesday. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the second regular Council Meeting in the month of May, 1998, will be held on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Passed this 11th day of May, 1998. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll call: 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 LETTER Meeting of: April 27, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: NO. ITEM: Appropriation of reimbursed Grant NO. Funds to Police Department Budget ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT POLICE BY: Thomas M. Johnson DATE: April 7, 1998 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: Background In 1997 the City Council approved the Columbia Heights Police Department's involvement in a county wide auto theft prevention grant. This grant gave us access to equipment such as a bait car and overtime money in order to survey the bait car and apprehend auto thieves. In January of 1998 the Columbia Heights Police Department had its first opportunity to use the Anoka County bait car. This car is set up with a global position system (GPS), which allows us to park the car with the motor running and/or keys in the ignition and to wait to see if anyone steals the car. Once the car is entered, the global positioning unit kicks in and we can track the car to wherever it goes. When we are in position, we tell the people who are monitoring the car's position and they can shut off the engine. We then move in for the arrest. No pursuit! We set up this sting operation on several nights in January and in various locations. At this time we have not had any takers, but we believe it is just a matter of time. In order to pay for the overtime on this program, it was necessary for us to charge these dollars to our current overtime budget and then submit to the County for reimbursement. We have now received our first reimbursement check from the County in the amount of $2,736. Analysis/Conclusion Because the $2,736 is considered revenue, it was placed in a general fund revenue account. I am requesting that the City Council direct this money to be appropriated from General Fund Revenue to the Police DeparUnent' s budget under line #1020. This will allow us to replace the money that was initially taken from our budget to activate this program. Recommended Motion: Move to appropriate $2,736, the total amount reimbursed to us from the Anoka County Auto Theft Grant, from General Fund Revenue to the Police Department's 1998 budget under line 1020. TMJ:mid 98-122 COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: ,. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL NO: Fire ITEM: Maintenance Contract for Defibrillators BY: Charles Kewatt j. BY: ~~ NO: DATE: April 13, 1998 DATE: See attached document outlining basics to support Fire Department staffrecommendation regarding a maintenance contract for defibrillators. RECOMMENDED MOTION: To authorize the Mayor and City Manager to emer into a twelve month agreement with Physio Control Corporation for the periodic inspection of two LP300 Defibrillators at a cost of $672.00, payable in quarterly installmems. ALTERNATE MOTION: To authorize the Mayor and City Manager to emer into a twelve month agreement with Physio Control Corporation for the inspection and maintenance of two LP300 Defibrillators at a cost orS 1,560.00, payable in quarterly installments. ALTERNATE MOTION: To authorize staffto have periodic inspections conducted on two LP300 Defibrillators at a current cost of $225 per defibrillator, per inspection. 98-45 Attachment ICOUNCIL ACTION: To: From: Subject: Date: Charlie Kewatt Dana Alexon Maintenance Recommendation for Defibrillators April 7, 1998 Backqround Information' As you know, we recently had preventative maintenance performed on both of our defibrillators. During the course of the PM we found a potential problem with our defibrillator from Rescue 2. Physio Control, the manufacturers of the defibrillators, were contacted to diagnose and repair the problem. They have completed this diagnosis and found that some settings on the defibrillator were not correct; they remedied the problem and performed a complete PM check on the unit. It is now back in service. We would be currently facing an invoice from Physio Control for $450 as their charge for conducting the preventative maintenance. in discussions with Physio Control we determined the following: Preventative Maintenance is currently recommended every 6 months for each defibrillator. This recommendation comes from the manufacturer; the Minnesota Department of Health, our ambulance license regulatory agency; and the Federal Food and Drug Administration, the regulatory agency for defibrillator manufacturers. As I understand it, there is an effort currently ongoing in the legislature to make the preventative maintenance mandatory. Both defibrillators were donated to the city by the Columbia Heights Athletic Boosters. As I understand it, part of the agreement at that time was the city would be responsible to ensure that all recommended maintenance and repair be conducted properly. c2-98065.wpd I Physio Control does not authorize any agency other than themselves to perform preventative maintenance or repairs on their products. They have a local repair representative, Mark Paulus, who I have found to be quite responsive. Much of their diagnosis and repair can be done in the station and they offer loaner equipment which is identical to our equipment in the event that off-site service is necessary. The batteries for our defibrillators have a recommended useful life of two years. Each defibrillator has two batteries. Batteries purchased new currently cost $150 each. In the past we have had our batteries rebuilt; rebuilding doubles the life of the battery. Physio Control also does not recommend using rebuilt batteries. They claim their experience indicates the batteries do not perform up to the manufacturer's specifications due to the quality of the battery cells used by those companies which rs-build batteries. We do not yet have enough experience to indicate whether or not this claim is valid. Physio Control's representative, Mark Paulus, indicated to us that if we were to enter into a complete maintenance contract (option #3 below) with them, they would supply us with new batteries for our defibrillators since they would not be willing to assume the potential liability of allowing us to continue using batteries they feel ars deficient. In the past, arranging for preventative maintenance was the responsibility of Assistant Chief DeMars. Records indicate that there was a lapse of time during which no preventative maintenance was being conducted. When staff became aware of this concern, immediate arrangements for preventative maintenance were made. Past records indicate that preventative maintenance was conducted by Physio Control under a service contract paid for by Health One Corporation, a predecessor to Health Span Transportation Services. This is not a current option for us since Health Span Transportation Services currently uses defibrillators made by a different manufacturer and no longer has a service contract with Physio Control. Current Situation: A significant potential legal liability would exist if our defibrillators did not receive preventative maintenance consistent with the recommendation of the manufacturer. This equipment is directly used in the life-saving efforts of our citizens, potentially including each of us. Physio Control is the only authorized source of preventative maintenance and repair; since they ars local and quite responsive to our needs, this does not pose an issue. Based on the manufacturer's recommended useful life, all four of our batteries are due for immediate replacement, including those we have had rebuilt. Physio Control does ~-98065.w~ 2 not warranty rebuilt batteries, does not rebuild their own batteries, and is concerned that operating with rebuilt batteries does not provide the same standard of operation which we would get from new batteries. Total cost to replace these batteries would be $6oo. Physio Control offers several financial options regarding preventative maintenance and repair costs. Attached are copies of the service contract quotations which they offer; what follows is a summary of the options available to us. For those options involving a service contract (options #2 and #3) our payments to Physio Control could be made quarterly; by doing so only 75% of the contract costs listed would be payable in 1998 due to the timing of the issue. Without maintenance contracts the costs of doing preventative maintenance would be billed at the time the work is completed. Do not enter into any contract: Preventative maintenance, billed on a per-hour basis by Physio Control, would total $900 per year. The cost breakdown is as follows: Labor charge per PM - 1 hour $140 Travel charge $ 85 Cost per PM $225 X 2 defibrillators $450 X 2 PM per year $900 Any maintenance costs, such as bi-annual battery replacement ($150 per battery) or needed repairs would be in addition to this figure. Our total cost for 1998 for this option would be $1,500 of which $600 would be for battery replacement. Enter into a "Preventative Maintenance Only" Contract: This type of contract, which can be entered into for 1 year increments, would cost $672 per year. For this cost, both defibrillators would receive the recommended two PM inspections per year. With this option, any repair costs would be borne by the city should they be necessary. We have found, in our experience, the Physio Control products to be very sturdy and reliable, requiring few repairs. The down side to any repair which would be required is it generally is expensive; for example a replacement circuit board, the "brain" of the unit, would cost approximately $2,000. This option also offers a 5% discount on purchases of electrodes and a 10% discount on the purchase of accessories for the defibrillators. With the discount offered, the cost of battery replacement would be only $540, bringing the total cost of this option to $1,212. c2-98065.wpd 3 Enter into a "Inspections and Repairs" Contract: This type of contract, which can be entered into for 1 year increments, would cost $1,560 per year. For this cost, both defibrillators would receive the recommended two PM inspections per year and most required repairs would be covered. Battery replacement is included specifically in this contract. With this option, major breakage to the defibrillators would not be covered. The repairs covered would include normal wear and tear. This option also offers a 5% discount on purchases of electrodes and a 10% discount on the purchase of accessories for the defibrillators. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends option #2, entering into an "Inspections Only" contract with Physio Control. This option offers us the lowest cost while protecting us against potential liability for not following the recommendations of the manufacturer and other regulatory agencies. Our experience regarding repairs is that they are infrequent. Our biggest potential for a repair would occur if the unit was dropped and damaged; this type of repair very possibly would not be covered under even the "Inspections and Repairs" type of contract. We further recommend that we enter into a short term contract which would offer us the potential to reconsider our options based upon future needs. The term of the contracts being offered in options #2 and #3 is twelve months. Regarding battery purchase, we recommend immediate replacement of the two oldest batteries, for a total cost of $300. The newly purchased batteries would then be used as the primary use batteries in each defibrillator, significantly reducing the concern of the manufacturer regarding the quality of the rebuilt batteries. In 1999 and future years, the submitted budget would reflect $300 per year to replace two batteries. This would continue to keep us current within the two year life of the batteries. Requested Council Action: Enter into a twelve month maintenance contract with Physio-Control Corporation for the purposes of preventative maintenance on our two LifePak 300 defibrillators. ~-9~5.wpd 4 SERVICE ORDER QUOTATION End User Customer # 01571801 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPT 555 NE MILLS ST COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 Bill To Customer # 01571801 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPT 555 NE MILLS ST COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 This Service Order is for a term of 12 months. The Service Order quoted here is subject to the tenns and conditions on the reverse side of this document. Price of coverage s~ecified below is $672.00 mr tenm ~rvable in Quarterly installments. Quotation is valid for 90 days bem.'nning 3/17/98. SERVICES Designated Repair and Insp~fi~ Services will be l~'rf~crc~d at Ibe desigtmted service frequency and during designated service If"Repair" services are designated, subject to Exclusions i&afified in Service Order, they shall inetude, for the designated Covered Equipmem, all repair parts and materials required, all req~ Physio-ConWol service t~hnician lab~, and all retat~d travel ex~ens~. For offsite (ship-in) servi~a, traits will b~ returned to Customer by Physio-Conlrol freight prepaid. If"In~pecfion" se~'ices are designated, subject to Exclusions identified in Service Order, they. shall include, for the designated Covered Equipment. vezffieation ofpre9~ immunont calibration, verification tha~. instnmamt mec~anlcal operations and output m~asuremmls are consistent with applicable produc~ specifications, performance of an electrical safety check ia accordance wJ~h National Fire and Protection Guidelines, all required Ph)zio-Co,atxol service technician labor and all related travel expenses. For offsile (ship-ia) s~rvices, units will be rmmaed to CusUmaer by Physio-Control fxeight prepaid. SPECIAL TERMS 5 percent discount on electrodes 10 percent discount on accessories Part Description Number Numberer oflnspections Units ASSY-FINAL~LP300 OSffas. Onlv:M-F/8-5 2 PHYSIO-CONTROL CORPORATION Territory Rep: Phone: 800442-1142 FAX: 800-772-3340 Reference Number: M52-1345 New Customer Contact: Dana Alexson Phone: 612-782-2830 FAX: SERVICE ORDER QUOTATION End User Customer # 01571801 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPT 555 NE MILLS ST COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 Bill To Customer # 01571801 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPT 555 NE MILLS ST COLUMBIA HEIGHTS. MN 55421 This Service Order is for a term of 12 months. The Service Order quoted here is subject to the tenns and conditions on the reverse side of this document. Price of coverage sl~cffi~ ~low is $1,560.00 0er term, mvable in Quarterly in~allments. Ouotation is valid for 90 days beginning 3/17/98. SERVICES I~signated Repair and Inspecficos Services will b~ p~rfocmed at fl~ dcsi~natext service fi-~qu~cy and cknSng d~signated service If "Repair" services are designated, subject to Exclusions identified in Service Order, they shall include, for the designated Covered Equipment, all repair parts and materials required, all required Physio-Coixtrol service technician labor, aad all relatedtravel e:~l~ensea. For offsit¢ (ship-in) services, units will be returned to Customer by Physio-Control freight prepaid. If"Inspection" services am designated, subject to Exclusions identified in Service Order, they shall include, for the designated Covered Equipm~t. verification of proper instrument calibration, verkqcatkm that instrument mechanical operations and output measurements are co~aisteat with applicable product specifications, performanc~ of an electrical safety check in accordance with National Fire a~d Protection Guidelines, all required Physio-Control service techniciam labor and all related travel cxp~um~ Fo~ offsite (ship-in) services, units will be returned to Customer by Physio-Control fi'eight prepaid. SPECIAL TERMS 5 percent discount on electrodes 10 percent discount on accessories Part D~sch~on Scope Of Service Number Numberof oflmpections Units ASSY-F1NAL,LP300 On-Site:R&I',M-F/g-5 2 2 PHYSIO-CONTROL CORPORATION Territory Rep: Paulus, Mark Phone: 800442-1142 FAX: 800-772-3340 Reference Number: M52-1345 New Customer Contact: Dana Alexson Phone: 612-782-2830 FAX: ' ~ PHYSIO-CONTROL CORPORATION SERVICE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS RENEWAL TERM~ Physic-Control's acceptance of Customer's Service Order is expressly conditioned on Customer's assent to the terms set forth in this document and its attachments. Physio-Control agrees to furnish the services ordered by Customer only on these terms, and Customer's acceptance of any portion of the goods and services covered by this document shall confirm their acceptance by Customer. These terms constitute the complete agreement between the parties and they shall govern any conflicting or ambiguous terms on Customer's purchase order or on other documents submitted to Physio-Control by Customer. These terms may not be revised in any manner without the prior written consent of an officer of Physio-ControL RI~PAIR SERVICES If "Repair" services are designated, subject to the Exclusions identified below, they shall include, for the designated Covered Equipment, all repair parts and materials required, all required Physio-Control service technician labor, and ail related travel expenses. For offsite (ship-in) services, units will be returned to Customer by Physio-Control freight prepaid. INSPECTION SERVICES If "Inspection" services are designated, subject to the Exclusions identified below, they shall include, for the designated Covered Equipment, verification of proper instrument calibration, verification that instrument mechanical operations and output measurements are consistent with applicable product specifications, performance of an electrical safety check in accordance with National Fire and Protection Guidelines. ail required Physio-Control service technician labor and all related travel expenses. For offsite (ship-in) services, units will be returned to Customer by Physio-Control freight prepaid. DOCUMENTATION Following each Repair and/or Inspection, Physio-Control will provide Customer with a written report of actions taken or recommended and identification of any materials replaced or recommended for replacement. LOANERS If a Physio-Control product is designated as a unit of Covered Equipment for Repair Services and needs to be removed fi-om service to complete repairs, an appropriate Loaner unit wilt be provided, if available, until the removed unit is returned. Customer assumes complete responsibility for the Loaner and shall return the Loaner to Physio-Control in the same condition as received, at Customer's expense, upon the eadier of the return of the removed unit or Physic-Control's request. EXCLUSIONS This Service Order does not include: supply or repair of accessories or disposables (e.g., patient cables, recorder paper, etc.); repair of damage caused by misuse, abuse, abnormal operating conditions, operator errors, and/or acts of God; repairs to return an instrument to normal operating equipment at the time of initial service by Physic-Control under this Service Order; case changes; repair or replacement of items not originally distributed or installed by Physio-Control; and exclusions on Schedule B to this Service Order. if any, which apply to Covered Equipment. SCHEDULED SERVICES Designated Repair and Inspections Services will be performed at the designated service frequency and dudng designated service hours. Customer is to ensure Covered Equipment is available for Repair and/or Inspection at scheduled times. If Covered Equipment is not available as scheduled and Customer requests additional services to be performed or if Physio-Control is requested to perform Repair or Inspection services not designated in this Service Order (due to the nature of services selected, instruments involved not be?g Covered Equipment, request being outside of designated service fl'equency or hours, or application of the Exclusions); Customer shall reimburse Physio-Control at Physic-Control's standard labor rates less 10% (including overtime, if appropriate), plus standard list prices for related parts and materials less 15%, plus actual travel costs incurred. PAYMENT The cost of services performed by Physio-Control shall be payable by Customer within thirty (30)'days Of Customer's receipt of Physic-Control's Invoice (or such other terms as Physio-Control confirms to Customer in writing). In addition to the cost of services performed, Customer shall pay or reimburse Physio-Control for any taxes assessed Physio- Control. If the number or configuration of Covered Equipment is altered during the Term of this Service Order, the price of Services shall be adjusted accordingly. WARRANTY Physio-Control warrants Services performed under this Service Order and replacement parts provided in performing such Services against defects in material and workmanship for ninety (90) days from the date a Service was performed or a part was provided. Customer's sole remedy shall be reservicing the affected unit and/or replacement of any part determined to be defective, without any additional Customer charge, provided Customer notifies Physic-Control of any allegedly defective condition within ten (10) calendar days of its discovery by Customer. Physio-Control makes no other warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation, NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL PHYSIO-CONTROL BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR OTHER DAMAGES. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Service Order at any time upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other, except that Physio-Control may terminate this Service Order immediately upon Customer's failure to make timely payments for services rendered under this Service Order. In the event of termination, Customer shall be obligated to reimburse Physio-Control for that portion of the designated price which corresponds to that portion of the Term and the scope of Services provided prior to the effective date of termination. DELAYS Physio-Control will not be liable for any loss or damage of any kind due to its failure to perform or delays in its performance resulting from any cause beyond its reasonable control, including, but not limited to, acts of God, labor disputes, labor shortages, the requirements of any governmental authority, war, civil unrest, delays in manufacture, obtaining any required license of permit, and Physic-Control's inability to obtain goods from its usual sources. Any such delay shall not be considered a breach of Physic-Control's obligations and the performance dates shall be extended for the length of such delay. a) Customer agrees to not employ or offer employment to anyone 'performing Services on Physic-Control's behalf during the Term of this Service Order or for one (1) year following its expiration without Physic-Control's prior written consent. b) This Service Order, and any related obligation of other party, may not be assigned in whole or in part without the prior written consent of the other party. c) The dghts and obligations of Physio-Control and Customer under this Service Order shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. All costs and expenses incurred by Physio-Control related to enforcement of its rights under this document, including reasonable attorney's fees, shall be reimbursed by Customer. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Meeting of: April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER NO: DEPARTMENT: Comm. APPROVAL Dev. ITEM: SALE OF LAND AT 566 38TH AVE NE BY: Kenneth R. Anderson BY: ~/~d///~ DATE: APRIL 8, 1998 BACKGROUND: The City has retained ownership to several properties that are vacant of any structures and available for sale. A letter has been received from Quality Checked Construction, Inc. to purchase the property at 566 38~ Ave. NE for the amount orS18,500.00. Quality Checked Construction, Inc. has purchased three other available lots in the City located at 4613/15 Pierce Street NE, 578 38t~ Ave. NE, and 572 38t~ Ave. NE. The proposed structure is a home of 1,086 square feet with a sale value of approximately $123,000. The home will include a front porch and 22' x 22' attached double garage. The two other structures on 38t~ Ave. NE were constructed as 1,020 sq. ft. split foyer buildings. Quality Checked Construction, Inc. has secured a Purchase Agreement this past weekend from a prospective buyer for this property and for the home to be built substantially in conformance with the attached plans. The attached letter states the home will be a split foyer of 1,020 sq. ft. This letter was prepared expecting a model home would be constructed and the proposed home has been changed to meet the needs of the prospective buyer. ANALYSIS: The property at 566 38th Ave. NE has been available for quite some time. The estimated market value is $23,300 for taxes payable in 1998. The proposed purchase price of $18,500.00 is consistent with the approved sale prices for other properties owned by the City. CONCLUSION/RECOM1M]ENDATION: Staff`recommends approval of the sale of the property to Quality Checked Construction, Inc. subject to the terms included in the attached draft Sale and Development Agreement and substantially in conformance with the plans submitted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the sale of property at 566 38t~ Ave. NE for $18,500.00 to Quality Checked Construction, Inc. and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for same. Attachment COUNCIL ACTION: Quality Checked Construction, Inc. 16300 Makah Street NW Andover, Mn 55304 421-5221 To Ken Anderson, We propose to purchase the lot at 566 38th AV. NE for $18,500. This will be for owner occupied clients. We understand that the City of Columbia Heights will guarantee that the lot will be buildable for a five coarse basement. The city will guarantee the sewer and water connections will be to property line and not in the street. Taxes on the lot will be prorated and on the lot only. We understand the terms are $1000.00 down and the balance due at the closing to the third party. The plan is to start construction as soon as the city approves this and all necessary papers are filed. The house plan is to be a split foyer 1020 sq. ft. home with double attached garage. Plan number 2BSE83222. We use 2x6 walls, all oak woodwork, and custom cabinets. The exterior will have vinyl siding and brick per plan and raised panel steel garage door. This is the same design that we have and are building on the other two lots on 572 and 578 38th Av. Thank-you for your consideration. Sincerely Michael L. Vagle Pres. ECHNIQUE 000 Each Home Custom Designed to Fit Your Needs. STANDARD FEATURES Asphalt Driveway Water and Sewer Hook-up Allowance Cultured Marble Vanity Top(s) Custom Oak Cabinets Dishwasher Double Attached Garage Electronic Ignition Gas Furnace Electric or Gas Hook-up for Dryer Electric or Gas Hook-up for Range Formica Counter Tops : 40 Gallon Hot Water Heater Foundation Insulation Garbage Disposal Generous Floor Covering Allowance Liberal Light Fixture Allowance Oak Doors and Trim ~~~ei;c~ Molded TUb~!;~ower Maintenance Free Windows Flush Panel Wood Garage Doors Oak Princeton Trim Around Doors 100 -AMP Electrical Service Plate Glass Bath Mirror Range Hood Rough-in for 3A Bath 2 × 6 Exterior Walls R-44 Ceiling Insulation Single Lever Faucets (Moen) Skirt Boards Sliding Glass Door Smoke Detector Stainless Steel Kitchen Sink Thermal Steel Entry Doors Wood Railings Vinyl Siding Aluminum Soffits GUARANTEED PRICE Madison .I CHNIQUE ~000 Each Home Custom Designed to Fit Your Needs. __QHIi~ Ckeeked Cdml~idel, int. Andover, MN ~ Work Session Meeting of: April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Livable Communities Funding Application BY: Joe Hollman ~ NO: DATE: April 15, 1998 Issue Statement: The 1998 funding cycle for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Communities Fund has been started by the Metropolitan Council. Columbia Heights has the opportunity to apply for funding. Background: The Livable Communities Act specifies that demonstration projects must do one or more of the following: Provide access to a variety of transportation systems including transit, bicycles, pedestrian, auto; · Link affordable housing with employment growth; · Intensify new and existing land use; · Provide mixed-income housing; · Encourage public infrastructure that connects urban and suburban communities, attracts private sector investment, or provides employment opportunities to residents. Staff recently attended a workshop on the application process. The following lists important dates for the funding cycle: · May 15 · July 15 · Sept.-Oct. · Nov. 12 Project Summaries Due; Applications Due; Advisory Committee review and evaluation; Metropolitan Council makes funding awards. At this point in time, staff has not identified a specific project that will be eligible for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding. However, it is believed that the Minnesota Design Team visit will provide more information on potential projects. The hard costs for either project implementation or planning are eligible for funding, but it will not be known if funds will be used for implementation or planning until after the Design Team visit. Should the City Council wish to pursue funding, an application will be made based on the results of this visit. Staff'will present the project summary to the City Council during the regular meeting on May 11. Attached, please find a copy of the Annual Regional Report for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize staff'to submit an application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account fund for a project identified through the Minnesota Design Team visit. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Work Session Meeting of.' April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Livable Communities Funding Application BY: Joe Hollman '~} BY:~ .~,~-~/~fi,~3 NO: DATE: April 15, 1998 Issue Statement: The 1998 funding cycle for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Communities Fund has been started by the Metropolitan Council. Columbia Heights has the opportunity to apply for funding. Background: The Livable Communities Act specifies that demonstration projects must do one or more of the following: Provide access to a variety of transportation systems including transit, bicycles, pedestrian, auto; Link affordable housing with employment growth; Intensify new and existing land use; Provide mixed-income housing; Encourage public infrastructure that connects urban and suburban communities, attracts private sector investment, or provides employment opportunities to residents. Staff recently attended a workshop on the application process. The following lists important dates for the funding cycle: · May 15 · July 15 · Sept.-Oct. · Nov. 12 Project Summaries Due; Applications Due; Advisory Committee review and evaluation; Metropolitan Council makes funding awards. At this point in time, staff has not identified a specific project that will be eligible for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding. However, it is believed that the Minnesota Design Team visit will provide more information on potential projects. The hard costs for either project implementation or planning are eligible for funding, but it will not be known if funds will be used for implementation or planning until after the Design Team visit. Should the City Council wish to pursue funding, an application will be made based on the results of this visit. Staffwill present the project summary to the City Council during the regular meeting on May 11. Attached, please find a copy of the Annual Regional Report for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize staff to submit an application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account fund for a project identified through the Minnesota Design Team visit. COLrNCII, ACTION: Regional Re Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund Report to the Minnesota State Legislature February 1998 tA orking for the J~eg~on, Plannir~ for the .,~rure Metropolitan Council Members Roger Scherer--District 1 Bill Schreiber - District 2 Mary Hill Smith - District 3 · Iulius C. Smith - District 4 !Nell Peterson - District ~ Martha M. Head - District 6 Barbara Butts Williams - District 7 Carol A. Kummer - District 8 Curtis Johnson, Chair ~lames J. (Jim) Wychor - District 9 Richard Packer - District 10 Esther Newcome - District 11 Charles Arnason - District 12 Diane Z. (DeDe) Woffson - District 13 Stephen B. Wellington, Jr. - District 14 Kevin Howe - District 15 Terrence F. Flower - District 16 ~Uhe mission of the Metropol/tan Council is to provide leadership in the effective planning of regional growth and redevelopment, and in the delivery of quality regional services. The Metropolitan Council coordinates regional planning and guides development in the seven- county area through joint action w/th the public and private sectors. The Council also operates regional services, including wastewater collection and treatment, transit and the Metro HRA - an affordable-housing service that provides assistance to low-income families in the region. Created by the legislature in 19.67, the Council establishes policies for aixports, regional parks, highways and transit, sewers, air and water quality, land use and affordable housing, and provides planning and technical assistance to communities in the Twin Cities region. The graphic preparation and printing of this publication cost $150.00 for a total of 100 copies. Publication no. 70-98-013 Summary This is the second annual report to the Minnesota Legislature on the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, established by the 1995 Livable Communities Act (2Vlinnesota Statutes, Sections 473.25 through 473.254). The report details activities of the Metropolitan Council's administration of the fund in 1997, and a summary to date of fund activities covering 1996 and 1997. The report responds to a requirement in the Livable Communities law that the Council submit an annual report on the fund's activities and on how the funded projects meet regional policies and goals. The Livable Communities Fund has three accounts: * The Tax Base Revit-lization Account (TBRA) helps cities pay for cleanup of polluted land and make it available for commercial and industrial redevelopment. . The Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) funds projects that demonstrate how development can be designed to use land and services more efficiently and promote community. Projects seek to do so through more compact, higher-density, transit-and pedestrian-oriented development with a mix of residential and commercial buildings and a range of housing types and costs. * The Local ttousing Incentives Account (LHIA) helps expand life-cycle and affordable housing in the region. Over $13 million was available in the Fund in 1997. The majority of the funds came from tax levies, with additional monies fi.om 1996 carryover, accrued interest, and 1996 funded projects completed under budget or projected to be completed under budget. The Metropolitan Council awarded $12,610,~41 in grants during 1997 as follows: · Tax Base Revitalization Account: Eleven grants totaling $8,005,091 to help clean up more than 100 acres ofpolluted land in eight communities. · Livable Communities Demonstration Account: Ten grants totaling $3,980,350 for economic and community development projects in nine communities. · Local ttousing Incentives Account: Three grants totaling $625,000 to help construct affordable housing in three suburban communities. The uncommitted balance in the fund (total sources minus total awarded) was $292,950 as of December 31, 1997. The report includes a summary of each funded project and a detailed financial summary. Grants mnounts awarded in the first two years of the fund's operation (1996 and 1997) in the three funding accounts total over $24.5 million. Projects Funded, How Projects Support Regional Policy Projects funded through the Tax Base Revitalization Account in 1997 will foster the regional objective to stimulate economic growth in the region's core and other older communities. The TBRA awarded grants to help with cleanup and reuse of 122 acres ofbrownfields in core locations o£Minneapolis and St. Paul, and in Fr/dley and Roseville. These economic development projects result in creation of 2,725 jobs paying an average hourly wage of$11.90. A more than $4.1 million increase in net tax capacity will be realized fi.om these cleanup projects, and they involve more than $164 million in private investment. Livable Communities Demonstration Account projects present replicable models for how land and services can be used more efficiently, supporting the regional growth strategy to ensure orderly CONTENTS Background and Provisions of the Law ............................................................................................ 1 Amount of Money in the Fund and Amount Distributed .................................................................. Distribution and Purposes of Funds .................................................................................................. 2 Tax Base Revitalization Account ......................................................................................................... 2 Livable Communities Demonstration Account ..................................................................................... 3 Local Housing Incentives Account ...................................................................................................... 8 Effectiveness of Funded Projects in Meeting the Policies and Goals of the Council ............................................................................. ........................................... $ Progress on Strategies for the Region's Core ............................................................................................... 9 Implementing Urban Area Strategies ......................................................................................................... l 0 Progress on O~her P~egional Goals ............................................................................................................. 12 Interagency Cooperation and Community Participation in Implementing the Fund .......................................................................................................... 13 Monitoring of the Fund ............................................................................................................................ 14 Attachment A. Funding Report ...................................................................................................... 15 Background and Provisions of the Law This is the second annual report to the Minnesota Legislature on the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, established by the 1995 Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes, Sections 473.25 through 473.254). The report details activities of the Metropolitan Council's administration of the fund in 1997, and a summary to date of fund activities covering 1996 and 1997. The fund has three accounts: · The Tax Base Revitalization Account CTBRA) helps cities pay for cleanup of polluted land and make it available for commercial and industrial redevelopment. · The Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) funds projects that demonstrate how development can be designed to use land and services more efficiently and promote community. Projects seek to do so through more compact, higher-density, transit-and pedestrian-oriented development with a mix of residential and commercial buildings and a range of housing types and costs. · The Local Housing Incentives Account (LllrIA.) helps expand life-cycle and affordable housing in the region. To receive funds from any of the accounts, cities must voluntarily agree to participate in the Housing Incentives Program established by the Act and work toward affordable housing goals developed in cooperation with the Council. In 1997, 97 metropolitan area cities participated and were eligible to receive funds. The legislation requires the Council to prepare and submit an annual report to the Legislature on the fund, including "the amount of money in the fund, the amount distributed, to whom the funds were distributed and for what purposes, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the projects in meeting the policies and goals of the Council. The report may make recommendations to the legislature on changes to this act." This report contains the information required by the legislation. In addition, information is included on interagency cooperation and community participation in administering the fund. Amount of Money In the Fund and Amount Distributed The amount of money available in the Livable Communities Fund in 1997 from tax levies was $11.6 million--S7 million in the 'IBP, ak account, $4.1 million in the LCDA account, and $500,000 in the LHIA Account. Additional monies were available as follows: $1 million in the TBRA account from accrued interest and 1996 funded projects completed under budget or projected to be completed under budget, nearly $283,000 carryover from 1996 and interest in the LCDA account, and $150,000 carryover from 1996 and interest in the LHIA account. The Metropolitan Council awarded $12,610,441 in grants dumg 1997 as follows: * Tax Base Revitalivation Account: Eleven grants totaling $8,005,091 to help clean up more than I00 acres of polluted land in eight communities. · Livable Communities Demonstration Account: Ten grants totaling $3,980,350 for economic and community development projects in nine communities. Specialty Manufacturing Site, St. Paul (2356 University Ave. W.). Clean lead paint and asbestos from this vacant building on a 1.6 acre site. Restore the original structure which is on the National Historic Register. Design and lease 28,000 square feet of office space for small goods manufacturing and storage. Grant award: $493,000 Round Two Grants, Awarded December 1997 Sears Site, Minneapolis (Lake St. and Chicago Ave.). Clean hazardous waste and asbestos from the older building on the historic 17.64 acre Sears Roebuck and Co. site. Renovate the building with indusWial, office, retail, government, education facilities and common space. A hotel, an entertainment complex and a transit hub would be built. Crrant award: $2,556,332 Citgo/Plastics, Inc., St. Paul (Shepard Rd. and James Ave.). Clean petroleum, heavy metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons from the soils of this former petroleum tank farm. About half the cleaned site will be redeveloped by Plastics, Inc. with a new manufacturing facility. The other half will be marketed for an as yet undetermined development. Grant award: $966,859 Opus/Gateway, Roseville (Northwest comer of I35W and Highway 36). Clean petroleum contamination associated with previous use of part of the site by trucking operations and manage asbestos waste from dilapidated homes that were razed. The redevelopment will consist of new office/showroom/warehouse buildings. Grant award: $72,622 North Star Woolen Mill & Washburn-Crosby Mill Utility Building, Minneapolis (109 Portland Ave. S.). Ctean asbestos insulation and roofing material and other hazardous wastes like mercury and PCB's in fluorescent lights from both buildings. Redevelop the properties with 36 condominiums in the North Star Mill building and 28 in the utility building. Grant award: $421,200 Creamettes Building Site, Minneapolis (428 N. First St.) Manage the asbestos and hazardous waste other than lead paint in the building on the 2.1 acre site. Redevelop with 28 apartments in the historic structure and construct 72 mixed-income aparmaents where a 1950's addition will be demolished. Grant award: $137,500 Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grants Awarded December 1997 Valley Square Area B Mixed-use Redevelopment, Golden Valley (North of Highway 55 one block, west of and bordering Winnetka Avenue).Redevelopm~nt of a 29-acre area to include attached housing at 20 units per acre, 42,600 sq. ft. of commercial retail, 22,600 sq. ft. of office space; public uses/spaces; shared structured parking. Key Features: * New housing will include 32 town_houses, 13 live-work units, 15 apartments; with sales prices of $90,000 - $200,000 and rents from $750 - $1500. Up to 10 public housing units (provided under the Ho!lman vs. Cisneros settlement with the city of Minneapolis) wilt be included. , The city will work with Metro Transit to reroute bus service to better serve area residents, employees and shoppers. Demonstration Account Funding will assist in funding site and public realm improvements (removal of driveways to add yard space, enhanced landscaping, signage, lighting, fencing); renovating two mansions; and will capitalize a grant fund for exis~ng homeowners. Crrant Award: $700,000 Augustana Village, Minneapolis (Nmar downtown Minneapolis, bounded by South 8th Street on the north, 12th Avenue South on the east, East 15th Street on the south and 1 lth Avenue South on the west). Redevelopment of a block of the Elliot Park neighborhood, adjacent to Elliot Park, into a small "urban village." The block will contain 150 to 170 units of housing, 200 underground park/rig spaces, 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of storefront commercial space and approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of office space. A pedestrian greenway will cross the site, and connect to Elliot Park. Key Fearn'es: · The housing component of the project will include up to 80 one-bedroom 76 two-bedroom, and 1 $ three-bedroom units. Twenty percent will be affordable to households below 60 percent ($34,380) of the area median, and 20 percent will serve households below 80 percent ($45,840) of median income. · Possible commercial uses include a small pharmacy, restaurant, mini-market, day care center, dry cleaners, office space. · Augustana Village will be integrated with Elliot Twins, an adjacent 164-unit Minneapolis Public Housing Authority apartment complex, by the creation of a pedestrian greenway and the vacation of 12th Avenue. Demonstration Account funding wilt help fund a pedestrian greenway connects'ag new and existing housing with Elliot Park; a boulevard along South 8th Street; raised intersection to facilitate pedestrian traffic; lighting, landscaping. Grant Award: $550,000 Richfield Rediscovered Apartment Remodeling Program (Resources will be made available city- wide). The program will facilitate investment in apa~'u,~ent communities built primarily from 1960 to 1970 to make them more livable. It will provide financial incentives through property tax delays and deferred loans, and provide technical assistance in design, remodeling, and financing. Key Features: · The program will encourage exterior improvements to windows, roofs, gutters, entrances, lighting and signage, landscaping and parking. Interior improvements can include cabinetry, appliances, flooring, air-conditioning, boiler replacements, wall insulation and improved security systems. · Delays in property tax increases will be available for value-added improvements made to rental housing. · The program will promote eommuity and livbility through, for example, enhancing relationships of groups of buildings, improving pedestrian and traffic circulation, and access to transit. Demonstration Account funding will provide funding to assist with implementing physical improvements at two case study locations, and incentive deferred loans and marketing. Grant Award: $575,000 Brewer~' Neighborhood, St. Paul (1.5 miles south of downtown St. Paul, adjacent to West 7th/For~ Road, bordered by Landmark Brewery and Independent School District 625's administrative offices). Rehabilitation and construction in a three-block area will include new housing, rehabilitated housing, an improved transit stop and bike path, commercial improvements and punic space improvements. The realigned Shepard Road will improve the neighborhood's connections to the river valley. Key Features · Development of the guiding principles established by the Town Center Focus Committee and the City Council will be incorporated into the City's comprehensive plan. Demonstration Account funding will refine the master plan (in the core mixed-use retail and housing area, approximately 70 percent of total development area), fund design ora development framework, and re/me a program for "hoffice" development. Grant Award: $220,000 Town Center/Gravel Mining Area, Maple Grove Clown Center includes approximately 600 acres located 2,000 feet northeast of the 1-494, 1-694 and 1-94 interchange. It is a part of the 2,000 acre Gravel Mining Area or GMA). Town Center is to be a pedestrian-oriented village oriented around a plaza, containing approximately 1,500 residential units, 400,000 square feet of commercial development, over 150,000 square feet of offices in an integrated mixed-me land use pattern, and a 30-acre community park. The larger GMA has the potential for a significanfly greater number of jobs and housing. Key Features: · An existing conditions inventory, market study and community design charrette will produce a development plan defining the location and boundaries of the Town Center, opportunities for affordable housing, and a design framework with traditional neighborhood design elements. The charrette will involve local civic leaders; landowners, developers; lenders, and government, private, for-profit and non-profit partners. · The plan will orient buildings to the street with on-street parking. · 900 units of residential development at 30 units/acre could be located adjacent to the Town Center and at the periphery of other residential areas. Medium density housing (10 units/acre) will be located adjacent to and radiate from the Town Center, extending the pedestrian realm beyond the Town Center proper. Demonstration Account funding will assist with costs of a design charrette, development plan and design standards, and market study for the Tov,,n Center and Gravel Mining Area. Grant Award: $150,000 Welcome Neighborhood, Crystal ( Two blocks bounded by A~ir Avenue North, 44th Avenue North, Xenia Avenue North and 43rd Avenue North in Crystal).Redevelopment of substantial portions of two blocks to upgrade the housing stock with the intent to stabilize an at-risk neighborhood while retaining the character of Crystal. The city may in the future improve a small nearby business district by redesigning the streetscape, remodeling smactures, and acquisition of obsolete commercial smactures for commercial redevelopment. Key Features: · Increase housing density by subdividing lots or new housing designs. Plans will include single family detached, attached townhouses, accessory apartments, courtyard houses, and possibly handicapped- accessible housing. One or more rehabilitated rental apartments at Section 8 rent levels may be provided. · Plans could also include the re-platting of two lots into three, placing two houses on one lot, shared driveway and walkway, street and boulevard improvements and sidewalk network. Neighborhood work groups will help determine the options. · New construction will likely sell for between $90,000 and $120,000 (existing housing currently sells for $60,000 to $90,000). The Metro 2040 Plan calls for developing the seven-county Twin Cities Region in a more compact fashion to accommodate 330,000 households and 650,000 people by the year 2020. It includes an urban reserve for additional growth if needed, and preserves key agricultural areas. Two-thirds of the growth is planned for inside the current urban boundary area. TI, ds goal is significant because it runs counter to recent lrends. Most growth has been occurring at the urbanizing edge and at relatively low densities. For the plan to work, development must now fill in vacant land and there must be extensive redevelopment inside the 2000 MUSA. New development will need to occur at higher densities overall than recent trends. The net effect over time will be a much more compact urban area. The plan also calls for concentrating job growth in the core o£the region and along transit routes within the 1-494/I-694 interstate beltway. The plan designates two policy areas, the core and urban area, within the built-up area served by central sewer and water. Strategies for each policy area are included. Progress on Strategies for The Region's Core The core includes the downtowns of St. Paul and Minneapolis, their immediate neighborhoods and University Avenue connecting them. It has major employment concentrations, good access to highways mad transit, and many neighborhoods needing physical and economic revitalization. Primary strategies for this area include: · Encourage investment to foster economic growth and new jobs; clean up and reinvest in polluted sites. · Encourge medium to higher-density housing · Use incentives to improve economic opportunities for residents, such as job skills and job readiness training. · Stabilize neighborhoods and improve their physical environment. Significant progress was made in 1997 in cleaning up polluted "brownfield" sites. Projects funded from the Tax Base Revitalization Account during the year will result in cleanup and reuse of 122 acres of land, the majority in the region's core, and 2,725 new jobs paying an average hourly wage of$11.90. Nine of 11 cleanup projects funded in 1997 (16 of 27 to date) are located in the core. For projects funded in t996 and 1997, total acres cleaned and reused total 218, with 4,355 new jobs created paying an average hourly wage of $12. By increasing tax base in older parts of the region where polluted land is located, economic growth in these locations will be significantly boosted. A more than $4.2 million increase in annual net tax capacity will be realized from cleanup and redevelopment projects funded in 1997. More than $164 million in private investment is involved in these projects. To date in the 'I'BRA program (projects funded in 1996 and 1997), the total increase in net tax capacity is $6.9 million, in projects representing $241 million in private investment. Examples of projects funded include locations for light industrial, manufacturing and office uses, showroom, storage and warehouse facilities. Additional uses of cleaned land include a hotel and entertainment complex, apartments and condomirhums. These projects will assist in revitalizing the neighborhoods in which they are located, by providing locations for businesses that might otherwise move out of the core, or for new businesses to move to core 9 Five LCDA demonstrations were funded in older parts of the region, focusing on redevelopment. Funded projects are located in Golden Valley, Chaska, Richfield, Crym. al, and the 1-35W Corridor Coalition cities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview. Valley Square Redevelopment, an infill project located near Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave. in Golden Valley, builds on recent redevelopment efforts in the area to intensify this location as a suburban activity center, strengthening jobs-housing-tran~ormtion links. The city will work with Metro Transit to reroute bus service to better serve area residents, employees and shoppers; and will improve pedestrian connections within the area. The density and type of housing will support transit service; parking arrangements support and encourage additional transit use. Chaska's Brickyard Redevelopment project will strengthen the existing development pattern in this older downtown, helping this area function as a self-contained area for living, working and shopping. The density and configuration of both projects will encourage walking, bike and transit trips, and can result in reduced auto travel demand. The Golden Valley and Chaska projects add a mix of medium- to high-density new apartments and townhouses with a range of costs. Golden Valtey's Valley Square project will include 32 townhouses, 15 apartments and 13 live-work units with sales prices of $90,000 - $200,000 and rents of $750 - $1 $00. In Chaska, rents for 64 apartments will range $550 (1BR) to $890 (3BR); townhomes will rent for $670- $680 and will include five pubIie housing units provided through Holtman vs. Cisneros settlement with the city of Minneapolis. The Crystal and Richfield demonstration projects will strengthen confidence in older communities, a focus of the .Blueprint, by improving the existing housing in these older suburbs, helping to improve neighborhood livability. In Crystal's Welcome Neighborhood, the city will redevelop substantial portions of two blocks to upgrade the housing stock with the intent to stabilize this at-risk neighborhood while retaining the character of Crystal. Housing density will be increased by subdividing lots or housing designs new to the neighborhood such as attached townhouses, accessory aparmaents and courtyard houses. Richfield's apa~u~,ent remodeling program will facilitate invesunent in apartment communities, through property tax delays, deferred loans and remodeling advice, to make them more livable and desirable. The apartment remodeling program will help maintain the economic value of Richfield's 1960 to 1970-era rental housing stock and promote reinvestment in rental housing. These two efforts will improve current and prospective new residents' perceptions of the area as a place to live and invest. Both the Crystal and Richfield locations are well-served by transit and will support and en¢ourge additional transit use. The 1-35W Corridor Coalition will address transportation and land use issues in seven communities located along the corridor. This multi-jurisdictional effort has great potential to coordinate planning and development in a way that achieves improved jobs-housing-transportation links. This effort is also a good example of communities working together to solve issues of subregional and regional concern. Pollution cleanup grants have supported redevelopment in the urban area by helping clean a site for a truck remanufacturmg plant expansion in Fridley, and for new office/showroom/warehouse buildings in Roseville. Interagency Cooperation and Community Participation in Implementing the Fund Interagency or community participation is a feature of the Council's administration of all three funding accounts. The Tax Base Revitalization Program demonstrates a cooperative partnership between the Council and the Department of Trade and Economic Development (D'IED) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Council and DTED staff use the same application cycle deadlines and hold joint application workshops. DTED staff assist Council staff in ranking TBRA applications according to the Council's criteria. The Livable Communities Act authorizes TBRA funds as part of local match requirements for DTED's Contaminated Site Cleanup Program, and all projects eligible for both programs have been jointly funded. Both the TBRA and the DTED programs require "response action plans" from the MPCA for all applicable projects. These plans are required as part of the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program. MPCA staff review the applications to verify that proposed activities will cost-effectively implement the response action plan submitted by the applicant. Although asbestos cleanup is not currently addressed by the VIC strategy, MPCA staff also review applications involving asbestos' cleanup. In addition, MPCA staff members participate in the application workshops. Applications for the The Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding are reviewed by the 15- member Livable Communities Advisory Committee, which makes funding recommendations to the Metropolitan Council. The committee is made up of representatives with expertise in these areas: local and county government, development and redevelopment, finance, private foundation work, urban design and transportation. Review of proposals by the committee ensures that the projects receive scrutiny in these areas of expertise, and that the projects selected meet the program's objectives. The Metropolitan Council administers the Local Housing Incentives Account through the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group (3d~G), established in 1995 to coordinate and streamline the complex system of delivering housing resources in the metropolitan area. The MHIG includes representatives of the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MYlFA), the Minneapolis-St. Paul Family Housing Fund, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Greater Minneapolis Metro Housing Corporation, Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC), Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The M~G represents an unprecedented effort to bring together the major housing resource providers to collaboratively develop a process and tools to provide easy access to and disbursement of a combined pool of housing development dollars. To the Council's knowledge, this form of collaboration has not been attempted elsewhere in the country. The MH'IG group developed a Super Request for Proposal (RFP) to simplify and streamline the process for accessing housing development dollars. The Super RFP includes descriptions and requirements of all funding sources available during a funding cycle, including the Local Housing Incentives Program. The Super RFP is mailed to all communities, developers, housing agencies and others interested in the production of affordable housing. Applicants need to apply only once, using the Super RFP application, to access any of the funds available during that funding cycle. The M~HIG has also developed joint project selection criteria as a tool to review proposals and choose award recipients. The joint criteria include the 13 Attachment A Funding Report Livable Communities Fund 0 MetropoLitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (612) 602-1000 TTY- 291-0904 Metro Info Line · -602-1888 E-~nail · data.center~metc.state.mn.us Website · www.metrocouncil.org Upon request, this pubhcation will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Printed with soy-based ink on recycled paper using at least 20% post-consumer waste CITY COUNCIL LETTER ~' ~ Work Session Meeting of: April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Communit~ Development APPROVAL ITEM: Adopt Life Cycle Housing Study BY: Joe Hollman'~;~'ff BY: '~...~. ~/.~ NO: DATE: April 14, 1998 Issue Statement: Nancy Reeves and Associates has prepared a Life Cycle Housing Study for the City of Columbia Heights. The purpose of this study is to determine what changes Columbia Heights will need in order to have a housing supply that will meet the needs of the population in the year 2010 and beyond. Portions of this study are recommended to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Background: Nancy Reeves attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 7 to present information pertaining to the study and to answer questions. Attached, please find a copy of the Life Cycle Housing Study and the related Cluster Market Analysis for Columbia Heights, Crystal, and New Hope. As you are aware, Columbia Heights is in the process of updating the City Comprehensive Plan. One of the required elements of the Plan update is a section dealing with housing issues. Page 24 of the Study provides recommendations for using this Study with the Comprehensive Plan. This section also contains recommendations for changes to the Livable Communities goals. Regarding implementation efforts, please refer to Page 19 which identifies the recommended changes to the housing supply in Columbia Heights between now and the year 2010. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that the Life Cycle Housing Study be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the Livable Communities goals. Move to,~--~7~ Cycle Housing Study and J~,~f~q~M~e recommended components into the Comprehensive Plan and Livable Communities goals. ~ COUNCIl. ACTION: Nancy Reeves and ~4ssociates 1725 Summit Avenue Sa Paul, Minnesota 55105 (612) 644-063~ MEMORANDUM Date: March 11, 1998 To: Ken Anderson, Columbia HeigJats Kirk McDonald, New Hope Anne Norris, Crystal From: Nancy Reeves Subject~ Life Cycle Housing Cluster Market Analysis for the Cities of Columbia Heights. Crystal and Ney,-Hope You will recall that part of the plan for Life Cycle Housing Studies for your cities was a broader market analysis of the area. Originally. the market area would have been somewhat larger, but 2 of the cities originally in the group. Brooklyn Center and Kobbinsdale, have elected not to participate. In the course of preparing the life cycle housing studies for Columbia Heights, Crystal and New Hope, one conclusion particularly stands out. These first-ring, fully-developed cities have far more commonality, than differences in their housing needs, now and into the future. And, it would not be the least bit surprising to learn that many of the remaining firm-ring, fully-developed cities throughout the metropolitan area share similar housing characteristics. Because of these common housing characteristics, such as large supplies of affordable single-family homes and very small supplies of move-up homes and attached ownership housing units, it is not likely that any of the cluster cities can expect to meet their unmet housing needs in any of the other cities in the cluster. However, because of their similarities, the cluster cities, and perhaps other first-ring suburbs as well, may find it beneficial to work together on developing strate~es and programs to help meet their housing needs into the t'wenty.-ftrst century. It will also be important for the cluster cries to work with their second and third-ring neighboring communities to help to balance the overall housing supply in the north metro area. The housing market analysis for the Columbia Hei~dats. Crystal and New Hope cluster is attached. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this important housing project. Life Cycle Housing Market Analysis for the Columbia Heights, Crystal and New Hope Cluster Introduction During 1997, life cycle housing studies were prepared for the okies of Columbia Heights, Crystal and New Hope to determine the .types of housing that would be needed in these cities by the year 2010. Age forecasts were prepared for each city, and the results were translated to needs for various types and values of housing. In each case. the importance of flexibility in the housing market was emphasized, due to the inevitability of changing demographics over time. Because very few cities within a larger market area can ever expect to be entirely self- sufficient in meeting the housing needs of every population group over a long period of time, it is anticipated that there will be some need for movement among cities. A goal of the cluster planning approach was to see if the unmet housing needs of some cities could be met by housing surpluses in other cities. Perhaps ii'the number of cities in the cluster had been larger, some opporvmities for exchange could have been identified. However. withh~ this small cluster of cities, the housing needs and types of housing avaffable were extremely similar. All 3 cities tended to have the same oversupplies and the same shortages. In each case, people looking for housing types that were in short suppl,',, in these communities tended to move to newer, developing communities, rather than to other fully-developed communities. Findin~,s A comparison of the age groups forecasted for each of the cluster cities for the year 2010 demonstrates that each of the cities has a large share of older population. See Table One. Table One Population by Age Group - 2010 Cities of Columbia Heights, Cry, stal and New Hope Age Group Columbia Heights i Crystal New Hope I 0-5 1,396- 7.2% t 1.330- 5.5% 1,398- 6.4% 6-17 3,342- 17.1% [ 3,485- 14.5% 3,072- 14.0% 18-24 1.933- 9.9% I 2.368- 9.9% 1,916- 8.7% 25-34 2.362- 12.1%I 2.953- 12.3% 2,744- 12.5% 35-54 5,243 - 26.9% I 6.911 - 28.8% 6.626 - 30.1% 55-64 2,824- 14.5%[ 3,921- 16.3% 3,381- 15.4% 65+ 2.400- 12.3% 3.032- 12.6% 2,863- 13.0% Totals 19.500 [ 24.000 22.000 For each city in the cluster, less than half of the population will be under the age of 34 by the year 2010. The first-time homebuyer age group, ages 25-34, will be just 12.1 to 12.5 percent of the population. In 1990, this age group accounted for between 17.8 and 20.6 percent of the population. The market for starter homes will be dropping throughout the cluster. At the same time, the move-up housing age group, ages 35-54, will be increasing from 24.2 to 25.4 percent in 1990 to 26.9 to 30.1 percent in 2010. This large move-up housing market represents more than twice as many people as the first-time homebuyers by the year 2010. Based on the age group forecasts, along with other factors, the housing types needed in the cluster cities by the year 2010 are shown in Table Two. Table Two Housing Types Needed in the Year 2010 Cities of Columbia Heights, Crystal and New Hope Housing Type I Columbia Hts. I Crystal i New Hope Totals ~ S.F. Home 2.412 i 3.902 1.750 8,064- 29.3% Move-Up S.F. 2.666 ] 3.020 2.563 8,249- 30.0% ~ Rental 1.466 I 1.275 1.675 4,416- 16.1% Other Rental 1.256 I 1.278 ! 2.460 4,994- 18.1% Other Attached 600 [ 500 687 1.787- 6.5% Totals 8.400 I 9.975 9.135 27.510 Source: Nancy Reeves and Assoc;ates The existing housing supply in all cities in the cluster is considerably different than the forecasted needs. For example, the need for affordable sinCe-family homes (starter homes) is just over 29 percent in the cluster, while the supply of this housing type is over 62 percent, more than two homes for every, one needed. At the same time, the need for move-up sinCe-family homes is 30 percent of the total need for the cluster, but less than 3 percent of the existing housing supply. See Table Three for information on the cluster's existing housing supply. Table Three Existing Housing Supply, by Housing Type Cities of Columbia Heights, Crystal and New Hope Housing Type Columbia Hts. t Crystal New Hope Totals Afl. S.F. Home 4.928 7.067 4.345 16,340- 62.1% Move-Up S.F. 205 144 378 727- 2.8% Afl. Rental 1.335 1.010 1.551 3,896 - 14.8% Other Rental 966 1.094 2,233 4,293 - 16.3% Other Attached 501 242 330 1,073 - 4.0% Totals 7,935 9.557 8.837 26,329 Sources: Nancy Reeves and Associates. U. S. Census, Metropolitan Council Because there is very. little vacant land in any of the cluster cities, new move-up housing units will not be able to be built in sufficient quantities to meet the forecasted needs. However. existing affordable housing is ah'eadv being upgraded, and more of this type of actMrv is encouraged throughout the cluster cities to help to meet the need for move-up housing. At the same time. the existing supply of affordable single-family housing in the cluster cities represents a resource that is not likely to be replicated in newly-developing areas. For this reason, movement between the cluster cities and developing areas may be necessary in order for people in the developing areas to find affordable housing, while people in the cluster cities seek move-up housing in the developing areas. Where vacant land can be found, or redevelopment sites assembled, it is probably the highest priority to build additional housing suitable for empty-nesters and older people, since they are the least likely to want to pull up stakes and move away from their home communities. Conclusions and Recommendations ( 1 ) The population is a~Sng, with ~owth in the move-up homebuyer, empty-nester and older population ~oups. These age shifts lead to greater demand for move-up single- family homes, rental units, and attached housing units, as well as one-story units for both ownership and rental. (2) The percentage of younger first-time home buyers is sh.fink~g, leading to less demand for starter home-ownership units (affordable sinCe-family homes). 4 (3) The predominant existing housing type in each of the cluster communities is affordable single-family homes, which represent fi.om 49.2 to 73.9 percent of the existing housing supply, but only 19. l to 39. l percent of the housing need in 2010. There is a significant oversupply of affordable single-family homes, along with a shortage of move-up homes and housing for older people, in the cluster cities. (4) The need for a flexible housing mix is also important for each of the cluster communities. Housing .types such as rental apartments at all cost levels, condomimiums, co-operatives, and townhouses, as well as one-story single family homes, are all housing .types that are more flexible than the predominant housing type being built during the 1990s. the large two-story single-family home. Housing that can be occupied by more than one age group, income level or family type will serve a community well as the demographics of the area continue to shift. The cluster cities tend to have a more flexible housing supply than many of the newer, developing communities. (5) Each community, in the cluster has a large supply of one-story single-family housing. Tkis is an important housing resource to be preserved, because it can serve the needs of various income levels and age groups. Blocks or neighborhoods of one-story homes may wish to explore establishing home-owners associations that hire various services for their residents, such as lawn mow'lng, snow shoveling, and other exterior maintenance tasks. These services could allow older people to remain in their homes, and they would also be helpful to sin~e-parent households and other population groups. (6) In general, each of the communities in the cluster would benefit fi.om a long-range housing strategy that gradually moved in the direction of a more fle,-cible, balanced housing supply. In each case. additional rental units and attached ownership housing units are needed. But the largest need in each of the communities is to increase the move-up housing supply, generally not bv new construction, but by upgrading of some of the existing single-family homes. (7) It is probably not realistic, let alone desirable, to assume that an of the extra affordable sinCe-family housing in the cluster cities can be converted to move-up housing. For that reason, the cluster cities can anticipate that they will continue to provide a greater share of the affordable housing resources of the region as a whole than their own residents would be expected to need. Existing affordable single-family homes are a resource that cannot be duplicated in today's housing market. They should be carefully preserved and, to the extent that they constitute a surplus, made available for use by people fi.om communities throughout the re,on. (8) If cluster cities, and perhaps other fully-developed communities in the region, carry the largest share of the burden of providing housing for lower-income households, which tends to pay lower property taxes while having equal or higher service needs, perhaps they should be able to receive some kind o£compensation to make up for this. This compensation could be in the form of bonus ranking points toward transportation or other types o£federal~ state or regional grants applied for by the cities. Other types of compensation could also be considered. (9) Finally, because most of the housing units in the cluster cities were built more than 30 (multi-family) or 40 (single-family) years ago. the housing units need careful maintenance and repair. The cluster cities should work together to encourage homeowners to preserve and upgrade their housing units, and they should urge metropolitan and state government to provide greater funding resources to cities to assist in these efforts. 6 Prepared by Nancy Reeves and Associates February, 1998 Table of Contents Introduction Population and Housing in Columbia Heights in 1990/95 Population Forecasts by Age Oroup Housing Needs by Age Group Housing Needs in Columbia Heights in the Year 2010 Discussion of Recommended Changes in the Columbia Heights Housing Supply Recommendations for Using This Study with the Comprehensive Plan List of Tables Table One. Table Two. Table Three. Table Four. Table Five. Table Six. Table Seven. Table Eight. Table Nine. Table Ten. Figure One. Figure Two. Figure Three. Figure Four. Age of Population, 1980 and 1990 Housing Types - 1990 Population by Age Group, 1980 - 2010 Age Comparisons, 1990/2010, Columbia Heights/Metro Area Age Comparisons, 1990/2010, Columbia Heights/Crystal/New Hope Ownership and Rental Housing by Age Group, 1990 Columbia Heights Housing Supply, 1990 Estimated Housing Needs by Population Group, 2010 Estimated Housing Needs by Housing Type, 2010 Comparison of 2010 Housing Needs and 1995 Housing Supply List of Figures Housing Rental/Ownership Comparisons - Columbia Hts./Metro Area Younger/Older Age Groups in Columbia Heights - 1990/2010 Younger/Older Age Groups in Metro Area - 1990/2010 Comparison of 2010 Housing Needs and 1990 Housing Supply 3 4 7 12 14 19 24 4 6 7 8 11 12 14 15 16 18 5 9 10 17 2 Introduction Cities throughout the Twin CRies Metropolitan Area will experience, to varying degrees, the a~ng of the population over the next several decades. To accommodate anticipated changes in the age groups of their populations, cries will need diverse and flexible housing supplies that can be called upon to meet the needs of various age groups. The purpose ofthi~ Life Cycle Housing Study is to determine what changes the City of Columbia Heights will need in order to have a housing supply that will meet the needs of the population in the year 2010 and beyond. The study beans with a picture of the commllnity in the current decade (1990 Census) and moves on to the year 2000 and then 2010, using changes in the age groups of the population, as well as other factors such as remover of the existing housing supply, to determine what types of housing the community will need to meet the demands of the future. Special housing characteristics of the community, such as the existence of an ample supply of reasonably-priced, one-story single-family homes, are also taken into account. Wkh the information contained in the Life Cycle Housing Study, the community will be in a good position to plan for future housing development and redevelopment needs. It will be able to anticipate both shortages and oversupplies of various housing types, if any, which may also serve to protect the housing values of the city's current housing supply. The information provided by the Life Cycle Housing Study can be used by Columbia Heights to review its comprehensive plan housing goals, as well as Rs goals under the Livable Communities Act. In a city such as Columbia Heights, with very little land available for housing development, it is particularly important that development and redevelopment decisions be made carefully and with as much supporting information as possible. As with any forecast, the numbers contained in this report are estimates. Many unforeseen events could occur that might change the forecasted housing needs, both in Columbia Heights and in the larger market area. The economy could change, affecting the income levels of people in many age groups. Major over-building, or under-building, of particular housing types in surrounding communities could also affect housing demand in Columbia Heights. However, in spite of these or similar events beyond the control of the city, it is still important for Columbia Heights to make every effort to provide housing most likely to be needed in the future. Population and Housing in Columbia Heights in 1990 and 1995 Population While the City of Columbia Heights lost population between 1980 and 1990, going from 20,029 to 18,910 residents, the city actually gained a total of 423 households, moving from 7,343 to 7,766 households. Between 1980 and 1990, Columbia Heights showed a considerable increase in the older population group aged 65 and over, and a slight increase in the empty-nester group (ages 55 to 64). The move-up home buyer group (ages 35 to 54) remained stable, while the first-time home buyer group (ages 25 to 34) had a significant increase. Among the youngest population groups, only the 0 to 5 year-olds increased, while the 6 to 17 and 18 to 24-year old groups dropped considerably. See Table One. Table One Age of Population, 1980 and 1990 City of Columbia Heights Age Group 1980 1990 0-5 1,322- 6.6% 1,492- 7.9% 6-17 3,864- 19.3% 2,629- 13.9% 18-24 2,861- 14.3% 1,761 - 9.3% 25-34 3,003- 15.0% 3,360- 17.8% 35-54 4,834- 24.1% 4,578 - 24.2% 55-64 2,158- 10.8% 2,181 - 11.5% 65+ 1,987- 9.9% 2,909- 15.4% Totals 20,029 18,910 Source: 1980 and 1990 Census, Metropolitan Council Between 1990 and 1995, Metropolitan Council estimates indicate that Columbia Heights had a slight population loss, going from 18,910 to 18,681 people, a reduction of 229 people. At the same time, Columbia Heights actually gained a few households, going from 7,766 to 7,771, an increase of 5 households. Housing The 1990 Coh~mbia Heights housing supply increased by 512 units over 1980, from 7,463 to 7,975 units. The new units built during that time period were of various types, including several hundred apartment units, as well as single-family detached and townhouse units, and a few duplex units. 4 The housing supply in Columbia Heights is similar to the average for the Twin Cities metro area in terms of the percentage of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing. In Columbia Heights, just over 70 percent of the housing is owner-occupied, while the figure for the Metro Area is 68 percent owner-occupied. Rental housing makes up about 30 percent of the housing in Columbia Heights, and 32 percent in the Metro Area. See Figure One. Figure One Housing Rental/Ownership Percentages, 1990 Columbia Heights, Twin Cities Metro Area ~lMe~ro Area I ~3: ] .......... ICol~,'nbia Height:sI O~qe'.-occupied Renta',.occupied Source: 1990 Census, Metropolitan Council Flexible Housing As a community becomes fully-developed, it is important that its housing supply be adaptable to the changing housing needs ora variety of population age and income groups. The percentage of rental housing in Columbia Heights is almost equal to the Metro Area average, as is Columbia Heights' percentage of single-family attached housing, both of which are adaptable to the housing needs of various age groups. Also an asset are the large number of affordable, one-story homes that may be able to meet the needs of older people, as well as the needs ofyotmg families. See Table Two for information on the variety of housing types in Columbia Heights. Table Two Housing Types - City of Columbia Heights, 1990 Housing Type Total Units Percent Single-Family Detached 5,133 64.9% Single-Family Attached 501 6.3% Twin Home 546 6.9% Multi-Family 3-4 Units 192 2.4% Multi-Family 5-49 Units 1,045 13.2% Multi-Family 50+ Units 497 6.3% Total Units 7,914 Source: 1990 Census, Metro ~olitan Council 6 Population Forecasts The Metropolitan Council forecasts a population of 19,000 people for Columbia Heights in the year 2000 and 19,500 people in 2010. These figures represent an increase over the 1990 and 1995 numbers. Total households are also forecasted to increase from 7,771 in 1995 to 7,800 in 2000 and 8,000 in the year 2010. Using a standard vacancy rate of 5 percent, the total number of housing units needed in Columbia Heights will be 8,190 in 2000 and 8,400 in the year 2010. It is also of interest to note that the Metropolitan Council has forecasted considerable employment growth in Columbia Heights, from 4,536 jobs in 1990 to 6,100 jobs in 2010. This is an increase of 34.5 percent, which is greater than the Metro Area forecast of 32.4 percent employment growth for the same time period. Table Three shows the age groups of the Columbia Heights population and how they are forecasted to change from 1980 and 1990 to 2000 and 2010. Table Three Population by Age Group, 1980-2010 City of Columbia Heights Age Group 1980 1990 2000 2010 0-5 1,322- 6.6% 1,492- 7.9% 1,383- 7.3% 1,396- 7.2% 6-17 3,864- 19.3% 2,629- 13.9% 3,313- 17.4% 3,342- 17.1% 18-24 2,861-14.3% 1,761- 9.3% 1,534- 8.1% 1,933- 9.9% 25-34 3,003- 15.0% 3,360- 17.8% 2,418- 12.7% 2,362- 12.1% 35-54 4,834 - 24.1% 4,578 - 24.2% 5,649 - 29.7% 5,243 - 26.9% 55-64 2,158- 10.8% 2,181 - 11.5% 2,289- 12.0% 2,824- 14.5% 65+ 1,987- 9.9% 2,909- 15.4% 2,414- 12.7% 2,400- 12.3% Totals 20,029 18,910 19,000 19,500 Sources: 1980 and 1990 Census; 2000 and 2010 Forecasts: Metropolitan Council, Nancy Reeves and Associates Age Group Changes in Coh~mbia Heights- 1990 - 2010 The population of Columbia Heights is expected to increase to 19,500 by the year 2010, with considerable .~hiPdng among age groups. The percentage of children ages 0 to 17, which had declined between 1980 and 1990, will increase from 21.8 percent in 1990 to 24.3 percent in 2010. Young adults, ages 18 to 24, will also increase a little, from 9.3 percent in 1990 to 9.9 percent in 2010. On the other hand, the first-time homebuyer age group, ages 25 to 34, is forecasted to decrease considerably from a high of 17.8 percent in 1990 to 12.1 percent in 2010. Taken together, the younger population groups decreased somewhat between 1990 and 2010, going from 48.9 percent of the population to 46.3 percent. Judging from the increases in the children and young adult populations, however, the population offirst-tifiae homebuyers may begin moving up again by the year 2020. While the younger population groups went down in population, the older groups were increasing, from 51.1 percent of the population in 1990 to 53.7 percent in 2010. Move-up homebuyers, ages 35 to 54, hit a peak of 29.7 percent in the year 2000, and remained high in 2010 at 26.9 percent, compared to 24.2 percent in 1990. At the same time, the empty-nesters, ages 55 to 64, continued a steady rise, from 11.5 percent in 1990 to 14.5 percent by 2010. The older population, ages 65 and over, peaked in 1990 at 15.4 percent, and went to 12.3 percent by 2010. However, with the high figures in the move-up and empty-nester groups in 2010, it is anticipated that the percentage of older people will increase again by 2020. Comparisons to the Twin Cities Metro Area as a Whole The trend in Columbia Heights is toward a somewhat older population by 2010, although the year 2020 will probably see even higher percentages of the older population groups. How does this compare with age groups for the metro area as a whole? See Table Four for 1990 and 2010 comparisons between Columbia Heights and the Twin Cities Metro Area. Table Four Age Group Comparisons, 1990 and 2010 Columbia Heights and the Twin Cities Metro Area Age Group Col. Hts. - Col. Hts. - Age Group Metro Area Metro Area 1990 2010 - 1990 - 2010 0-5 7.9% 7.2% 0-4 8.1% 6.3% 6-17 13.9% 17.1% 5-14 14.2% 13.1% 18-24 9.3% 9.9% 15-24 13.9% 14.4% 25-34 17.8% 12.1% 25-34 20.4% 13.8% 35-54 24.2% 26.9% 35-54 26.4% 30.1% 55-64 11.5% 14.5% 55-64 7.2% 11.5% 65+ 15.4% 12.3% 65+ 9.7% 10.7% Sources: Metropolitan Council; Nancy Reeves and Associates The population of the metro area as a whole is getting older, but in a somewhat different pattern than Columbia Heights. The population of Columbia Heights got older before the metro area as a whole, and now the metro area is catching up. In 1990, 56.6 percent of the metro area population was in the younger population groups (ages 0 to 34), compared 8 to only 48.9 percent of the Columbia Heights population. By 2010, the younger population groups are forecasted to drop to 46.3 percent in Columbia Heights, a small decline, while dropping to only 47.6 percent for the metro area, a much larger decline. By 2010, the age groups in Columbia Heights will actually be quite comparable to those in the metro area as a whole, with 52.4 percent of the metro area population in the older groups (ages 35 and over), and 53.7 percent of the Columbia Heights population in the older age groups. See Figures Two and Three. Figure Two Younger and Older Age Groups, 1990 and 2010 Columbia Heights 54.00% 52.00% so. ooo,~ [.i:i 46.00% 44.00% 42.0O% 1990 2010 Sources: Metropolitan Council, Nancy Reeves and Associates Figure Three Younger and Older Age Groups, 1990 and 2010 Twin Cities Metro Area 1990 2010 Source: Metropolitan Council Comparisons to Other Cities in the Market Area Life Cycle Housing Studies similar to this one have also been completed for the cities of Crystal and New Hope. Age group comparisons for these cities are shown in Table Five. 10 Table Five Age Group Comparisons, 1990 and 2010 Columbia Heights, Crystal and New Hope City Percent Younger Percent Older Population Population Columbia Heights, 1990 48.9% 51.1% Columbia Heights, 2010 46.3% 53.7% Crystal, 1990 52.2% 47.8% Crystal 2010 42.2% 57.8% New Hope, 1990 50.7% 49.3% New Hope, 2010 41.6% 58.4% Sources: Metropolitan Council, Nancy Reeves and Associates While the three cities are all showing aging of their populations, it is interesting to note that in 1990, Columbia Heights had the highest percentage in the older population groups (ages 35 and over), at 51.1 percent. However, by the year 2010, the percentage share of older people in Columbia Heights was lower than either Crystal or New Hope. 11 Housing Needs by Age Group Information about the age groups ora population can be used to project the types of housing that will be needed in the community. Housing needs can be roughly equated to age categories as follows: Age Grouo Housing Needs 18-24 - New Households 25-34 - First-Time Homebuyers 35-54 - Move-Up Homebuyers 55-64 - Empty-Nesters 65+ - Older Residents Affordable Rental Housing Starter Single-Family Homes, Attached or Detached, or Remain in Rental Housing Move-Up Single-Family Homes Remain in Single-Family Homes, or Move to Attached Ownership or Rental Housing Remain in Single-Family Homes, or Move to Attached Ownership or Rental Housing To test the housing type needs and preferences of the age groups described above, the 1990 Census can be consulted for information on ownership and rental housing, by age of the head of household. For each age group, the Census provides the number of households actually living in rental, or ownership, housing in 1990. This information is shown in Table Six. Table Six Ownership and Rental Housing by Age Group, 1990 Cit3' of Columbia Heights Age Group Ownership - Number of Rental - Number of Households and Percent Households and Percent of Age Group of Age Group 15-24 30 - 10.7% 250 - 89.3% 25-34 880 - 55.5% 705 - 44.5% 35-54 1,966 - 77.6% 567 - 22.4% 55-64 1,187- 87.7% 167- 12.3% 65+ 1,402 - 69.6% 612 - 30.4% Totals 5,465 2,301 Source: 1990 Census, Metropolitan Council 12 Not surprisingly, households in the 35 to 54 and 55 to 64 age groups are primarily home owners, with 77.6 percent and 87.7 percent, respectively. Over two-thirds of the older people, ages 65 and over, also live in their own homes, with 69.6 percent. This is well over the percentage in New Hope, where only 37 percent of the older people live in their own homes. But it is lower than Crystal, where 82.5 percent of the older people remain in their single-family homes. Only the new households, ages 15 to 24, are primarily renters, with 89.3 percent renting their housing. The high percentages of home ownership in Columbia Heights are reflective, of course, of the available housing supply, which is over 70 percent owner-occupied. 13 Housing Needs in Columbia Heights in the Year 2010 Population Changes Between 1990 and 2010, the total population of Columbia Heights will increase t~om 18,910 to 19,500, an increase of 590 people. In households, the increase will be from 7,766 in 1990 to 8,000 in 2010, an increase of 234. In housing units, allowing for the standard vacancy rate of 5 percent, the total number of housing units needed by 2010 will be 8,400. This represents an increase of 486 units fromthe 1990 total of 7,914 nnits. Based on the population and age forecasts, the city of Coh~mbia Heights will have increases in the 35 to 54 (Move-Up Buyer) and 55 to 64 (Empty-Nester) age groups, and a slight increase in the 18 to 24 (New Household) group. The First-Time Homebuyer (ages 25 to 34) and Older (ages 65 and over) groups will show decreases. The Columbia Heights Housing Supply The housing types available in Columbia Heights are shown in Table Two, page 4. Another way to look at the city's housing supply is using the Livable Communities Act categories to determine the availability of affordable and life cycle housing. These will be the categories used to forecast future housing needs for Columbia Heights. According to the Metropolitan Council,. 96 percent of the city's single-family housing is affordable to households at 80 percent of the area's median income, and 58 percent of the rental housing is affordable to households at 50 percent of the median income. Blending this information with the basic housing type data in Table Two provides a more detailed look at the housing available in Columbia Heights. See Table Seven. Table Seven Housing Supply - CiD' of Columbia Heights, 1990 Housin~ Type Total Housing; Units Number of Units 7,914 Total Owner-Occupied Units 5,465 5,246 Total Affordable Owner-Occupied Units Total Rental Units 2,301 Total Affordable Rental Units 1,335 Total Attached Housing Units 2,849 Total Detached Housin[g Units 5,065 Sources: 1990 Census and Metropolitan Council. - 96% of Owner-Occ. Units - 36% of All Units - 64% of All Units 14 It is noteworthy that almost every owner-occupied housing unit (96 percent) in Coh~mbia Heights meets the Metropolitan Council's definition of affordable under the Livable Commnnities Act. These are housing units valued at $115,000 or less in 1995, affordable to households with incomes of $40,000 or less, or 80 percent of the area median income. At the same time, while rental housing is less than 30 percent of the Coh~mbia Heights housing supply, 58 percent of the rental units are considered affordable to lower-income households, with incomes of $25,000 per year or less. Finally, it is of note that Columbia Heights has a somewhat above-average supply of single-family attached housing units. Attached housing such as townhouses and condominium% with maintenance provided by residents' associations, is a type of housing of increasing interest to empty-nesters and older people seeking to move out of their single-family homes. 2010 Housing Needs Housing needs in Columbia Heights can best be forecasted by looking at the housing types generally preferred by people of various age groups. For this forecast, only the population groups 18 years of age and over will be used. It will be assumed that residents ages 0 to 17 will be living in households headed by adults. Table Eight shows the approximate number of housing units needed for each adult age group, as well as the housing types most often lived in by these age groups. Table Eight Estimated Housing Needs by Population Group, 2010 City of Columbia Heights Population Group 2010 Adult Units Unit Types Population Needed~ New Households ( 18-24) 1,933 1,172 Affordable Rental, Attached First-Time Homebuyers 2,362 1,327 Starter Homes, Rental, (25-34) Attached Move-Up Buyers (35-54) 5,243 2,833 Move-Up Homes Empty-Nesters (55-64) 2,824 1,568 Attached, Rental, Single- Family Homes Older People (65+) 2,400 1,500 Rental, Attached, Single- Family Homes Total Units 8,400 Source: Nancy Reeves and Associates ~ Based on average household sizes of 1.65, 1.78, 1.85, 1.$0, and 1.60 adults per household, in order by age group, beginning with ages 18-24. 15 Based on the current owner/renter percentages in Columbia Heights for each age group (Table Six), as well as the types of housing most commonly associated with various age groups, the housing types needed in Columbia Heights in 2010 can be estimated as shown in Table Nine. Table Nine Estimated ltousing Needs by ltousing Type, 2010 City of Columbia lleights Housing T~ype Est. No. of Units Owner-Occupied: Detached Single-Family Home - up to $115,000 2,412 Detached Single-Family Home - over $115,000 2,666 Renter-Occupied: Affordable Rental Housing - up to $500/mo. 1,466 Other Rental Housing - over $500/mo. 1,256 Other Attached Housing - To~xmhouses, Condominiums, etc. 600 Total Housin~ Units 8,400 Source: Nancy Reeves and Associates The final step is to take the estimated housing needs for 2010 and compare them to the existing housing supply. See Figure Four and Table Ten. 16 Figure Four Comparison of 2010 Housing Needs and 1990 Housing Supply City of Columbia Heights El 1990 Supply · 2010 Need Afl, S. F, Move-Up S.F. Afl, RentaJ Other RentaJ Att. Hsg. Sources: 1990 Census, Metropolitan Council, Nancy Reeves and Associates 17 Table Ten 2010 Housing Needs, as Compared to 1990 Housing Supply City of Columbia Heights Housing Type Total Units Units Recommended Changes Needed by Available 2010 in 1990 Owner-Occupied: Detached S.F. Home 2,412 4,928 Remove 25 substandard units. - up to $115,000 Maintain at least 2,412 existing units as affordable nnits. No new affordable single-family units are needed. Detached S.F. Home 2,666 205 Upgrade, modernize about 2,461 of - over $115,000 the existing affordable units. Renter-Occupied: Affordable Rental - 1,466 1,335 Add 131 rent assistance certificates up to $500/mo. for existing rental units for families and older people. Other Rental - over 1,256 966 Add 421 additional market rate rental $500/mo. units, including 131 units to replace the 131 market rate units taken for rent assistance certificates. Other Attached 600 501 Add about 99 ownership townhouses Housing or condos, primarily for older people. Total Units 8,400 7,935 Net increase of 490 units needed. Source: Nancy Reeves and Associates 18 Discussion of Recommended Changes to the Columbia Heights Housing Suoolv The recommended changes to the Columbia Heights housing supply, while significant, are not impossible to achieve between now and the year 2010. The changes will increase the flexibility of the existing housing supply, which will help to minimize any changes that may be needed beyond 2010. Detached Single-Family Homes - Up to $115,000 (Starter Homes) Recommendations: Remove up to 25 substandard units. Maintain at least 2,412 existing units as affordable single-family homes. There is no need to build any additional units in this price range. As noted earlier, Columbia Heights has a large supply of housing in this price range, considerably more than Census demand numbers would say are needed, particularly in view of forecasted decreases in the first-time homebuyer age group by 2010. However, many of the units in this price range have features that make them attractive to people who might actually be able to afford more expensive housing. They are well-maintained and in well-maintained neighborhoods with services available and easy access to employment. Many of the homes are one-story units that can be used by empty-nesters and older people, who might otherwise sell their single-family homes and move into other housing types. Over time, many of these units have held their value and shown increases which indicate that they may not remain in this price category into the next century. It is important that a large share of this supply of affordable housing units be preserved as a resource, now and into the future. At least 2,412 of the existing affordable homes should remain affordable to households at 80 percent of median income or less. This is particularly important since some of these units may have to take the place of affordable rental units or attached housing units that could otherwise meet the needs of both the youngest and oldest population groups in Columbia Heights. As is the case in almost any community, Columbia Heights will have a few homes that will not remain serviceable into the future. They will need repairs that cost more than the value of the homes, or will have to be cleared to make way for other types of development, or will have to be demolished for other reasons. Based on recent city actions, including establishment of a TIF district of older housing units, it is estimated that several homes per year will be in this category and will be removed bom the city's housing supply. Because of the ample supply of affordable single-family homes already available, these demolished homes will not need to be replaced with similar homes, but may be able to make way for other housing types that will be needed in the community. However, if the m~mber of homes demolished exceeds 55, a shortage of single-family housing, relative to the 2010 needs, could occur in the community, unless the demolished units are replaced with new single-family homes. 19 Detached Single-Family Homes - Over $115,000 (Move-Up Homes) Recommendation: Maintain the existing move-up housing supply. Modernize and upgrade about 2,461 additional units from the existing supply of affordable single-family homes to the move-up housing category. The existing supply of move-up homes in Columbia Heights is very small, with only 205 units (just 4 percent of the single-family housing supply) valued at more than $115,000 in 1995. However, between 1995 and 1997, the Multiple Listing Service report on homes sold in Columbia Heights indicates that more than 10 percent of the single-family homes sold in Columbia Heights were priced above $115,000. This figure represents 53 of the 518 homes sold during thi~ time period. If this rate of increase were to continue on ks own between now and the year 2010, many of the move-up housing units needed in Columbia Heights would be achieved without any special effort. The rest of the needed units would have to come about as the result of considerable modernization and upgrading by the homeowners. Public programs providing assistance for housing rehabilitation may be available to provide incentives for some homeowners, but it is anticipated that many homeowners will have to cover the costs themselves, since they will not be in the lower-income groups eligible for most of the state and federal programs. Columbia Heights may wish to use local funds to provide incentives for housing rehabilitation. Or the city may decide to offer technical assistance and encouragement to homeowners, or possibly property tax waivers for increased value added due to rehabilitation. Examples of the types of improvements that increase property values are modernizing kitchens, upgrading or adding bathrooms, family rooms, master suites, garages and landscaping. It is not necessary that the homes increase dramatically in price, but only that they are modernized sufficiently to be attractive to move-up buyers. Because Columbia Heights is a fxtlly-developed community, it is not expected that new subdivisions of move-up homes will be built in the city. However, the construction of move-up homes on infill or cleared lots in existing neighborhoods is certainly not discouraged. Many existing Columbia Heights residents will be seeking move-up housing in the next two decades. If the supply in Columbia Heights is not sufficient to meet their needs, they will have to leave the community for larger homes with more amenities available in other communities. 20 Affordable Rental Housing - Rent of $500/Month or Less Recommendation: Add 131 rent assistance certificates or vouchers for existing rental units for families and older people by the year 2010. The percentage of rental housing units in Columbia Heights at the time of the 1990 Census (just under 30 percent) was almost equal to the Metropolitan Area average of 32 percent. By the year 2010, the percentage of rental housing needed in Columbia Heights will climb to over 32 percent. Rental housing is a necessary housing resource for people of all ages, but particularly for young people just starting out, older people unable to maintain their single-family homes, and lower-income people of all ages. Unfortunately, in the current housing market, it is impossible to build new rental housing affordable to lower-income households without massive subsidies. Furthermore, very little vacant land is available in Coh~mbia Heights to build new affordable rental housing. What little land there might be is best suited economically to other types of housing development. To meet the needs of lower-income residents, the best approach is the addition of rent assistance certificates or vouchers that can be used with existing rental housing. If existing rental housing units are not available within the rent limits of these programs, it may be necessary for the city to seek exceptions to the rent limits or other program regulations, or to develop its own pro'grams to supplement existing resources. This approach will not result in the construction of 131 additional rental units. Because the rental units that will be used with the rent assistance certificates or vouchers will come from the existing supply of market-rate (over $500/month) rental units, additional units will have to be added to that category to make up for the units taken to meet the needs of the lower-cost rental unit category. Other Rental Housing - Rent of Over $500/Month Recommendation: Add 421 additional market-rate rental units, including 131 units to replace the 131 market-rate units taken for rent assistance certificates, and 290 additional un/ts. Because the greatest need for additional housing units in Columbia Heights is for rental units, particularly market-rate nnits, development of new market-rate rental housing is the use most highly recommended for vacant or redevelopment sites in the city. Planning to locate sites for additional rental housing should be a very high priority. 21 Particularly needed are rental units for older people, as well as for young people just starting out and young families with children. People in these population groups may have been leaving Columbia Heights to seek rental housing in other communities. In fact, only 30 percent of the older people in Columbia Heights currently live in rental housing, compared to 63 percent of the older people in the nearby community of New Hope, which has a variety of rental housing options for older people. In addition to standard rental units, the city might also want to consider the development of one-story rental townhouses or co-operative units, especially for empty-nesters and older people, some of whom might wish to spend the winter months in warmer climates without having to worry about their housing. While co-ops may often be considered a type ofhomeownership more than rental housing, they could be used to meet a part of the need that would otherwise be met with rental units. Other Attached Housing Recommendation: Add about 99 ownership townhouses or condominium% primarily for older people. The need for attached rental housing is covered above. This category includes attached ownership housing. The city of Columbia Heights has more of this type of housing than many other suburban communities, with an existing supply orS01 units. The need for this type of housing by the year 2010, however, is for about 600 units to meet the needs of young families, empty-nesters and older people. This is a difference of about 99 units. As with the development of new rental housing, it may be difficult to find sufficient vacant land to build new attached ownership units, but the city is encouraged to find sites for as many of the units as possible. One alternative to building attached ownership units could be to explore the possibility of converting existing blocks of single-family detached, preferably one-story homes to more user-friendly alternatives for older people, or perhaps for young single-parent households, or others who could use help with their lawn mowing, snow shoveling and other exterior maintenance work. Neighborhood associations could be established with monthly fees for association-provided maintenance services, similar to the associations for townhouse and condominium developments. If the primary residents of the block were young families with children, perhaps the street could be narrowed or reconfigured to offer re-designed outdoor play areas for the children. It is quite possible that a demonstration project ofthi.q type, either with housing for older people or young families, or a mixture of ages, could be eligible for a foundation or government grant for innovative housing ideas. Many cities with increasing populations of older people and little vacant land, but with blocks of ramblers and other one-story homes, could benefit tSom exploring options of this kind as alternatives to new construction. This is a strong example of the importance offlex/bility in the housing supply. 22 How the Recommended Actions Will Affect the Total Coh~mbia Heights Housing Supply Because there is a considerable amount of flexibility, as well as affordability, in the Columbia Heights housing supply, the changes needed to meet the needs of the population in 2010 are less than what will be needed in many other communities. No additional single-family homes will need to be built, although a few new move-up housing units on cleared or infill lots would be acceptable. Upgrading of almost half of the existing supply of single-family homes is the preferred method for meeting the demand for move-up housing. It is also appropriate given the age of much of the existing housing supply, which was built in the 1950s and 1960s. Some of this upgrading may akeady be taking place, as indicated by recent MLS selling price data. The city may have to devise programs to encourage the modernizing and upgrading of additional units, however, ffthis goal is to be achieved. A major challenge in Columbia Heights will be to meet the need for both affordable and higher-cost rental housing. It is recommended that this be the top priority for use of vacant and redevelopment sites in the community. To meet the need for more affordable rental housing, rent subsidies are recommended rather than the much more costly new construction, unless scarce subsidy funds can be found for some of the needed units. The goal of 131 additional affordable rental units represents about 10 additional units per year between the present time and the year 2010. In addition to the rent subsidies, 421 new rental units will be needed, to make up for those used with the rent subsidies and to meet the need for additional market-rate rental units. These units are needed so that primarily empty-nesters and older people, but also some in the younger population groups, will have housing alternatives in Columbia Heights, rather than having to move to other communities. At 16 units per acre, about 26 acres may be needed to meet this goal. To further add to the flexibility in the Columbia Heights housing supply, and to meet the housing needs of empty-nesters and older people, as well as some young families, the city needs to increase its supply of attached ownership housing. About 99 units are needed. At 6 to 8 units per acre, about 12 to 16 acres may be needed to meet the attached housing goal. 23 Recommendations for Usin~ Thin Study with the Comprehensive Plan The housing element of the Comprehensive Plan will include the following components: 1. An inventory of the community's housing stock and related demographic information. 2. An analysis of the commullity's current and future housing needs, including affordability, type, condition, relationship to employment, ages of the population, and comparisons to housing in neighboring communities and the region. 3. Housing goals, to correspond to the goals adopted for the Livable Communities Act. 4. Housing policies, which will cover such subjects as housing costs and types, housing for all stages in the life cycle, housing density and use of resources, housing to meet the special needs of various population groups, home maintenance and neighborhoods, and access to employment and transit. 5. An Action Plan, or implementation program, with the steps needed to achieve the clip's housing goals and policies. Much of the information included in this Life Cycle Housing Study can be used to meet these requirements, as follows: 1. The data in this study on the Columbia Heights housing supply and population groups can be used as part of this section. 2. The recommendations in Tables Nine and Ten of this study, as well as the supporting information leading up to them, go a long way toward meeting the requirements of this section. Perhaps additional information can be added related to emplo3maent, which was not covered extensively in this study. Additional information on housing in neighboring communities will be provided under separate cover. 3. The recommended changes in Table Ten of the study translate into, first, revised LNable Communities goals, and then numerical housing goals for the comprehensive plan. It is, of course, up to the city to decide if it wants to meet the needs identified in the Life Cycle Study, or if it would prefer to move in other directions. 4. The city will adopt housing policies covering a number of important areas, including evexblhing fxom equal housing opportunity to relationships between housing, transportation and employment. The recommendations in this study can lead to policies related to the need for maintenance and upgrading &the housing supply, and ha,~4ng a housing supply to meet the needs of all age groups and income levels. 5. The Action Plan can build on the recommendations in Table Ten, and can identify the types &programs and sources offimding that will be used to accomplish the city's housing goals. For example, the city may wish to initiate an enhanced housing maintenance and rehabilitation program, or create a demonstration neighborhood housing association program, or contribute local funds to a rent assistance program Because the comprehensive plan update is required so late in the decade, the city may wish to update its numerical housing goals and policies as needed after the 2000 Census, probably in 2002 or 2003, when the newer data is available. 24 NOTE: After review of this study by the city, and after the other cities involved in this project (New Hope, Crystal, and, possibly, Robbinsdale) have reviewed their studies, a final section will be added to the report discussing any housing issues or opportunities in the greater housing market area covered by these cities. The recommendations made for each of the cities will be reviewed to see if any of their needs can be met by housing akeady available in the other cities in thi~ market area. 25 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Work Session Me~tin~ of.' April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL NO: DATE: April 13, 1'998 Issue Statement: Staff has received two separate sketch proposals to develop townhouses in an area that is currently zoned RB, Retail Business. This property is generally located off51st Court behind La Casita and White Castle. Both parties are looking for direction from the City whether this type of development would be favorable. Background: The area consists of three separate lots (see attached site plan). Lot 1 is slightly over 1 acre in size and is under separate ownership. Lots 2 and 3 are under one ownership and are also slightly over 1 acre in size. Proposals indicate the potential for 8 - 10 units on both Lot 1 and Lots 2 and 3 combined, for a total of 16 -20 units in the area. The property is currently zoned RB, Retail Business. A rezoning of the property to R-3, Multiple Family will be needed for the proposed development. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not provide clear direction for future use of this property. The area is divided between commercial and medium density residential designations on the future land use map (see attached map). Analysis: The use of the property for townhouses would provide a buffer between the residential property to the east and the commercial property along Central Avenue to the west. The recently completed Life Cycle Housing Study identifies the need for and recommends additional townhouse/condominium type development. On the other hand, Columbia Heights does not have a large supply of undeveloped commercial property. Rezoning the property to residential would lessen the amount of available commercial land in the City. However, both parties claim that the property is difficult to develop commercially because it is located off Central Avenue and does not have good visibility. The potential for a service road between 51st Court and 52nd Avenue in Fridiey has been discussed at the request of MnDOT due to safety concerns. There are concerns with vehicles trying to turn south on Central Avenue off of 51st Court. A feasibility study analyzing the potential for this service road is scheduled to be prepared by the Public Works Department near the end of the year. This road could increase the potential to develop the property commercially. One point of concern is the potential loss of parking for La Casita if the service road is built. Please refer to the attached map showing the surrounding transportation system. There appear to be three alternatives for this issue. (1) Advise both parties that utilizing the site for townhouse development could be viewed favorably provided the proposal meets all local and state code requirements. This would require a rezoning and would satisfy a need in the City for this type of residential alternative. However, it would decrease an already small supply of available commercial property in the City. (2) Advise both parties that direction can not be provided by the City until the feasibility study has been performed. This would help determine if the service road should be constructed. If it is determined that the road is feasible, the property may become more marketable as commercial. However, th/s could delay potential development of the site and is also dependent upon cooperation from the City of Fridley and MnDOT. (3) Advise both parties that the City would not view the proposal favorably because of the need for available commercial land in the City. This would leave the property commercial and undeveloped in the short term. Action Requested: City Council direction as to the preferred alternative. COUNCIL ACTION: I S 't soeS ! COLUMB~d AVE. COURT Jo~7 ,~? PIERCE ,.: N.[.~ ': LINCt __%% Dralnole A uiUlly r. ollmI~ll2/ ." i~50.00 51st COURT -- -- N 89~5'09"E L3.j I! ,II III · CITY COUNCIL LETTER Work Session Meeting of: April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Proposals todevelop townhomes BY: Joe Hollman~//7Z BY: NO: DATE: April 13, 15998 Issue Statement: Staffhas received two separate sketch proposals to develop townhouses in an area that is currently zoned RB, Retail Business. This property is generally located off51~t Court behind La Casita and White Castle. Both parties are looking for direction from the City whether this type of development would be favorable. Background: The area consists of three separate lots (see attached site plan). Lot 1 is slightly over 1 acre in size and is under separate ownership. Lots 2 and 3 are under one ownership and are also slightly over 1 acre in size. Proposals indicate the potential for 8 - 10 units on both Lot 1 and Lots 2 and 3 combined, for a total of 16 -20 units in the area. The property is currently zoned RB, Retail Business. A rezoning of the property to R-3, Multiple Family will be needed for the proposed development. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not provide clear direction for future use of this property. The area is divided between commercial and medium density residential designations on the future land use map (see attached map). Analysis: The use of the property for townhouses would provide a buffer between the residential property to the east and the commercial property along Central Avenue to the west. The recently completed Life Cycle Housing Study identifies the need for and recommends additional townhouse/condominium type development. On the other hand, Columbia Heights does not have a large supply of undeveloped commercial property. Rezoning the property to residential would lessen the amount of available commercial land in the City. However, both parties claim that the property is difficult to develop commercially because it is located off Central Avenue and does not have good visibility. The potential for a service road between 51st Court and 52nd Avenue in Fridley has been discussed at the request of MnDOT due to safety concerns. There are concerns with vehicles trying to turn south on Central Avenue offer51st Court. A feasibility study analyzing the potential for this service road is scheduled to be prepared by the Public Works Department near the end of the year. This road could increase the potential to develop the property commercially. One point of concern is the potential loss of parking for La Casita if the service road is built. Please refer to the attached map showing the surrounding transportation system. There appear to be three alternatives for this issue. (1) Advise both parties that utilizing the site for townhouse development could be viewed favorably provided the proposal meets all local and state code requirements. This would require a rezoning and would satisfy a need in the City for this type of residential alternative. However, it would decrease an already small supply of available commercial property in the City. (2) Advise both parties that direction can not be provided by the City until the feasibility study has been performed. This would help determine if the service road should be constructed. If it is determined that the road is feasible, the property may become more marketable as commercial. However, this could delay potential development of the site and is also dependent upon cooperation from the City of Fridley and MnDOT. (3) Advise both parties that the City would not view the proposal favorably because of the need for available commercial land in the City. This would leave the property commercial and undeveloped in the short term. Action Requested: City Council direction as to the preferred alternative. COUNCIL ACTION: DI 'r~OR S .... z~--~;7-~. 5 S VlSI N AVE. ! COLUMBk~ COURT $02.0 ,.. PIERCE I LII~ C ,,¢ ~50.00 51s~ COURT I zO0.OO \,. f..') $ 69"35'09"W \"/200.00 BO ,.. g 50 , ,51s'[ C DURT ZSO,O0 -- -- N 89°35'09"E ~2.00 · · -- IqS.00 % · I · CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Meeting of: April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER NO: DEPARTMENT: Comm. APPROVAL Dev. ITEM: APPROVE CONTRACT FOR BY: Kenneth R. Anderson BY:y~//ff PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES DATE: APRIL 8, 1998 BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee has recommended the award of a professional services agreement to provide planning consultant services to SRF Consulting Group, Inc. This recommendation was forwarded to the City Council in January, 1998. The City Council requested staff confirm the proposed source of revenue for the additional costs which exceeded the allocated 1997 and 1998 budget revenues of approximately $34,910.00. Of this amount, $4,000 has been expended for preparation of the Life Cycle Housing Study which is scheduled for consideration at the April 20, 1998 work session. The difference between the budgeted amount and the contract service costs of $51,769.00 plus direct expenses of $539.00 is approximately $17,398. Therefore, an estimated $21,398 would be used fi.om this fund with revenues derived fi.om increased building permit activity. Staff'is proposing that this amount be funded with the additional building permit revenues anticipated as a result of the school district remodeling and expansion projects, Crest View Corporation HUD 202 project, proposed St. Timothy's Senior Housing project, and other assorted projects. A copy of the draft proposed agreement is attached for review. The City Attorney has reviewed this document and suggested minor modifications which are handwritten in the enclosed document. ANALYSIS: As a result of the upcoming Minnesota Design Team visit and the proposed timetable to complete the Comprehensive Plan update and Zoning Ordinance rewrite before the end of calendar year 1998, it is important to execute the necessary agreement soon for SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to provide consulting services. Staff has prepared and forwarded a significant amount of background information and resource materials to assist the consultant in preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance rewrite. Each department withinthe City has beenmost cooperative and helpful, particularly the Engineering Department., by contributing some of the required information. The City Attorney recommends minor changes to three sections of the agreement: 2.4, 4.11, 4.15.2. The most noteworthy of these changes was a deletion to certain parts of the indemnification language. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending City Council adoption and award of planning consulting services to SRF Consulting Group Inc. and adoption and execution of the attached agreement as modified by the City Attorney. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award planning consulting services to SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $51,769.00 plus $539.00 for direct out of pocket expenses with funds to be appropriated from 201-42400-3050; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for same. COUNCIL ACTION: FEB-2~-98 MON 09;36 RM SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC FR× NO. 612+475+2429 P, ~2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Between THE CiTY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA And SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by mad bct~veen thc City of Columbia ilcights,~ Minnesota, hereinafter called the Client, ~md SRF Consulting Group, Inc., hereinafter called tl~e Consultant; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Client desires to retain Consultant for comprehensive plan update services in Columbia Heights, Minnesota (Project). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants expressed herein and with respect to the provision of professional services by tt~c Consultant and the pa)anent for tho~e services by the Client, the p~ties agree as set forth below. SECTION 1, CONSULT'.-~.NT'S SERVICES Services to be performed by the Consultant ,are described in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. SECTION 2. CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES The Client will: 2.1 Provide full information as to its requirements for the Project. 2.2 Place at Consultant's disposal all information in the possession of or readily available to the Client that {s pertinent to the Project. 2.3 Distribute correspondence for all meetings, coordinate and establish meeting locations. 2.4 E:~mnine project materials, reports, sketchcs~.gl~?)J!~n? of probable const~.'~ction costs, other documents presented by thc Consultant ami ~ender its drawings, mid decisions pertaining thereto. -1- FEB-23-98 MON 09:35 fl~ SRF CO~ISULTtNG GROUP INC FfiX NO. 612+475+2429 P. 03 2.5 2.6 2.7 Designate a single person to act as the Client's Representative wiLh respect to the Consultant's service to be performed under this Agreement Such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive in~:bnnation, and interpret and define the Client's policies and decisions with respect to the Consultant's services, subject to the Client's approval when required by law, ordinance, regulation or policy. Give prompt written notice to the Consultant whenever the Client observes or otherwise becomes aware o [: 1) Any development that affects thc scope and/or timing of thc Consultant's services, or 2) Any defect in the Project. Furnish or instruct the Consultant to provide at the Client's expense, any necessary Add£tional Services as may be required or recommended by the Consultant and authorized by the Client. SECTION 3, COMPE~NSATIOzN FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES 3.1 Payment tbr Basic Se, vices Compensation to the Consultant in full for work listed in Exhibit "A" shall not excecd $51,769.00. The Consultant shall be reimbursed on an hourly basis at rates listed in Exhibit "B". Keimburs,abte _ex___p~n$.es shall be fiwoiced at cost ,'md include, but are not limited to, th~ costs o£ travel, materials, printing and reproduction, supplies, subconsultant fees m~d othe~' project-specific costs. Mileage will be billed at a rate not to exceed the IKS allowance for business miles (currently $0.325 per mile). Reimbursement for direct out-of-pocket expenses shall not exceed $539.00 as Iistcd in Attachment A.. 3.2 3.3 For any "Additional Services" ordered by the Client and pcr£onned by tb.e Consultant, the Cliem will pay the Consultant on an hourly basis in accordance with tim attached E,vdfibi[ "B," Hourly Billing Kate Schedule. If any work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in p,-u't by the Cl£cnt, the Consultant shall be paid for costs and services performed prior to receipt of written notice fi-om the Client of such abandonment or suspension. The Consultant shall also be paid for ~my terminal expenses resulting therefrom in accordance with the attached Exhibit "B". 3.4 Progress Payments Sums due trader this Sect/on may be invoiced monthly during thc progress of thc Project. Each properly documented and authorized payment dae to the Consultant from the Client shall be made within 30 days after Client receipt of the Consult,'mt's invoice. -2- FEB-23-98 ~ON 09:36 AM SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC FAX NO. 612+475+2429 P. 04 SECTION 4. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 4. t The Consultm~t shall act as the Client's agent only as provided for within this Agreement. 4.2 Tho Consultant will perform the Project in a timely manner, but it is hereby agreed that the Consultant cannot be held responsible for delays occasioned by factors which are beyond its control, or by factors which could not reasonably have been foreseen at tho time this Agreement was prepared ,'md executed. 4.3 Terms of this Agreement may he changed by mutual agreement of the Client and the Consultant. Such changes shall be approved by both parties and incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. 4.4 Independent Contractor The Consultant is an Indcpcndent Contractor. Noticing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed ,as creating tho relationship of co-partners or joint venturers with the Client or the department. No tenure or any rights or benefits, including workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, medical care, sick leave, vacation leave, severance pay, PERA or other benefits available to Client employees, shall accrue to the Contractor or employees of the Contractor performing services ~mder this Agreement. 4.5 Compliance with Law The Consultant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws, togcthcr with all ordinances and regulations applicable to the work. 4.6 Data Practices All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for ,'my purposes by the activities of the Consultant because of this contract is governed by tt~c Mim~esota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes 1984, Sections 13.01 through 13.87, ,'ts amen&xt by the Laws of Minnesota 1985, chapters 293 ,-md 298, the Minnesota Rules implementing such Act now in force or hereafter adopted, as well ,as Federal regulations on data privacy. 4.7 Records Availability Thc Consultant agrees that the Client, State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may -3- FEB-23-98 ~ON 09:36 fin SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Ffi× NO. 612+475+2429 P, 05 4.8 4.9 ccasonably deem necessary shall have access to and thc right to examine, audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers and records which arc pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Consultant and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Merger and Modification It is undcrstood and agrccd that thc entire Agreement bctween thc pm'ties is conlaincd herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the part[es relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are ~coq~orated or attached and ~e deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any material alternations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall ov2y be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement -and dga~ed by the parties hereto. Default and Cancellation If the Consultant fails to perform any of thc provisions of this Agreement or so fails to adminisler ~he work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a detZault. Unless thc Consultant's default is excused by the Client, ti~rough Department, the Client, through thc department, may, upon written notice, immcdiately cancel thc Agreement in its entirety. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon I0 day~ written notice. Irrespective of which parry shall effect termination, the Client shall, within 30 calendar days of termination, pay the Consultant 1bt services rendered and costs incurred up to the time of termination in accordance with E:d~ibit "B". 4.10 Owncrship oflnstruments of Service The Client agrees that all documents prepared by the Consultmxt in the completion o£ its services hereunder are instruments of professional service, not products. Upon completion of the Consultant's services, the Client shall, in this instance, retain ownership of all drawings and specifications prepared for thc Proj oct. In thc event of any use or adaptation by the Client after termination of fl~e Project whereby Consulumt's materials and recommendations arc revised, altcrcd or otherwise modified by ,anyone other than the Consultant, the Client agrees to defend and indemnify thc Consultant from any claims, damages, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees). -4- FEB-23-98 ~ON 09:37 SRF CONSULTING GROUP NO. 612+475+2429 P, 06 Indemnification Thc Consultmlt agrees to hold hanntess and indemnify the Client from and against liability, including reasonable attorney'-, fees, arising out of the Consultant's negligent acts or omissions in the performance of Consultant's obligations under this Agreement. T&is~indemn4fieafima41mll~x~emd only to tl~ 'A~;~a,~l~-~t~ " ~y~at~-tmount~%-pr~k,o-Jts~cutpabilityyo~ any share df amount_4c.~icd4o~eco g;fize~morc~han4ema~ceonom i~damages. 4.12 Liability Thc Consultant shall provide the Client with Certificates of Insurance showing coverages at a minimum as follows: A combined single limit or excess umbrella general liability insurance policy of an amount of not Iess than $500,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $500,000 for total bodily injuries and/or damages arising form one occurrcnce. A combined single limit or excess umbrella auto liability insurance policy in an amount of not less than $500,000. do A professional liability insurance policy insuring pa3nnent of damage for legal liability ar/sing out of the performance of professional services for thc Client, the insured's capacity as Consultant, if such legal liability is caused by error, omission, or negligent act of tko insured or of any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable ,'md responsible, in the sum of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggr. e..gat_ee, on a claims-made basis. Workers compensation insurance policy or a signed afl, davit stating that the contractor has no employees and is not covenxt by the requirements of state law for workers compensation. Any policy obtained and maintained under this clause shall provide that it shall not be canceled, materially ch;mgm, or not renewed without ten (10) days prior notice thereof to the Client. Prior to ~c effective date of this contract, and as condition precedent to this contract, the Cm~sultant shall cause its insurance compaay to furnish the Client with certificates of insurance with thc Client listed as a certificate holder. -5- FEB-23-98 MON 09:37 AH SRF CONSULTING GROUP FAX NO. 612+475+2429 P, 07 4.13 Subcontracting and Assignment 4.14 4.15 4.16 Consultant shall not enter into any subcontract for pcrfommnce of any services contemplated under this contract nor assign any interest in this Contract without tlzc prior written approval of the Client. The Consultant shall be responsible for thc performance of all subcontractors. Nondiscrimination During thc perfommnce of its responsibilities under this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to ~e following: No person shall, on thc ground of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistm~ce status, criminal record, creed, or national origin be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any and all applicable Federal and State laws against discrimination. Dispute Resolution 4.15.1 Unless the Client and the Consultant mutually agree otherwisc, all claims, disputes, and other matters in questions between the parties to this Agreement, arising om of or relating to this A~ecment or the breach tl~ereo~, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the then-most cm~:ent rules of the Amcricma Arbitration Association. 4.15.2 performance of its responsibilities under this Agreement~ ,.~,\~ ~ s Approvals Before this Agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall receive the approval of such Client officials as the law may provide. The arbitration decision shall be fiual and binding on thc parties. Pendh~g final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Consultant shall proceed diligently with -6- F£8-23-98 09:38 tim SRF CONSULTING GROUP Ffi× NO. 612+475+2429 IN' WITNESS WHEREOF, kc parties hercto have madc and executu-xt this Agrccment. SKF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. By Datc. Title Name Printed. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By Date Title ~~ N,'un e Printed -7- CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ~1~ ,~" Meeting of: April 20, 1998 AGENDA SECTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER NO: DEPARTMENT: Comm. APPROVAL Dev. ITEM: APPROVE CONTRACT FOR BY: Kenneth R. Anderson BY:~~/~// PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES DATE: APRIL 8, 1998 BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee has recommended the award of a professional services agreement to provide planning consultant services to SRF Consulting Group, Inc. This recommendation was forwarded to the City Council in January, 1998. The City Council requested staff confirm the proposed source of revenue for the additional costs which exceeded the allocated 1997 and 1998 budget revenues of approximately $34,910.00. Of this amount, $4,000 has been expended for preparation of the Life Cycle Housing Study which is scheduled for consideration at the April 20, 1998 work session. The difference between the budgeted amount and the contract service costs of $51,769.00 plus direct expenses of $539.00 is approximately $17,398. Therefore, an estimated $21,398 would be used from this fund with revenues derived from increased building permit activity. Staff is proposing that this amount be funded with the additional building permit revenues anticipated as a result of the school district remodeling and expansion projects, Crest View Corporation HUD 202 project, proposed St. Timothy's Senior Housing project, and other assorted projects. A copy of the draf~ proposed agreement is attached for review. The City Attorney has reviewed this document and suggested minor modifications which are handwritten in the enclosed document. ANALYSIS: As a result of the upcoming Minnesota Design Team visit and the proposed timetable to complete the Comprehensive Plan update and Zoning Ordinance rewrite before the end of calendar year 1998, it is important to execute the necessary agreement soon for SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to provide consulting services. Staff has prepared and forwarded a significant amount of background information and resource materials to assist the consultant in preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance rewrite. Each department within the City has been most cooperative and helpful, particularly the Engineering Department., by contributing some of the required information. The City Attorney recommends minor changes to three sections of the agreement: 2.4, 4.11, 4.15.2. The most noteworthy of these changes was a deletion to certain parts of the indemnification language. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending City Council adoption and award of planning consulting services to SKF Consulting Group Inc. and adoption and execution of the attached agreement as modified by the City Attorney. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award planning consulting services to SKF Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $51,769.00 plus $539.00 for direct out of pocket expenses with funds to be appropriated from 201-42400-3050; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for same. COUNCIL ACTION: F£B-23-98 MON 09:35 ~M SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC F~X NO. 612+475+2429 P. 02 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Between THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA And SRF CONSULTING GROUP, iNC. THIS AGREEMENT is made anti entered into by and between thc City of Columbia llcights, Mim~esota, hereinafter called the Client, and SRF Consulting Group, Inc., hereinafter called the Consultant; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Client desires to retain Consultant for comprehensive plan update sc[wices in Columbia Heights, Minnesota (Project). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants expressed hcrcin and with respect to the provision of professional services by thc Consult,mt and the payment fbr those services by the Client, the parties agree as set forth below. SECTION 1, CONSULT:~NT'S SERVICES Services to be performcd by the Consultant are described in Exhibit "A" to this Agreemcnt. SECTION 2. CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES The Client will: 2.1 Provide full information as to its requirements for the Project. 2.2 Place at Consultant's disposal ail infon'nation in the posscssion o~' or rcadily available to the Client that ts pe,'-finent to the Project. 2.3 Distribute con-espondcnce for all meetings, coordinate and establish meeting locations. 2.4 Exmniu¢ project materials, reports, sketchcs,.__~_plnlan~ of pmbgble const)uction costs, draw/ngs, ,'md other documents presented by the Consultant and ~ender its decisions pertaining thereto. ~.O~q ,'7 -1- CONSULTING GROUP INC NO. 6~2+475+2429 P. 03 2.5 2.6 2.7 Designate a single person to act ~s the Client's R~resentativ¢ with respect to thc Consultant's service to be performed under this Agrecraent Such person shah have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive intbnnation, and intcrpret and dcfinc the Client's policies and decisions wilh rcsp~ct to the Consultant's scrvices, subject to the Client's approval when required by law, ordinance, regulation or policy. Give prompt written notice to the Consulumt whcnever the Client observes or othcrwise becomes aware o[': l) Any development that a££ects thc scope and/or timing of thc Consultant's services, or 2) Any defect in thc Project. Furnish or instruct the Consultant to provide at the Client's expense, any nccessary Add£tional Services as m~y be required or recommended by the Consultant and authorized by thc Client. SECTION 3. CONFPENSATIOM FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES 3.1 Payment for Basic Se,"vices Compensation to the Consultant in full for work listed in Exhibit "A" shall not exceed $51,76/).00. The Consult,mt shall be reimbursed on an hourly basis at rates listed in Exhibit "B". Keimburs~lc~cnses shall be hwoiccd at cost and include, but are not limited to, the costs of ~ravcl, materials, printing and reproduction, supplies, subconsultant fees m~d othe~' pt'eject-specific costs. Mitea$c will be billed at a rate not to exceed the IKS allowance for business miles (currently $0.32~ per m/lc). Reimbursement for direct out-of-pocket expenses shall not exceed $539.00 as listed in Attachmcnt A. 3.3 For any "Additional Sc.v~ces ordered by the Client and performed by thc Consultant, thc Client will pay thc Consultant on an hourly b~is in accordance with thc attached Exhibit "B," Houri), Billing Rate Schedule. If m~y work performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in p,'u't by the Client, thc Consultant shall be paid for costs and se:vices performed prior to receipt of written noticc from thc Client of such abandonment or suspension. Thc Consultant shall also be paid for any terminal expenses resulting therefrom in accordance with the attached Exhibit "B". 3.4 Pro~ess Payments Sums due ~mdcr this Sect/on may be invoiced monthly dur/ng the progress o[' thc Projt,'ct. Each properly documented and authorized payment due to the Consultant from the Client shall be made within 30 days ;~fler Client receipt of the Consultant's invoice. -2- F£B-23-gB M0N 09:36 ~H SRP CONSULTING GROUP INC EM NO. 612+475+~429 P. 04 SECTION 4. GENERAL CONSII)E1L~TIONS 4. l The Consultant stall act as tl:e Client's agent only as provided for within this Agreement. 4.2 Thc Consultant will perform the Project in a timely manner, but it is hereby agreed that the Consultant cannot be held responsible for delays occasioned by factors which are beyond its control, or by factors which could not reasonably have been foreseen at thc time this Agreement was prepared ,'md executed. 4.3 Terms of this Agreement may be changed by mutual agreement of the Client and thc Consultmxt. Such changes shall be approved by both parties and incorporated in writtcn amendments to this Agreement. 4.4 Indepcnden[ Contractor The Consultant is an Independent Contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should bc construed ,as creating the relationstfip of co-partners or joint venturers with the Client or the department. No tenure or any rights or benefits, including workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, medical care, sick leave, vacation leave, severance pay, PERA or other benefits available to Client employees, shall accrue to the Contractor or employees of the Contractor performing services trader this Agreement. 4.5 Compliance with Law The Consultant shall comply with all Federal, State m~d local laws, together with all ordinances and regulations applicable to the work. 4.6 Data Practices All data collected, crcated, received, maintained or disseminated for ,-my purposes by the activities of the Consultant because of this contract is governed by tim Minnesota Governmem Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes 1984, Sections 13.01 through 13.87, ,'ts amgnd~ by the Laws of Minnesota 1985, chapters 293 and 298, the Minnesota Rules implementing such Act now in force or hcrcaftm', adoptcd, as well ,'ts Federal regulations on data privacy. 4.7 Records Availability Thc Consultant agrees that the Client, State Auditor, or any of their duly author/zed representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may FEB-23-98 MON 09:36 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC F~X NO, 612+475+2429 P. 05 4.8 4.9 4.10 reasonably deem necessary shall have access to and thc right to examine, audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers and records which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Consultant and involve transactions relating to th/s Agreement. Merger and Modification It is undcr~tood and agrced tlmt thc entire Agreement between thc pm'ties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and ,are deemed ~o be part of this Agreement. Any mmerial alternations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions cE this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by the parties hereto. Default and Cm~cellation If the Consultant fails to perform any of thc provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless thc Consultant's default is excused by the Client, through the Depm~tment, the Client, through the department, may, upon wi/itch notice, immediately cancel tim Agreement in its ~,mtirety. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon I0 days written notice. Irrespective of which parry shall effect termination, the Client shall, within 30 calendar days of termination, pay the Consultant for services rendered and costs incurred up to the time of termination in accordance with Exhibit "B". Ownership of Instruments of Service The Client agrees that all documents prepared by the Consultm~t in the completion of its services hereunder are instruments of professional service, not products. Upon completion of the Consultant's se~'ic¢s, the Client shall, in this instance, retain ownership of all drawings and specifications prepared for the Project. rn thc event of any use or adaptation by the Client after termination of tim Project whereby Consulttmt's materials and recommendations arc revised, altered or otherwise modified by anyone other than the Consultant, thc Client agrees to defend and indemnify thc Consultant from any claims, damages, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees). -4- FEB-23-98 MON 09:3? AM SRF CONSULTING GROUP IHC FAX NO. 612+475+2429 P. 06 4.11 Indemnificado~ T'ac Consultat~t agrees to hold harmless and i]~demnif'y the Clicnt from and against liability, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out o£ the Consultant's negligcm acts or omissions in the performance of Consultant's obligations under this Agreement. T-hi ' ' ' .___~!l extend only to th_o.~c_asp¢~ of thc Project oL [li¢ (:uu=ult,-,iit's-"--{ arno ...... vie .........~= ............ g · 4.12 Liability Thc Consultant shall provide the Client with Certificates of Insurance showing coverages at a minimum as follows: A combined single limit or excess umbrella general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $500,000 for property damage arising from one occurrc-ncc, $500,000 for total bodily injuries and/or damages arising tbrm one OCC~eRC~. A combined single limit or excess umbrella auto liability insurance policy in an ,'unount of not less than $500,000. A professional liability insurance policy insuring payment of damage for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for thc Client, the insured's capacity as Consultant, if sucl~ legal liability is caused by error, omission, or negligent act of ~e insured or of any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable and r¢,ponsiblc, in the sum of not less than $1,000,000 anmml aggregate, on a claim,-made basis. Workers compensation insurance policy or a signed afl, davit stating that tl~e contractor has no employees and is not covered by the requirements of state law for workers compensation. Any policy obtained and maintained under thls clause shall provide that it shall not be canceled, materially change, or not renewc'c[ without ten (I 0) days prior notice themo£ to the Client. Prior to the effectivc dar, of this contract, and as condition precedent to this contract, the Cm~sultant shall cause its insurance company to famish tl~e Client with certificatcs of insurance with thc Client listed as a certificate holder. -5- F£B-23-98 M0N 09:37 ~M SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Ffl× NO. 612+475+2429 P. 07 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 Subcontracting and AssJgnm~t Consultant shall not enter into any subcontract for pcrformancc of any scrviccs contemplated under this contract nor assign any interest ~ this Contract without thc prior written approval of the Client. Thc Consultant shall bt responsible for thc performance of all subcontractors. Nondiscrimination During thc perfoma.'mcc of its rcsponsibilitics under this Agreement, thc Consultant agrees to the following: No person shall, on tho ground of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, criminal record, creed, or national origin be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any and all applicable Federal and State laws against discrimination. Dispute Resolution 4.15.1 Unless the Client and the Consult.mt mutually agree otherwise, all claims, disputes, and other matters in questions between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of' or relating to this A~ecmcm or the Breach thereoC shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the then-most current rules of the Amcricma Arbitration Association. 4.15.2 performance of its responsibilities under this Agreement~ o,,,\ ~ > ~ Approvals Before this Agreement shall become binding and elTcctive, it shall receive the approval of such Client officials as the law may provide. The arbitration decision shall be final and bh~ding on thc parties. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Consultant shall proceed diligently with -6- FEB-23-98 MON 09:38 ~M SRF CONSULTING GROU? F~× NO. 61~+475+2429 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thc parties hcrcto have tnadc and execut~.xi this AD'cement. SKF CONSULT]~NG GROUP, INC. Title, Name Printed Date CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By Date_ N.'um ~ Printed -7- American Agency, Inc. April 2, 1998 5851 Cedar Lake Road : P.O. Box i 6527 Minneapolis, MN 55416-0527 (612) 545-1230 · Fax (6t2) 593-8733 William Elrite City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Ave Northeast Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 Dear Bill: We are enclosing our renewal proposals from the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and the League of Minnesota Cities. The St. Paul Fire and Marine is at $173,467, with the League is at $298,337 with lower liability limits. With the losses incurred by the city over the past several years, a dividend would not have been available from the League. The St. Paul Fire and Marine will continue to offer monthly payments while the League requires payment in full. The St. Paul Fire and Marine has guaranteed a 3 year cost at a loss ratio of 50% or less. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Richard Scheldroup RS/dj American Agency, Inc. April 7, 1998 5851 Cedar Lake Road P.O. Box t 6527 Minneapolis, MN 55416-0527 (612) 545-1230 · Fax (612) 593-8733 William Elrite City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Ave Northeast Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 RE: Property Liability Renewal of 5/9/98 Dear Bill: During our visit regarding the proposal of the renewal with quotes from the League of Minnesota Cities and the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, you had requested we respond to the following: Companies that we submitted requests for quotes: 1. Cigna 2. Crum and Forster 3. Employers Mutual 4. Hartford (Penco Program) 5. CNA 6. St. Paul Fire and Marine 7. League of Minnesota Cities Difference in Coverages: 1. Open Meeting Law Defense Cost Reimbursement; League includes this coverage, St. Paul Fire and Marine does not. 2. St. Paul Fire and Marine provides full coverage on all liability losses with a $250. deductible applying to sewer backup only. League of Minnesota Cities has a $1000. deductible applicable to all liability losses ($1000. deductible applies to all coverage parts) 3. St. Paul Fire and Marine Liability limits are $1,000,000 with a $2,000,000 aggregate. League of Minnesota Cities is $750,000 combined single limit. Page 2 Quote to increase liability limits on St. Paul Fire and Marine proposal: 1. Law Enforcement Liability, $750,000/$750,000 2. Public Entity Management Liability, $750,000/$750,000 3. EMT, $750,000/$1,000,000 Additional annual premium: $1525. I am enclosing a copy of the statute regarding liability requirements for your review. Please do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance in these matters. Sincerely, ~P~char~l- Scheldroup ~' RS/dj